An upcoming summit, intended to give LGBTQ federal workers an opportunity to meet and network, has been cancelled by organizers in accordance with President Trump’s recent executive order requiring review of diversity training in U.S. agencies to ban critical race theory, the Washington Blade has learned.
The Pride in Federal Service Summit, intended to take place virtually amid the coronavirus epidemic, was initially scheduled for Oct. 21-22 and an estimated 500 participants affiliated with the interagency LGBTQ affinity group for federal workers were expected to attend.
But according to an internal email shared with the Washington Blade, members of the Pride in Federal Service Summit planning committee announced Tuesday they were forced to postpone the event indefinitely — effectively cancelling it — to comply with Executive Order 13950, which Trump signed last month to ban critical race theory in employment despite consternation from proponents of anti-racism diversity training.
“The Pride in Federal Service Summit Planning Committee is disappointed to announce the postponement of the Summit,” writes Meghan Walter, a Portland, Ore.-based employee of the Department of Agriculture and president of Equality USDA, citing guidance from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management seeking to implement Trump’s executive order.
Multiple sources familiar with the event confirmed to the Washington Blade on condition of anonymity the email was accurate and the Pride summit was indeed cancelled.
“We do not have a timeline for rescheduling the summit, but anticipate no sooner than February 2021,” Walter writes. “The committee has made every effort to pivot in response to these memos and the EO and continue forward with the summit. The OPM guidance issued on Friday has drastically impacted our Summit plans and we see no alternative other than to postpone.”
Among the topics for the summit: Building resilient and inclusive employee resource groups, LGBTQ cultural competency, best practices for workplace inclusion and sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination policies in federal employment.
Organizers with Pride in Federal Service Summit didn’t respond late Friday to the Washington Blade’s inquiry about whether they had reached out to the Office of Personnel Management to confirm they couldn’t hold the event or whether it was cancelled based on an interpretation of the guidance on Trump’s order, nor when they first announced the event and whether that was before or after Trump signed the directive.
The OPM guidance, however, requires the submission of all trainings to the Office of Personnel Management and White House Office of Management & Budget by Nov. 22 for approval to ensure critical race theory, which posits white supremacy is maintained in society without active anti-racist intervention, plays no component.
“These divisive trainings constitute a malign subset of a larger pool of Federal agency trainings held to promote diversity and inclusiveness,” writes OMB Director Russ Vought in a Sept. 22 memo. “The sort of training at issue does neither; it sows division among the workforce by attempting to prescribe and impose upon employees a conformity of belief in ideologies that label entire groups of Americans as inherently racist or evil (e.g., critical race theory).”
The White House didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to comment on whether Trump is OK with the cancellation of the Pride event as a result of his executive order.
Trump, however, has railed against critical race theory as a source of harmful ideology and division in the federal government, addressing his order to abolish the training in response to a question from Chris Wallace last week in his debate with Joe Biden.
“If you were a certain person, you had no status in life,” Trump said. “It was sort of a reversal. And if you look at that the people, we would pay people hundreds of thousands of dollars to teach, very bad ideas and, frankly, very sick ideas and really, they were teaching people to hate our country, and I’m not going to do that, I’m not going to allow that to happen.”
National Coming Out Day has been observed annually on Oct. 11 for more than three decades. The first such celebration was held in 1988 on the one-year anniversary of the 1987 March on Washington for Gay and Lesbian Rights, which reportedly drew 200,000 protesters to the nation’s capital.
In honor of National Coming Out Day 2020, here are just some of the many notable LGBTQ coming-out stories so far this year.
Niecy Nash
Comedian and actor Niecy Nash broke the internet this past summer when she not only came out, but she also introduced her new wife to the world.
The “Claws” and “Reno 911” star announced her marriage to musician Jessica Betts in August, sharing a joyful photo of herself and Betts walking down the aisle after just saying, ”I do.”
But Nash, who had previously been married to men before, revealed that while she may have shocked fans with her announcement, she did not perceive it as coming out per se.
“I don’t feel like my marriage is my coming out of anywhere, but rather a going into myself and being honest about who I love,” Nash told People shortly after tying the knot. “And I’m not limiting myself on what that love is supposed to look like.”
Aaron Schock
Aaron Schock, a former Republican congressman known for supporting anti-LGBTQ legislation, came out as gay in an Instagram post in March.
“The fact that I am gay is just one of those things in life in need of explicit affirmation, to remove any doubt and to finally validate who I am as a person,” Schock, who had dodged rumors about his sexuality while in Congress, wrote. “In many ways, I regret the time wasted in not having done so sooner.”
Lili Reinhart
“Riverdale” star Lili Reinhart came out as bisexual in June, opening up about a part of her life she had never shared before with her fans.
“Although I’ve never announced it publicly before, I am a proud bisexual woman,” the actor wrote in an Instagram Story paired with a flyer for an LGBTQ+ for Black Lives Matter protest taking place in West Hollywood, California.
Andrew Gillum
Andrew Gillum, the former mayor of Tallahassee, Florida, came out as bisexual in September during an interview with talk show host Tamron Hall.
