A family in Charleston, South Carolina, said their rainbow pride flag was torn down from the front of their house and burned in their driveway last weekend.
“We were taken aback and thought, ‘Wow, somebody must be really bothered by this to go to this end here to do this.’ But we called the police to let them know about it,” the homeowner, who lives with his wife and three young children, told NBC News.
“There’s people on our street that have South Carolina flags, United States flags, different college flags, garden flags … obviously the rainbow is what attracted them to ours,” the homeowner, who asked that his name not be printed to protect his family’s safety and privacy, added. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the people who did this didn’t even know who we were or who lived in the home, that it was just the fact that it was a rainbow flag, and they didn’t agree with that.”
After news of the incident spread, a local LGBTQ advocacy group, Alliance for Full Acceptance, started to offer free LGBTQ pride flags to any residents or businesses in the city seeking to “display a flag in solidarity with the affected family and LGBTQ community.”
“So far, we’ve had 200 requests for flags, and we have given so far somewhere between 80 or 90 out,” the group’s executive director, Chase Glenn, said. “It’s really incredible to see the community rally around these folks and the LGBTQ community as a whole.”
Charles Francis, a spokesperson with the Charleston Police Department, confirmed that the homeowners had filed a police report. Francis said the investigation is ongoing, and no suspects have yet been identified.
If investigators conclude the incident is a hate crime, any suspects could be charged under Charleston’s new hate crime ordinance, which was passed in November of last year.
“This is the first test of that,” Glenn said of the new ordinance. “We have a great relationship with the police and, thankfully, they are taking this seriously.”
Even though the homeowners are a heterosexual couple, Glenn stressed that the ordinance punishes those who have the intent to intimidate another person because of their “perceived” sexual orientation or gender identity.
“We want our community to feel safe, and incidents like this don’t help grow that sense of safety,” Glenn said.
As for the homeowner, he said he and his family “are definitely going to get another flag and put it back up there.”
“We hope that all the folks who have been very supportive, who have said kind things to us, we hope if they do feel that way that they do the same and show that support with action and fly a flag themselves,” he said. “I think that would send a strong message to whoever the haters are out there that those views are not shared here, and that those opinions are not those of the majority.”
Philadelphia can exclude a Catholic foster care agency from a program for placing children with foster families because it refuses to work with same-sex couples, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday.
In a 3-0 decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Catholic Social Services failed to show that the placement freeze amounted to religious persecution or bias, violating its First Amendment rights to free speech and religious freedom.
Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro said Philadelphia was trying merely to stop what it considered a “clear violation” of a city anti-discrimination law covering sexual orientation, making a preliminary injunction inappropriate.
“The question in our case is … whether CSS was treated differently because of its religious beliefs,” Ambro wrote. “Based on the record before us, that question has a clear answer: no.”
Catholic Social Services is part of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
Lori Windham, a lawyer from the Becket nonprofit representing the agency, called the decision “devastating” to hundreds of foster children waiting for placements and parents waiting to foster a child. “We will continue this fight.”
Jim Kenney, Philadelphia’s mayor, welcomed the decision.
“Philadelphia is a welcoming, inclusive city that values the diversity of its residents,” Kenney said in a statement. “This policy is the embodiment of those values.”
The case reflects persistent tensions in the United States between advocates for religious groups seeking exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, and civil rights advocates who call exemptions a license to discriminate.
Ten U.S. states let state-licensed child welfare agencies refuse placements and services that conflict with their religious beliefs, according to the nonprofit Movement Advancement Project. (here)
The Philadelphia dispute arose in March 2018 when the city suspended referrals after a newspaper report about Catholic Social Services’ policy of turning away same-sex couples.
U.S. District Judge Petrese Tucker in Philadelphia refused last July to issue an injunction.
The next month, U.S. Supreme Court without explanation denied the agency’s request to intervene, after Catholic Social Services warned that a freeze threatened its closure.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, all from the Court’s conservative wing, said they would have granted the agency’s request.
The agency drew support for Monday’s appeal from Texas and seven other Republican-led states, and from 42 Republican lawmakers including Senator Ted Cruz and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise.
