An LGBT+ Pride group is urging a boycott of the historic Staten Island St Patrick’s Day Parade after it was banned from marching for the 10th year running.
The Staten Island St Patrick’s Day Parade has been running for over 50 years and draws more than 50,000 spectators. Around 150 organisations typically march in the parade, ranging from the New York fire and police departments to local businesses, private men’s clubs and high school football teams.
But the Pride Center of Staten Island has not been allowed to participate in the march since 2011, having reportedly been told that their group “promotes the homosexual lifestyle” and “goes against the tenets of the Catholic Church.”
Last year several politicians responded by boycotting the event; this year the Pride Center is urging local businesses to do the same.
“Any organisation who has applied, rethink marching that day. Any organisation who is thinking of applying, again, please rethink that decision,” the Pride Center’s executive director Carol Bullock told Spectrum News.
The annual march is organised by The Parade Committee of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, who actively blocked the Pride Center’s attempts to apply for a marching permit by moving the sign-ups to an alternative location.
“Do [sic] to the threat of a protest by the gay pride people/politicians/and minsters of other faiths on the holy grounds of Blessed Sacrament Church the parade must move the parade sign ups to 300 Manor Rd,” a sign on the door read.
Yet again the AOH Parade Committee denied the Pride Center of Staten Island’s request to march in the SI St. Patrick’s Day Parade, and this year they also declined @GOALny#StatenIrelandPride
Bullock says that when she went to the alternate location, she was told by parade president Larry Cummings that it is a “non sexual-identification parade,” and that not allowing the group to march under its banner is “not discrimination.”
“We just really didn’t get anywhere. He doesn’t believe that it’s discrimination; we clearly feel that it’s blatant discrimination,” she said.
Pride Center is encouraging supporters to frequent the stores and restaurants along the parade route, but not actually march in it.
LGBT+ people are permitted to march in St Patrick’s Day parades in Ireland and also in New York. In 2018, Ireland’s openly gay Taoiseach Leo Varadkar marched in the New York St Patrick’s Day Parade with his partner Matt.
It was hailed as a landmark moment for an event that had just three years earlier prohibited the participation of the LGBT+ community.
The Staten Island parade is refusing to follow suit despite mounting calls for change from elected officials who represent the borough, including US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Congressmember Max Rose, State Senator Diane Savino, and City Councilmember Deborah Rose.
Staten Island GOP Councilmember Steven Matteo said in a statement to Gay City News: “I strongly support the SI Pride Center and other LGBT organisations openly participating in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. It’s way past time for this to become a reality.”
The march is due to go ahead on March 1. PinkNews has reached out to the parade organisers for comment.
Two prominent state politicians are urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to nominate an LGTBQ judge to fill a vacancy on the California Supreme Court .
Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego), on behalf of the California Legislative LGBTQ caucus, sent a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom asking him to nominate an LGBTQ judge to the vacancy on the California Supreme Court. With Associate Justice Ming W. Chin retiring, Governor Newsom is able to nominate a new judge to the Supreme Court. The text of the letter follows:
Dear Governor Newsom, On behalf of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, we encourage you to seize the historic opportunity presented with the retirement of Associate Justice Ming W. Chin by nominating to the California Supreme Court its first openly LGBTQ-identified justice. California has many highly qualified LGBTQ candidates, including appellate justices, trial judges, legal scholars, and attorneys. Nominating an LGBTQ justice would send a powerful message of California’s leadership and values, and it would highlight the success California has achieved in making the state’s judiciary better reflect its rich diversity. The time has come for an openly LGBTQ justice to sit on our state’s highest court.”
Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego)
Equality California Executive Director Rick Zbur celebrated the announcement saying:
“Throughout his career, Governor Newsom has elevated LGBTQ+ leaders to ensure our government reflects the diversity of the people it serves. We now have an historic opportunity to put a qualified openly LGBTQ+ justice on California’s highest court and ensure LGBTQ+ people are represented in every level of our justice system.”
The incident occurred last weekend off school grounds after he attempted to reprimand a student for spouting a homophobic slur towards him, IOL reported.
What happened to the gay teacher?
“I heard a child calling me a moffie [African slang for an effeminate, gay man], and I went to reprimand him,” the Robertson local said.
“I later went to report the incident to his parents, and was met by his mother who was rude and shouted at me.
“She said her husband would deal with me,” Dyamara said.