“You put it out there whether or not I identify as gay, and the answer is I don’t identify as gay, but I do identify as bisexual,” Gillum said.
It was the first time the 2018 Democratic nominee for governor in Florida had spoken publicly about his sexuality.
Sara Ramirez
Best known for playing Dr. Callie Torres on “Grey’s Anatomy,” Sara Ramirez came out in August as gender nonbinary. In a post shared on Instagram, the Tony Award-winner said, “In me is the capacity to be” everything from a “girlish boy” to a “boyish girl.”
Ramirez added the hashtag #nonbinary to the caption of their post and updated their bio on social media accounts to read “non-binary human.” Their bio also states that they use both she/her and they/them pronouns.
François Arnaud
French-Canadian actor François Arnaud, best known for his role on Showtime’s period drama “The Borgias” and his appearance in the award-winning series “Schitt’s Creek,” came out as bisexual in an Instagram story shared just before Bi Visibility Day, which is celebrated on Sept. 23.
Arnaud said he wanted to share his story to help fight “assumptions of straightness” and bisexual erasure.
“Last week, I was chatting with work friends, and as I brought up a trip I’d taken with an ex-girlfriend, I asked myself — for the ten-thousandth time — how to tell such a story without making it seem like that was the whole story of me,” he wrote. “I’m sure many bisexual guys feel the same and end up doing as I did: letting other people’s assumptions of straightness stand uncorrected.”
Jameela Jamil
Actor and activist Jameela Jamil came out in February following criticism about her being cast in a new HBO Max voguing competition series, which some social media users said “belongs to queer people.” Following the backlash, “The Good Place” star came out as queer in a lengthy statement posted on her Twitter account.
“This is why I never officially came out as queer,” she wrote. “I kept it low because I was scared of the pain of being accused of performative bandwagon jumping, over something that caused me a lot of confusion, fear and turmoil when I was a kid.”
Born to a Pakistani mother and Indian father, Jamil said she struggled for many years to “officially” come out because of fear that she wouldn’t be accepted in the South Asian community.
“It’s also scary as an actor to openly admit your sexuality, especially when you’re already a brown female in your thirties,” she wrote. “This is absolutely not how I wanted it to come out.”
Nikkie de Jager
Popular YouTube creator and makeup artist Nikkie de Jager, who is also known as Nikkie Tutorials, revealed in January that she is a transgender woman to her more than 12 million YouTube followers, saying the move was prompted by attempted blackmail.
While she lamented the opportunity to reveal her journey on her own terms, de Jager said she was coming out publicly to “tak[e] back my own power.”
“I can’t believe I am saying this today to all of you, for the entire world to see, but damn it feels good to finally do it. It’s time to let go and be truly free,” de Jager said in the video. “When I was younger I was born in the wrong body, which means that I am transgender.”
Rosario Dawson
Rosario Dawson officially came out during a wide-ranging interview in February, where she clarified that a 2018 Instagram post about Pride, in which she stated that she was “sending love” to her “fellow LGBTQ+ homies,” was misinterpreted.
“People kept saying that I (came out) … I didn’t do that,” she said. “I mean, it’s not inaccurate, but I never did come out come out. I mean, I guess I am now.”
Dawson did not specify how she identifies, but she added that she “never had a relationship in that space, so it’s never felt like an authentic calling to me.”
In 2019, it was confirmed that Dawson was dating Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and in August it was reported that the two were moving in together.
Taylor Schilling
During LGBTQ Pride Month in June, “Orange Is the New Black” star Taylor Schilling confirmed to fans that she was in a relationship with a woman.
The actor re-shared a photo to her Instagram story that musician and artist Emily Ritz had previously posted of them together with the heart-emoji-filled message, “I couldn’t be more proud to be by your side @tayjschilling “Happy Pride!”
In a 2017 interview with Evening Standard Magazine, Schilling said, “I’ve had very serious relationships with lots of people, and I’m a very expansive human. There’s no part of me that can be put under a label. I really don’t fit into a box — that’s too reductive.”
“Hi, it’s Nikki Blonsky from the movie I’m Gay! #pride #imcomingout #hairspray,” the Golden Globe nominee captioned the clip.
Justice Smith
In an Instagram post shared in June amid nationwide protests against racial injustice, “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom” actor Justice Smith came out as queer and revealed he was dating a man.
“Nicholas Ashe and I protested today in New Orleans,” Smith wrote. “We chanted ‘Black Trans Lives Matter’ ‘Black Queer Lives Matter,’ ‘All Black Lives Matter.’ As a Black queer man myself, I was disappointed to see certain people eager to say Black Lives Matter, but hold their tongue when Trans/Queer was added.”
After his initial post, Smith addressed the reaction from his fans and followers, tweeting, “yo tf i didn’t come out, y’all came in.
“justice— you have been the author of all my recent smiles. you make me feel safe. seen. heard. inspired. admired. returning the favor has been my favorite adventure,” Ashe wrote in August. “it’s difficult to fully encapsulate my gratitude, but here’s an Instagram post to help me try. happy birthday, beautiful man. i love you most of all. thank you for all this good.
