National
Parker ‘comfortable’ as LGBT role model
Houston’s lesbian mayor reflects on her first 100 days
Houston Mayor Annise Parker addressed a crowd of more than 700 at Sunday’s 10th annual Victory Fund Champagne Brunch in D.C. (DC Agenda by Michael Key)
The lesbian mayor of the country’s fourth largest city says she’s comfortable serving as a role model for the LGBT community and acknowledged being taken aback by the extensive international media coverage of her political victory.
In a nearly 30-minute interview, Houston Mayor Annise Parker spoke with DC Agenda before her appearance at the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund’s 10th annual Champagne Brunch in D.C. on Sunday to discuss a range of issues and reflect on her first 100 days in office.
Parker recalled how she issued an executive order March 25 protecting city employees against job bias on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. She said she issued the directive because it was something she was “aware needed to be done.”
The inclusiveness of the directive makes it one of the most sweeping citywide job discrimination protections in the country for LGBT people.
Parker also encouraged President Obama to make good on his campaign promises to the LGBT community, even though she said she understands he’s had “huge economic problems, financial problems he’s had to confront.” She identified ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as an issue on which she’d like to see greater effort from Obama.
DC Agenda: You’ve been mayor of the city of Houston for just over 100 days. How would you describe your experience? Has anything surprised you?
Annise Parker: I feel like I’m doing what I’ve been meant to do. I’m the right person at the right time, and I’m thoroughly enjoying the experience. I trained for this job through my years as a lesbian activist, community activist, council member and controller. I even have the small business and the private sector experience. They all are coming together and I’m using every skills set I have.
… The one thing that I’ve had to spend a lot of time and energy on that I did not expect is that because the president made an announcement changing his funding for NASA, and Houston is a big component of NASA and it’s going to have a really potentially devastating impact on the jobs and the economy in my city. So that’s the only thing that was not on anybody’s radar, and that’s filled up a lot of my time and energy.
And so, I’ve been part of pulling together an interesting bipartisan coalition of our local congressional delegation in opposition to my president on that particular issue.
DC Agenda: Have LGBT issues come up during your tenure as mayor in a way that you didn’t anticipate when seeking office?
Parker: No, I’ve issued an executive order extending our non-discrimination protection exclusively to transgender employees, but that’s the only specific issue directed at my community. And that’s something that I was already aware needed to be done.
DC Agenda: Why did you see the need to issue this executive order?
Parker: I was a member of city council when our non-discrimination ordinance passed, and the interpretation at the time was that it was inclusive, but it was never as clear as I wanted it to be, nor the transgender community wanted to be, so that was just an opportunity just to fix something that had been bugging me for a while — and we have more and more transgender employees in city government.
DC Agenda: Were you surprised that the Houston Area Pastor Council spoke out against that executive order?
Parker: No, that’s a fringe group. It received virtually no attention from the rest of the city. Actually, I was surprised that anybody even noticed, but not surprised that no one beyond that really small circle paid any attention to them.
DC Agenda: Do you feel like you’ve been a role model or visible advocate for the LGBT community?
Parker: I believe I’ve been a role model for the LGBT community since the 70’s. During the 80’s, I was — with my colleague in government, Council member [Sue] Lovell — we were the two most visible lesbian activists in the city of Houston for a very long time. So, I’ve been a community role model.
And I am comfortable with that role and comfortable speaking on GLBT issues within some narrow constraints in that my first priority is to be mayor of the city of Houston — for all the citizens of Houston. And I was, as I prepared my campaign for mayor, I had to decide what issues I could advocate — like an executive order that’s strictly my signature going out that dealt with my 21,000 employees and the vendors that deal with them — and what would have to be something, in my opinion, that needed to come from the community.
I know I disappointed some members of the GLBT community in Houston when I said I wasn’t going to immediately advocate for an overturn of our ban on domestic partner benefits. But the reason for that was clear, and I said, I worked through these issues before I entered the race, and how I felt philosophically and where I was comfortable, and that is it was a citizen initiative and referendum that gave us the ban. It needs to be a citizen referendum that undoes that ban. If my community brings a petition to undo our ban on domestic partner benefits, I would wholeheartedly embrace it and help them win it, but it’ll take a vote of the citizens.
And so, the key for me is very clear communication that I care passionately about GLBT issues. I will go — here I am in Washington — to raise money for GLBT candidates. I will speak out when it does not interfere with my duties as mayor.
