Republicans in the House of Representatives introduced legislation based on a right-wing conspiracy theory and proposed what critics are calling a federal “don’t say gay” bill.
The bill prohibits using federal funds for programs or events that contain “sexually-oriented material” geared toward children under 10, such as drag queen story hours, which have attracted the attention of conservative politicians and right-wing activists. On Tuesday, Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson introduced the bill with more than 30 House Republican co-sponsors.
The introduction of this legislation is a reaction to far-right conservative outrage over innocuous drag performances that have included the presence of children at family-friendly drag events. An online video of a child attending a drag brunch at a Miami restaurant was widely circulated among right-wing Twitter users in July, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis filed a federal complaint against the restaurant in which he cited a 1947 state Supreme Court ruling that “men impersonating women” constitutes a public nuisance, The Hillreports.
The outlet notes that Johnson’s proposal, the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act, says government agencies on the federal and state level, including the Department of Defense, have used federal funds in the past to promote and host “sexually-oriented events” like drag queen story hours for children.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio in May obsessed about a drag queen story hour event scheduled at a U.S. military base in Ramstein, Germany, and pushed to have the military cancel it. He also included drag panic in one of his campaign commercials recently, leading to drag queen Lil Miss Hot Mess and GLAAD asking why the Republican lawmaker is so obsessed with drag queens.
In a move that harkens back to the 1984 movie Footloose, when Kevin Bacon’s character discovers a small midwestern town in which dancing was made illegal, Republicans once again prove that life imitates art.
Specifically, the legislation prohibits taxpayer dollars from funding programs, events, or literature that expose children younger than ten to “lewd or lascivious dancing.”
Although children in the United States are not being exposed to inappropriate sexual behavior, nor are they being sexualized — in fact, a GLSEN study released Tuesday shows that most kids don’t even learn about LGBTQ+ topics in school — the bill reveals its actual bigotry within its text.
It defines “sexually-oriented material” as images, descriptions, and simulations of sexual acts, genitalia, or “any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”
Harvard’s Cyber Law Clinic instructor Alejandra Caraballo described the bill as a federal version of Florida Gov. Ron Desantis’s “don’t say gay” law.
“Universities, public schools, hospitals, medical clinics, etc. could all be defunded if they host any event discussing LGBTQ people and children could be present,” she wrote on Twitter. “The way they define “sexually oriented material” simply includes anything about LGBTQ people.”
Caraballo warns that one enforcement mechanism in the bill is similar to Texas’ SB8, which made ordinary citizens bounty hunters if they suspected a person was involved with an abortion.
“It includes a private right of action against any government official AND private entity for a violation,” she writes. “This is SB8 style bounty lawsuits against anyone accepting federal funds. This will be a ban on all discussion of LGBTQ people in any entity that received federal funds.”
Gerald Bostock – the namesake for the 2020 historic Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. ClaytonCounty that made anti-LGBTQ discrimination illegal in the workplace – has finally settled his own discrimination lawsuit.
Bostock spent over ten years working for Clayton County, Georgia as an advocate for victims of child abuse and neglect. He was abruptly fired in 2013, six months after he joined a gay softball league and subsequently endured homophobic comments from colleagues. When he was let go, his employer cited “conduct unbecoming a county employee” as the reason. Bostock believes his termination was directly related to his sexual orientation.
In conjunction with two others, Bostock’s case led the Supreme Court to declare that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which bans workplace discrimination on the basis of sex – applies to LGBTQ people.
That victory, however, did not mean Bostock’s personal case against Clayton County was over. Once the Supreme Court declared anti-LGBTQ discrimination against employees to be illegal, he then had to go back to court to determine whether or not he was actually the victim of it.
The case was settled on October 5, according to court documents obtained by Law & Crime, though the terms of the settlement are not yet public.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County has already had significant ripple effects.
In its wake, President Biden signed two executive orders that said federal agencies should “fully implement” the decision by applying the reasoning that anti-LGBTQ discrimination inherently involves sex discrimination.
His actions included Title IX’s protections in education. The decision has been used to protect LGBTQ students in court.