Massachusetts and 16 other mostly Democratic-led states, as well as Washington, D.C., supported Philadelphia.
The case is Fulton v. Philadelphia et al, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-2574.
The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether existing federal law prohibits anti-LGBT discrimination will have “no impact” on the advancement of legislation seeking to ban it explicitly under federal law, a spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday.
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said via email in response to an inquiry from the Washington Blade the Supreme Court decision will have “no impact” on the legislative process for the Equality Act, which he said is set for floor vote in the U.S. House in May.
“I would just make the point that House passage sends a strong message to SCOTUS,” Hammill said.
Introduced by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I. and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act to ban anti-LGBT discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, jury service, education, federal programs and credit.
The bill also seeks to update federal law to include sex in the list of protected classes in public accommodation in addition to expanding the definition of public accommodations to include retail stores, banks, transportation services and health care services. Further, the Equality Act would establish that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — a 1994 law aimed at protecting religious liberty — can’t be used to enable anti-LGBT discrimination.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari for three petitions seeking clarification on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex in employment, applies to cases of anti-LGBT discrimination.
Although the ruling on its face will determine whether anti-LGBT discrimination is prohibited under employment non-discrimination law, it will also impact other non-discrimination laws that bar discrimination on the basis of sex, such as the Fair Housing Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. (No federal law, however, bars discrimination on the basis of sex in public accommodations.)
As such, a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court for LGBT workers would affirm non-discrimination protections for LGBT people in many aspects of civil rights law, but only the Equality Act would affirm non-discrimination protections for LGBT people with respect to public accommodations.
Conversely, a ruling from the Supreme Court rejecting LGBT protections under Title VII would mean no federal protections exist, making the Equality Act necessary for any LGBT protections under federal law.
The Supreme Court is unlikely to issue a ruling on Title VII until the end of its next term in June 2020. If the House approves the Equality Act (which is almost certain given the Democratic majority and number of co-sponsors to the bill), the legislation could in theory become law as at sooner time, but that’s unlikely with Republicans in control of the Senate and President Trump in the White House.
Nevada has become the 10th state to permit gender-neutral IDs for transgender, nonbinary and intersex residents.
Starting Monday, residents of the Silver State can obtain “X” gender markers on driver’s licenses and state ID cards, in addition to the traditional “M” and “F” markers for male and female.
According to Alexandra Walden, public information officer at the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, the efforts have been years in the making.
“The Nevada DMV staff have been working diligently for quite some time in order to offer the nonbinary or ‘gender X’ option to Nevadans,” Walden told NBC News in a statement.
The new state IDs come on the heels of a progressive policy change last June that allowed applicants to update their ID gender markerwithout a court order, doctor’s note or corrected birth certificate proving their lived gender identity. That policy of allowing trans people to effectively self-identify their gender now applies to those seeking “X” gender markers, as Walden confirmed.
The changes are the result of the efforts of advocacy and education organization Transgender Allies Group, which asked the DMV to consider a series of policy updates around IDs for trans people.
“Up until recently, the gender binary was the norm throughout our society,” Brooke Maylath, the group’s president, said. “That leaves a lot of people out. You want an identification system that is authentic on a bureaucracy point, but also is flexible enough that it allows people to tell the bureaucracy who you are.”
Since Nevada first added gender identity to a list of protected categories in employment discrimination back in 2011, the state’s DMV said it has been working diligently to expand the means by which trans and nonbinary identities can be fully recognized.
In 2016, the Nevada Department of Public and Behavioral Health announced it would begin allowing transgender people to update their birth certificates from male to female or vice versa by submitting a sworn affidavit testifying to their gender identity — waiving the surgical requirement common in other states. It could also be written on their behalf by someone who knows them.
“We had intended all along to add the gender marker X, but it was a matter of computer programming,” Kevin Malone, DMV public information officer, said.
Prior to Monday’s rollout, DMVs across the state were sent a memo on the new policy. The instructions reminded government employees who issue licenses and IDs that gender and sex are protected classes under Nevada law “but also a personal choice.”
“It is not the responsibility of the DMV to question an applicant’s gender choice,” it states. “As we all know, we cannot assume a person’s gender based on a person’s appearance.”
