Columns

/ /

Pride is more than a rainbow

Pride season is here. Tens of thousands of ATMs across the country will sport rainbow adornments, Target and H&M will devote sections of their stores to a panoply of rainbow trinkets and garments, companies from nearly every business segment in America will wish the LGBTQ community a “Happy Pride.” Rainbow flags will be festooned across storefronts nationwide and then disappear.

What many companies fail to realize is this annual ritual known as ‘rainbow washing,’ can have unintended negative consequences. Pride is 24/7/365 and companies that relegate their LGBTQ outreach to one month a year are often perceived as pandering and “tokenistic.”

What forward thinking marketers understand is the need for brands to talk to the LGBTQ consumer on a year-round basis. So time to move off of the Pride-month-only strategy.

A $1 trillion spending engine, LGBTQ consumers are recognized as having the highest discretionary household income, estimated to be 23% above the national average. Recent surveys say that a whopping 20% of trendsetting millennials ages 25-34 identify as LGBTQ. The math speaks for itself.

The LGBTQ segment is not homogenous or monolithic. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, creating the need for nuanced outreach efforts. Fully, 61% of respondents in a recent poll found that diversity in marketing and advertising was highly important, positively impacting a brand’s bottom line. All aspects of marketing messaging can be customized and delivered to segments and subsegments of the LGBTQ consumer sector through multiple mediums.

LGBTQ consumers are highly enthusiastic, recognized as the earliest adopters and greatest influencers representing disproportionate control of a brand’s profitability. Brands should develop emotional connections. Qualitative research shows that ‘positive image enforcement’ leads to positive purchasing decisions. Oreo’s “Proud Parent” outreach and commercial is an of-the-moment illustration, making this connection. This community responds favorably to the perception of being treated equally, as friends or family, rather than as outsiders. 

Savvy marketers must carefully navigate a fine line, necessitating tactile communication, devoid of stereotypes, while staying laser focused on brand messaging. LGBTQ relatable lexicon and imagery should be employed, wherever possible, to create a stronger bond between a brand and this consumer. This consumer understands sincerity and authenticity. 

Not to be underestimated is the power and outsize impact of social media ‘influencers’ on brand building and purchasing decisions. LGBTQ influencers have surged on all main platforms, including Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. More than 92% of those aged 18-34 respond that they seek recommendations from a trusted source. Choosing relatable influencers that connect with consumers on emotional levels is key. Impactful LGBTQ ‘champion’ Tyler Oakley, reaching more than 7.5 million followers, connects daily with core consumers’ values and aspirations.

The pandemic has forced companies to be creative in their marketing outreach. For example, many alcohol companies are hosting online happy hours and dance events with prominent DJs. A prime example is Jack Daniels’ drag queen hosted virtual entertainment parties. 

Recently, companies such as Budweiser, Walgreens, IBM and Microsoft, to name a few, have launched consumer specific campaigns representing the ‘world around us.’ Geico’s affectionate portrayal of a male couple is another example of how these slice-of-life moments are all encompassing, reflecting a melting pot of the USA.

Sponsorships are also highly effective ways to bond with the LGBTQ consumer. Molson Coors’ Vizzy Hard Seltzer’s $1 million sponsorship of the Human Rights Campaign is extremely visible, as is Kellogg’s collaboration with GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) on its “Together with Pride” cereal launch.

When Pride season comes to an end, farsighted companies will cease the 11-month hibernation, and will use 2021 to create a holistic approach to the LGBTQ consumer, talking to them throughout the year. One thing will become crystal clear: These visionary companies will jump over the rainbow into a pot of gold.

/ /

The New York Times Doesn’t Know What Pride Is For

In her major new account of ACT UP New York, Let the Record Show, writer Sarah Schulman recalls that the infamous AIDS activist group had a special nickname for a certain paper of record: the “New York Crimes.” Though a bit goofy, the pun drew attention to the New York Times’ very serious history of institutional homophobia and, at the time, derelict coverage of the HIV epidemic that ACT UP was fighting. While the paper has improved by many measuresin the decades since, it showed a little flicker of its old self this week.

After the announcement that New York City’s Pride organizer, Heritage of Pride, had banned uniformed police and security from events from this June through at least 2025, the Times’ editorial board righteously declared the move a serious “misstep” that threated to rend the LGBTQ community asunder. The editorial lamented the hurt feelings of some cops (one of whom described the news as “devastating,” despite the fact that she can still participate as an individual, just without her uniform) and damage to Pride’s “inclusive spirit,” and worried if now wasn’t a “strange moment for the L.G.B.T.Q. community to be closing the door on some of its own and missing an opportunity to broaden its coalition.” No, the editorial board concluded—this foolish, mean-spirited ban won’t do. “Taking a pledge to protect and serve your city,” it wrote, “should not mean sacrificing the chance to be included in a community celebration of your identity.”

