Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg is soaring in popularity in the Republican-dominated state of Arizona, with a new poll putting him neck-and-neck with Donald Trump.
Alongside his fellow Democratic hopeful Joe Biden, Buttigieg is in a statistical dead heat with Trump, suggesting that even staunch Republicans in Arizona are beginning to turn their backs on the party.ADVERTISING
Buttigieg has 43 per cent support, compared to Biden’s 44 per cent and Trump’s 46 per cent, the latest poll shows. This represents a decrease in support for Biden, who led Trump 49 percent to 44 percent in the state based on a May poll.
The South Bend, Indiana mayor however, has increased his support by six points, disproving the critics who predicted his sexuality meant he would struggle to make inroads in strongly conservative states.
Buttigieg, 37, has also carved out a lead in Iowa after an “aggressive” campaign trail aimed at the rural midwestern state’s older, moderate voters in small towns.
Last month he shot ahead with 25 per cent support – a nine point lead over Elizabeth Warren, who is the next highest Democratic candidate – in Iowa.
Only 30 per cent of respondents said that their minds are made up and a lot could change before the Iowa caucuses next February, but if Buttigieg’s lead continues he could stand a real chance against Biden and Warren.
Although Iowa’s demographics aren’t representative of the rest of the country, the state is significant as it’s often thought to set general trends for presidential elections.
It’s not all been plain sailing for Buttigieg though – he attracted some scornlast week after a picture of him volunteering for the notoriously ‘homophobic’ charity Salvation Army was circulated online.
And an internal focus group recently revealed findings that suggest Buttigieg’s sexuality could be “a barrier” for many black voters, particularly with black men who were “deeply uncomfortable even discussing it” in the study.
The report concluded: “Their preference is for his sexuality to not be front and centre.”
We are on the verge of a historic moment: The Board of Supervisors will vote on Tuesday 12/10 on a resolution to halt any future investments in Wells Fargo or BNP Paribas, naming them as primary funders of the private corporporations responsible for detaining immigrant children separated from their families.
Please come out on Tuesday 12/10 at 8:30. The item will be considered 8:45, after a presentation by the Treasurer Erick Roeser. As in 1985, when the Board considered a resolution to divest from South African Apartheid, the county treasurer is feigning ignorance of the options to invest wisely and ethically. (See the Close to Home article below.) If this resolution passes, the county will be on track to take up socially responsible investment policies AND put an end to county funding of immigrant camps.
Lynda Hopkins, who is putting forward the resolution, has reminded us that the board responds to public pressure, so we must bring it on!!! See you there! We’ll have talking points for everyone who wishes to make a public comment. Bring posters or signs!
A California inmate was sentenced to death Thursday for the 2013 killing of his transgender cellmate in a shocking case that shined a light on the dangers of sexual assault and violence trans people face when they are not housed according to their gender identity.
Miguel Crespo, 48, was housed with Carmen Guerrero, a trans woman, at Kern Valley State Prison for just eight hours in October 2013. During that time, Crespo bound, gagged, tortured and murdered Guerrero in their shared cell.
A California jury last month found Crespo guilty of first degree murder and assault.
At his sentencing, Crespo made it a point to tell officials that he’s not gay and that he had told officers in 2013 that he was incompatible with Guerrero before the prison housed them together anyway.
The issue of transgender people in California’s prison system is fraught and even became a topic in the Democratic presidential primaries, with former candidate Sen. Kamala Harris facing questions over her stance on granting state-funded, gender-reassignment surgeries to transgender inmates.
In May, the California Senate passed a bill that would require transgender prisoners to be housed according to their gender identity, not their sex assigned at birth. The bill has yet to be signed into law.
“Incarcerated transgender people deserve to be housed in facilities consistent with their gender identity,” California State Sen. Scott Wiener said at the time. “When we house trans people based on their birth-assigned gender, we place them at high risk of sexual assault and violence.”
According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, transgender people are nine times more likely than the general prison population to be sexually assaulted by other inmates.