Ray Mcfarlane, the transgender and gender diversity program manager at the LGBTQ community space The Center in Las Vegas, said Nevada’s new ID policy should serve as a “model for the rest of the country.” By lifting the requirement of a court order or birth certificate, Mcfarlane noted, it ensures that trans and nonbinary people are able to access affirming documentation without a costly and time-consuming legal process.
“All states should let people self-identify,” Mcfarlane said. “The process should be accessible. It should be easy. It should be low cost.”
Of the nine other states and Washington, D.C., that permit a third gender option on state IDs and driver’s licenses, only Oregon and the District of Columbia allow applicants to self-identify their gender. Mcfarlane said it costs about $270 to obtain a court order, an often prohibitive expense.
Trans individuals are twice as likely as the average American to live in poverty, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality. Easing the burden of updating their IDs will help trans and nonbinary people navigate the process of correcting all their documentation. The center’s 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found that only 11 percent of respondents had their preferred name and gender on all of their IDs.
“Being able to change the gender marker on your ID is one of the most accessible first steps that people can advocate for themselves,” Mcfarlane claimed. “Depending on where your birth certificate is, that costs more and takes longer. Sometimes the paperwork is across state lines.”
Jane Heenan, the founder and clinical director for Gender Justice Nevada, suggested the state could further simplify the gender-marker process by removing gender from IDs and driver’s licenses altogether.
“While I do intend to go and have my license changed to reflect this new designation, I wonder what the state’s interest is in labeling anybody in a sex and gender context on identity documents,” Heenan told NBC News. “I don’t understand the state’s interest in doing so. It wasn’t that long ago that the state required persons to list an ethnic label on driver’s licenses.”
Walden said the state has to keep gender markers on IDs due to federal requirements, but otherwise agrees with Heenan. But until those requirements are waived, she explained, “Whatever they put on the paper is what we put in the system.”
“Truthfully, why make it difficult?” Walden asked. “Who are we to stand in the way?”
Nevada now joins D.C., Arkansas, California, Colorado, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Utah and Vermont in permitting gender-neutral driver’s licenses and other state IDs (Vermont’s policy will roll out this summer). Gender-neutral birth certificates are now permitted in New York City and several states, including California, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and Nevada.
LGBT rights groups and the Department of Health & Human Services are clashing over the proposed elimination of questions seeking to identify the sexual orientation of youth in foster care, which the Trump administration concluded could be “intrusive and worrisome.”
Julie Kruse, director of federal policy at the pro-LGBT Family Equality Council, said in a statement the planned removal from HHS is an “abdication of its statutory responsibilities to promote the safety, well-being, and permanency of foster youth, including those who are LGBTQ.”
“States, tribes and agencies cannot improve care and outcomes for youth if they do not have data to measure their efforts,” Kruse said.
The Family Equality Council statement was backed by 48 pro-LGBT groups, including Athlete Ally, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Lambda Legal, the Los Angeles LGBT Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, said in a separate statement the removal is the “Trump-Pence administration’s latest assault on the LGBTQ community.”
“LGBTQ youth are tragically overrepresented in foster care, and this attempt to erase them and important data on adoptive and foster parents undermines efforts to address the marginalization, harassment and discrimination that LGBTQ youth in foster care and families face,” Stacy added. “It’s crucial that fair-minded voices speak out now and demand that HHS reject this proposed rule change.”
The proposed rule — published Friday in the Federal Register — seeks to roll back data collection requirements for the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis & Reporting System, or AFCARS, which is charged with collecting case-level information from state and tribal agencies on all children in foster care.
According to the HHS website, examples of data reported in AFCARS include “demographic information on the foster child as well as the foster and adoptive parents, the number of removal episodes a child has experienced, the number of placements in the current removal episode and the current placement setting.”
Federally funded child welfare agencies are required to submit the AFCARS data twice a year based on two 6-month reporting periods.
In 2016 during the final month of the Obama administration, HHS issued a rule that expanded the data collection requirements for children in foster care, including instituting a requirement for case workers to ask youths questions about their sexual orientation. (A question on gender identity wasn’t instituted as part of the 2016 rule.)
