National
National news in brief: March 11
Colo. moves on recognition bill, gay student candidate finds posters vandalized and more
Same-sex unions bill moves in Colo.
DENVER — Legislation aimed at recognizing same-sex civil unions in Colorado passed its first test Tuesday, despite cries from the religious right that the legislation would undermine marriage and encourage a “shameful” gay lifestyle, several Colorado newspapers, including the Denver Post, reported this week.
Senate Bill 172, introduced by Sen. Pat Steadman (D-Denver) was backed by the Senate Judiciary Committee 6-3, with one Republican joining Democrats to advance the legislation.
The marathon controversial legislative hearing felt at times more like a Christian revival meeting, with critics of SB 172 making arguments against sodomy and gay lifestyles while reading from Leviticus, the Post reported.
Many critics argued that gay couples are unfit to raise children, and pointed out that in 2006, Colorado voters defined marriage as between one man and one woman, while also rejecting a proposal to recognize same-sex domestic partnerships in Colorado.
Senate Bill 172 would recognize civil unions between same-sex couples in Colorado. Along with the recognition would come similar legal benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
Faith leaders would not be required under the law to conduct same-sex civil unions if it goes against their religious beliefs.
Steadman, who is gay, said the issue is about providing stability to couples as they navigate life.
Judge lets Minn. marriage ban stand
MINNEAPOLIS — A Hennepin County judge has dismissed a lawsuit that sought to make same-sex marriage legal in Minnesota, according to an Associated Press report.
Judge Mary Dufresne rejected arguments by the group Marry Me Minnesota that the state’s 13-year-old Defense of Marriage Act violates same-sex couples’ rights to due process, equal protection, religious freedom and freedom of association. The Star Tribune reported Wednesday that the judge wrote in an order Monday that she’s bound by a 1971 Minnesota Supreme Court decision that says the legislature has the power to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Doug Benson, executive director of Marry Me Minnesota, says the group is disappointed and will appeal. He says the ruling is a slap at thousands of gay and lesbian couples who want the same rights their neighbors have, the AP reported.
Sailor discharged for falling asleep with man
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A Navy petty officer facing discharge for falling asleep in bed with another male sailor last month says his ouster is motivated by homophobia, not a legitimate crime, a claim that has some gay rights advocates worried about life after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” according to an ABC report.
Stephen Jones, 21, a student at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Charleston, S.C., says he and friend Brian McGee inadvertently fell asleep together while watching “Vampire Diaries” on a computer in his quarters Feb. 6. Jones was wearing pajama pants and a white T-shirt, lying on top of the covers; McGee was in boxer shorts under the blanket on Jones’ twin bed, according to both men’s account of the situation. When Jones’ roommate, Tyler Berube, walked in shortly after midnight, the sleepy sailors woke up, got dressed and went back to their rooms.
Several days later, however, Jones and McGee were cited with dereliction of duty for “willfully failing to exhibit professional conduct in his room,” according to a Navy report specifying the charges. McGee accepted the charge and received docked pay. But when Jones refused to accept a penalty, instead hoping for a court martial to prove his innocence, he was ordered separated from the Navy for good, the ABC report said. While there was no evidence of homosexual conduct presented in the statements given by the three men to military investigators, Jones and his civilian attorney Gary Meyers believe homophobic suspicions were motivation for the charge.
“The roommate is concerned about what he sees, even though he sees nothing,” Meyers told ABC. “And his statement doesn’t indicate he saw anything. Two men woke up and they left the room. It’s a bizarre overreaction.”
Meyers contends that because the command had too little evidence to start an investigation under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which is still technically military policy, it used a subterfuge to achieve the same result.
“I asked several times about what was unprofessional about what I did, and every time they said it’s just unprofessional. Period,” said Jones, who is appealing the decision.
Worker defending gays fired for saying ‘faggot’
NEW YORK — An elderly New York man who worked 54 years for American Airlines was fired this week for saying faggot during a training session. Referring to his military service, 82-year-old Freddy Schmitt said, “Back then a faggot could have saved my life.” He made the comment in reference to a statement saying that gays should be allowed to serve openly. The company refused to let Schmitt return to his role as a ground-crew worker despite an excellent employment record, the New York Post reported. Schmitt is appealing the decision and says he wants to end his career on good terms.
Gay lawmakers playing pivotal role in debates
NEW YORK — The 85 openly gay state legislators in the U.S. — out of 7,382 total — are playing a key role in the advancement of marriage and civil union battles across the country, the AP reported this week.