Crespo’s sentencing statement — in which he said he didn’t want to be housed with a “gay” prisoner — would not stand up as a defense in a California court, because the state is one of eight that has banned the so-called gay and transgender panic defense, which means defendants cannot claim to have been motivated to commit violence by a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Even among the non-incarcerated population, transgender Americans face high rates of violence. LGBTQ advocacy groups have said violence against trans women in particular is at epidemic levels, and the Human Rights Campaign has reported that at least 22 transgender people have been killed in the United States so far this year, but advocates say that is likely an undercount.
This year’s Miss Universe pageant will include the first openly gay contestant in the competition’s 67-year history, who bravely came out despite homosexuality being illegal in her home country.
Swe Zin Htet is the reigning Miss Myanmar and she came out publicly on a beauty blog just a week before she is due to take part in the final of the pageant on Sunday (December 8).
The 21-year-old, who has chosen preventing child abuse as her cause to advocate for during the contest, told People: “I have that platform that, if I say that I’m a lesbian, it will have a big impact on the LGBTQ community back in Burma.
“The difficult thing is that in Burma, LGBTQ people are not accepted, they are looked down on by other people and are being discriminated against.”
Although Htet has been out to those around her for some time, and has been in a relationship with the famous Burmese singer Gae Gae for three years, she said telling her family she was a lesbian was difficult.
She continued: “At first, they were mad. They didn’t accept me. But later, when they found out more about the LGBTQ community, they started to accept me.”
Paula Shugart, Miss Universe president, also told People: “We are honoured to give a platform to strong, inspirational women like Miss Universe Myanmar, who are brave enough to share their unique stories with the world.
“Miss Universe will always champion women to be proud of who they are.”
The Miss Universe pageant has had a controversial past and was previously owned by Donald Trump, but it has been breaking new ground recently.
Last year, the competition featured its first-ever trans contestant Angela Ponce.
Addressing the Trump administration’s anti-trans record, Ponce said at the time: “More than a message to him, it would be a win for human rights. Trans women have been persecuted and erased for so long.
“If they give me the crown, it would show trans women are just as much women as cis women.”
Although it’s positive news that more people feel able to select their correct gender identity when trying to find a date, the company’s attempts to include the trans community have recently been criticised as “virtue signalling”.
Trans people told PinkNews that Tinder condones “discrimination” against trans people using the app, partly because of poor customer support for trans people who have been banned.
Trans people said that they had been banned two hours after changing their gender on the app to trans, and after being invasively questioned by cis men about their genitals – and all the trans people PinkNews spoke to knew multiple other trans people who’d been banned, too.
In September 2019, Hustlers star Trace Lysette was abruptly banned. And Peppermint, from RuPaul’s Drag Race, also reported being banned in May 2019.
A Tinder spokesperson told PinkNews in a statement: “Tinder has been at the forefront of pioneering inclusive features that ensure our members can be their authentic selves on our platform.
“We recognise the transgender community faces challenges on Tinder, including being unfairly reported by potential matches more often than our cisgender members.
“This is a multifaceted, complex issue and we are working to continuously improve their experience.”
The Stonewall riots of 1969 are often cited as the moment that gave rise to the modern LGBT+ rights movement. It was a seminal moment for LGBT+ people in the United States – but it wasn’t the first time gay people had protested against mistreatment.
Three years before the Stonewall riots kicked off, gay people in cities across the United States gathered to protest against their exclusion from the armed forces. The protests had been a long time coming. The US armed forces introduced a policy during World War II which excluded gay people from serving. They were often discharged by doctors for displaying “homosexual tendencies.”
“The discharge policy increased fear, reinforced hostility and prejudice, encouraged scapegoating and witch hunting, and helped to solidify gay men and women into a political movement against the military’s exclusion of homosexuals,” writes Alan Berube in Coming Out Under Fire.
The protests of 1966 came at a politically charged moment in time. As the Vietnam War gained steam, many gay people were starting to ask the question: why should they want to serve in the armed forces in the first place? The fight for inclusion had started to be seen as “old fashioned” by the “baby-boom generation of gay activists” who were questioning why gay people would want to serve in the face of war, according to Berube.