“I called the police to report a case of discrimination. Her husband appeared out of nowhere and smacked me with an open palm.
He repeatedly attacked me with a fist, and at that time, I was defenceless.
Dyamara continued: “The husband took out a knife and wanted to stab me. If my friend was not there it would have been a different story.
“Members of the LGBTI+ community are not given the respect they need and deserve.
“The community, even though it is diverse, needs to respect gay people.”
LGBT rights protesters in Cape Town (RODGER BOSCH/AFP/GETTY)
Dyamara alleged that the parent is a former member of the student governing body.
IOL reached out to the body for comment, in which a spokesperson said that, as the incident took place off school premises, it is out of their control.
“The teacher has opened a case against the man,” the spokesperson said.
“For emphasis, the man is no longer a member of the [school governing body], as he resigned. We, as the Masakheke [school governing body], condemn the alleged incident.
“We can offer emotional support to the teacher, because although it happened outside the school premises, it affects the school.
“Once a teacher is emotionally broken, he can be a danger to himself and to the learners.”
School officials also confirmed they were informed of the incident.
“The department cannot confirm what was said between the children, parents and the educator, as it was outside of the school,” a provincial education department spokesperson said.
Moreover local law enforcement described the incident as “common” and that the assault was being investigated.
Lawyers for Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning on Wednesday filed a motion for her release, saying her continued incarceration for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury is unlawful.
The motion, filed in the Alexandria, Virginia-based federal district court for the eastern district of Virginia, says that Manning’s “incarceration is not serving its only permissible purpose”—to coerce her testimony. Rather, the motion argues, the detention is clearly punitive.
Manning has been held in contempt of court and locked away at the Alexandria Detention Center nearly continuously since March 2019. She may be held as long as 18 months unless she agrees to testify to a grand jury about WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, who remains at a London prison as the U.S. government seeks his extradition.Defend democracy. Click to invest in courageous progressive journalism today.
The detention is also economically costly. Manning is being fined $1000 per day, which her supporters have panned as an “outrageous” escalation of the U.S. government’s ongoing harassment of her.
Manning’s attorney Moira Meltzer-Cohen explained how the continued detention is out of legal bounds.
“A witness who refuses to cooperate with a grand jury subpoena may be held in contempt of court, and fined or incarcerated,” she said in a statement. “The only permissible purpose for sanctions under the civil contempt statute is to coerce a witness to comply with the subpoena. If compliance is impossible, either because the grand jury is no longer in existence, or because the witness is incoercible, then confinement has been transformed from a coercive into a punitive sanction, and thus is in violation of the law.”
“Over the last decade Chelsea Manning has shown unwavering resolve in the face of censure, punishment, and even threats of violence,” says the new motion. In “light of her history, it should surprise nobody to find that she has the courage of her convictions.”
“She reiterated her refusal to cooperate with the grand jury process before this court, and has now reiterated that refusal every day for more than 11 months,” the motion adds. “There is no reason to believe she will at this late date experience a change of heart; there is a profusion of evidence that she will not.”
The attorneys included as evidence United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer’s November 2019 letter to the U.S. government expressing his concern about Manning’s incarceration, “particularly given the history of her previous conviction and ill-treatment in detention.”
Melzer said that Manning’s current detention may amount to “an open-ended, progressively severe measure of coercion fulfilling all the constitutive elements of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Manning’s lawyers also included in their motion a report from a clinical expert on Manning’s personality that described her “willingness to endure social disapproval as well as formal punishments” to pursue her values.
“No realistic possibility remains that continued confinement or other sanctions will bring about Ms. Manning’s testimony,” says the motion. “Further confinement cannot attain its stated coercive purpose, and therefore will be not simply futile, but impermissibly punitive.
Manning confirmed her stance against her incarceration in a statement Wednesday.
“No matter how much you punish me, I will remain confident in my decision,” she said. “I have been separated from my loved ones, deprived of sunlight, and could not even attend my mother’s funeral. It is easier to endure these hardships now than to cooperate to win back some comfort, and live the rest of my life knowing that I acted out of self interest and not principle.”
A newly uncovered video shows Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg in 2019 describing transgender people as “he, she, or it” and “some guy in a dress” who enters girls locker rooms — invoking a conservative cliché as he argued that transgender rights are toxic for presidential candidates trying to reach Middle America.
