National
Barney, speaking frankly
Retiring congressman on state of LGBT movement, coming out in 1987 and his future plans
Gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who announced last week that he wonāt run for re-election next year, said the LGBT community has seen an āenormousā amount of progress during his more than 30 years in Congress and would achieve close to full equality in 12 years.
āI think we are on the verge of a very complete victory within a dozen years or so,ā he told the Washington Blade in an interview in his office on Tuesday.
āThat is, I think the country is supportive. It gets better generationally,ā he said. āI donāt think people will be allowed to marry in every state, unfortunately, 10 years from now. I think people in those states where a majority of people live will be allowed to marry and will have full federal rights.ā
Frank said he became the first member of Congress to voluntarily disclose he was gay in 1987, six years after taking office in 1981, after he determined staying in the closet was too constraining on his personal life.
āI got there and I thought, OK, well I can be privately out but publicly closeted,ā he said. āBut it didnāt work. I found it very hard to have a satisfying, healthy emotional and physical life.ā
Frank said that during the years he withheld disclosing his sexual orientation, both as a congressman and a member of the Massachusetts State Legislature, he promised himself that he would never hold back on his strong political support for LGBT rights in an effort to conceal his status as a gay person.
āI remember my thought process was, well I canāt be honest about being gay. I wouldnāt win. But it would be despicable for me as a gay man to be any less than fully supportive,ā he said.
In a wide-ranging discussion of his views on how the LGBT movement should push for civil rights legislation in Congress and through the states, Frank expressed in the blunt way he has been known to do that LGBT activists should use the most effective means of moving their agenda, even if that sometimes means making compromises.
He described as āpolitical suicideā the call by some LGBT activists and bloggers for withholding support for President Barack Obama on grounds that Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress didnāt push harder for more LGBT legislative advances, including the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which remains stalled in Congress.
Frank said he has seen important advances in the support for transgender rights in Congress and several states, including Massachusetts, which just passed a transgender non-discrimination bill that includes protections in employment, housing, credit and adds transgender protections to the stateās hate crimes law.
But Frank noted that the bill passed after transgender leaders and their supporters in the legislature agreed to a compromise that eliminated public accommodations protections from the bill. Lawmakers supportive of the bill said they would add public accommodations protections to the law as soon they can line up the votes in the legislature needed to do so.
Frank dismissed as āridiculousā the attacks by some LGBT activists who called the compromise unacceptable and an outrage against the transgender community.
āThat is an example of their political stupidity,ā he said, noting that the compromise bill provides employment and housing protections that otherwise would not have passed if advocates held out for an all-or-nothing bill.
Frank described as “reasonable” a proposalĀ by LGBT advocatesĀ that President ObamaĀ issue an executive order requiring companies that receive federal contracts in the defense and other industries to provide non-discrimination protections for their LGBT employees.
“I think thatās a reasonable thing to keep pushing for,” he said.Ā “There are limits to what you can do. You donāt want the president to overreach from what could be required in legislation. I think thatās worth pushing for if itās carefully done.”
A transcript of the Bladeās interview with Rep. Frank follows. The interview was conducted on Dec. 6, 2011, in Frankās Capitol Hill office.
Washington Blade: To what degree have you seen support for LGBT equality increase in the U.S. Congress since you took office as a congressman in 1981?
Rep. Barney Frank: Oh, enormously. When I first got here, the first vote we had was in 1981 when the House ā as it was able to do then by a one-house vote ā overturned the D.C. Councilās repeal of the [cityās] sodomy law. It was a heavy vote against us. And weāve just made very great progress since then. Itās to the point where now ā and itās unfortunate that itās gotten very partisan. The country has gotten much better in its view on LGBT rights. The Democrats have gotten better ā equal to or ahead of the country. But the Republicans have gotten much worse. So itās now one of the major partisan issues. Itās unfortunate how terrible the Republicans have become. You saw that in āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell,ā for instance, in the House. But in general the expectation is the Democrats in the House will be supportive on most issues, and I think that reflects the country.