Famed trans activist Gavin Grimm, for example, won in federal court against a Virginia school district that banned him from the boys’ bathroom. The court said that based on the reasoning in Bostock, the school was in violation of Title IX.
Also using Bostock, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in 2020 that another transgender boy, Drew Adams, had to be allowed to use boys’ restrooms.
Another federal judge cited Bostock when blocking a Trump administration rule that would have made it easier for medical professionals to claim a religious exemption and refuse to treat transgender people.
And this year, out Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), and the ACLU cited Bostock in their case before the Michigan Supreme Court which led to the decision that businesses, landlords, and others cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity, even though the state’s civil rights legislation doesn’t specifically mention those categories.
A major policy change from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) allows certain same-sex spouses of veterans to qualify for survivor benefits.
The VA requires couples to be married for one year for surviving spouses to qualify for survivor benefits and eight years for a higher rate of benefits.
Prior to the policy change, which was announced last week, many surviving spouses of LGBTQ veterans did not meet those requirements due to bans on same-sex marriages prior to the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S.
According to the VA, “This wrongly precluded many survivors of those LGBTQ+ Veterans from becoming eligible for survivor benefits because their Veteran spouse died before the marriage met VA’s length-of-marriage requirements.”
Under the new policy, the VA will now count the duration of those same-sex marriages from the point at which the surviving spouse can establish a “marriage-type” relationship. Commitment ceremonies, joint banking accounts, or joint purchase of a home all qualify as proof of a “marriage-type” relationship.
According to Military.com, anyone who applies within the next year will get benefits backdated to October 11, 2022, but the benefits are not retroactive beyond that.
“VA is closing a gap in benefits for surviving spouses of LGBTQ+ Veterans, righting a wrong that is a legacy of the discriminatory federal ban on same-sex marriages,” Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough in the announcement. “It is VA’s mission to serve all veterans — including LGTBQ+ veterans — as well as they’ve served our country, and this decision is a key part of that effort.”
In July, 41 senate Democrats sent a letter to McDonough calling on the VA to ensure that same-sex spouses who were unable to marry before the Obergefell decision would be eligible for survivor benefits.
“It’s unacceptable to me that surviving partners of veterans have been denied the VA care, benefits, and services they deserve because they did not have the right to marry,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said in a statement following the announcement of the policy change. “I’ve been fighting for years to tear down barriers like these for our veterans, and I’m glad VA took this important step — but our work is not done.”
Lawyers for Larry Vilord, who appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims last year after being denied enhanced survivor benefits given to those married at least eight years, said that the VA’s announcement left open questions and that the lack of retroactivity leaves out same-sex survivors who were never legally married.
“We are particularly concerned about LGBTQ+ survivors establishing ‘marriage-like’ relationships if they were never allowed to marry in the first place,” said Harvard Law School’s Veterans Legal Clinic staff attorney Peter Perkowski.
Last week’s policy change follows the VA’s announcement last year that veterans given other-than-honorable discharges due to their sexual orientation under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be eligible to receive full benefits.
In three weeks, voters across the country will cast their ballots in congressional, mayoral, and local elections. For many candidates, housing issues form a crux of their campaign platforms, tapping into their constituents’ frustrations from lack of affordable housing and skyrocketing rents.
According to a 2020 report conducted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, every $100 increase in median rent is associated with a 9% increase in the estimated homelessness rate. This situation disproportionately affects the LGBTQ community, in which 17% of queer adults have experienced lifetime homelessness, more than twice what was found in a general population study.
ADVERTISING
“In Los Angeles, the biggest factor for people becoming homeless is the cost of rent,” said Hugo Soto-Martínez, an LA City Council candidate whose district includes the Eastside queer enclave of Silver Lake “A full 60% of people who cite the reason for becoming homeless is because they can’t afford rent. So it’s a huge issue. Silverlake is traditionally one of the most gay-friendly neighborhoods in the city of Los Angeles. So that’s also pushing out a very vibrant community that has been there for many years.”
Hugo is one of the many local politicians that support rent control policies, which cap annual rent increases by a fixed percentage. LA County is protected by the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), which sets maximum rent increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The theory behind this policy is that limiting the rate of rent increases will keep housing affordable and reduce people from being priced out of their homes.