And yet, Bloomberg’s campaign published a new video on Tuesday that pledged the former New York City mayor believed in “inclusivity” for “LGBTQ+ youth,” featuring fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi declaring, “Mike is so incredibly sensitive to this issue.”
Bloomberg’s sensitivity was far less apparent at a forum hosted by the Bermuda Business Development Agency on March 21, 2019, in Manhattan, where Bloomberg derided Democratic candidates for talking about transgender protections.
Read the full article for the Bloomberg campaign’s response. He did sign a trans protections bill as NYC mayor in 2002.
“This is really just bringing Virginia into the 21st century,” Ebbin told The Washington Post shortly after the bills’ passage. “Voters showed us they wanted equality on Nov. 5, and the Senate of Virginia has started to deliver on that.”
Supporters gather for a group photo ahead of the floor votes on the Virginia Values Act. The event was held in the Jefferson Room of the State Capitol in Richmond, Va., Thursday, Feb. 6, 2020.Bob Brown / AP
Despite the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges making same-sex marriage the law of the land, most states still have outdated laws on their books like the ones Virginia just repealed.
Indiana is one of those states, though an attempt to remove its gay marriage ban was unsuccessful last month in the Republican-controlled state Legislature. In fact, GOP opposition to its removal derailed legislation seeking to raise the legal age to marry in the state from 15 to 18. An amendment had been added to the age-limit bill that sought to scrap the state’s 1997 law declaring: “Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.”
“I did not think it was unreasonable to remove what is now null-and-void unconstitutional language from the code,” state Rep. Matt Pierce, a Democrat, said in defense of the amendment. “I didn’t think it would be that controversial, because this issue has been settled now. Apparently to the Republican caucus it is controversial.”
“The religious right has not said, ‘We lost same-sex marriage, and we are moving on.’ They are still fighting same-sex marriage, both politically and legally.”
PROFESSOR JASON PIERCESON
In Florida, Democratic legislators have been trying for years to repeal thestate’s ban — which says “marriage” means “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” — with no luck.
“This is not just, you know, unconstitutional and not just obsolete, but this is cruel language in our statute. So, it needs to get out of there,” Rep. Adam Hattersley told WUSF Public Media, adding that members of the state’s Republican leadership “don’t have an appetite to fix something” that they “hope would come back into play in the future.”
Five years after the Supreme Court had its say on the issue, same-sex marriage remains a politically contentious issue, and LGBTQ advocates continue to battle in courtrooms and statehouses to ensure gay couples can exercise their right to marry.
History of state-level gay marriage bans
States have two types of bans on same-sex marriage: statutory and constitutional. Statutory bans appear in state family law, while constitutional bans are embedded in states’ constitutions.
“Most of them are still on the books, though they are not enforceable,” Jason Pierceson, a political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, told NBC News.
“Democratic control of legislatures has created opportunities to get rid of some bans,” Pierceson said. “That’s the big difference between Indiana and Virginia.”
There were two phases of same-sex marriage bans, according to Pierceson. The first one began in the 1970s, when gay couples would apply for marriage licenses and many state judges at the time ruled that these unions were not prohibited. This prompted lawmakers to explicitly outlaw same-sex marriage. In 1973, Maryland became the first state to do so. Other states quickly followed, with Virginia, Arizona and Oklahoma passing similar laws in 1975, and Florida, California, Wyoming and Utah doing so in 1977.
The second phase followed a 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decisionthat found denying same-sex couples the right to marry may violate the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution. That ruling prompted state and federal lawmakers to take action.
Utah was first to enact a statutory ban in response to that decision in 1995, and then a year later, Congress passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Several states adopted their own “mini-DOMAs” after that, according to Pierceson, and by the year 2000, he said “virtually every state,” with the exception of New Mexico, had a “statutory ban on same-sex marriage.” These “mini-DOMAs,” he noted, banned gay marriage in family codes and state law, not the constitution.
In 1998, Hawaii became the first state to pass a constitutional amendment specifically targeting same-sex marriage. The measure empowered the legislature to enact a ban, which it did that same year through a constitutional referendum. Ultimately, 30 more states adopted constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage.
A demonstrator in support of same-sex marriage waves a rainbow colored flag after the same-sex marriage ruling outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2015 in Washington.Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images file
While the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision overrides all of those state measures, many of them, particularly the state constitutional amendments, remain on the books for one reason or another. In some cases, there is a lack of political willingness to remove them, while in others, the labor-intensive removal process makes them a low priority.