Blade: What prompted you to come out as gay in 1987?
Frank: First, my personal life. Iāve known Iāve been gay since I was 13. I lived a very repressed life until then. And then, because I had emotional and physical needs that needed an outlet, I got here and I thought, OK, well I can be privately out but publicly closeted. But it didnāt work. I just found it very hard to have a satisfying, healthy emotional and physical life. So it was primarily my personal life. But it was also the secondary factor that I thought it would be helpful in fighting prejudice. One of the things I realized about talking a lot about gay rights ā and increasingly by then people knew I was gay. I wasnāt out publicly. I realized they did not understand what it was like, what we went through, what the pain was. But thatās because they didnāt know anybody. Itās hard to sympathize with people when you donāt know who they are. You donāt see what it is.
Blade: Unlike other gay public officials who were in the closet, you didnāt seem to hold back in your public support for gay rights.
Frank: It was quite the opposite. I decided to run for office in 1972 ā to run for the state legislature in Massachusetts. And I remember my thought process was, well I canāt be honest about being gay. I wouldnāt win. But it would be despicable for me as a gay man to be any less than fully supportive … There were then two gay groups, a menās group and a womenās group. And they wrote to everybody who was running for the state legislature in 1972. It was just a couple of years after Stonewall. And for the first time you had organized gay political activity. And they said, āWould you introduce legislation to provide legal equality for gay people, which was the term we used then. And I said yes. I was the only one who said yes. So thatās how I became the prime sponsor of the legislation. I was the only one. But I was glad to take on the role. So, yeah, I clearly decided I would not in any way retreat. And I remember the first time I testified on gay rights. I was 32, unmarried. And I thought, well, what are they going to think? And my answer was, oh, the hell with what they think. I was prepared to sacrifice enough not to come out. But I was not prepared to degrade myself by pretending to be anything less than supportive of who I was.
Blade: When you came out in Congress did you sense you were being held back from advancing because of a so-called glass ceiling due to your sexual orientation?
Frank: I think there was one at first. I think, now, yes and no. Certainly it didnāt interfere with my being the chair of a very powerful committee and being, frankly, because of the circumstances, one of the major leaders. In fact I said that on the floor. I remember saying when we were talking about the hate crimes bill, āIām a big shot now but I used to be 15 and I remember what it was like.ā ā¦ If I were running for a leadership position it might be a problem in the House. Some of the Democrats come from the few areas left where theyāre afraid. But now we have almost all the Democrats on board. We have a handful that arenāt. So no. And the other ā I assumed it would have been a bar to [running for] the Senate. But in 2004, when we thought John Kerry might get elected president, we had a mock election for the Senate in Massachusetts. Five of us were running ā Congressman Markey, Congressman Lynch, myself, then Congressman Meehan and Martha Coakley, now the attorney general. And we were running and Iāve had people who worked in the other camps say I would have won that race. So if Kerry had been elected president I believe I would have been elected to the Senate in 2004. So I mean other than the presidency and the vice presidency I think thereās probably not one.
Blade: Where does the LGBT movement stand now in its ability to advance legislation?
Frank: Weāve gotten better. I think thereās two good examples of great victories. They didnāt involve demonstrations, they didnāt involve marches. They involved some discretion and some compromising. Deferring to [New York Governor] Andrew Cuomoās leadership politically in the battle for [same-sex] marriage in New York, and he told them how to do it. And then accepting the exclusion of public accommodations from the trans [non-discrimination bill, which passed in November 2011] in Massachusetts.
Blade: The trans bill in Massachusetts became an issue to someā
Frank: An issue to whom?
Blade: Some of the more outspoken trans activists, who say they are outraged because it includes employment, housing and other protections but not public accommodations protections.