According to HHS, the questions on sexual orientation were instituted because they were thought to “yield important national information” not found in other national data collection initiatives.
But after soliciting states a year ago for follow-up input on the rule, the Trump administration has proposed streamlining that regulation by, among other things, cutting the sexual orientation questions. According to HHS, one-third of states “expressed concerns with the data elements around sexual orientation and recommended they be removed.”
“States commented that if this information is important to decisions affecting the child, the information will be in the case file; however, when it is not pertinent, states said that asking for sexual orientation may be perceived as intrusive and worrisome to those who have experienced trauma and discrimination as a result of gender identity or sexual orientation,” the proposed rule says. “This would be a mandatory conversation a worker must have in order to complete the data elements. Mandating such a conversation may be contraindicated based on a child’s history of abuse or neglect.”
The HHS proposal cites a 2014 report from the Obama administration’s Office of Management & Budget on the inclusion of LGBT-related questions in federal surveys, citing concerns about the age of the individuals asked about the sexual orientation, adolescents using different terms to describe their sexual identity, potential bullying as well as regional and racial/ethnic considerations.
“As a result of our review of the OMB document, in particular, taking into consideration the need to validate questions related to sexual orientation and ensure responses about sexual orientation, especially with adolescents, are private, anonymous, and confidential, it is clear that AFCARS is not the appropriate vehicle to collect this information,” the proposed rule concludes.
The proposed rule also cites concerns about the confidentiality of the answers to the questions because a case worker would be required to enter that information into a child’s record, and that could be disclosed to courts and providers under certain circumstances.
Further, the rule notes there is no statutory requirement for case workers to ask youths about their sexual orientation as part of the national administrative data set.
A spokesperson for the Children’s Bureau at the HHS Administration for Children & Families expanded on those points in defense of the proposed rule change, emphasizing 36 states expressed concerns about the current rule.
“One year ago, ACF published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit comments on the more than 150 additional required data elements, costs to implement and burden hours to implement the final rule for child welfare agencies,” the spokesperson said. “In response, 36 states indicated that the burden the rule imposes will impede their ability to serve vulnerable children and families.”
The proposed rule change, the spokesperson said, would be beneficial to children in the child welfare system, not detrimental.
“The modifications in the proposed rule would allow state and tribal child welfare agencies to focus more of their time and resources on child welfare — from prevention to foster care services to adoption and guardianship — and less on unnecessary data collection and paperwork,” the spokesperson said.
LGBT rights groups, however, pushed back on the notion the questions on sexual orientation for foster youths were inappropriate, citing other instances in which federal agencies seek to obtain this information.
Kruse said the child welfare profession “has acknowledged the importance of collecting sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”) information about children” in foster care and said “many public agencies already collect SOGI information on youth.”
“Sexual orientation questions have been included on school-based surveys of adolescents since the mid-1980s through versions of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (as noted in Children’s Bureau comments to the Final Rule) and SOGI information is collected by many health care providers,” Kruse said. “Researchers have surveyed LGBTQ youth in the juvenile justice system, significantly increasing the profession’s understanding of the disproportionate numbers of LGBTQ youth in detention, as well as differences in offense and detention patterns.”
Ellen Kahn, the director of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Children, Youth & Families Program, told the Washington Blade in an interview that case workers who collect data on children in foster care “have always collected information that is highly personal, private, confidential.”
“We’re talking about information like sexual abuse background, do they have mental health diagnoses, what medications do they take, things that are very sensitive things to be on a record,” Kahn said. “And so, folks in child welfare are used to and charged with collecting and holding and very appropriately utilizing data about children. Sexual orientation in that mix should not be handled any differently than the sort of sensitive information they, for decades, have been collecting and managing about children in care, so that, I think, is a stretch to say you’re asking them to do something different or new.”
Although the proposed rule seeks to eliminate the questions on sexual orientation in foster care as a whole, it does seek to keep in place that question for families on whether there was any conflict based on the sexual orientation of a child in the event of a removal.