In Virginia, for example, while the two statutory laws banning same-sex marriage have been repealed, the state’s 2006 constitutional amendment prohibiting gay unions remains for the time being. This is because amendments must pass both the state Senate and House of Delegates and be approved by Virginia voters.
Lawmakers in Nevada will allow voters to decide whether to strike down that state’s constitutional ban at the ballot box in November. Any constitutional amendment in Nevada requires such a statewide vote.
“In Colorado we got a whole host of things to work on from transportation to education to housing to access to heath care, but instead of being able to dedicate all our resources to things like access to HIV-prevention medications, we have to allocate staff time and resource just to be able fight these bills.”
SHEENA KADI, ONE COLORADO
Sheena Kadi, deputy director of the LGBTQ advocacy group One Colorado, told NBC News that her organization has been having internal conversations for years about what to do with the state’s constitutional ban, which has been on the books since 2006 but would, in her estimate, take three to five years to remove it.
“We can take the first step through the Legislature, but then we would need a ballot initiative to remove that from the state Constitution,” she said. Given the organization’s other priorities, Kadi said going after the unenforceable constitutional amendment just seemed like too much work.
Pierceson said that in Colorado and a number of other states, having these amendments removed isn’t necessarily easy, as a number of conservative lawmakers are happy to keep them for both symbolic and political reasons.
“Many Republicans and the religious right hope Obergefell will be overturned, and then their state would go back to banning same-sex marriage, potentially,” he said.
Compliance issues
Even after Obergefell, there have been a number of instances over the past five years where state and local officials have refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Just a few months after the ruling, a Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, garnered national attention for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis, who went to jail for her refusal, has since retired after losing re-election in 2018. In 2019, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that, although Davis was immune from being sued as a county official, she could be sued in her individual capacity for refusing to comply with the law.
In early 2016, Roy Moore, then the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, prohibited probate judges in the state from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Moore, who is currently running for a U.S. Senate seat from Alabama, was suspended from his judicial duties in September 2016 over his gay marriage order. And just last year — following the persistent refusal of a number of Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses to any couples so they wouldn’t have to issue them go same-sex couples — the state passed a workaround bill that no longer requires a judge’s signature on marriage licenses.
Just last year in Texas, a Waco-based judge was issued a public warning by the state Commission on Judicial Misconduct for her yearslong refusal to perform same-sex weddings. The judge, Dianne Hensley, responded by suing the commission, claiming it violated her rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, declined to defend the state agency in the lawsuit because its actions conflict with his views of the Constitution.
“We believe judges retain their right to religious liberty when they take the bench,” Paxton’s spokesperson, Marc Rylander, said in a statement at the time.
Hole-y matrimony
Since the legalization of same-sex marriage federally, hundreds of state bills have been introduced that poke holes in gay marriage in various ways.
“The religious right has not said, ‘We lost same-sex marriage, and we are moving on,’” Pierceson said. “They are still fighting same-sex marriage, both politically and legally.”
Equality Federation, an LGBTQ social justice group, is tracking nine marriage bills that affect same-sex marriage across seven states: Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.
Colorado had been on this list until just last week, when advocates defeated five bills they described as being anti-LGBTQ. One of them, House Bill 1272, had proposed that existing state law — which still stipulates that marriage is between one man and one woman — be enforced as written, and that no judicial rulings, including those from the U.S. Supreme Court, should influence their enforcement.
HB 1272 also sought to restrict adoption to “marriages and civil unions that consist of one man and one woman.” This could have called into question the legal parental status of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, who in 2018 became the first openly gay man elected governor in the U.S.; he and his same-sex partner are not married and have two children together.
U.S. Representative Jared Polis, right, and his partner, Marlon Reis, with their two children, 5-year-old C.J. and 2-year-old Cora, on stage after Polis addressed supporters on November 8, 2016 at the Westin.John Leyba / Denver Post via Getty Images
North Carolina and Tennessee are considering marriage bills similar to the one Colorado just killed. However, the majority of the bills introduced that target same-sex marriage have fallen within the “religious exemption” category, according to Pierceson.
InMassachusetts, one proposal asserts that the belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman is a protected religious belief and thus prohibits the government from “discriminating” against state employees or businesses that act on this belief.