But on the other hand, I’ve — within the boundaries of the city of Houston and sort of the greater Houston area — I have a friendly incumbent role. I’m not getting involved in any local races, unless they’re actively anti-gay, and so I know that I’m a Democrat, but some of my Democratic colleagues are disappointed that I won’t help organize and take out incumbent Republicans. If they’re working with me, it’s about my city, not my community. So I have to wear multiple hats.
DC Agenda: Going back to the domestic partner benefits for city employees, what will the LGBT community need to put forward to undo that?
Parker: It’s a petition drive. It has to go to a vote of the voters. I cannot undo it as mayor. The mayor and council together cannot undo it. It’s in our charter through citizen initiative and referendum. It would need to be undone, and I could, yes, as mayor, with support of council, I could put the issue on the ballot, but the community has to show a willingness to get out and fight for this and that’s why I suggested they do their own petition drive and bring it forward because it’s ultimately going to be a political battle at the ballot box.
DC Agenda: Do you want to see the referendum undone during your tenure as mayor?
Parker: I would like to see the ban on domestic partner benefits undone during my tenure as mayor. I don’t know that any sitting politician wants to have a divisive vote during their tenure, so it’s a little bit different answer. [Laughs] But I’d also like to see a more complete non-discrimination ordinance that applies citywide. But that’s something that will have to be negotiated with the 14 members of city council, and that actually, too, could come — I think a non-discrimination ordinance is something that, since it already hasn’t been pre-empted by a referendum process, could be done on city council, but the community needs to be involved in that. It shouldn’t be something that’s all driven by city hall.
DC Agenda: Let’s move to federal issues. There’s been a lot of criticism that the Obama administration hasn’t been making good on the promises made to the LGBT community during the 2008 campaign. How would you evaluate how well the Obama administration has handled those issues?
Parker: We’re clearly not high on the president’s agenda, but I don’t know that we necessarily should be, considering the huge economic problems, financial problems he’s had to confront. But we deserve to be on the agenda somewhere and he did make promises to the community, and I think we have been more than patient.
DC Agenda: If you had to give the president a grade on how well he’s done on these issues, what would it be a why?
Parker: Oh, I hate giving letter grades. Maybe a B minus.
DC Agenda: What makes you choose a B minus?
Parker: It sounded a little bit better than a C plus. I cut him some slack because he came in and he has tackled some really, really tough battles, but he made commitments during the campaign, and I think it is always important to be very clear what you intend to do and then do what you said you were going to do.
DC Agenda: Is there any one particular LGBT issue that you’d like to see more initiative from President Obama on?
Parker: Gays in the military. That has just been festering out there for a very, very long time.
DC Agenda: What do you want to see specifically from President Obama on this issue?
Parker: To press forward to a resolution that allows our service members to serve openly — easy for me to say, since I don’t have to navigate the politics of Congress or the Joint Chiefs.
DC Agenda: How important do you think President Obama’s memorandum offering hospital visitation benefits to same-sex couples was and do you think it’ll particularly help LGBT Houston residents?
Parker: I think it’s an important action. I think it’s a humane act while it has been a problem for some members of our community, that is something that fortunately has gotten better over the last few decades of working on that issue. I appreciate him doing that, but it is a problem that we have been making progress on. More and more of us have chosen to take the legal steps necessary to allow us full access.
DC Agenda: This November, we could see an unprecedented number of LGBT candidates running for office. What advice do you have for those candidates?
Parker: Every race is different. The dynamic of every race is different. I’m asked since I’ve been in my office — starting my 13th year now in office in Houston. I’m asked regularly about the candidates, what they should do, what they should know.
I would say the most important thing is run for the position that you want, be passionate about the issues. I see too many people who say, “Oh, I want to be in office.” You have to love what you do. Don’t run for local government office or city office if you don’t care about trash pickup and potholes and barking dogs — and I do.
And then decide what your positions are on the range of gay issues that you [are] going to be asked, understand what your answers are, and go out and be honest. Voters appreciate honestly.
DC Agenda: Is there any race that you’re particularly paying attention to this November?
Parker: Not really. I am focused on our races in Texas. We’re electing a governor of Texas. And there are — as I said, I’m staying out of my local races in Texas, including the governor’s race, but I’m very passionately interested in it because it will have an impact on my constituents.