“This means that agencies will report whether this was a circumstance surrounding the child at removal,” the rule says. “This is different than asking for someone’s sexual orientation because the information would be gathered during the course of the investigation that resulted in the child’s removal from the home and documented in the case record.”
Although Kahn said that component of data collection is “really important,” she added having a “full picture” of LGBT youth in foster care is also essential.
“For that particular data collection, if you are asking a parent or parents if the child’s gender expression or sexual attraction was a factor, whether you’re going to get an answer or correct answer, I think there’s a lot of concern about that,” Kahn said.
According to data from the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, 12.9 percent of LGBTQ youth report being treated poorly by the foster care system compared to 5.8% of non-LGBTQ youth. LGBT foster youth also suffer worse outcomes in foster care than their non-LGBT kids, such as multiple placements, longer stays in residential care, and greater rates of hospitalization for emotional reasons, homelessness and criminal justice involvement.
The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal. If the administration deems the measure appropriate, the rule will then become final after an unspecified amount of time passes.
The Supreme Court on Monday took up job discrimination cases that could for the first time resolve at a national level whether lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers can be fired based on their identity.
The cases come as federal courts as well as independent agencies within the Trump administration remain divided over whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on “sex,” prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
There is no national law that explicitly bars discrimination on those grounds. State and local laws barring such discrimination do exist. About half of the country’s LGBT population lives in states that allow employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, according to MAP, an LGBT advocacy think tank.
The Department of Health and Human Services announced this week that it intends to ax an Obama-era measure that called for data collection on LGBTQ foster youth and parents.
The data included the sexual orientation and gender identity of youth in foster care, along with their foster parents, adoptive parents or legal guardians.
The stated goal of the rule, adopted in December 2016, at the end of the Obama administration, was “to help meet the needs of LGBTQ youth in foster care.”
The Trump administration delayed its implementation and is now proposing to remove the LGBTQ data elements entirely.
“While we understand the importance of collecting sexual orientation data … we must balance this with the need to collect accurate data per the statue and in a manner that is consistent with children’s treatment needs,” the department said.N
A third of states have asked that the requirement be dropped over concerns that collecting data on sexual orientation may be perceived as “intrusive and worrisome to those who have experienced trauma and discrimination as a result of gender identity or sexual orientation,” HHS said.
The proposed rule reversal has raised concerns among many LGBTQ and child welfare advocates who say that current data collection practices leave them in the dark about how many LGBTQ youth there are in care and what unique obstacles they may face.
“Identifying those youth and being able to capture the disparity between non-LGBTQ youth and LGBTQ youth helps states and tribes to understand what their experiences are and be able to devise implement and deploy best practices,” Denise Brogan-Kator, chief policy officer at the LGBTQ advocacy group Family Equality Council, told NBC news.
In a 2014 study funded by HHS, researchers determined that one in five youth in foster care identified as LGBTQ, and they were twice as likely to suffer negative outcomes while in care.
“We knew it anecdotally, but we didn’t have the data to back it up,” Brogan-Kator said of the study’s findings. She added that systematic collection of such data is necessary to improve outcomes for LGBTQ children in care.
“We need to understand why and where those negative experiences occur and where they don’t,” Brogan-Kator added.
More than 40 child welfare organizations have already publicly opposed the rule change, which must go through a public comment period.
Christina Wilson Remlin, lead counsel at Children’s Rights, a nonprofit that has publicly opposed the rule reversal, said HSS was failing in its duty to protect children in state care by proposing to stop collecting data on LGBTQ foster youth and prospective parents.
“Many of these children have already been rejected by their families of origin,” she said. “We should do everything we can to provide them with safe and loving homes, including recruitment of diverse and affirming foster families.”
Remlin said collecting data on sexual orientation and gender identity is a “critical step toward addressing the needs” of LGBTQ youth and crucial to “holding government agencies accountable.”
“To stop collecting data on LGBTQ foster youth would only serve to render this vulnerable population invisible,” she added.
An official from the HHS Children’s Bureau said the Obama-era rule would have “drastically expanded unnecessary data elements required to be reported by child welfare agencies.”