Bills in Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee draw on the idea of the separation of church and state in their proposals. These bills define marriage as between one man and one woman and argue that to mandate otherwise is tantamount to state sponsorship of the religion of “secular humanism.”
A bill in Iowa creates a new category of “elevated marriage,” defined as one man and one woman, and it stipulates distinct and additional vows and paperwork. A separate Iowa proposal would require applicants for marriage licenses to disclose their sexual orientation, which could be used in child custody cases.
In Missouri, one lawmaker proposed replacing all marriage licenses with domestic union contracts. The measure, House Bill 2173, has drawn opposition from both LGBTQ advocates and proponents of “traditional marriage.”
“Still seeing attempts to invalidate love and invalidate families and those protections that come along with it is frustrating,” Kadi said. “In Colorado we got a whole host of things to work on from transportation to education to housing to access to heath care, but instead of being able to dedicate all our resources to things like access to HIV-prevention medications, we have to allocate staff time and resource just to be able fight these bills.”
How safe is gay marriage?
More than 10 percent of LGBTQ adults were legally married in June 2017, just two years after the Obergefell ruling, according to Gallup, and the number is likely even higher now. In addition, public opinion has shifted strongly in favor of same-sex marriage, with a2019 Gallup poll finding 63 percent of Americans approve of such unions.
So, is gay marriage safe?
“Absolutely not,” Kadi said, “especially given the current makeup of the Supreme Court.”
Pierceson largely agrees.
“I think in the short term marriage is fairly safe. It’s hard to see the Supreme Court overturn itself in the next couple of years,” he said, though he added that he is less confident about its long-term safety.
“The religious right, conservative movements and the Republican Party are hoping for an overturning of Obergefell with a more conservative judiciary,” Pierceson said.
Kadi noted that President Donald Trump has appointed more than 50 circuit court judges in his first term. And while Trump claimed to be a “real friend” to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people during the 2016 campaign, Kadi said his administration is “no ally to the LGBTQ community.”
“We have seen this impact not only the Supreme Court but the lower courts as well,” she said of Trump-appointed judges, many of whom have come under criticism for their anti-LGBTQ track records.
“It’s only a matter of time before we see another challenge” to same-sex marriage, he said. “That is why we have to stay vigilant.”
Over 2,000 queer and trans people from all 50 states and the District of Columbia have signed onto two letters highlighting criticism from the LGBTQIA+ community toward Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign. Two autonomous groups, #QueersAgainstPete, a collective of queer people who interrupted a Chicago fundraiser for Buttigieg in January; and Queers Not Here for Mayor Pete, a group of LGBTQ community organizers across the U.S.; have both circulated open letters making the case that the LGBTQIA community deserves better than Pete.
At Friday’s Democratic debate, Buttigeig declared that “we cannot solve the problems before us by looking back.” The groups contend that we must honor the history of LGBTQIA+ communities to move forward equitably, and Buttigieg appears uninterested in doing so. Leaders within LGBTQIA+ communities—especially Black trans women—have worked tirelessly over the past several decades to push movements to value and fight for our full identities and experiences.
“Pete Buttigieg is not a candidate of the future; he erases and mocks the histories and realities of racial, sexual, and gender minorities. The LGBTQ community, like many others, faces racism, homelessness, unemployment, and a lack of adequate healthcare. In rejecting Pete Buttigieg, we don’t seek a nostalgic return to the past but a reminder that our histories persist into our present,” said Yasmin Nair, writer and activist of Chicago, IL ”We cannot solve the problems all of us face if we leave the most vulnerable behind. That’s not ‘looking back.’ It’s making sure everyone moves forward, not just the wealthiest among us.”
In their open letter, #QueersAgainstPete notes that “gaps in Mayor Pete’s platform will fall particularly hard on economically vulnerable LGBTQIA+ communities” from his opposition to Medicare for All and cancelling student debt, to his history of “tearing down hundreds of homes in Black and Latino neighborhoods in South Bend.”
#QueersAgainstPete also highlights Buttigieg’s ongoing failure to address the concerns of Black Lives Matter – South Bend, from their call to create a Citizens Review Board, to their call for Buttigieg’s resignation following Eric Logan’s murder by South Bend police. The letter cites Buttigieg’s failure to commit to a moratorium on deportations or decriminalization border crossing, and his disregard for the voting rights of the over 230,000 queer and trans people who are currently incarcerated. #QueersAgainstPete also stands with Chelsea Manning and criticizes Buttigieg’s stance that she should remain in prison for blowing the whistle.