DC Agenda: Have LGBT issues or anti-gay rhetoric been playing any role in the gubernatorial election?
Parker: Not as far as I know so far.
DC Agenda: What do you think former Houston mayor and Democratic candidate Bill White’s chances are for election as Texas governor?
Parker: Difficult but not impossible. He’s a very smart, hard campaigner. He’ll have plenty of money to spend and he’s running against a governor who has the potential for fumbling the ball, so I certainly think it’s a competitive race, although it’s an uphill battle.
DC Agenda: How concerned do you think LGBT Americans should be about Democrats losing control of either chamber of Congress this fall?
Parker: It’s not unusual to have a midterm fallback for the party in power, but because so many state Republican parties have been hijacked by the Tea Party movement, and many of our Republican Congress members have taken a turn to the right, we need to be very vigilant to make sure that we don’t allow Congress to backtrack on our issues and that we do our best to keep out those who have taken these hard right turns.
DC Agenda: Do you think your position as mayor has influenced how the people of Texas or the Texas state government have looked at LGBT issues?
Parker: I hope so. I have been fielding media [interviews] from around the world, actually. I think it’s also affecting how people around the world view Houston and view Texas. I’ve had dozens and dozens of national and international media interviews since my election, and they fall into two categories: one category is “Wow, you’re a lesbian mayor,” and the other category is, “How did this happen in Houston or how did this happen in Texas?” It gives me an opportunity to talk a little bit about my hometown and why it’s different in Texas.
DC Agenda: Same-sex marriage is prohibited by the state constitution in Texas. What do you think would need to happen to reverse that?
Parker: A statewide referendum. I mean, literally, it’s a very simple answer. It would have to be declared unconstitutional by our state Supreme Court or we would have to do a statewide vote to undo it.
DC Agenda: What kind of planning do you think we’d need to see from the LGBT community for that to happen?
Parker: … It’s not just about putting more openly LGBT elected officials or putting more into — we have a statewide Equality Texas, a statewide organizing and lobbying effort. It’s going to take all of us convincing our families and our friends that recognition of intimate relationships is an important issue to them as well. We have to win the hearts and minds fight before we go back to legislative fight, and that’s a slow process.
DC Agenda: When, if ever, do you see that happening?
Parker: Really within my lifetime, but I don’t know how long that’s going to be. I have been an activist for more than 30 years, so, more like 35 years. I’ve seen a lot of changes for our community, and I can take the long view. I think it would have been unimaginable when I was out in college organizing on campus to have three members of Congress — let alone the mayor of Houston — who are out and open. We are so far beyond what I would have expected to see back then.
DC Agenda: Would you be interested in pursuing other political office after you’ve finished your tenure as mayor?
Parker: I haven’t even thought about it. Hopefully, I will be able to serve my full allotted terms under term limits — a maximum of six years. At that time, I will have been in office 18 years in Houston, and I’ll have to consider what I want to do next. But I love local government. I think it’s the most important level of government because it’s the most immediate to the people.
Federal Government
HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth
Trevor Project warns the move will ‘put their lives at risk’
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is planning to retire the national 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth on Oct. 1, according to a preliminary budget document obtained by the Washington Post.
Introduced during the Biden-Harris administration in 2022, the hotline connects callers with counselors who are trained to work with this population, who are four times likelier to attempt suicide than their cisgender or heterosexual counterparts.
“Suicide prevention is about risk, not identity,” said Jaymes Black, CEO of the Trevor Project, which provides emergency crisis support for LGBTQ youth and has contracted with HHS to take calls routed through 988.
“Ending the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ youth specialized services will not just strip away access from millions of LGBTQ+ kids and teens — it will put their lives at risk,” they said in a statement. “These programs were implemented to address a proven, unprecedented, and ongoing mental health crisis among our nation’s young people with strong bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Trump himself.”
“I want to be clear to all LGBTQ+ young people: This news, while upsetting, is not final,” Black said. “And regardless of federal funding shifts, the Trevor Project remains available 24/7 for anyone who needs us, just as we always have.”
The service for LGBTQ youth has received 1.3 million calls, texts, or chats since its debut, with an average of 2,100 contacts per day in February.
“I worry deeply that we will see more LGBTQ young people reach a crisis state and not have anyone there to help them through that,” said Janson Wu, director of advocacy and government affairs at the Trevor Project. “I worry that LGBTQ young people will reach out to 988 and not receive a compassionate and welcoming voice on the other end — and that will only deepen their crisis.”