Frank: No, I would say ridiculous trans activists who are outraged, who would prefer there be no rights for employment than this. That is an example of their political stupidity. They may be very bright about other things. I donāt see how anybody can see that as a rational argument right now, nor, by the way, do I think it represents five percent of our community. I donāt even think it represents a majority of the transgender people. How can it possibly be ā and by the way, these people donāt know history, because I will tell you that Martin Luther King and the other civil rights leaders would not for a second have hesitated to accept that deal. They were constantly moving toward making things better but those are both examples, I think, of the political maturity of our community ā of knowing how to go about it. And I think as a result we are on the verge ā well, by the way, we did the same thing with āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā We didnāt abolish āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā We didnāt ban statutorily discrimination against us in the military. We banned the requirement that we discriminate. And there was some, āOh, gee, how do you know they maybe will not do it fairly?ā I think we are on the verge of a very complete victory within a dozen years or so. That is, I think the country is supportive. It gets better generationally. I donāt think people will be allowed to marry in every state, unfortunately, 10 years from now. I think people in those states where a majority of people live will be allowed to marry and will have full federal rights.
Blade: Are you concerned about the provision of DOMA ā if itās repealed ā that says the states donāt have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states ā
Frank: That doesnāt mean anything. Iāve said this all along. That doesnāt mean anything at all. The court will disregard that. Quite frankly people donāt understand that. Thatās a matter of interpreting the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will tell Congress, āMind your own business.ā It has nothing to do with you. That is totally meaningless, that section. It doesnāt mean a thing. Congress cannot affect by statute a constitutional interpretation. By the way, the Constitution always was that states did not have to recognize that. When the Supreme Court threw out the law against inter marriage racially it wasnāt based on one state having to recognize another stateās marriage. The assumption was in 1967 that Virginia, which is where the case was brought, didnāt have to recognize a marriage in Europe. So everybody agreed ā an African American and a white person can get married in New York and Virginia can disregard it. It was thrown out on constitutional segregation grounds. So in the first place, thatās been the Constitution anyway. Secondly, if it was, Congress would have nothing to do with it. Itās an entirely meaningless provision.
Blade: Some, like Hillary Clinton when she ran for president in 2008, said her husband signed DOMA because it would act as a safeguard against passing a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Frank: Thatās nonsense. Her husband signed it because he was afraid politically about what would happen if he didnāt sign it. It has nothing to do with a constitutional amendment. He signed it because it was politically necessary to sign it. And I understood that. The Republicans threw it on his lap three months before the election. [Liberal, gay-supportive Senator] Paul Wellstone [D-Minn.] voted for it. He was up for re-election that year and he was afraid of it. It had nothing to do with stopping a constitutional amendment. And the fact is it does not mean anything. And no good lawyer will tell you it has any meaning whatsoever. This is a matter of the Constitution. It would be like if Congress passed a law saying the 14th Amendment doesnāt mean this or that. No, itās none of our business what it means or not. We can decide for ourselves what it means, and I can govern my vote. But whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause compels marriage recognition or not is entirely up to the Supreme Court. And clearly up until now they have said it doesnāt.
Blade: Do you have any predictions of what the Supreme Court might do if the Proposition 8 case gets there?
Frank: I think thatās not a good case. I think the better case is Mary Bonautoās case [the attorney with the LGBT litigation group in Boston, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in court on behalf of a same-sex couple.]
Blade: In your 1992 book, āSpeaking Frankly: Whatās Wrong with the Democrats and How to Fix It,ā you said some liberal Democrats unnecessarily alienated voters by being reluctant to ādemonstrate that liberals are patriotic supporters of the free-enterprise system who think that hard work should be rewarded and violent criminals severely punished.ā Do some of these things still apply today and do they have any relevance to the gay movement?
Frank: Yes, I still believe itās a mistake, for example, to insist that every Democrat be for gun control. Thatās a great loser for us in most of the country. Iāll vote for gun control. But itās a great loser. I also believe it has to do with ā Iāll go back to marriage in New York and the non-discrimination bill in Massachusetts. Yeah, itās very, very relevant still. You have to be smart about it, that you engage in political activity to advance your goals, not to feel morally superior.
Blade: Everybodyās talking about the presidential election. Are the Republican presidential candidates as horrible as a lot of gay activists are saying they are on LGBT issues?