Unfortunately, rent control in Los Angeles currently suffers from legal loopholes. One is the Costa-Hawkings Rental Housing Act, a 1995 state law allowing landlords to reset rental rates on rent-controlled units once they have been vacated. It also prohibits RSO units in buildings built after 1978.
LA landlords can also circumvent rent control through the Ellis Act, which allows landlords to evict tenants from RSO units if they are planning to “go out of business.” The law claimed to protect small mom-and-pop building owners who want to retire, but in practice, it’s been used by corporate landlords to rebuild these properties as new buildings, which, thanks to Costa-Hawkings, are exempt from rent control.
“It takes RSO units off to the market,” said Hugo. “You see a lot of the fourplexes in the city. They’ll demolish them and rebuild, you know, 20-unit apartments. And so when they do that, there’s no requirement to replace the RSO [units] so they can make them affordable.”
Washington D.C.
Problems with housing affordability aren’t unique to Los Angeles. A similar problem is found in Washington DC, where mayor Muriel Bowser is running for a third term. Bowser has boasted of committing over $170 million towards affordable housing. But, a 2021 audit from the city’s Office of the Inspector General concluded that she failed to meet the legally mandated goal of directing at least 50 percent of DC’s annual Housing Production Trust Fund towards creating and preserving homes for the city’s lowest-income residents.
Like Los Angeles, DC benefits from rent control, which since 2006 has capped rent increases to CPI plus 2%. For residents over the age of 62, or those with disabilities, the increase excludes the additional 2%. For Joel Cohn, legislative director of the DC Office of the Tenant Advocate, the city’s rent control policies have proven effective.
“The success of the program is a qualified yes,” Cohn assured, “Say you’re an elderly tenant, and the rent increase only goes up by the CPI each year. You’re going to have a stabilized unit.”
Unfortunately, echoing Los Angeles’ problem with Costa-Hawkings, DC suffers from a vacancy increase. After a tenant moves out of a unit, a landlord can jack up its rent by 10% to 20%, depending on the length of time the tenant lived there.
“In some cases, where you have a unit in a university area, and there’s a lot of turnover in units in those areas, that can be problematic.” Cohn explained, “Because you’re essentially getting increased 10%, year after year. And that leads to a loss of affordability for that unit unless mom and dad are paying for it.”
To balance out these limitations in rent control, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and myriad other cities have adopted a “Swiss cheese” strategy to housing protections. Although rent protections, like slices of Swiss cheese, may have holes in them, if you line up enough of them, the holes get covered up. A prominent housing strategy frequently layered with rent control’s goal of keeping people in their homes is rent relief. During COVID, many cities enacted temporary moratoriums on rent increases and evictions for non-payment, which were bolstered by the federal Rental Assistance Program that repaid outstanding back rent directly to landlords.
“If someone’s in crisis, and they’re about to be thrown out. I think that’s, that’s a good program to have,” said Hugo, who hopes to see aspects of this rental relief expanded in Los Angeles. “Moreover, it’s also more cost-effective and cheaper for the city to keep folks in their home rather than be thrown out.”
Measure ULA, which would create a one-time tax on properties that sell for over $5 million to support the expansion of rent relief, will be on the ballot in November. A portion of that money will go towards emergency rental assistance for seniors. But even rent relief has encountered difficulties.
“Emergency rental assistance was very, very slow,” admitted Hugo. “The process was very cumbersome. A lot of people did not receive their money. And it just took a very long time. I think the process could have been much better. But I think in its totality, all the things that were passed were effective in maintaining people in their homes.”
Austin, TX
While in many cities rent relief exists to augment rent control, in Austin, Texas, rent relief exists in lieu of rent control due to a statewide law prohibiting limits on rent increase. To Celia Israel, a Democrat and mayoral candidate, the ban reflects the political nature of Texas.
“We are resistant to government intervention. Unless, of course, you’re talking about my uterus,” quipped Israel.
Austin currently leads the nation in population growth, with a current population of over 2 million people, a 2.79% increase from 2021. But, the city’s housing has not kept pace with this influx of residents.