Under Trump’s HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the agency’s departments and divisions have experienced drastic cuts, with a planned reduction in force of 20,000 full-time employees. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has been sunset and mental health services consolidated into the newly formed Administration for a Healthy America.
The budget document reveals, per Mother Jones, “further sweeping cuts to HHS, including a 40 percent budget cut to the National Institutes of Health; elimination of funding for Head Start, the early childhood education program for low-income families; and a 44 percent funding cut to the Centers for Disease Control, including all the agency’s chronic disease programs.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears oral arguments in LGBTQ education case
Mahmoud v. Taylor plaintiffs argue for right to opt-out of LGBTQ inclusive lessons
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case about whether Montgomery County, Md., public schools violated the First Amendment rights of parents by not providing them an opportunity to opt their children out of reading storybooks that were part of an LGBTQ-inclusive literacy curriculum.
The school district voted in early 2022 to allow books featuring LGBTQ characters in elementary school language arts classes. When the county announced that parents would not be able to excuse their kids from these lessons, they sued on the grounds that their freedom to exercise the teachings of their Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths had been infringed.
The lower federal courts declined to compel the district to temporarily provide advance notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the LGBTQ inclusive curricula, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks compelled them to violate their religion.
“LGBTQ+ stories matter,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement Tuesday. “They matter so students can see themselves and their families in the books they read — so they can know they’re not alone. And they matter for all students who need to learn about the world around them and understand that while we may all be different, we all deserve to be valued and loved.”
She added, “All students lose when we limit what they can learn, what they can read, and what their teachers can say. The Supreme Court should reject this attempt to silence our educators and ban our stories.”
GLAD Law, NCLR, Family Equality, and COLAGE submitted a 40-page amicus brief on April 9, which argued the storybooks “fit squarely” within the district’s language arts curriculum, the petitioners challenging the materials incorrectly characterized them as “specialized curriculum,” and that their request for a “mandated notice-and-opt-out requirement” threatens “to sweep far more broadly.”
Lambda Legal, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, PFLAG, and the National Women’s Law Center announced their submission of a 31-page amicus brief in a press release on April 11.
“All students benefit from a school climate that promotes acceptance and respect,” said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal. “Ensuring that students can see themselves in the curriculum and learn about students who are different is critical for creating a positive school environment. This is particularly crucial for LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ family members who already face unique challenges.”
The organizations’ brief cited extensive social science research pointing to the benefits of LGBTQ-inclusive instruction like “age-appropriate storybooks featuring diverse families and identities” benefits all students regardless of their identities.
Also weighing in with amici briefs on behalf of Montgomery County Public Schools were the National Education Association, the ACLU, and the American Psychological Association.
Those writing in support of the parents challenging the district’s policy included the Center for American Liberty, the Manhattan Institute, Parents Defending Education, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Trump-Vance administration’s U.S. Department of Justice, and a coalition of Republican members of Congress.
U.S. Supreme Court
LGBTQ groups: SCOTUS case threatens coverage of preventative services beyond PrEP
Kennedy v. Braidwood oral arguments heard Monday
Following Monday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., LGBTQ groups issued statements warning the case could imperil coverage for a broad swath of preventative services and medications beyond PrEP, which is used to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV through sex.
Plaintiffs brought the case to challenge a requirement that insurers and group health plans cover the drug regimen, arguing that the mandate “encourage[s] homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”
The case has been broadened, however, such that cancer screenings, heart disease medications, medications for infants, and several other preventive care services are in jeopardy, according to a press release that GLAAD, Lambda Legal, PrEP4All, Harvard Law’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI), and the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) released on Monday.
The Trump-Vance administration has argued the independent task force responsible for recommending which preventative services must be covered with no cost-sharing for patients is constitutional because the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can exercise veto power and fire members of the volunteer panel of national experts in disease prevention and evidence-based medicine.
While HHS secretaries have not exercised these powers since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, Braidwood could mean Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., takes a leading role in determining which services are included in the coverage mandate.
Roll Call notes the Supreme Court case comes as the administration has suspended grants to organizations that provide care for and research HIV while the ongoing restructuring of HHS has raised questions about whether the “Ending the HIV Epidemic” begun under Trump’s first term will be continued.