Frank: Yes ā they are. Romney is a total faker, having said he was going to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy and heās moved against us on everything, not just on marriage. And Gingrich was the leader of homophobic stuff when he was here. Gingrich was the man who put the Defense of Marriage Act on the agenda in 1996 when he was the Speaker. I donāt know where Huntsman is, but he is irrelevant. Itās the whole Republican Party. On āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell,ā you saw the overwhelming majority of Republicans vote against the defense bill in the House because it included the repeal of āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā They ordinarily all vote for the defense bill. We did get a couple of votes in the Senate. [Senator] Susan Collinsā [R-Maine] support was very important in that. But in general the Republicans have become a 90 plus percent anti-gay party. By the way, [President George W.] Bush didnāt undo stuff. He wouldnāt do anything good. But Iām not at all confident that a Republican president wonāt reinstate āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā
Blade: Is there a chance that the Congress would block that, even if thereās a Republican-controlled House?
Frank: Well Congress couldnāt reinstate it because they would never get it through the Senate and the president would veto it. But if the Republicans win the presidency they donāt need the Congress. The president could reinstate it by executive order.
Blade: Is it completely settled now that every gay civil rights bill will include gender identity and expression protections or it wonāt be introduced, whether it would be ENDA or another bill?
Frank: I think itās unlikely that it wouldnāt but that doesnāt necessarily mean it will pass. I think youāll see transgender protections included. Weāve made progress on transgender. But my view is the same in that we still have the problem with the situation where people get naked together. But short of that, I think the next time we have a Democratic House, Senate and president ā remember, we can only pass pro-LGBT legislation when we have a Democratic House, Senate and president. Weāve only had that twice since Jimmy Carter left officeātwo years under Bill Clinton and two years under Barack Obama. Thatās the exception, not the norm. So the next time we get a Democratic House, Senate and president weāll be able to pass a transgender-inclusive ENDA. But like the Massachusetts law, probably not allowing full and unrestricted access to locker and shower rooms
Blade: We get emails and calls from some activists saying the Democrats should have been held to a higher standard, that they should have done more on LGBT legislation during the period that they did have the House and Senate and the presidency under Obama.
Frank: Which was?
Blade: Among other things, ENDA.
Frank: We had a transgender inclusive hate crimes bill and a repeal of āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā I think thatās pretty good. I wish we had done ENDA. But part of the problem was the community refused to accept the kind of compromise that Massachusetts did. If we had that ā one of the things the [House] leadership was worried about was ā¦ what are we going to pass the bill for if some of the people who are going to be the beneficiaries are attacking us? So whatās the point of that? People are holding us to a higher standard? Whose standard? Where did you become the standard setter? What we got, as I said, was the president coming out against DOMA and very importantly elevating the level of scrutiny thatās needed for ending discrimination. And we got hate crimes through and we got āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tellā repealed. I think thatās pretty good.
Blade: Many in the community agree with that assessment.
Frank: In general, the people who are complaining ā well, whatās their remedy? Theyāre complaining, what do they want, sympathy? If theyāre saying they wish we had more, I do too. Are they saying thatās a reason not to be supporting Barack Obama? Thatās political suicide. The next president will probably appoint another Supreme Court justice or two. I donāt see how people can say, oh, we care about the lawsuit for Prop 8, we care about the DOMA lawsuit but letās make sure that a homophobe will appoint the next Supreme Court justice.
Blade: Itās hard to argue with that.
Frank: Well you raised it.
Blade: Some bloggers and activists have raised it.
Frank: And the answer is that it is suicidal and dumb and self-defeating. Plus, you focus much too much on this. They are a very small percentage of our community and I think thatās a tendency, whether youāre in the media or whether they blog. That is a very small percentage of the community. Do you think most transgender people ā Diego would know better than you or I ā What do most transgender people in Massachusetts think about the bill?
Diego Sanchez [Frankās legislative assistant and longtime transgender advocate]: They support it.
Frank: OK.