In an essay, Queers Not Here For Mayor Pete contrasts issues important to the LGBTQIA+ community such as affordable healthcare and housing with Buttigieg’s embrace of donations from Wall Street and billionaires, earning him the nickname #WallStreetPete. In a second essay on his racial justice track record, the group noted the highly disproportionate marijuana arrests of Black people during Buttigieg’s tenure, an issue also raised in Friday’s debate.
Queers Not Here for Mayor Petecompare Buttigieg’s campaign to that of recently-elected out lesbian Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. The #StopLightfoot campaign, created by a diverse group of LGBTQ organizers, challenged her record on policing, immigration, housing, and ties to Islamophobia. She has backtracked on many of her more progressive campaign promises, and we are sure Buttigieg would do the same. “Just because someone may share our identity, it does not mean they will show up for the most marginalized and those most in need of attention within our community,” wroteQueers Not Here For Mayor Pete.
“Buttigieg has no record fighting for targeted or marginalized peoples and shows little sign of that changing—he surrounds himself with the likes of Big Pharma, CIA veterans, and billionaires,” said Harper Bishop (he/they), a co-founder of Queers Not Here For Mayor Pete based in Buffalo, NY. “We aren’t homophobic or self-hating. He has been bought-out, and we just don’t see his candidacy as a sign of collective liberation.”
#QueersAgainstPete and Queers Not Here for Mayor Pete are not the first LGTBQIA+ individuals to view Mayor Pete’s campaign with skepticism. A November 25 poll released by Out magazine shows Mayor Pete placing fourth among LGBTQIA+ voters. Jacob Bacharach, Yasmin Nair, Shannon Keating, Max S. Gordon, Rich Benjamin, and George Johnson all published critiques of his campaign from a queer lens. Rather than address concerns being voiced by the LGBTQIA+ community, Mayor Pete has decided to plug his ears. When confronted with criticism from LGBTQ media, Pete said “I can’t even read the LGBT media anymore.”
“Queer and trans people deserve a President who listens to our concerns, not one who runs from them,” said Ian Madrigal (they/them), an organizer with #QueersAgainstPete based in Washington, D.C. “While former Mayor Buttigieg boasts about the historic nature of his campaign, every step along the way, he has made the conscious decision to back policies that harm the very communities he claims to represent. Pete may be queer, but we know he is not here for us.”
###
#QueersAgainstPete is a collective of queer people against Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s candidacy for president. We believe the LGBTQIA+ community deserves better than Pete. Follow @QueersAgnstPete on Twitter.
Queers Not Here for Mayor Pete is a community that believes that the foreparents of LGBTQ liberation set the bar high and Buttigieg’s candidacy doesn’t even come close. Follow Queers Not Here for Mayor Pete on Facebook.
Despite recent government promises to protect LGBT+ people, children in Vietnam are still taught at home and at school that being gay is a “disease”, according to a new report by Human Rights Watch (HRW).
Same-sex marriages are not recognised in Vietnam, but gay sex is legal and it is believed to have never been criminalised in the country’s history. There is an equal age of consent, and LGBT+ people are able to serve in the military.
In 2015, the country made headlines for voting to allow trans people who had been through gender affirmation surgery to register as their correct gender.
In 2016, while serving on the United Nations Human Rights Council, Vietnam voted in favour of appointing a watchdog to protect LGBT+ rights.
While recent legal changes in Vietnam make the futures of queer people seem promising, socially LGBT+ people commonly face extreme stigma and discrimination.
In its report on education for LGBT+ youth in Vietnam, HRW interviewed queer youth who were searching for information against a “steady tide of stereotypes, misinformation, and anti-LGBT rhetoric”.
They described how being LGBT+ was frequently described as a “disease”, both by their families and at school.
Nhung, a 17-year-old bisexual girl, said: “I don’t feel safe at school, because the view and mindset of other people on LGBT+.
“I didn’t get hurt physically, but I did suffer mentally. You have to be hurt when people tell you have a disease that frequently.”
Other young people told HRW that the most frequent comments they heard from teachers on LGBT+ issues was that being gay is a “mental illness”.
Quân, an 18-year-old gay man, said he was taught in his high school biology class that “LGBT+ people need to go to the doctor and get female hormone injection” to cure their “disease”.