“Today’s Supreme Court hearing in the Braidwood case is a pivotal moment for the health and rights of all Americans,” said GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis. “This case, rooted in discriminatory objections to medical necessities like PrEP, can undermine efforts to end the HIV epidemic and also jeopardize access to essential services like cancer screenings and heart disease medications, disproportionately affecting LGBTQ people and communities of color.”
She added, “Religious exemptions should not be weaponized to erode healthcare protections and restrict medically necessary, life-saving preventative healthcare for every American.”
Lambda Legal HIV Project Director Jose Abrigo said, “The Braidwood case is about whether science or politics will guide our nation’s public health policy. Allowing ideological or religious objections to override scientific consensus would set a dangerous precedent. Although this case began with an attack on PrEP coverage, a critical HIV prevention tool, it would be a serious mistake to think this only affects LGBTQ people.”
“The real target is one of the pillars of the Affordable Care Act: The preventive services protections,” Abrigo said. “That includes cancer screenings, heart disease prevention, diabetes testing, and more. If the plaintiffs succeed, the consequences will be felt across every community in this country, by anyone who relies on preventive care to stay healthy.”
He continued, “What’s at stake is whether we will uphold the promise of affordable and accessible health care for all or allow a small group of ideologues to dismantle it for everyone. We as a country are only as healthy as our neighbors and an attack on one group’s rights is an attack on all.”
PrEP4All Executive Director Jeremiah Johnson said, “We are hopeful that the justices will maintain ACA protections for PrEP and other preventive services, however, advocates are poised to fight for access no matter the outcome.”
He continued, “Implementing cost-sharing would have an enormous impact on all Americans, including LGBTQ+ individuals. Over 150 million people could suddenly find themselves having to dig deep into already strained household budgets to pay for care that they had previously received for free. Even small amounts of cost sharing lead to drops in access to preventive services.”
“For PrEP, just a $10 increase in the cost of medication doubled PrEP abandonment rates in a 2024 modeling study,” Johnson said. “Loss of PrEP access would be devastating with so much recent progress in reining in new HIV infections in the U.S. This would also be a particularly disappointing time to lose comprehensive coverage for PrEP with a once every six month injectable version set to be approved this summer.”
“Today’s oral arguments in the Braidwood case underscore what is at stake for the health and well-being of millions of Americans,” said CHLPI Clinical Fellow Anu Dairkee. “This case is not just about legal technicalities — it is about whether people across the country will continue to have access to the preventive health services they need, without cost sharing, regardless of who they are or where they come from.”
She continued, “Since the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provision took effect in 2010, Americans have benefited from a dramatic increase in the use of services that detect disease early, promote healthy living, and reduce long-term health costs. These benefits are rooted in the work of leading scientists and public health experts, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose recommendations are based on rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence.”
“Any shift away from cost-free access to preventive care could have wide-ranging implications, potentially limiting access for those who are already navigating economic hardship and health disparities,” Dairkee said. “If Braidwood prevails, the consequences will be felt nationwide. We risk losing access to lifesaving screenings and preventive treatments that have become standard care over the past decade.”
“This case should serve as a wake-up call: Science, not politics, must guide our health care system,” she said. “The health of our nation depends on it.”
“We are grateful for the Justices who steadfastly centered constitutionality and didn’t allow a deadly political agenda to deter them from their job at hand,” said CHLP Staff Attorney Kae Greenberg. “While we won’t know the final decision until June, what we do know now is not having access to a full range of preventative healthcare is deadly for all of us, especially those who live at the intersections of racial, gender and economic injustice.”
“We are crystal clear how the efforts to undermine the ACA, of which this is a very clear attempt, fit part and parcel into an overall agenda to rollback so much of the ways our communities access dignity and justice,” he said. “Although the plaintiffs’ arguments today were cloaked in esoteric legal language, at it’s heart, this case revolves around the Christian Right’s objection to ‘supporting’ those who they do not agree with, and is simply going to result in people dying who would otherwise have lived long lives.”
“This is why CHLP is invested and continues in advocacy with our partners, many of whom are included here,” Greenberg said.
Brad’s Story: An Unexpected Diagnosis
Wanda Alston Foundation names new executive director
HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth
Fight against TERFs goes global
David Hogg’s arrogant, self-indulgent stunt
Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order
‘Pronoun Trouble’ reminds us that punctuation matters
‘Bad Books’ a timely look at censorship in local library
Pope Francis dies at 88