“People are moving here in droves. And by moving here, they are exacerbating the affordability crisis. Austin has been struggling with growth for decades now. It’s a city that has become content with ‘If we don’t build it, they won’t come.’ And it’s certainly true of our housing supply issues.”
As a former residential realtor, Israel has witnessed the consequences of this lack of affordable housing firsthand.
“I’m going to paint a canvas for you. I’ve had clients who were looking to rent, and it was just as simple as, let’s contact a realtor and see what’s available. Well, what was available was way out of their price range. They thought they made good money. And then, often, you can’t find a one-bedroom apartment for under, let’s say, $1,700 a month. They were not only dealing with very limited options, but they were also dealing with other renters who were willing to pay for an entire year’s lease in cash.”
In Austin, housing issues have become a primary concern for the city’s queer community.
“We have an LGBTQ quality of life committee, said Israel. “I called up the chair of that committee and said, ‘what are the top issues that you’ve been seeing?’ And in another time, and in another dimension of time and space, you would think that they would say we want an LGBTQ community center or police reform. Their number one issue was affordability. They want to be a part of our community, and our community is just becoming conditioned to push people out. That’s regardless of your skin tone or your sexuality, and I thought that was a very telling priority for the LGBTQ community in Austin.”
For Hugo, another important tactic for battling problems with affordable housing is knowledge.
“The number one way we’re gonna stop a lot of like the housing issues is by educating and having people self-organize,” Hugo posited, “For tenants and renters to understand their rights. That they have to be at the frontline of pushing back against these things. Because it’s hard to enforce. And so what the city could do is just have massive outreach and money dedicated to educating and training tenants.”
With elections looming, it is worth noting that an informed renter is usually an informed voter.
A mural painted by a high school student came under fire when parents alleged it was promoting LGBTQ imagery and witchcraft.
Earlier this year, a Grant, Michigan, high school sophomore won a contest “to brighten up” the middle school health center, according to a statement from Grant Public Schools (GPS). GPS says the student received approval to paint images of “smiling children” and as well as the message “Stay Healthy.”
In the painting, there are three children. A boy is seen in a light blue, pink and white T-shirt, the colors of the transgender Pride flag. A girl wears pink, royal blue and purple, the colors of the bisexual flag. And a second girl is in rainbow Pride colors.
GPS Superintendent Brett Zuver was a contest judge. He did not respond to an email asking if he understood the meaning of the colors when the student’s design was chosen as the winner. GPS said the final mural included “some features” that were not part of the agreement, including a demon face inspired by a popular video game called Genshin Impact, and a “Hamsa hand,” also known as the Hand of Fatima or Hand of Mary. The palm-shaped design has been a symbol for good luck or protection for centuries in many cultures, including Latin American.
At a school board meeting on Oct. 10, parents accused the student artist of promoting witchcraft by including the Hamsa hand as well as the video game character that bears the likeness of a demon. Parents also objected to the use of LGBTQ colors.
“I put my art up there to make people feel welcome,” the student artist said, her voice breaking, in footage captured at the meeting by WZZM-TV, a local news station based in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
One man at the meeting called the mural “hate material.”
Another adult at the meeting said, “I feel like (she) did a really good job finding excuses to defend the things you put on. None of us are that stupid.”
Tracey Hargreaves, who has two children in the Grant Public School system, came to the defense of the student artist.
“I am a conservative, right-wing, gun-loving American,” Hargreaves declared at the meeting. “And I’ve never seen more bigoted people in my life.”
In an interview with TODAY.com, Hargreaves said, “The meeting turned into a hate fest. Usually there are 10 people at these meetings, 50 showed up. It wasn’t even about the mural … People were talking about how we need to pray the gay away.”
Get the Morning Rundown
Get a head start on the morning’s top stories.SIGN UPTHIS SITE IS PROTECTED BY RECAPTCHA PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF SERVICE
“I had to stand up and say something,” Hargreaves added. “It was out of control. You can’t catch gay, honey. It’s not contagious.”
The student artist left the meeting in tears, according to Hargreaves.
“She tried to explain herself, but no one would listen. They were convinced that the Hand of Fatima … was satanic,” Hargreaves said.