Whether uniformed police should be present in Pride parades and other events is a long-standing point of conflict among queers. Other cities, like Toronto, already have bans in place, while many campaigns and their attendant pushbacks are ongoing elsewhere. That Heritage of Pride (not known for being particularly progressive) made this move in New York at the behest of community members and activists (and with the guarantee of pro-police backlash) suggests that consensus may be moving in the no-cop direction.

But I am not here today to convince anyone of which side is right. I simply wish to take a moment to draw our attention to why the Times is so wrong in this editorial—about what Pride is even for.

It is not until the ninth paragraph that readers are reminded why Pride events happen in the first place. The first Pride, in June 1970, was a protest march to commemorate the riots at the Stonewall Inn the year before that were—yes, indeed!—an uprising against police violence. And these riots were not, as the ed board implies, provoked by a single “police raid”; they were the culmination of decades of state violence perpetrated by police against queers, often in places, like the Stonewall, that were the only, already-imperfect havens they had. It is a fine thing that, as the Times points out, the NYPD finally apologized for its actions in a PR stunt during the Stonewall 50th anniversary celebrations in 2019—but not nearly fine enough to erase the simple fact that Pride emerged directly and inexorably from activism, specifically against police brutality.

Times do change, and prejudiced institutions can do better. But the editorial board’s misapprehension is not just a matter of the historical origins of Pride—it’s also, and in some ways more importantly, about Pride’s purpose in the present. The editorial invokes the language of “identity” throughout. In discussing one lesbian officer, it weirdly conflates sexual identity with choice of occupation, writing that Pride is a special time when “two parts of her identity converge.” Is “cop” an identity akin to sexuality? I’m not so sure, but I do think Pride is maybe not the place for celebrating that. We gather at these events, quite explicitly, to assert and honor our LGBTQ identities and history—whatever it says on your badge or lanyard or nametag about work is really not the point (which is one reason to be wary of the corporate presence in these events, but I digress).

Later, the Times writes that “the Pride parade is also about the joy of belonging—of being part of a people knitted together by shared identity and survival.” This is a benign-enough sentiment, up until the last word. What, one wonders, does the Times imagine queer people have had to “survive”? And which of us have had to do the most surviving? If you checked with trans women of color or queer youth experiencing homelessness, you might find that the police are at the top of the list of “things to be survived,” and thus you might begin to understand better why some may view cops’ presence, however “crisp and clean” their outfits, to be less than desirable at an event we agree should offer a modicum of joy.

To be fair, the Times does include a few paragraphs allowing that police violence against queers is a thing, though it notably limits its statistics to Pride season itself—as if incidents at the actual parade (which did in fact happen at the Queer Liberation March just last year!) are all critics were concerned about. “But,” the board inevitably pivots, “barring L.G.B.T.Q. officers from marching is a politicized response and is hardly worthy of the important pursuit of justice for those persecuted by the police.” And here we have the crux of the misunderstanding: The Times editorial board believes that banning queer cops from marching in uniform is political, that tying police violence to actual police is a politicized move detached from the harm that actual victims have endured. And this is inappropriate, you see, because Pride is a “celebration,” a joyful party where “politics” are in poor taste.

I’ll allow that that’s what Pride is for some—many, even. A mere celebration. But for others, Pride is meaningless without politics. Pride is political. Pride is a space and a season in which queers have the opportunity to express and test our political commitments, some of which, yes, may divide us—which is as it should be.

The Times editorial scolds that New York’s ban is “a poke in the eye at law enforcement more than a meaningful action to address police violence or foster a dialogue about law enforcement reform.” But political action sometimes requires a bit of poking, no? (ACT UP certainly thought so.) And here we are, right now, having what looks to me like a dialogue about law enforcement reform. Hm. Not to spoil the party, but could it be that, in this particular instance, mixing politics and Pride is working precisely as it’s supposed to?

/ /

Harvard, Stanford, Yale: Denounce Sedition of Your Graduates

,

Jan. 6, 2021 will go down as one of the most disgraceful days in United States history. It is normally the date set every four years for Congress to confirm the Electoral College vote and the election of a president and vice president. It is normally a day of formalities and unity. This year it was a day when a mob led by home grown terrorists including members of QAnon, neo-Nazis and white supremacists, supported by President Trump and his sycophants in Congress, broke down doors and windows to storm the Capitol building, overwhelming police and threatening members of Congress and their staffs. 