Blade: A similar situation occurred this year in Maryland when most transgender leaders, including veteran transgender activist Dana Beyer, agreed to a compromise transgender non-discrimination bill that didnāt include public accommodations protections. Beyer was denounced by other trans activists for accepting the compromise.
Frank: Stop paying so much attention to a handful of people with terrible political judgment who are acting out emotionally. Theyāre only important to you, to be honest. Theyāre not important me. Theyāre not important to anyone in the Maryland Legislature.
Blade: What do you think about the possibility of an executive order by President Obama to require defense contractors or any private companies getting government contracts to have a non-discrimination policy for their LGBT employees?
Frank: I think thatās a reasonable thing to keep pushing for. There are limits to what you can do. You donāt want the president to overreach from what could be required in legislation. I think thatās worth pushing for if itās carefully done.
Blade: To issue that executive order?
Frank: For contractors, yeah, using race as a model. The problem we do have is this. Racial discrimination is embodied in the Constitution and weāre not. So there is more power where race is concerned.
Blade: In terms of your own plans, can you say a little about what you plan to do when you leave Congress?
Frank: Iām going to teach, lecture for money, and write.
Blade: And did you say you donāt plan to become a lobbyist?
Frank: Oh, absolutely not. Now I will still be a supporter and an advocate, but I wonāt lobby for money. I will continue to work on LGBT issues but not as a lobbyist for money.
Blade: Would you consider going on the board of one of the prominent national gay groups?
Frank: No, I donāt want to go to any more meetings and vote any more. Iāll do what I can do but I donāt want to go on a board. Iām just looking for freedom from that kind of responsibility. But I will continue to be an advocate and strategist.
Blade: Will you consider testifying on LGBT issues before ā
Frank: Remember that for the year 2013 I will be under an ethics one-year pause. But I will be picking up again in 2014.
Blade: Thatās an ethics requirement on the Hill?
Frank: One year ā I canāt talk to my colleagues for a year about business.
Blade: We just saw a photo of you with your partner James Ready at a White House holiday party this week. Youāve been taking your partner to functions for quite a while. Has that caused any complications or negative political repercussions?
Frank: I read a book that was very important by a man named Charles Hamilton. It was a biography of Adam Clayton Powell. When Adam Clayton Powell got elected to Congress, while he was the third African American, he was the first to be self-respecting. The two before him had accepted segregation in the Congress. When Adam Powell got here, I think it was 1943, he was not allowed to use the House restaurant. He was told he couldnāt use either the restaurant or the swimming pool. He said āScrew you,ā and he did it. And what he then did, and this is what my view was. I should not do anything just to make a point. But I shouldnāt not do something because somebody else was trying to make a point. So I have insisted with the three partners Iāve had, but particularly with Jimmy Ready, we do everything everybody else does. He goes to the spousesā lunches. We travel together. We do everything everybody else does. Not to make a point but because thatās what we want to do and I think we have come a long way in acceptance. I spoke earlier this year at the Bank of America in New York to a meeting of a couple of hundred LGBT people who are in the financial services industry, many of them younger. And Jimmy and I were there and Jimmy and I talked to them. And a couple of them, a number of them, said, boy, it really means a lot to us because youāre working in this financial industry, itās somewhat conservative, can I put a picture of my girlfriend up on the desk? Thatās what a woman said. I said, well, if the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee can bring his partner there, sure. And thereās also another reason. Itās a little easier for them to think of us other than this abstract embodiment of rights. I want them to think of us as flesh-and-blood people who love each other and are physical with each other.
Blade: In the course of your role as chairman of the Financial Services Committee, you were dealing with nationās leading financial and corporate leaders. Did you sense any attempt by these people to take advantage of you because you were gay?
Frank: No, they didnāt dare. I donāt think most of them wanted to be. But early on, Jimmy and I went to in 2007 or 2008 into Manhattan. We had a series of meetings and Tim Geithner was then president of the New York Federal Reserve. And Jimmy went up to take a nap on Tim Geithnerās couch in his office while I had a meeting with him. But at the time, some guy said the Fed doesnāt yet have an affinity group for gay people. So we fixed that up that day. No, Iāve never sensed any problem.