Lori Donati, who works at the middle school health center where the mural is displayed, told NBC affiliate WOOD-TV, which is based in Grand Rapids, earlier this month that she was “thrilled” with the result.
“Everyone’s accepted at our clinic,” Donati said. “What she (the artist) was trying to say (is that) everyone’s accepted no matter what your background is or who you are. You are loved and accepted and that’s exactly our philosophy with our office, too.”
On Oct. 13, GPS announced that “at the student artist’s request, the mural will be returned to its original form as originally submitted and approved by the Administration.” That means the images of the children and animals will remain, but symbols including the Hand of Fatima and the video game character will be removed.
The student artist’s father declined an interview when contacted by TODAY.com. Zuver, the school superintendent, said in an email that the student artist and the school board “came to a very positive resolution.”
“(She) asked to make some adjustments by removing some of the items that were not on the original submission that was approved,” Zuver said. “There are some symbols that were used to fill in space. She said the wall was bigger than she thought and didn’t want to leave too many blank spaces.”
“I am a very proud of her,” Zuver added. “She is a great young lady.”
There are “clearly partisan” divides over the inclusion of content addressing LGBTQ+ issues, race, and other supposedly controversial subjects in schools, says a new study from the University of Southern California.
“While Republican state leaders are backing public schools away from directly addressing race, gender, and sexual identity — as well as their historical injustices — in the U.S., Democratic state leaders are pushing in the opposite direction, mandating curricula and coursework discussing America’s racist origins and legacies and highlighting the contributions throughout history of women and people of color,” says the study, titled “A House Divided? What Americans Really Think About Controversial Topics in Schools.”
Among the general population, both Republicans and Democrats surveyed by USC said it’s good to teach high school students about certain subjects, including sex education, voting rights, and racism, but there was a great divide when it came to discussion of LGBTQ+ matters. Eighty-five percent of Democrats approved of teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity, but among Republicans, 37 percent said it’s OK to teach about sexual orientation and 32 percent felt that way about gender identity.
Most respondents didn’t approve of assigning books that depict same-sex relationships, but more Democrats than Republicans said these books should be available in school libraries as optional reading for high schoolers — 84 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of Republicans.
“Americans overwhelmingly want high school to be a place where students learn about multiple sides of controversial topics, and they are free to access books touching on a variety of controversial content,” the study states.
However, many Americans — both Democrats and Republicans — did not believe that elementary-age students should have access to LGBTQ+ content. About 53 percent of respondents said elementary school students should be able to read books portraying families with same-sex parents; 73 percent agreed to this for high schoolers. But a majority opposed elementary-age children having access to books depicting sexual experiences, either same-sex or opposite, or books that portray what the survey called broadly “experience of transgender people” or “experiences of lesbian or gay people.”
Republicans believe schools deliver what they would deem objectionable subject matter to their children and are more likely to want more control over what their children learn, while Democrats, on the other hand, favor giving teachers more authority over curricula.
Nearly six out of 10 of all respondents said transgender rights should be taught generally, while 65 percent said teachers should teach about LGBTQ+ rights.
Democrats were more willing to teach children opposing points of view on various subjects. Democrats and Republicans support teaching about anti-abortion rights arguments in about the same numbers — 77 percent and 74 percent, respectively. In contrast, as opposed to 60 percent of Republicans, 92 percent of Democrats support teaching about pro-choice positions.
There are deep partisan divides over who should decide what goes into school curricula. Half of Republicans believe parents should be the most influential, compared to 20 percent of Democrats. Many Republican-sponsored “parental rights” bills reflect these views, requiring schools to post all instructional materials online and to provide parental oversight in other ways.
Regardless of their political party, many adults do not comprehend critical race theory, which conservatives have used as a liberal bogeyman in recent years. Right-wingers have thus distorted the term, using it to refer to any issue about race or equity. Some 15 percent of respondents said they knew enough to explain the term to others. However, half of the respondents had no idea what the term was or had heard it but didn’t know what it meant.
Critical race theory was poorly understood even by those who claimed to be familiar with it. Only 16 percent of these participants correctly guessed that colorblindness, which entails treating people equally regardless of skin color, did not fall into critical race theory. According to critical race theory, a clear understanding of race is crucial to eliminating racism.