“The modifications in the proposed rule would allow state and tribal child welfare agencies to focus more of their time and resources on child welfare — from prevention to foster care services to adoption and guardianship — and less on unnecessary data collection and paperwork,” the official said.
Brogan-Kator disagreed.
“It costs states and tribes so much more to deal with the negative outcomes when these youth experience homeless and incarceration,” Brogan-Kator said. “These kinds of burdens are significant. Reducing that will more than offset any extended costs there might be around it.”
This is not the only LGBTQ data the Trump administration is seeking to reverse course on. In 2017, the HHS removed questions about LGBTQ seniors from its annual survey of older Americans. A week later, the administration announced it would not collect information on LGBTQ identification on the 2020 census. And last year, the Department of Justice moved to scrap questions relating to sexual orientation and gender identity on its National Crime Victimization Survey.
A Mississippi man’s jaw was broken in two places during a brutal beating because his attackers thought he was gay, according to his family.
Trevor Gray’s jaw was wired shut after the horrifying attack in Waynesboro, Mississippi, on April 12.
According to the Clarion-Ledger, Gray met alleged attackers Landon McCaa and Toman Sion Brown at a local bar.
Mississippi man attacked ‘because he was different’
Gray was part of a group that went on to continue drinking at McCaa’s home when the bar closed, but some of the men turned on Gray and decided to attack him.
A video of the attack filmed on a mobile phone was circulated on social media, showing what appears to be McCaa repeatedly punching Gray.
The victim’s brother Cruz Gray alleged that the attack was motivated by sexuality, noting that Brown called him a “queer” during the beating.
He told the newspaper: “This was an act of cruelty for no reason, because he was different.
“He’s not gay, but it wouldn’t matter if he were. No one deserves for this to happen to them.”
McCaa and Brown have been charged with aggravated assault, but Wayne County Sheriff Jody Ashley told the Clarion-Ledger that they could also face a federal hate crime charge.
Thousands raised to cover medical expenses
The community has rallied round Gray in the wake of the attack, with a GoFundMe set up to cover his medical expenses raising more than $14,000.
One donor said: “Not only is this such a dastardly deed, I have a son who is gay and I’m donating to show my unconditional love and support for him as well as Trevor. God holds all of His children in his love.”
Another added: “You did not deserve this, and there are people that you may never meet that love you and are praying for your physical and emotional health following this horrific attack. I am one of those people.”
In a statement to the newspaper, Trevor Gray said: “For as long as I can remember, my family has taught me to see the best in others.
“My peace in this situation comes from that. So, for those wondering, I’m not angry or vengeful; I’m not sad. I’m optimistic. The events of that night are small when weighed against the incredible amount of love and support people have shown me.
“My mouth will be wired up for the next several weeks, so if you see me and I don’t smile, know that I’m smiling on the inside. Most importantly, believe in the good, give someone a hug, and stay positive.”
The collection includes a number of LGBT icons, including trans actress Indya Mooreand the lawyers who helped decriminalise homosexuality in India.
The list also includes homophobic Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro. The Latin American leader is described by TIME as a “poster boy for toxic masculinity… intent on waging a culture war and perhaps reversing Brazil’s progress on tackling climate change.”
Janet Mock, the first trans woman of colour to write and direct for television, profiles Indya Moore who stars in Pose.
Mock wrote in TIME Magazine: “Writing her character Angel proved healing for me as a trans woman who had walked in those same platform shoes, longing for more than the crumbs society had thrown girls like us. But a greater gift has been watching Indya rise from an adolescence navigating foster care in the Bronx to critical acclaim as an actress and model using her voice to center the marginalized communities she comes from.”
TIME 100 picks Lawyers Arundhati Katju and Menaka Guruswamy
The list also includes Indian lawyers Arundhati Katju and Menaka Guruswamy, who helped orchestrate the overturning of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The colonial-era law criminalised homosexual sex in India for 157 years.
The landmark judgment was the outcome of a long-term campaign organised by Katju and Guruswamy.
Their listing was written by Priyanka Chopra, who wrote: “The LGBTQ+ community has battled on both legal and social fronts for decades—for their fundamental rights, for privacy, for dignity, for safety and for love.”