And Hank Paulson, the then Secretary of the Treasury, to his credit, in his book, in the index, you can find Jimmyās name. Weāve been out to dinner with him and his wife a couple of times. He and I get along very well. He said at one point the negotiations were breaking down, he was worried. And he knew that if he talked to me we could make a deal. And so he sent his two top guys to find me. He said they went looking for Congressman Frank and they found him on the third floor of the Capitol having dinner with his partner Jim Ready, which was just a gratuitous nice reference. But Iāll also tell you what I said. We had the [House Democratic] caucus [meeting] on hate crimes in 2008 when Judy Shepard [mother of Matthew Shepard, who was murdered in an anti-gay hate crime]. And they asked me about some of the African Americans who were being told by ministers that if we passed a hate crimes bill they would be criminally liable if they said homosexuality was against the Bible, which, of course, is nonsense. So I said let me address this because this has nothing to do with free speech. Itās only a crime if you hit somebody and harm somebody when you commit a crime. So I said let me put it this way. If this bill became law tomorrow it would still be entirely legal to call me a fag. I just wouldnāt recommend it if you were in the banking business. And that was my way of getting it across to my colleagues.
Blade: Is there anything else youād like to bring up?
Frank: Well thereās one last thing. I think weāre winning. And the public opinion is on our side. But some people say if youāre winning you can take it easy. I say no. When you read military history they say sometimes military leaders make a mistake that they ease up at the point where theyāre winning. Thatās when you crack down. Thatās when youāve got them on the run. You have to continue to press, because I think weāre on the verge of winning this fight.
Blade: The opponents seem to be saying now, in response to the marriage fight, that society will be seriously harmed if the gay side prevails and gays are allowed to marry. How do you address that?
Frank: And the mainstream media always lets them get away with it. Theyāre always making these stupid predictions. They never come through. By the way, I give credit to the commandant of the Marine Corps, General [James] Amos, who just admitted that his gloom and doom predictions of six months ago arenāt true. Remember, heās the guy who opposed repeal of āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā He said he was wrong. It was a non-event. But I think we ought to do a better job on that, to get the stupidities that theyāve predicted and show that they werenāt true. Iāve been doing this for a long time. Iāve heard those same predictions about the Equal Rights Amendment for women, about protecting people with disabilities, about gay rights, about race. Any time you talk discrimination they say, well, I donāt dislike those people but itās going to be chaotic. And it never is. The fact is, unfortunately, given the nature of things, anti-discrimination laws are hard to enforce. The bigots are sophisticated. Itās hard to catch them.
U.S. Supreme Court
Concern over marriage equality in US grows two decades after first Mass. same-sex weddings
Gay and lesbian couples began to marry in Bay State in 2004
Two decades after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, a new study reveals both significant progress and ongoing challenges for married LGBTQ couples in the U.S., with a growing sense of insecurity about the future of their rights.
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law surveyed 484 married same-sex couples from all 50 states and D.C. The study, released Monday, marks the 20th anniversary of legal same-sex marriage in the U.S.
Researchers found that 93 percent of respondents cited love as a primary reason for marrying, with 75 percent also mentioning legal protections. Over 83 percent reported positive changes in their sense of security, and 74.6 percent noted improved life satisfaction since marrying.
However, the study also highlighted persistent discrimination and growing concerns about the future. About 11 percent of couples who had a wedding reported facing prejudice during the planning process.
Alarmingly, nearly 80 percent of respondents expressed concern about the potential overturning of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This anxiety has been exacerbated by initiatives like Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint that some fear could roll back LGBTQ rights if implemented.
The possibility of a former President Donald Trump victory in the upcoming election has further intensified these concerns. Many respondents cited Trump’s previous U.S. Supreme Court appointments and his statements on LGBTQ issues as reasons for their apprehension. One participant stated, “The thought of another Trump presidency keeps me up at night. We’ve come so far, but it feels like our rights could be stripped away at any moment.”