Quinn
Soccer star Quinn, who represented Canada at the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup, publicly came out as transgender with a post on Instagram in September. In it, Quinn — who uses they/them pronouns and now goes by just their last name — discussed the difficulty of coming out publicly, adding important tips for the cisgender community on how to be a better ally to the transgender community.
“Coming out is HARD (and kinda bs),” Quinn, who plays for Washington state’s OL Reign team in the National Women’s Soccer League, wrote. “I know for me it’s something I’ll be doing over again for the rest of my life. As I’ve lived as an openly trans person with the people I love most for many years, I did always wonder when I’d come out publicly.
Da Brat
Rapper Da Brat came out publicly in March, confirming her relationship with Kaleidoscope Hair Products CEO Jesseca Dupart in a tearful Instagram post celebrating an early birthday gift.
“I’ve always been a kind of private person until I met my heart’s match who handles some things differently than I do,” she wrote. “I have never experienced this feeling. It’s so overwhelming that often I find myself in a daze hoping to never get pinched to see if it’s real so I can live in this dream forever.”https://www.instagram.com/p/B-MpOdjnD59/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=8&wp=1116&rd=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com&rp=%2Ffeature%2Fnbc-out%2Fnational-coming-out-day-20-people-who-came-out-2020-n1242833#%7B%22ci%22%3A3%2C%22os%22%3A1450%2C%22ls%22%3A1002%2C%22le%22%3A1029%7D
J. August Richards
Actor J. August Richards, best known for his role on “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.,” publicly came out as gay in April when discussing his role on the NBC series “Council of Dads,” where he portrayed Dr. Oliver Post, a married gay black man and father.
“If I think about why I even got involved in this industry, it was really to combat oppression,” he told his castmate Sarah Wayne Callies during an Instagram Live interview. “I knew how I was affected by the people of color I saw on television, or that I didn’t see on television.”
“Honestly, it required me to show up fully in a way that I don’t always when I’m working,” he said of his role on “Council of Dads.” “I knew that I could not portray this gay man honestly without letting you all know that I was a gay man myself … I’ve never done that with the people that I’ve worked with.
“To me, the word ‘queer’ feels really nice,” the “Friday’ singer said. “I have dated a lot of different types of people, and I just don’t really know what the future holds. Some days, I feel a little more on the ‘gay’ side than others.”https://www.youtube.com/embed/YbNrPY-il0E
Avery Wilson
Avery Wilson, an alum of NBC’s “The Voice,” took to social media in July to share a personal message with his fans and followers: “I’m bisexual. Ok bye,” he wrote on Twitter, adding in a subsequent tweet, “From the mouth of the horse is the ultimate understanding.N
On Instagram, the singer — who competed on season 3 of the singing competition show — elaborated on his sexuality in a since-deleted post.
“In my eyes, life isn’t about being perfect. It’s about growth, evolving, setting & smashing goals and most importantly happiness and LOVE,” he wrote. “I’m all about perfecting my love of self while not being afraid to love whoever I want, however I want.”
Auli’i Cravalho
Auli’i Cravalho, star of Disney’s “Moana” and “The Little Mermaid Live,” came out as bisexual in a since-deleted video posted to her TikTok account in April.
When lip-syncing along to Eminem’s song “Those Kinda Nights,” Cravalho recited the lyrics, “’No, I’m bi.” And when one Twitter user asked the actor, “Do u like girls?” she reportedly responded, “If I may escort you to my TikTok…”
Madison Bailey
“Outer Banks” star Madison Bailey came out as pansexual in a TikTok video shared in May, later revealing she is dating Mariah Linney, a women’s basketball star at University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
In an interview with Entertainment Tonight during LGBTQ Pride Month, Bailey said being pansexual is “basically just loving people for people, regardless of gender or any type of sexuality or any type of anything.”
Joe Biden believes that every human being should be treated with respect and dignity and be able to live without fear no matter who they are or who they love. During the Obama-Biden Administration, the United States made historic strides toward LGBTQ+ equality—from the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to Biden’s historic declaration in support of marriage equality in 2012 to the unprecedented advancement of protections for LGBTQ+ Americans at the federal level.
But this fight’s not over. Donald Trump and Mike Pence have given hate against LGBTQ+ individuals safe harbor and rolled back critical protections for the LGBTQ+ community. Hate and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people started long before Trump and Pence took office. Defeating them will not solve the problem, but it is an essential first step in order to resume our march toward equality.
Anthropologist Mary Gray, who said her research focusing on queer and other underrepresented communities often was seen as a “marginal topic” in some academic circles, never thought she would have access to a grant that would give her over half a million dollars with no strings attached.
All that changed when Gray was chosen as one of this year’s MacArthur Fellows, which will provide her with a $625,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation that she can use in any way she chooses. The fellowship, commonly referred to as the MacArthur “genius grant,” counts essayist Susan Sontag, journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates, filmmaker Errol Morris and playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda among its past recipients. This year, there are 21 fellows from fields as varied as astrophysics and choreography, and each will receive the same amount of money, which will be disbursed over five years.