What I find incredible is they were spurred on for weeks by a group of Republicans who supported President Trump’s wild claims the election was stolen. They helped Trump rile up his supporters, feeding them lies and conspiracy theories already debunked by state Boards of Elections, state legislatures and courts at all levels including the Supreme Court. 

I can possibly understand Americans who have very little or no education believing some of these lies. But incredible as it seems some of the people spreading these lies and inciting insurrection were educated at our most prestigious universities. These elite schools should be embarrassed by their graduates who have committed sedition and they must take action in response if they are to save their reputations. This is not about First Amendment rights, which some claim, rather the actions of their graduates trying to overturn a basic tenet of our democracy, the right to vote and have your vote counted. They called for and supported insurrection.

I don’t know all the schools involved but we do know where some members of Congress who voted to overturn this election went to school. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) attended both Stanford and Yale. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) attended Harvard, as did Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). Stefanik even serves on the advisory board of the prestigious Institute of Politics (IOP) at Harvard where hundreds have already asked them to sever any connection with her. 

One hundred and twenty-eight members of the House of Representatives and seven senators participated in efforts to overturn legally certified elections and invalidate the votes of millions of people in numerous states. They should all be charged with sedition, which their speeches and votes surely were. The definition of the term sedition is “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.” Their speeches on the floor of the Congress, and statements to the media, surely fit this definition. 

Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned President Trump if he doesn’t resign she would introduce impeachment proceedings in the House. By the time this column is published that may have happened. We must not allow an American president to walk away without repercussions for the violence and insurrection he fomented. There should also be charges filed against Rudy Giuliani and Eric Trump for their statements inciting violence at Trump’s rally, which preceded the mob going from the White House to storm the Capitol. 

The individuals who breached the Capitol must be considered domestic terrorists and should be dealt with as such. Their actions were an insurrection. The FBI is rounding them up across the nation and the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. and Justice Department, as well as the D.C. Attorney General, are looking at appropriate charges to file against them. 

What must happen is an in-depth investigation of the Capitol Hill police, which may find some were complicit with the mob. 

One thing that should not be overlooked is how law enforcement prepared for and dealt with this nearly all white mob. It is clearly different than it would have been if this mob had been Black or brown. The racism is clear and very troubling. 

There is much still to learn about all this and we must be prepared for more violence leading up to the inauguration on Jan. 20. We must punish all we find complicit, and all those who entered the Capitol, to the full extent the law allows. We must make clear to all Americans and to the world acts of insurrection and sedition will not be tolerated if our democracy is to survive. 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

/ /

Our Democracy Hinges on Decision in Fulton Case

Queer or non-queer, if you value democracy, civil rights and health care, nothing’s as scary as the Supreme Court.

With the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, there’s the reasonable concern that the court (with a 6-3 conservative, Republican majority) might rule in favor of Donald Trump’s false claims of voter fraud.

There’s the (not unreasonable) fear that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance if the court rules in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Then, there’s Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case that hasn’t gotten much attention in the midst of the election and the pandemic. But that case could have a profound, life-changing impact on the LGBTQ community and many other marginalized groups.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Fulton v. City of Philadelphia on Nov. 4.  As the Blade has reported, the issue of the case is whether Catholic Social Services (CSS), a taxpayer funded, religious-affiliated foster care agency, can reject same-sex couples who want to be foster parents (because of their sexual orientation).  

Nothing stings more than rejection. Especially, if you’re being rejected by the church you love.

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, the organization of Catholics working for LGBTQ equality, remembers the moment when the phone rang.

She and her spouse, who live in Massachusetts, wanted to adopt a child. “We’re Catholic.  So we started with Catholic Charities,” Duddy-Burke told me in a telephone interview.

The couple, who celebrated a civil union in Vermont in 2000 and were legally married in Massachusetts in 2004, wondered why they didn’t hear back from the agency. Finally, one day a Catholic Charities social worker called them. “She said she was calling from her own car during her lunch break,” Duddy-Burke said. “Because she didn’t want [the agency] to know she was talking to us.”

The agency worker told the couple that Catholic Charities wouldn’t place children with same-sex couples. “She said she disagreed with the policy. But that was the policy,” Duddy-Burke said.

Duddy-Burke’s story has a happy ending: She and her wife (going through a state agency) adopted two daughters. Their older daughter (born drug-addicted, and nine months old when they adopted her) has just started college. Their younger daughter, adopted when she was five, is now a junior in high school.

“Such a rejection was so alienating – dehumanizing,” Duddy-Burke said, “to be rejected – not for our experience or qualifications, but because of who we are!”

If the couple had been a part of an “institutional” church, they might have lost their connection with the church, Duddy-Burke said. But because “we are a part of a small, independent Catholic community that provided love and support,” she said, they maintained their faith.