A ‘loose confederation’ of gay groups was formed to protest the armed forces’ exclusionary policies.
Despite reservations from some sections of the community, there was ample support for protests against the armed forces’ exclusionary policies. The idea of gay people mobilising was first conceived at the National Planning Conference of Homosexual Organizations in Kansas City. More than 40 gay activists attended the meeting and discussed how they could improve the standing of gay people in America. Out of this emerged the Committee to Fight Exclusion of Homosexuals from the Military, a “loose confederation” of homosexual groups across the US. They came up with a plan to launch the biggest ever gay demonstration the world had seen.
The government’s categoric rejection of all persons it knows to be homosexual is un-American and based on ignorance and superstition.
On May 21 that year, gay people gathered and protested against discriminatory military policies in Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington D.C. The protest on Armed Forces Day was “the largest group of homosexual protestors” gathered up until that point in the United States, Josh Sides writes in Erotic City: Sexual Revolutions and the Making of Modern San Francisco.
Gay activists at the protests did not shy away from speaking out about their exclusion from public life. Activist Don Slater was asked by a Newsweek reporter why they were protesting, according to a contemporary report in Tangentsmagazine.
“Who wants to be drafted? Surely not the homosexual,” Slater replied. “But the government’s categoric rejection of all persons it knows to be homosexual is un-American and based on ignorance and superstition. Homosexuals are asking for equal rights and benefits from their country. At the same time they recognize their equal duties and responsibilities.”
Meanwhile, Cecil Williams addressed the crowd at the San Francisco demonstration, and said: “There is a homosexual revolution here and across the land. We protest against the Armed Forces’ policy of discharging ‘discovered’ homophiles under less than honorable conditions.”
Taking part in protests in 1966 was ‘a daring adventure’ for LGBT+ people.
The protests did not come without risk for the gay people taking part. Writing in a letter at the time, Del Martin – one of the founders of the protests – wrote: “This is quite a daring adventure for us. It is not like any other civil rights demonstration – having no popular support and being somewhat hazardous, if not disastrous, to the individual who reveals himself.”
While the protest did not encourage the military to overturn its discriminatory policy, it did raise the profile of gay people significantly. Media outlets across the country covered the protests. They were picked up by newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and Newsweek. While not all the coverage was positive – the San Francisco Chronicle ran the story with the headline “Deviates Demand the Right to Serve” – it gave gay people a platform they had previously not had access to.
Bob Ross, secretary of the Tavern Guild, wrote that the public response to the protests was “favourable.”
“This was the communitys [sic] first try at demonstrating nationwide, and we understand that reaction was quite favourable across the country… we must move forward now, there can be no turning back.”
It is now more than 50 years since the protests took place – but that doesn’t mean the battle is over. In 1994, the Clinton administration introduced the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which encouraged gay people to stay in the closet while serving in the military. That policy was finally repealed in 2011.
Furthermore, a longstanding ban on trans people serving in the military was lifted by the Obama administration in 2016. However, current US President Donald Trump quickly reversed that decision, and reintroduced the ban.
The legacy of those activists who fought for their inclusion in the armed forces in 1966 lives on because the fight is not yet won for LGBT+ people.
One of Chicago’s oldest churches will soon be transformed into one of the only holistic, queer-friendly centres for the LGBT homeless at-risk youth in the city.
The Black Methodist for Church Renewal has stood in the heart of Chicago’s South Side since 1926. The 12,000-square-foot space remained empty for years after the congregation moved to a new venue, with the site’s owners refusing to sell it until they found a worthy buyer.
It’s now home to the LYTE Collective, a social organisation dedicated to helping the more than 16,000 homeless youth in the city. Around 30 percent of Chicagoans aged between 15 and 24 live below the poverty line, with the bulk of them living on the South and West sides.