Gray, 51, is one of three LGBTQ MacArthur “geniuses” in the Class of 2020 who spoke with NBC News about their work, their plans for the grant money and the diversity of voices in this year’s class. She is joined by writer Jacqueline Woodson and econometrician Isaiah Andrews.
“This is for every queer kid out there,” Gray said of her selection. “The last thing I would have thought was that the work I do would be acknowledged in this way.”
Gray’s recent academic work explores how the digital economy has transformed labor, identity and human rights. Driving this research is her past research on how queer people in rural America have used the internet to form communities around their identities, which stems from her upbringing in California’s rural Central Valley. She is currently a faculty associate at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, while also maintaining faculty positions in the anthropology and gender studies departments at Indiana University.
Gray said she doesn’t know exactly how she’ll use her MacArthur grant money, but she said it will likely be used to help with her pandemic response network research, which is being run through Duke University’s health center to support the marginalized communities hit hardest by the Covid-19 health crisis.
The McArthur grant means Gray “can look at the projects I’m doing and the political activism I care about and feel like I can support that work and support myself at the same time.” She described the ability to pursue any direction she wants in her research as liberating, but also a reminder of the immense privilege being bestowed the grant means.
“If anything, it is galvanizing me to push people to think about who’s not supported right now,” she said. “This is a moment of solidarity. None of us really move forward if we’re not holding each other together and moving forward together.”
Andrews, 34, is a professor in Harvard’s economics department whose work explores new statistical methods to counter potential biases in the field of econometrics. Andrews, who is Black and gay, said it’s important for people to see people of color and LGBTQ people at the highest levels of his field.
“I hope that my getting this grant will help to demonstrate and show that there is room for success from a wide variety of folks in the economics profession,” the Massachusetts native said. “While the profession is not as diverse as it should be and has a lot of work to do, to its credit, is at least it’s trying to do some of that work.”
As he continues his research, Andrews said having a secure source of additional income for the next five years is thrilling. Like Gray, he does not have an immediate plan for what the money will be used, but he said he hopes it will put a “spotlight on the importance of thinking carefully about statistical methods” that are developed and can contain hidden biases.
Woodson, 57, said she already knows how her MacArthur grant money will be used: to expand an artist residency program she runs in Brewster, New York, for people of color, called Baldwin for the Arts. The author of numerous children’s books, a memoir and adult fiction novels, the Brooklyn resident was also one of the founding faculty members of Vermont College’s MFA in Writing for Children and Young Adults.
The goal of the residency is to give writers and visual artists a community and safe space to invest in their work and the time to grow and create. The residency was started with a grant from the Swedish government and has slowly been expanding through personal contributions by Woodson. Now, with the grant money, the long-term, expanded dreams of the residency feel closer than ever, she said.
“I learned very young what it meant to be in a space where I felt 100 percent inside my body, and be around people I didn’t have to explain to,” Woodson said. “I think that a lot of us do know what we need, but can’t even fathom it. A space like this would allow people to start thinking about the importance of self-care and this kind of attention to creation of their own art.”
President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month ignited fears of an increasingly conservative court rolling back recently gained LGBTQ rights.
Fuel was then added to the fire on Monday when two of the court’s conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, mounted a fresh attack on the landmark 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which made same-sex marriage legal across the United States.
“By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix,” Thomas, joined by Alito, wrote. “Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty.’”
“The Court could significantly water down what marriage means for LGBTQ couples across the nation to what the late, great Justice Ginsburg, called ‘skim milk marriage.'”
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN PRESIDENT ALPHONSO DAVID
The four-page statement followed the Supreme Court’s rejection of an appeal from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who made headlines after she denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the 2015 Obergefell decision. Davis, a Christian, had cited her religious beliefs, and her lawyers argued to the Supreme Court that her case came down to “whether the law forces an all-or-nothing choice between same-sex marriage on the one hand and religious liberty on the other.”
While the Court ruled unanimously against hearing her appeal on technical grounds, Thomas and Alito used the opportunity to issue a blistering critique of Obergefell, stating that Davis “may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last.”
Advocacy groups were quick to hit back at the two conservative justices, with the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay rights group, saying in a statement that Thomas and Alito had “renewed their war on LGBTQ rights and marriage equality, as the court hangs in the balance.”
During a call with reporters Monday afternoon hosted by the campaign, Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the 2015 case, called the remarks by Thomas and Alito “deeply disturbing and upsetting.”
“They signal that they are still willing to roll back progress, to rip rights away from LGBTQ+ people, and that if given the chance they would work to overturn the right to marriage that I and so many activists and advocates have fought for,” Obergefell said. “Justices Thomas and Alito seem to imply that freedom of religion carries more weight, is more important than all other rights.”
On that same call, HRC President Alphonso David, a civil rights lawyer, said the justices’ statement “made clear that the war on marriage equality against the lives of same-sex couples is alive and well.”