In Hawaii and Illinois, gay state representatives were lead sponsors of civil union bills signed into law earlier this year. In Maryland and Rhode Island, gay lawmakers are co-sponsoring pending bills that would legalize same-sex marriage. In New York, gay state Sen. Tom Duane is preparing to be lead sponsor of a marriage bill in his chamber later this session. The gay lawmakers have impact in two important ways.
Their speeches, often evoking personal themes, sometimes can sway wavering colleagues, and they can forge collegial relationships even with ideological foes through day-to-day professional and social interaction. Hawaii and Illinois are now among seven states that allow civil unions or their equivalent — state-level marriage rights in virtually everything but name.
Prop 8 sponsors oppose lifting marriage ban
SAN FRANCISCO — Lawyers for the sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban are urging a federal appeals court to continue blocking same-sex unions while it considers the constitutionality of Proposition 8, according to an AP report.
The lawyers said in court papers filed Monday that the rationale for keeping the voter-approved ban in effect are the same now as they were last summer, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put a trial judge’s order overturning Proposition 8 on hold.
They say the Obama administration’s recent announcement that it would no longer defend the federal law prohibiting the government from recognizing same-sex marriages has no bearing on the state ban.
Lawyers for two gay couples are asking the 9th Circuit to let same-sex marriages resume in California by lifting its stay on the lower court’s order.
Kan. lawmakers say being gay should be criminal
TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas state Reps. Jan Pauls (D, Hutchinson), and Lance Kinzer (R, Olathe) said this week that being gay or lesbian should remain a crime there, according to a Kansas City Star report.
Pauls made, with Kinzer’s support, the successful motion in the Kansas Legislature’s Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee to keep the criminalization of gay and lesbian relationships on the books. Their action removed key language from HB2321, proposed by the Kansas Judicial Council, which would have resolved inconsistencies in Kansas criminal code, as well as remove unconstitutional laws.
“Jan Pauls was trusted to be a judge before becoming a state representative, and should know better than to support unconstitutional laws, breaking her oath to defend the Constitution,” said Jon Powell, Chair of the Hutchinson Area chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition. “We are fed up with her obvious support of harassment of gays and lesbians. We will not be bullied.”
Although one remains on Kansas’ books, all state laws criminalizing gay and lesbian relationships were struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2003.
Gay student’s campaign posters vandalized
CEDAR CITY, UTAH — Openly gay Southern Utah University Student Association Activities vice presidential candidate Payden Adams found his campaign posters defaced this week, according to a report from the St. George Daily Spectrum, a Gannett Utah paper reported. A vandal wrote derogatory comments in red marker on one of Adams’ campaign posters, according to a release from the Association’s Queer-Straight Alliance on Monday.
The incident was not the first, according to the release. Several of Adams’ posters have been destroyed, often with shreds left at the sites. Campus Police Chief Rick Brown said he was made aware of the incident, but was awaiting more information before investigating.
Brown said the incident would be treated as a criminal mischief case if someone is arrested. Upon hearing the alleged victim of the vandalism was gay, Brown said that would bring in a separate case against the suspect for a hate crime.
“It wasn’t brought to my attention that someone was targeted for his sexual orientation, but if that is the case when I receive more detail, it would be considered a hate crime,” he said. “We would look at the severity of the case and see if that is a different charge.
Poll shows majority support for gay marriage
DENVER — A new poll shows for the first time that more Americans support same-sex marriage than oppose it, the Colorado Independent reported this week.
The General Social Survey, a biennial poll conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, has been a much-cited resource for sociologists since it began in 1972. The 2010 poll’s findings, analyzed by Darren Sherkat, a sociologist/blogger from Southern Illinois University, found that about 46 percent of those polled support gay marriage as opposed to about 40 percent who are opposed. Only 12.4 percent supported it when the Survey first asked it in 1988.
Sherkat analyzed the data based on religious and political views and found that almost inevitably, “philosophical” Christians who believe that the stories in the Bible are fables designed for moral instruction were much more likely to support same-sex marriage than both those who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and literalists who believe the Bible depicts the actual history of the world. Biblical literalists offered the most opposition to same-sex marriage, and Democrats of all types were significantly more likely than their Republican counterparts to support same-sex marriage.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
-
Opinions5 days agoD.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
-
District of Columbia5 days agoKey lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
-
The White House4 days agoTrump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
-
South Carolina4 days agoMan faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