In 2019, Vietnam’s education ministry announced plans for an inclusive sex education curriculum, but it is yet to be implemented.
Graeme Reid of HRW told The Guardian: “Largely thanks to a vibrant civil society-led LGBT rights movement, social awareness and acceptance of sexual orientation and gender identity has increased greatly in recent years in Vietnam. The government’s actions, however, have so far not officially reflected these changes.
“One result of the sluggish policy change is that social perceptions in many cases remain mired in outdated and incorrect frameworks – such as the widespread belief that same-sex attraction is a diagnosable mental health condition.”
Democratic presidential candidate and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg was met with protesters representing the group Queers Against Pete outside of a private fundraising event at the National LGBTQ Center for the Arts in San Francisco on Friday.
Inside the building, two activists attempted to disrupt the fundraiser after Buttigieg was asked about his husband, Chasten, by a member of the audience. “I respect your activism,” Buttigieg said, “but this is a gathering of supporters of our campaign and I just got a question about my husband and I’m really excited to answer it.”
Some of the group’s concerns include Buttigieg’s lack of support for canceling student loan debt, his opposition to a fully-realized Medicare for All plan and free universal public college.
Before the event, the line of Buttigieg supporters wrapped around the block to enter, with protesters chanting and waving signs while people waited. Some supporters seemed flummoxed by their presence. “Queers against Pete?” one attendee questioned, reading their signs.
“We’re on the same team,” someone muttered. “What’s the point?” someone else said. “Just vote for your candidate. Don’t tear down the others.”
“You’re coming to San Francisco, the heart of gay activism in America,” Emily Lee, director of the San Francisco Rising Action Fund, said in an interview. “You need to actually respond to the people of San Francisco who identify as gay or queer. It’s a very fitting place to be asking him these hard questions.”
There has been much talk about identity and diversity in the race to win the Democratic party nomination for president. Some have touted former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s openly gay identity as proof of progress in our politics. However, being gay is not enough to earn the support of LGBTQIA communities.
We cannot in good conscience allow Mayor Pete to become the nominee without demanding that he address the needs and concerns of the broader Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual (LGBTQIA) communities. While many see different issues in silos, we are clear that LGBTQIA people are directly and disproportionately impacted by police violence, incarceration, unaffordable healthcare, homelessness, deportation, and economic inequality among other things.
Mayor Pete is leaning on the support and actively courting the LGBTQIA community, but has shown time and time again that he is out of touch, not fit to be President of the United States, and simply falls short.
National newspaper The Australianhas sparked fury with an article that draws comparisons between the coronavirus and the “contagion” of transgender people.
The newspaper is well known for its its “appalling” coverage of transgender issues, which includes articles such as “They’re castrating children”, “Transgender project ‘out of balance’” and “Corrupting kids’ thinking”.
The latest article evoked strong comparisons with disease with the headline: “Health chiefs can’t ignore ‘global epidemic’ of transgender teens.”
Published on Monday, it begins: “With the coronavirus dominating the news, Queensland’s health authorities have been urged to confront an under-reported global contagion involving troubled teenage girls declaring they are ‘born in the wrong body.’”
It then quotes University of Queensland law dean Patrick Parkinson, a man who wrote a paper comparing transgender children to teens with eating disorders, causing his employer and colleagues to write an open letterdistancing themselves from him.
“Speaking in a personal capacity,” the paper says, “[Parkinson] conceded authorities would be worried and busy with the coronavirus but said the explosion in transgender teenagers, chiefly girls, was ‘another epidemic’ – one that had ‘so far escaped public attention.’”
The article also suggests that efforts to criminalise the harmful practise of conversion therapy are a “global tactic of trans activists” who are attempting a “deceptive widening” of conversion therapy’s definitions in order to criminalise any attempt to change trans children’s gender identity.
Coronavirus aside, The Australian has a history of anti-trans reporting.
For months, The Australian has been publishing claims of a transgender “social contagion” in a section of its website dedicated entirely to sex and gender.
Critics say the articles “demonise and spread misinformation about trans and gender-variant youth,” promoting fringe anti-trans extremists while campaigning against medical experts.
Last September, the Australian Psychological Society rejected the claims as “alarmist and scientifically incorrect”. Australia’s peak trans healthcare body, AusPATH, has also called out the newspaper’s “biased” reporting.