“This outlook and the language in the Thomas and Alito statement is doubly troubling, as the court could soon be reshaped in a more dangerous anti-LGBTQ image if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed by the United States Senate,” David said. “The Court could significantly water down what marriage means for LGBTQ couples across the nation to what the late, great Justice Ginsburg, called ‘skim milk marriage.’”
The Human Rights Campaign and other LGBTQ rights groups have been sounding the alarm over Barrett since before she was nominated on Sept. 26. The day before, the campaign warned in a statement that Barrett “would work to dismantle all that Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought for during her extraordinary career.”
The campaign included a laundry list of concerns, including Barrett’s defense of the justices who dissented in Obergefell v. Hodges, as well as her arguing, during a lecture at Jacksonville University in Florida, that reading Title IX protections to include transgender people is a “strain on the text,” and, in that same lecture, referring to trans women as “physiological males.”
That same day, Sept. 25, Lambda Legal came out against the Barrett nomination, calling it “rushed” in a statement. The organization also noted Barrett had once written a law review article arguing Supreme Court cases could be broken down into two categories: “precedent and superprecedent,” with the second representing decisions that are harder to overturn. It added that when asked by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., during her 2017 nomination hearing for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett wouldn’t answer in which category she would place the issue of marriage equality, or any other particular cases, for that matter.
Polumbo also said he believes LGBTQ rights should be gained through Congress and not through the courts.
“I don’t think that a judge has to always rule in favor of the best outcome for LGBT interests,” Polumbo told NBC News. “They have to rule with what the law says … and that’s what Amy Coney Barrett says specifically she will do.”
“She says she will not impose her personal beliefs on the law, and she will rule for the law as it is written, and I believe her because she has a track record of doing that, as do many of these conservative justices,” he added.
How safe is gay marriage?
When it comes to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown Law School, said, “There are a number of reasons why even a very conservative court is probably not going to overrule it.”
Smith successfully argued the landmark 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized same-sex sexual activity among consenting adults, striking down sodomy laws in Texas and a dozen other states. He said he’s confident we will not see a return of such laws, as even those not as explicitly anti-gay as the one at the center of Lawrence v. Texas “were just a way of regulating same-sex conduct,” which he sees both the high court and public opinion as having advanced beyond.
Smith, who said the “precedent versus superprecedent” argument is a solely political one with no real legal basis, was also quick to note, regarding the Obergefell decision, that the many same-sex married couples across the U.S. cannot be unmarried. There are currently more than a half million households made up of same-sex married couples in the country, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last month. To go back on gay marriage now, Smith said, would cause such a “political cataclysm that the court would be very reluctant to take on such an unpopular position.”
Jon Gould, a professor at Arizona State University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, agrees. He noted that polling data shows public support for same-sex marriage has continued to rise, and that the Supreme Court’s decisions on social issues tend to hew closely to public opinion.
“As much as we say, ‘They don’t consider politics,’ of course the justices consider where the public is on particular issues,” Gould said. “The polling has just moved so fast and this issue, there is no way they’re going back from that.”
According to Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted in May, 67 percent of Americans said same-sex marriage should be recognized by law as valid, matching an all-time high. When Gallup first polled Americans on the topic of gay marriage, in 1996, only 27 percent said they were in favor of it.
Gould also noted there was an increase in support for workplace protections for LGBTQ people, which the court recently ruled in favor of in June’s Bostock decision, determining that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Many were surprised when Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, voted in favor of those protections, and in fact wrote the decision.
Gould argued that many “misread Gorsuch,” whom he called “not your traditional social conservative” but rather a “libertarian conservative,” hence his decision on that case coming through a “plain reading of a statute rather than a large constitutional exercise.”
Barrett, Gould said, “is a social conservative as well as a legal conservative,” adding that he thinks Republicans “will get exactly what they bargained on with this nominee.”
LGBTQ equality vs. religious freedom
But if anti-gay laws are unlikely to make a comeback, where should gay rights activists focus their attention? The answer to that lies, at least in part, in the still fluid, and at times blurry, line between religious freedom and LGBTQ civil rights, according to Gould and Smith. They said they believe the main threat to LGBTQ rights under a more conservative court lies in religious exemptions, which Gould said could “blow a hole” in constitutional jurisprudence.
“That’s where her nomination is going to be a tipping point potentially, because there’s nothing about her that suggests that she will do anything other than advance that argument,” Gould said of Barrett.
As Lambda Legal noted in its September statement, Barrett has been a paid speaker at legal conferences hosted by the Alliance Defending Freedom. The conservative legal group, which has a long track record of opposing gay and transgender rights, has been deemed an anti-LGBTQ “hate group” by the Southern Policy Law Center, though the organization contests that characterization. Among its past cases is 2018’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, an ADF client and a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Religious exemption, Gould warned, allows “an activist court to expand the argument to more and more things that don’t seem like they are about artistic expression.”
“The very fact that that argument exists when it comes to someone’s immutable sexual orientation makes no sense,” he said.
He added that the same argument could have been applied earlier in America’s history by white supremacists in regards to interracial marriage.