“That is one of his great and seductive charms: the wonderful childlike enthusiasm he possesses. His sense of adventure and exploration, a boundless imagination, a brilliant mind and a wicked sense of humor,”
“He is a born storyteller, and, like the best of them, he is constantly pushing the limits. I have often marveled at his uncanny ability at capturing the zeitgeist,” Lange wrote.
Noteworthy queer allies
Lady Gaga also made the 2019 influencer list and Celine Dion wrote about her activism. “Whether it’s her unstoppable support for the LGBTQ community, or her anti-bullying campaigning, Lady Gaga’s voice is being heard where it really counts,” Dion said.
Queer icon Troye Sivan wrote about his friend Ariana Grande. “Her love of her fans and of music guide her every move. But my favorite moments with Ari are the quieter ones. When I, like so many, have been inspired by that resilience, love, care and heart in someone I’m lucky to call my friend,” Sivan said.
Taylor Swift also made the list. Shawn Mendes wrote about Swift and said: “I’ve been a Taylor Swift fan for as long as I can remember. But it wasn’t until I met and got to know her that I understood how wonderful a person she truly is.”
Sandra Oh, who stars in popular crime series Killing Eve is also listed, as well as singer Khalid who featured on the soundtrack for the gay romantic comedy Love, Simon.
A 29-year-old LGBTI journalist has been murdered while reporting on ‘dissident republican activity’ in Londonderry, Northern Ireland.
A masked gunman allegedly shot Lyra McKee to death while she covered riots in Londonderry – also known as Derry – on Thursday (18 April).
Police said a group known as the New IRA ‘are likely to be the ones behind this’.
Cell phone footage shows a masked gunman crouching down and opening fire with a handgun at about 11pm. McKee was wounded as she stood by a police SUV according to police.
‘A single gunman fired shots in a residential area of the city and as a result wounded Ms McKee. Officers quickly administered first aid before transporting her in the back of a landrover to hospital,’ said Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton.
‘Tragically she died from her injuries. At this stage we believe her murder was carried out by a violent dissident republican.’
Hamilton appealed for witnesses to share information with police.
Assistant Chief Constable for District Policing Mark Hamilton | Photo: PSNI
Not long before her murder, McKee tweeted a photo of the riots with the caption ‘Derry tonight. Absolute madness’.View image on Twitter
McKee lived in Belfast where she edited media trade publication, Mediagazer. Forbes named her on its 30 under 30 in media list in 2016.
She had published a non-fiction novella about The Troubles in Northern Ireland called Angels with Blue Faces. Publishing house Faber & Faber had also given her a two-book deal, of which the first book The Lost Boys was due for release next year.
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) described McKee as ‘one of the most promising journalists’ in Northern Ireland.
Hundreds of people have paid tribute to Mckee, including British Prime Minister Theresa May who said she ‘died doing her job with great courage’.
New IRA
Police reported an increased in ‘dissident republican activity’. Officer carried out a raid at Londonderry’s Creggan estate on Thursday night looking for weapons.
Law enforcement thought the estate to be a hotspot for the New IRA and police worried about violence breaking out to mark the anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising.
Police blamed the New IRA for McKee’s murder and a for bomb attack at the Derry City Courthouse last year.
Violence against journalists on the increase
McKee’s has become the 7th journalist murdered while doing their job in 2019 and the first in the UK. This comes off the back that 2018 was one of the deadliest ever for journalists according to Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
Before her death McKee was actually due to speak at a World Press Freedom Day event for Amnesty International.
‘Lyra was a great young journalist, whose commitment to truth was absolute and whose laughter could light up a room,’ said Patrick Corrigan, Northern Ireland programme director of Amnesty International.
‘The bitter irony was that Lyra was due to speak at an Amnesty International event at the Queen’s Film Theatre in Belfast on 4 May about the dangers of reporting violent conflicts.’
Corrigan went on to say ‘journalists put themselves on the frontline in the battle for truth every single day’.
‘Every day, it becomes more dangerous for reporters to do their job on behalf of us all,’ he said.
‘Lyra McKee was one of those courageous seekers after truth, with a life ahead of her and so much to give.’