The current political climate has 29 percent of respondents considering moving to another state, with 52.9 percent citing socio-political concerns as a primary reason. This reflects a growing sense of insecurity among LGBTQ couples about their rights and freedoms.
Brad Sears, founding executive director of the Williams Institute, noted, “The data clearly show that marriage equality has had a profound positive impact on same-sex couples and their families. However, it also reveals ongoing challenges and serious concerns about the future of these rights in light of current political trends and the upcoming election.”
Christy Mallory, legal director at the Williams Institute and lead author of the study, added, “This research provides crucial insights into the lived experiences of same-sex couples two decades after marriage equality began in the U.S. The high level of concern about potential loss of rights underscores the continued importance of legal protections and public support for LGBTQ+ equality.”
The study found that 30 percent of surveyed couples have children, with 58.1 percent of those parents reporting that marriage provided more stability for their families. However, many of these families now worry about the security of their legal status in the face of potential policy changes and shifting political landscapes.
As the nation reflects on two decades of marriage equality, the study underscores both the transformative power of legal recognition and the ongoing need for vigilance in protecting LGBTQ+ rights. The findings highlight the complex reality faced by same-sex couples in America today: Celebrating hard-won progress while grappling with uncertainty about the future, particularly in light of upcoming political events and potential shifts in leadership.
State Department
State Department hosts meeting on LGBTQ rights and foreign policy
Event took place before Pride Month reception
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday hosted a group of LGBTQ activists and politicians from around the world at the State Department.
The event ā described as a “Convening on U.S. Foreign Policy: National Security, Inclusive Development, and the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons” ā took place before the State Department’s annual Pride Month reception. Participants included:
ā¢ Jessica Stern, the special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights
ā¢ U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield
ā¢ U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai
ā¢ U.S. Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti
ā¢ Suzanne Goldberg, senior advisor to the Under Secretary of State for Civil Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
ā¢ Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya
ā¢ U.S. Agency for International Development Senior LGBTQI+ Coordinator Jay Gilliam
ā¢ USAID Counselor Clinton D. White
ā¢ National Security Council Senior Director for Democracy and Human Rights Kelly Razzouk
ā¢ Assistant U.S. Secretary of Health Adm. Rachel Levine
ā¢ National Security Council Human Rights Director Jess Huber
ā¢ U.N. Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Ilze Brandt Kehris
ā¢ Icelandic Ambassador to the U.S. BergdĆs EllertsdĆ³ttir
ā¢ Council for Global Equality Co-Executive Director Mark Bromley
ā¢ Outright International Senior Advisor for Global Intersex Rights Kimberly Zieselman
ā¢ Essy Adhiambo, executive director of the Institute for Equality and Non Discrimination in Kenya
ā¢ Pau GonzĆ”lez, co-chair of Hombres Trans PanamĆ” and PFLAG-PanamĆ”
“Forty-five years ago, thousands gathered in D.C. in what became the first national march for LGBTQI+, demanding their voices be heard,” said Thomas-Greenfield in a post to her X account that showed her speaking at the event. “We must continue to carry forward the spirit of these pioneers and fight for equal rights and dignity for all.”
Forty-five years ago, thousands gathered in DC in what became the first national march for LGBTQI+, demanding their voices be heard.
We must continue to carry forward the spirit of these pioneers and fight for equal rights and dignity for all. š³ļøāšš³ļøāā§ļø pic.twitter.com/oph2Ahmfhq
— Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield (@USAmbUN) June 28, 2024
President Joe Biden in 2021 signed a memo that committed the U.S. to promoting LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad as part of his administrationās overall foreign policy.
“LGBTQI+ rights are human rights,” said Blinken. “Our government has a responsibility to defend them, to promote them ā here and everywhere.”
Blinken noted consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized in 64 countries, with the death penalty in 11 of them.
He specifically highlighted Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor OrbĆ”n’s government’s “smearing scapegoating, stigmatizing LGBTQI+ persons ā vilifying them with degrading labels, denying them equal rights, normalizing violence against them.” (Gay U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman this month marched in the annual Budapest Pride parade.)