Gould also said the religious freedom argument didn’t gain traction in the Davis case because “she was performing an entirely governmental function,” without any “potential First Amendment artistic argument to employ.”
Future of the high court
If confirmed by Election Day, Barrett would get to weigh in on Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case involving whether private child welfare agencies that receive taxpayer money can refuse to work with same-sex couples. How she rules there, and what arguments she uses to arrive at her decision, would offer insights into what can be expected during her time on the court, which could be decades as she is only 48.
“I would assume that she is going to be on the aggressive exemption side of those kinds of cases,” Smith said.
And while Smith posited that there might be some cause for hope on the part of LGBTQ advocates due to Gorsuch’s Bostock decision, he believes Gorsuch will likely try to distinguish between employment discrimination and issues like access to bathrooms and locker rooms, as well as participation in athletics, being decided by sex assigned at birth instead of gender identity.
Transgender rights are less well established by legal precedent, which means they are likely to be at a bigger risk of failing to advance than gay rights, Gould argued.
“The whole concept of rights are socially constructed by what people think, and the justices are following that,” Gould said. “We’re not at the point right now where trans rights are there. If we ever get to that point, you may see the court expand the rights, but we’re not, and so I just don’t see them going out on a limb for that.”
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court did rule in favor of trans worker rights, and that polling shows most Americans are opposed to discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, although there is more opposition when it comes to sexual orientation than gender identity. Polls have additionally found a growing level of support for trans rights.
Polling also shows most Americans support allowing transgender people to serve in the military. However, bathroom access based on gender identity has been a harder sell, with a slim majority opposing such policies.
The reality of a more conservative Supreme Court has led to talk of packing the court, or adding justices, if Democrats gain control of the White House and Senate. It is an idea gaining in popularity among the left in the wake of Barrett’s nomination just weeks before the 2020 election, while President Barack Obama’s 2016 nominee, Merrick Garland, never received a Senate vote, despite being nominated 10 months before that year’s presidential election.
Both Gould and Smith suggested adding justices could be a real possibility, if Biden wins the election and the Democrats take full control of Congress. “You can put this all under the heading of: You reap what you sow,” Gould said.
Many in the LGBTQ community also fear what a Barrett nomination could mean for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with a challenge to the landmark Obama-era legislation also set to come before the court in November.
The ACA has been especially important to the LGBTQ community, as it prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ people in health care and insurance coverage. Discrimination within the health care system has exacerbated disparities commonly found among minority groups, who face increased barriers to care.
Smith said if the court rules the ACA unconstitutional, he sees the odds of Democrats looking to add justices to the high court increasing to over 50/50.
Even without the possibility of court packing, Gould said he believes that even if religious exemptions are expanded at an aggressive rate, they “will exist for a couple generations, if that, and then a future court will close” the exemptions.
That, however, does not assuage the fears of today’s LGBTQ advocates, who fear the imminent reversal or watering down of recently won rights.
Sanay Martinez, a trans student from Louise, Texas, has been kicked out of her school until she abides by the male dress code.
With in-person teaching reopening for the autumn semester, Louise Independent School District prohibited Martinez from adhering to the school’s female dress code after she alerted officials that she is trans.×
Administrators told her that unless she cuts her hair, takes out her earrings, and dresses in accordance with the “male handbook”, she cannot return.
Martinez was just a typical student at who enjoyed her classes and loved spending time with her friends, but told ABC13 that the experience has made her feel almost like a pariah.
“It’s my senior year and I would love to go back to Louise ISD, but I don’t feel welcome at all,” she told the outlet.ADVERTISING
She and her close friend are even considering transferring to a school some 10 miles away in El Campo in protest. School officials sought to stress that as much as they “accept” Martinez, she must abide by their rules.
Trans teen and her best friend may have to transfer to another school due to anti-trans dress code.
The 18-year-old said: “[The school administrators] don’t have to accept it, but they should respect it”.
“They told me I can’t come back until I cut my hair and take out my piercings. And I do not like that because as a female, I should follow the female handbook and not the male handbook.”
Due to the school’s inability to respect as well accept Martinez, she and her friend Alexis Mendoza will most likely have to be transferred to El Campo High School, in the neighbouring town of El Campo.
Mendoza said: “They’re being really disrespectful. They know [Sanay] since [she] was in Pre-K.”
She said that the school was “fine” when Martinez came out as gay, “but when [she] came out as trans, that’s when everything changed.”
The superintendent of Louise Independent School District said how they “accept” and “love” Sanay, but she must follow the rules.
Martinez continued “I’m here to tell everyone, that transgender students should be allowed for their education.
“It is their rightful purpose for them to go into the school and get their education. It doesn’t matter what race, gender or sexuality.”
A fiery and unexpected statement from U.S. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Monday signaling their intent to undermine the Obergefell decision is raising questions about whether marriage rights for same-sex couples are in danger, especially with the possible addition of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The statement, which is irregular and completely voluntary, was made in response to the denial of a petition to review the case of Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who gained notoriety in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses — both to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples — based on her religious objections to Obergefell v. Hodges.