“There are very few spaces for young people across the city already, and for LGBTQ youth in particular, and we wanted to plant the flag and say that this is where everyone’s welcome,” founding member Carl Wiley told Block Club Chicago.
“We’re all going to respect each other in here, and we’re all going to figure out what our next steps are in terms of housing, employment, therapy.”
When the centre opens in summer 2020, young LGBT homeless people will be able to access a music studio, an art studio, a gym, computer lab, performance stage, teaching kitchen, co-working space, an on-site clinic and 250 storage units.
“It’s not enough to just give them a place to hang out,” Wiley said. “They need something to do, someone to talk to. We wanted to provide them a space where they could explore the things they were interested in.”
Construction began several weeks ago and neighbours have pitched in to help with the project. Jerome Davis, who lives across the street, watched the building deteriorate for decades but has now come out of retirement to help “keep the neighbourhood looking good.”
“God gave me this building to take care of. It may not be mine, but it will be beautiful,” he said.
The LYTE Collective has already raised $2 million to cover renovations, but is still $340,000 short of their total goal. Those interested in supporting the project can donate here.
Newly introduced legislation in the U.S. House backed by the Mormon Church seeks to strike a middle ground on LGBT rights and religious freedom in federal civil rights law, although major proponents of each refuse to support the legislation.
Introduced by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) on Friday, the Fairness for All Act would strike balance between LGBT rights and religious freedom in way proponents say would protect First Amendment rights. That way, however, permits anti-LGBT discrimination from religious institutions and small-business wedding vendors.
“Throughout history, there are time when principles come into conflicts, and often they are conflicting good principles, both of them with equal value,” Stewart said at Capitol Hill news conference Friday.
“The job we have before us in our society today is a good example of that, where we have the principle of non-discrimination, that every American should be treated fairly and with respect and with dignity, and at the same time, the sincerely held belief that religious faith and principles also matter, and how do we reconcile those two conflicting principles,” Stewart added. “This is what we are trying to do with this legislation.”
The Fairness for All Act is seen as an alternative to the Equality Act, legislation approved by the House in May under the Democratic majority — with five Republican votes. The Equality Act would make anti-LGBT discrimination a form of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and clarify the Religious Freedom Restoration Act can’t be a justification for discrimination.
Much like the Equality Act, the Fairness for All Act would make anti-LGBT discrimination against federal law, but it would also institute a accommodation for institutions like religious organization and small-business wedding vendors.
The Fairness for All Act would prohibit anti-LGBT discrimination in employment, housing, jury selection, credit, federal programs and public accommodations, but do so without defining anti-LGBT discrimination as sex discrimination. The bill would also expand the definition of public accommodations beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But in contrast to the Equality Act, the Fairness for All Act would preserve Religious Freedom Restoration Act and protect the tax-exempt status of religious colleges and universities that oppose same-sex marriage, such as Brigham Young University, Bethel University and Catholic University.
The Fairness for All Act would also extend protections to small business whose owners refuse to provide services to same-sex weddings based on religious objections. Among them is Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who gained notoriety when his reached the Supreme Court and justices ruled narrowly in his favor based on the facts of the case.
The measure would prohibit anti-LGBT discrimination at “any store, shopping center or online retailer or provider of online services that has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,” but states the threshold doesn’t apply to claims of discrimination based on race, color or national origin or the small business wedding vendors excluded under the measure.
Similarly, the measure says “a property owned or operated primarily for noncommercial purposes by a non-profit religious corporation that holds itself out to the public as substantially religious, has as its stated purpose in its organic documents that it is religious, and is substantially religious in its current operations” is not a public accommodation under the legislation.
Lastly, the Fairness for All Act purports to protect religiously affiliated adoption agencies “so they can continue to serve vulnerable children and willing couples, while at the same time ensuring the ability of LGBT persons to adopt and foster children too.”
Unlike the Equality Act, the Fairness for All Act also makes clear access to abortion services aren’t protected, but stipulates the measure shouldn’t be construed to impose a penalty on women who have had an abortion or seek abortion-related services.