Blinken noted Iraqi MPs earlier this year “passed legislation that punishes same-sex relations with up to 15 years in prison.” He also pointed out that Indonesian lawmakers approved a new criminal code banning extramarital sex.
“In a nation where same-sex couples cannot marry, these laws effectively make all same-sex conduct illegal and they undermine privacy for all Indonesians,” said Blinken.
“Weāre defending and promoting LGBTQI+ rights around the world,” he said.
Blinken noted seven countries ā Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Namibia, Singapore, the Cook Islands ā have decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations over the last two years. He also highlighted Greece, Liechtenstein, and Thailand this year extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, and other countries are banning so-called “conversion therapy.”
“These achievements are possible because of incredibly courageous human rights defenders and government partners on the ground, but I believe Americaās support is indispensable,” said Blinken. “When we engage ā sometimes publicly, sometimes privately, sometimes both ā when we share our own knowledge and experience, we can and we do achieve change.”
Blinken also announced the U.S. now considers sexual orientation and gender identity are part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that took effect in 1976.
“This is one of the key treaties committing nations to upholding universal rights,” he said.
“In our regular reporting to the council on human rights, we will continue to include incidents of discrimination or abuse committed against LGBTQI+ persons, now with the clear framework of this well-supported interpretation,” added Blinken.Ā “That will further empower our efforts.”
Blinken reiterated this point and the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad when he spoke at the State Department’s Pride Month event.
“Defending, promoting LGBTQI+ rights globally is the right thing to do, but beyond that, itās the smart and necessary thing to do for our country, for our national security, for our well-being,” he said.
The White House
Jill and Ashley Biden headline White House Pride celebration
First lady celebrated historic pardons of LGBTQ veterans
First lady Jill Biden and the president and first lady’s daughter, Ashley Biden, headlined the White House Pride celebration on the South Lawn on Wednesday, followed by a performance by singer and actress Deborah Cox.
“My dad has built the most pro-equality administration” in history, Ashley Biden said, crediting the work of LGBTQ people of color like Marsha P. Johnson, a prominent figure in the Stonewall uprising of 1969, as well as “so many of you [who] have continued to lead their fearless fighting against against injustice here and around the world.”
She introduced her mother as “the woman who taught me to be myself up showed me in so many ways how I can make a difference” and who “works every single day, tirelessly, to ensure that all people have the opportunities and freedoms that they deserve.”
“I hope that all of you feel that freedom and love on the South Lawn today,” Jill Biden said.
Her remarks were briefly interrupted by a protestor’s chants of “no Pride in genocide,” which was drowned out by chants of “four more years.”
The first lady noted how many of the attendees came “here from states that are passing laws targeting LGBTQ Americans.”
“There are those who see our communities and our families and wish to tear them down,” she said, “those who can’t see that the world is so much bigger and [more] beautiful than they know ā but when our homes are threatened, when they strip away our rights, and deny our basic humanity, we say, ‘not on our watch.'”
“Pride is a celebration, but it is also a declaration,” the first lady said, highlighting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges nine years ago, which established marriage equality as the law of the land.
She then credited the accomplishments of the Biden-Harris administration on matters of LGBTQ rights, including the repeal of the previous administration’s ban on military service by transgender servicemembers and the FDA’s loosening of restrictions on blood donation by gay and bisexual men.
The first lady also celebrated the president’s announcement earlier on Wednesday that he will pardon LGBTQ veterans who were discharged and court martialed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“We will never stop fighting for this community,” she said.
-
Canada1 day ago
Toronto Pride parade cancelled after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt it
-
Theater5 days ago
Stephen Mark Lukas makes sublime turn in āFunny Girlā
-
Baltimore4 days ago
Despite record crowds, Baltimore Prideās LGBTQ critics say organizers dropped the ball
-
Sports4 days ago
Haters troll official Olympics Instagram for celebrating gay athlete and boyfriend