The USC Rossier School of Education and Dornsife Center surveyed 3,751 households nationwide for the study.
Access to physical and mental health care, free or discounted meal deliveries, caregivers and other forms of support are now easier for LGBTQ seniors in New York state to get.
Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a bill into law this week making New York the latest state to expand the accessibility of services to LGBTQ people ages 60 and over, who are disproportionately affected by poverty and isolation.
The legislation requires the state’s Office for the Aging to consider gender identity and expression, sexual orientation and HIV status when it calculates which seniors need the most help. It now considers other noneconomic factors including disability, language barriers and isolation caused by race or ethnicity, too.
“This legislation is an important step in addressing those inequities while helping ensure LGBTQ older New Yorkers receive the same respect and support as anyone else in the state,” Hochul, a Democrat, said in a statement Monday.
The measure clarifies the state’s interpretation of a statute in the Older Americans Act of 1965, a law signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson as a counterpart to the Social Security Amendments and the Medicare and Medicaid Act. The 1965 law provides funding and community-based services, such as the popular Meals on Wheels program, intended to help older Americans with the “greatest social need” live at home and in their communities “with dignity and independence for as long as possible,” according to USAging, a nonprofit group that supports agencies for the aging.
The premise of the law is to let people “age in place” in their own communities, said Aaron Tax, the managing director of government affairs and policy advocacy at SAGE, the country’s largest organization supporting LGBTQ seniors and their caregivers. However, he added, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer older people — who are often in greater need of social services than their straight and cisgender counterparts — can be averse to seeking out the help the law provides because of stigma and their historical exclusion from government programs.
“In a nutshell, what we hope this legislation will accomplish is to help bridge that divide,” Tax said.
A national AARP survey published in June of more than 2,000 LGBTQ people ages 45 and older found that nearly half of the participants were either extremely or very concerned about having enough family and social support systems to lean on, and 85% of respondents said they were at least somewhat concerned about having enough income to retire. Many participants (52%) also reported feelings of social isolation.
LGBTQ adults over 80 are also at higher risk for developing chronic diseases, and they have increased disability rates compared with straight and cisgender adults in the same age group, according to a 2019 study published in The International Journal of Aging and Human Development. LGBTQ elders living with HIV can also suffer from comorbidities that require an even greater level of access to health care than they already have.
In recent years, LGBTQ senior housing projects have cropped up around the country in part to combat homelessness and provide access to more culturally competent care. A national surveypublished in May 2020 by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law painted a bleak picture when it comes to LGBTQ adults experiencing homelessness: When compared with non-LGBTQ adults, lesbian, gay and bisexual adults are three times more likely to report being homeless, while transgender adults are eight times more likely, the survey found.
To address the disparities,Massachusetts, California and a number of other states have enacted laws in recent years expanding their interpretations of those with the “greatest social need” to include LGBTQ seniors and elders living with HIV.
Tax said SAGE, which runs LGBTQ senior centers in New York City, has long been fighting for the change in New York. Now that it has passed, aging networks will be held more accountable to serve this particularly disadvantaged group, he said.
“We need to recognize that people have differences, and people come to the table with different needs,” he said.
Gubernatorial candidates Maura Healey and Tina Kotek are no strangers to political firsts.
In 2009, Healey, who is now the Massachusetts attorney general, led the nation’s first successful challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages. And in 2014 she broke barriers again, becoming the nation’s first out lesbian elected state attorney general.
Nearly 3,000 miles west, Kotek became the country’s first out lesbian speaker of a state House of Representatives in 2013. She made history again by becoming Oregon’s longest-serving House speaker, before stepping down in January to run for governor.
This coming Election Day, these lesbian trailblazers could shatter glass ceilings once more, simultaneously becoming the first out lesbians ever elected governor in the United States.
“If I can be someone who represents and also gives others the belief that they can be anything they want to be and do anything they want to do, regardless of race, gender, identity, religion, that’s where I want to be,” Healy, 51, told NBC News. “That’s something I take seriously, and I think that’s what other LGBTQ+ leaders do as well — recognizing that we’re not just in a vacuum.”