Among the proponents of the Fairness for All Act is the Church of Latter-day Saint and Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which expressed support for the legislation in a statement Friday.
Shirley Hoogstra, president of Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, spoke out in favor of the legislation at the Capitol Hill news conference.
“This coalition represents civic pluralism at its best,” Hoogstra said. “We want a society where people with deep differences can live alongside each other with respect and understanding.”
But the nation’s leading advocacy group for LGBTQ rights says the Fairness for All Act doesn’t go far enough, and an anti-LGBT legal firm that purports to protect religious freedom also doesn’t support the legislation.
Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said he “strongly oppose[s]” the Fairness for All Act because it sells LGBTQ people short and erodes existing protections under federal civil rights law.
“The so-called Fairness for All Act is an unacceptable, partisan vehicle that erodes existing civil rights protections based on race, sex and religion, while sanctioning discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people,” David said. “For LGBTQ people living at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities, this bill is a double whammy of dangerous rollbacks and discriminatory carve-outs. This bill is both wrong and harmful, and we strongly oppose it.”
David said the right path for advancing LGBTQ rights is the Equality Act, which he said is necessary because “LGBTQ people deserve full federal equality, period.”
“The Equality Act, on the other hand, has already passed through the House of Representatives with a bipartisan majority, the support of more than 260 leading companies and more than 500 civil rights, religious, medical and social welfare organizations, and is our movement — and, most importantly, our community’s — top legislative priority,” David said.
A spokesperson for Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-LGBT legal firm that has represented Masterpiece Cakeshop and schools seeking to deny transgender kids access to bathroom consistent with their gender identity, referred to the Washington Blade to a 2018 statement from the organization against the Fairness for All Act Act.
“Every person should be treated with dignity and respect,” said ADF Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner. “Unfortunately, sexual orientation and gender identity laws like the so-called ‘Fairness for All’ proposal undermine both fairness and freedom. This proposal is a SOGI law under different branding, with special — and likely temporary— exemptions that protect only a favored few.
A chief proponent of the Fairness for All Act, however, is the American Unity Fund, a pro-LGBTQ Republican organization backed by philanthropist and GOP donor Paul Singer.
Tyler Deaton, senior adviser to the American Unity Fund, said his organization supports the Equality Act, but prefers the Fairness for All Act to prohibit anti-LGBT discrimination.
“We have to have black letter laws on the books that can make it explicit when we’re protected and when we’re not,” Deaton said. “This is hard thing from me to say as a gay guy. There are going to be times that there are religious organizations that are going to have the freedom to refuse to serve me or employ me.”
Deaton said the Human Rights Campaign’s opposition to the Fairness for All Act was “disheartening,” especially the assertion it would undermine existing protections based on race, sex and national origin.
“I think that the statement exaggerates impacts that the bill would have on existing civil rights,” Deaton said. “And I want to be clear on this point, which is that Fairness for All does not touch, or erode, or diminish any civil rights that are on the books today, and in fact, it is biggest expansion of civil rights since the passage in 1964 of the Civil Rights Act, and that’s similar to the Equality Act.”
Another supporter of the legislation is Republican LGBT ally Margaret Hoover, who voiced support for the measure in an interview last month with the Los Angeles Blade and at the Capitol Hill news conference.
“We know that we expect that this bill will be met with criticism from both sides of the aisle,” Hoover said. “Compromise is never easy, but it is our view that LGBTQ Americans cannot afford to wait a single day longer.”
Just about every LGBTQ advocate pushing for the Equality Act came out against the Fairness for All Act, including Justin Nelson, president of the National LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce.
“NGLCC reaffirms it support for the Equality Act, and cannot support ant legislation containing loopholes designed to further keep tax-paying, law-abiding LGBT citizens from achieving success and safety in their own country,” Nelson said.
But there was some openness among LGBTQ advocates. Striking a welcoming chord on the Fairness for All Act was Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
“The introduction of this historic bill marks the first time that conservative religious organizations and leaders have supported comprehensive federal protections for LGBTQ people,” Minter said. “While the details of the bill require more careful consideration, it marks an important milestone in the growing national support for the equality and dignity of LGBTQ people.”