Thomas, in a statement co-signed by Alito, writes he concurs with the decision to deny review of the case, which has been percolating through the judiciary for some time, but says her request “provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell.”
“By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix,” Thomas writes. “Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty.’”
Thomas criticizes the Obergefell decision, accusing the majority of impairing religious liberty and belittling the views of objectors who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
“It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law,” Thomas said. “But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.”
The willingness of two justices to signal they would to seek overturn precedent for marriage equality five years after it was established was a shock to observers who thought the issue had been resolved. Even President Trump has said he’s “fine” with the decision and thinks the matter “settled.”
Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement the message from Thomas and Alito “proves yet again that a segment of the Court views LGBTQ rights as ‘ruinous’ and remains dead set against protecting and preserving the rights of LGBTQ
“From eliminating hospital visitation rights and medical decision-making in religiously affiliated medical centers to granting businesses a license to discriminate against LGBTQ couples, ‘skim-milk marriage’ would have a devastating effect on our community’s ability to live freely and openly,” David added, quoting a now famous quip from the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2013 during oral arguments against the Defense of Marriage Act.
Although the statement was signed by only two justices and a majority of five is needed to overturn marriage equality on the nine-member court, it raises questions about the confirmation of Barrett, whose nomination is still pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee after Trump picked her to replace progressive champion Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
If confirmed, Barrett — who’s known for having a conservative judicial philosophy —would take the place of a justice would was solidly in support of same-sex marriage, skewing the balance of the court further to the right.
David pointed out Barrett has said she openly holds the views of Antonin Scalia and Thomas and Alito “channel” the late justices with their statement.
“That fact, along with Barrett’s ties to anti-equality extremist groups who aim to criminalize LGBTQ relationships in the United States and abroad, shows that Barrett will only embolden these anti-equality extremist views on the Court,” David said, referring to Barrett admitting to having taken a fee to speak at a group associated with the anti-LGBTQ legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom.
The Washington Blade has placed a request with the White House on whether Trump thinks marriage rights for same-sex couples would be safe in the aftermath of the confirmation of Barrett to the high court.
Conservatives have already had wins on the Supreme Court with the confirmations of U.S. Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the Trump administration. Neither, however, signed the statement, nor did U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented from the Obergefell decision but has been siding with liberal justices in recent decisions.
James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union LGBT & HIV Project, said the statement from Thomas and Alito was “appalling” in the aftermath of same-sex couples having secured the right to marry and same-sex couples enjoying the right for five years.
“When you do a job on behalf of the government — as an employee or a contractor — there is no license to discriminate or turn people away because they do not meet religious criteria,” Esseks said. “Our government could not function if everyone doing the government’s business got to pick their own rules.”
Esseks continued Thomas’ statement puts into stark relief the possible consequences of the pending case before the Supreme Court of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which will decide whether a Catholic foster agency has a First Amendment right to reject same-sex parents and still obtain taxpayer funds through a government contract.
In the aftermath of Ginsburg’s death, legal observers have said the legality of religious-based refusals to LGBTQ people is the most vulnerable aspect of LGBTQ rights on the high court.
“That’s exactly what’s at stake in a case that will be argued on Nov. 4 — Fulton v. City of Philadelphia,” Esseks said. “We will fight against any attempts to open the door to legalized discrimination against LGBTQ people.”
A wedding photographer and a group of several Christian institutions filed two different lawsuits against Virginia officials Monday over a new law that bans discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
The lawyers representing the plaintiffs argue that the law violates their First Amendment rights and forces them to “abandon and adjust their convictions or pay crippling fines.”
The law, titled the Virginia Values Act, went into effect on July 1 and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in housing, public and private employment, public accommodations and access to credit. It was the first Southern state to adopt these types of protections for the LGBTQ community. Violations could be met with fines of up to $50,000.
In one lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Loudoun County wedding photographer Bob Updegrove argues that the law forces him to photograph same-sex weddings, even though he is opposed to same-sex marriage because of his faith.
Jonathan Scruggs, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ legal organization representing the plaintiffs in both cases, claims the new policy places the photographer in an impossible position between promoting “views against their faith” and violating the law.
“The government cannot demand that artists create content that violates their deepest convictions,” Scruggs said in a statement posted to the Alliance Defending Freedom’s website.
In a separate suit filed in Loudoun County Circuit Court, two churches, a religious school and a pregnancy center network claim the law will force them to hire employees who don’t share their beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity.
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that no religious organization can be required to hire someone outside their faith and they must be allowed to dismiss or hire their leaders without government interference.
“Virginia’s new law forces these ministries to abandon and adjust their convictions or pay crippling fines,” Denise Harle, another Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer, said in a statement. “Such government hostility toward people of faith has no place in a free society.”
Charlotte Gomer, a spokesperson for Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, said he was still reviewing the lawsuits and would respond in court.
“Attorney General Herring believes that every Virginian has the right to be safe and free from discrimination no matter what they look like, where they come from, or who they love,” she said in a statement. “LGBT Virginians are finally protected from housing and employment discrimination under Virginia law and Attorney General Herring looks forward to defending the Virginia Values Act in court against these attacks.”