To achieve that, Healey, a Democrat, will have to get past Republican Geoff Diehl, a former state representative endorsed by former President Donald Trump. If Healy wins — which she’s projected to do by a wide margin — she’ll also become her state’s first elected female governor.
For Kotek, who is also a Democrat, the odds are less promising. She not only faces Republican Christine Drazan, the former minority leader of the Oregon House, but also a third-party candidate, Betsy Johnson, who recent polling suggests is dividing Democratic voters.
If either Healy or Kotek succeeds, they will follow two other out LGBTQ Democrats who have been elected to lead their states: Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, who is bisexual and became the first openly LGBTQ person to be elected governor in 2015, and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, who became the first openly gay man to be elected governor in 2018. Former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey was not out when he was elected to office in 2001, though he did come out as gay during his 2004 resignation speech.
“We’ve come a long way,” Lisa Turner, executive director of LPAC, a political action committee dedicated to electing lesbians and other queer women to political office, said of how far Healey and Kotek have come. “It validates the amount of work and effort that LGBTQ women have been putting into the community, into equality fights, into the electoral process.”
Sean Meloy, vice president of political programs at the political action committee LGBTQ Victory Fund, which has endorsed both Kotek and Healey, said seeing more LGBTQ candidates run formidable campaigns for governorships “shows that this is not a one-and-done kind of occurrence.”
“It shows that we are indeed part of the American political experience and that we need people to continue to come out of the closet and step forward and serve their communities,” Meloy said. “That inspiration is key to making sure that we are equitably represented in government.”
Healey was born in Maryland but said she was born “over” Massachusetts: Her longtime Bay State family placed soil from the New England state underneath Healey’s delivery bed before her birth. As a child, Healey grew up as the oldest of five siblings in an old farm house in Hampton Falls, New Hampshire.
She first planted her seeds in Massachusetts when she attended Harvard College, where she captained the women’s basketball team. After playing professional basketball in Austria for several years, she returned to Massachusetts to attend Northeastern University School of Law.
Several years after graduating, Healey began her life in public service working for the office she would one day lead, the Massachusetts attorney general’s office. During that time, she had the opportunity to work with someone she described as one of her lesbian role models: American lawyer and civil rights advocate Mary Bonauto, who is best known for arguing on behalf of same-sex couples in the 2015 Supreme Court case, Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S.
A New Jersey high school tried to cancel an adaptation of the LGBTQ+ musical The Prom due to “community concern” over its themes.
Officials at Cedar Grove High School in Essex County, New Jersey planned to cancel a student production of The Prom – which sees a lesbian student try to bring her same-sex date to a school prom – but were forced to backtrack after opposition from the community.
The district’s superintendent Anthony Grosso told those concerned in a Friday (14 October) statement that the play would not be cancelled, but that students would perform a “High School Edition” of the play.
“After further inquiry with the licensing organisation, we were informed that a High School Edition of The Prom just became available,” he said in a statement. “Therefore, Cedar Grove Public Schools fully supports producing the High School Edition.
Cedar Grove’s music department issued a statement on Instagram after administrative officials initially told them that the play would not be going forward due to vaguely described “community concerns.”
The department called on members of the community to voice their concerns in a future meeting with the district’s Board of Education on 18 October.
“For a program that has run for over 20 years under the same director and never had a question of content for any show in the past, this is a first,” the statement read.
“After seeing [The Prom] a few years ago and learning that it was now available for schools to produce, the students themselves chose this musical as our next production. We would actually be the New Jersey high school premiere!
“We secured the rights, paid for the materials, and announced the show to students but have now hit a bump in our normal road.”
Supporters of the post included The Prom actor Josh Lamon, who replied to the statement saying: “Whatever we can do, I’m here for it.”
He shared the statement on social media, adding that the cancellation was “infuriating and deeply homophobic,” and that there is “nothing inappropriate in or about the show.”
Several users, including fellow Broadway stars, agreed with Lamon that this was “literally the reason they need to be doing this show!!” while others asked if they should “tell Stephen Colbert” since the talk show host is close by.
After the superintendent announced the change, department member Rebecca Altschul posted on Instagram thanking those who spoke out in support of the play.