The Fairness for All Act is introduced as the U.S. Supreme Court is considering litigation that would clarify whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex in employment, also applies to cases of anti-LGBT discrimination.
If the court rules in favor of LGBT workers, it could have far reaching implications and make federal legislation against anti-LGBT discrimination moot in employment, housing and education (although a legislative change would still be necessary to ban anti-LGBT bias in public accommodations and federal programs). If the court rules against LGBT workers, they would have no protections under federal law, and a legislative fix would be all the more needed.
Arguably the very introduction of the Fairness for All Act bolsters the case Congress didn’t intent to include LGBTQ people when it passed the Civil Rights of 1964, but Deaton denied that was case, adding that line has already been crossed with the Equality Act.
“I think that we all know that regardless of what the Supreme Court decides in the spring, we’re still going to need a federal law that either codifies that decision or rebukes that,” Deaton said. “I mean, if the Supreme Court decides that sex should be interpreted narrowly, then it’s all the more reason we need this bill now.”
The Fairness for All Act will be a tough sell in the House, which addressed the issue of expanding LGBT non-discrimination protections by passing the Equality Act. In the Senate, companion hasn’t even yet been introduced.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signaled she “strongly opposes” the legislation via comments from her spokesperson Drew Hammill.
“Speaker Pelosi strongly opposes this legislation,” Hammill said. “It represents a step backward in many respects and is a partisan effort to that would lead to much more discrimination in our country not less.”
The solution for enacting LGBT non-discrimination protections under federal law, Hammill said, would be for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring up the Equality Act.
“LGBTQ Americans deserve nothing short of full equality,” Hammill said. “House Democrats will continue to call on Senator McConnell to pass the Equality Act.”
Then there’s President Trump. Asked whether he spoken with the White House about the Fairness for All Act, Deaton declined to discuss conversations.
The Trump administration, through White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere, signaled an openness to the Fairness for All Act when asked by the Washington Blade about the legislation.
“President Trump has protected human dignity, fought for inclusion, promoted LGBTQ Americans and strongly protected religious freedom for everyone while in office,” Deere said. “The White House looks forward to reviewing the legislation.”
Utility giant Pacific Gas and Electric announced a $13.5 billion settlement agreement to resolve all claims associated with several Northern California wildfires that killed dozens of people and destroyed thousands of businesses and homes. The wildfires have been tied to the company’s equipment.
“We want to help our customers, our neighbors and our friends in those impacted areas recover and rebuild after these tragic wildfires,” said PG&E Corp. CEO and President Bill Johnson in a statement released late Friday.
The settlement fund, if accepted by a bankruptcy judge, will go to victims who lost loved ones and/or property, as well as government agencies and attorneys who have pressed the claims.
California earned top marks in Equality California’s recently released annual state legislative scorecard for 2019
Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights organization, demonstrating support in the California Legislature for LGBTQ civil rights and social justice. Sixty-one of the 80 members — including two Republicans — received perfect scores in the Assembly. Twenty-six out of 40 senators earned perfect marks, too. Scores were based on six floor votes and a committee vote in the Assembly, and eleven floor votes in the Senate.
Governor Gavin Newsom also scored 100 percent in his first year in office. He signed all five bills sponsored by Equality California that reached his desk. Notably, this included historic legislation authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) to allow pharmacists to furnish life-saving HIV prevention medication without a doctor’s prescription. The bill, SB159, will take effect January 1, 2020.
“While the Trump-Pence Administration launches new anti-LGBTQ attacks on a near-daily basis, we’re continuing to work with our partners in the legislature and Governor Newsom to make California a beacon of hope to LGBTQ people around the world,” Equality California Executive Director Rick Zbur said in a press statement. “Civil rights and social justice are nonpartisan and nonnegotiable in California, and voters reward pro-equality legislators every two years for their support. President Trump and Senator Mitch ‘Grim Reaper’ McConnell should take note.”