Equality Virginia heavily advocated for the Virginia Values Act. In a statement, Executive Director Vee Lamneck pointed to the support the law garnered from a coalition of more than 140 religious leaders in 2019.
“Protecting LGBTQ Virginians from discrimination does not threaten [religious] freedom,” Lamneck said in their statement. “That’s why people of faith across the state advocated with us in support of the Virginia Values Act—because of their deep faith—not in spite of it.”
The first study of its kind found that people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or gender non-confirming are nearly four times as likely to be victims of violent crime than those outside such communities.
Although other research has long shown that LGBTQ people and gender minorities are disproportionately affected by crime, the study published in Science Advances, a multidisciplinary journal, on Friday looked at data that has only been collected since 2016, making for the first comprehensive and national study to examine the issue.
It found that members of such communities, referred to as sexual and gender minorities, experienced a rate of 71.1 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons a year, compared with 19.2 per 1,000 a year among non-sexual and gender minorities.
But it was the fact that sexual and gender minorities are victims of such a variety of crimes at such disparate rates — and who they’re victimized by — that surprised researchers, said lead author Andrew R. Flores, an assistant professor at American University.
For example, researchers found that such a population is much more likely to be victimized by someone they know well than a person who is a non-sexual and gender minority.
The fact that sexual and gender minorities are victimized by people close to them at such higher rates “does kind of raise questions hopefully future research can address about the nature of these incidents and the nature of these relationships,” Flores said.
“There are certain socializations that goes in that. I think many people are socialized and have a certain disdain for trans and queer people,” said Tori Cooper of the Human Rights Campaign, a national organization that advocates for the LGBTQ community. Cooper is the director of community engagement for the organization’s Transgender Justice Initiative.
A survey of more than 12,000 LGBTQ teens around the country released in 2018 by the Human Rights Campaign found that 67 percent report they’ve heard family members make negative comments about LGBTQ people.
Cooper said transgender people are particularly vulnerable, especially by partners or people close to them. The HRC has documented the killings of at least 29 transgender or non-gender conforming people in 2020 alone. The majority were Black and Latina transgender women.
“There’s an incalculable amount of transphobia … that plays into these relationships,” Cooper said.
The new study didn’t have a large enough sample of surveys by transgender people to come to a conclusion about their specific victimization rates, but Flores said other research has shown they are particularly vulnerable.
The study also found that sexual and gender minorities are burglarized at twice the rate of other households, and that they’re more likely to be victims of other types of property theft.
The study is based on a national crime survey conducted by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, which until 2016 had not asked respondents about their sexual orientation and gender identity. Researchers examined responses to the 2017 survey, which was released last year.
But it may be a while before researchers can look at the data in this way again. The Trump administration, without seeking public comment, announced that it was moving the sexual orientation and gender identity questions from the general demographic section of its national crime survey to a part of the survey only pertaining to victims. This will limit what researchers can learn about crime disparities because asking only victims about their sexual or gender identification makes it impossible to compare those rates of violence to the general population.
Activists have demanded that the next debate moderator grill Mike Pence on the Trump administration’s homophobia and transphobia, after LGBT+ rights went unmentioned during the first presidential debate.
The messy and hostile debate amounted to 90 minutes of insults and accusations peppered with constant interruptions from the president, who refused to abide by moderator Christ Wallace’s rules.
On October 7, the vice presidential debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris will take place, moderated by USA Today journalist Susan Page.
But activists are determined that the second debate will not overlook LGBT+ issues.ADVERTISING
In a letter to Page, 13 LGBT+ rights groups “implored” her to address queer rights, as it would “do our nation and community a disservice to exclude these issues as a part of the conversation”.
The letter from rights groups, including Human Rights Campaign, LGBTQ Victory Fund and Media Matters, said: “In the midst of this pandemic, President Trump and Vice President Pence put forward a rule limiting LGBTQ people’s access to health care by eliminating LGBTQ non-discrimination protections from the Affordable Care Act.
“Hate-fuelled violence is on the rise, and so far this year 30 transgender and gender non-conforming people have been killed, putting us on track for the deadliest year on record for the transgender community.
“A majority of those lost are Black and Latinx transgender women who live at the intersection of racism, misogyny, and transphobia — all of which have been fomented and exacerbated by Trump, Pence, and their allies.
“LGBTQ children are dealing with higher instances of bullying in schools, all while Secretary DeVos offers fewer methods of recourse against those bullies.”
Voters, of whom one in 10 identify as LGBT+ according to recent data from NBC, need to be aware of the anti-LGBT+ views held by Pence and the wider Trump administration, the letter insisted.
“Vice president Mike Pence and senator Kamala Harris have deeply divergent records on equality that should be highlighted for Americans… In 2016, presidential and vice-presidential debate moderators did not ask candidates a single question about LGBTQ issues across four debates.
“You have the opportunity to change that and address the issues our community faces in this trying time.”