A gay couple was beaten and bloodied in front of the Connecticut gay bar they own. The two men say the incident was a hate crime, but local authorities disagree.
In a statement shared Tuesday, Casey Fitzpatrick said he and his husband, Nicholas Ruiz — the owners of Troupe429 in Norwalk, Connecticut — were violently assaulted by a male bar patron who also disparaged them with anti-LGBTQ slurs. The incident, which occurred in mid-September, resulted in Ruiz being sent to the hospital and requiring over 50 stitches across his face and $20,000’s worth of plastic surgery, Fitzpatrick said in the statement, which was published Tuesday on the bar’s website.
Fitzpatrick said the assault amounted to a hate crime and that the incident is “being mishandled” by the Norwalk Police Department.
“As of October 11, nearly two and a half weeks after the assault, no charges have been filed, nor has the suspect been arrested,” Fitzpatrick wrote. “We are asking for your help and support in seeking justice for Nicholas.”
The Norwalk Police Department announced Wednesday that they arrested the suspect, Carmen Everett Parisi, earlier that day and said in a statement to NBC News that they found no evidence that the assault was fueled by anti-LGBTQ bias.
“The arrest follows the Police Department’s warrant issued by a judge, after completing investigative steps of reviewing of video footage from inside the bar and attempting to get sworn statements from the two victims,” Lt. Terrence Blake, the Norwalk Police Department’s public information officer and LGBTQ liaison, said in a statement Wednesday. “Video footage from the body-worn, on-the-scene body cameras show no findings of any racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual orientation (RRES) language or indication of any anti-LGBTQ motivation associated with the assault.”
On the evening of the attack, a male patron “repeatedly harassed and made several female patrons and our staff uncomfortable,” which prompted staff to “respectfully” escort the man out of the venue, according to Fitzpatrick’s statement.
When the man would not leave the bar’s entryway, Fitzpatrick said, Ruiz went outside to de-escalate the situation and “peacefully” pleaded with the man to leave the area. The man then made disparaging remarks about the bar and the people inside it using anti-LGBTQ slurs, Fitzpatrick recounted.
The man then became violent, repeatedly punching the right side of Ruiz’s face and clawing at his chest, causing his clothes to rip and a necklace to be torn from his neck, Fitzpatrick wrote. The suspect also punched Fitzpatrick in the neck, closing his airway, Fitzpatrick added.
The statement was coupled with a graphic image of Ruiz on the evening of the incident. Ruiz can be seen lying on a hospital bed with his cheek torn open and blood rushing down his body.
“As of October 11, nearly two and a half weeks after the assault, no charges have been filed, nor has the suspect been arrested,” Fitzpatrick wrote. “We are asking for your help and support in seeking justice for Nicholas.”
The Norwalk Police Department and Fitzpatrick confirmed that the police responded to the incident the evening the assault occurred.
But in the weeks since, Fitzpatrick said he and Ruiz received “zero updates” despite Fitzpatrick’s repeated emails, calls and visits to the department. The Norwalk Police Department said in a statement to NBC News that it attempted to get sworn statements from the victims, “who did not show up for their appointments.”
In an email to NBC News on Thursday, Ruiz and Fitzpatrick said they were thankful that the police had arrested the suspect, but again rejected the department’s version of the events.
“We were always cooperative with law enforcement, never missed an appointment, and remain committed to assisting them however we can,” the couple said. “Our hearts are heavy having lived this experience and knowing violent attacks in our community go unanswered. It was scary having to speak up and not knowing if reliving the trauma would bring justice.”
The Norwalk incident is the latest in a slew of violent threats and attacks against LGBTQ people throughout the country this year.
At least three LGBTQ events were targeted by white nationalist groups in June — which is designated as LGBTQ Pride Month — and in April, a man walked into a New York City bar with a bottle of flammable liquid, poured it on the bar’s floor, lit a match and set the venue ablaze, police said.
Over 1,300 hate-based incidents against Americans were motivated by their sexual orientation or gender identity in 2020, accounting for 16% of all biased-fueled encounters that year, according to the FBI’s most recent hate crime data.