But, a lot of people don’t have that kind of support, Duddy-Burke added.

The all-too-likely possibility that the Supreme Court will rule that a taxpayer-funded, religious-affiliated foster care agency can reject same-sex couples as foster parents (on the basis of sexual orientation) for religious reasons makes me question my faith in democracy.      

Why should we be so concerned about Fulton v. City of Philadelphia? Because allowing agencies that receive taxpayer funding to discriminate against LGBTQ people or any other group for religious reasons violates the separation of church and state.  

There are more than 400,000 children in the foster care system who are waiting adoption, according to the U.S. Department of Human Services. These kids, desperately needing parental love and support, are the innocent pawns of homophobia.

In the age of marriage equality, 11 states have banned same-sex adoptions. Yet, ironically, same-sex couples are seven times more likely than opposite-sex couples to raise an adopted or foster child, according to UCLA School of Law Williams Institute.  

A majority of Americans (61 percent) support same-sex marriage, according to a 2019 Pew Research Center poll.

If the Supreme Court rules that CSS can forbid same-sex couples from adopting children because of its religious affiliation, the floodgates to discrimination of all types against many groups of people will be opened. Everyone from landlords to employers to hospitals could discriminate, based on their religious beliefs, against not only queers, but Muslims, Black people, atheists – anyone who doesn’t fit the so-called norm.

Let’s hope that justice will prevail – that the court will uphold the separation of church and state. Our life as a democracy depends on it.

/ /

The Harm of Excluding Queer History in Schools

The majority of high school students can rattle off facts about the lives and legacies of figures like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Graham Bell, but can’t do the same for Marsha P. Johnson, Harvey Milk, or Leslie Feinberg. This is because in today’s school system, the contributions of key LGBTQ+ civil rights leaders and the movements they lead aren’t taught. This exclusion of queer history, coupled with the leaving out of LGBTQ+ inclusive sex education, affects all students in negative ways. 

Being forced to seek information about people like us in the past and different sexual orientations as we figure ourselves out is incredibly alienating. Because I had never been given information about it anywhere, I thought of being queer as something that I shouldn’t and couldn’t be. 

If I had been educated in school about these things, it would have been easier for me to recognize what I was feeling and realize that it was “normal” and natural for me. This is an experience that I share with many other LGBTQ+ youth, including my friends and classmates. 

“I didn’t know it was possible to like girls, let alone like girls and boys, or to not be a girl or a boy until I did my own research on it,” says 16-year-old Willa, who is non-binary and pansexual. “It definitely hindered my journey in discovering myself.” 

Fifteen-year-old JB Campbell, who is non-binary and biromantic, says: “There were many internal signs that would’ve made my journey easier had I been exposed to representation and had a chance to understand things that weren’t considered the norm.” 

Furthermore, the representation of queer individuals in history who did groundbreaking things for the LGBTQ+ community will show students that people’s contributions to the world we live in now hold the same value as other historical events that shaped the way we live today. If we teach students about the pioneers of the queer rights movement who fought against police brutality at Stonewall and the HIV/AIDS epidemic, queer students are less likely to feel that their lives and experiences are less important because of who they are. Representation matters, and the stories of unapologetic LGBTQ+ figures inspire queer youth to be proud of who they are. 

The narrative of the way that the LGBTQ+ community has been erased and devalued throughout history and how we’ve worked to overcome this inequity is a lesson that is beneficial to all students, according to teacher Colin O’Grady. 

“When people see themselves represented in history, or in literature, it validates their sense of self-worth. It tells them that their lives matter and that they are valued members of society,” he says. “Revising the curriculum to be more inclusive, and teaching about the exclusion from historical narratives that occurred up until now also teaches all students a lot about the nature of how history is constructed and leads them to think critically about the narratives that they encounter.” 

Students who are aware of the injustices faced by the queer community and how they shape our lives are better equipped to question inequality in their daily lives.

History being taught through a solely cisgender and heterosexual lense creates a stigma around queerness that affects cishet student’s perception and understanding of their LGBTQ+ peers. For students who grow up in homophobic and transphobic households, the only image they’re likely to have of the queer community is that we’re “weird” or “gross,” and this is harmful to both their queer peers and themselves. “I’m straight myself, but I have many LGBTQ+ friends and I want to do as much as I can for them,” says 16-year-old J. “I think if they had taught us about this in school, we’d definitely be more accepting.” 

GLSEN’s 2017 National School Climate Survey found that 91 percent of LGBTQ+ students in Virginia secondary schools heard their classmates use the word “gay” in a derogatory way. Eighty-one percent had heard their classmates use homophobic slurs, and 73 percent had heard negative comments about transgender people. 

If we’re taught from the beginning that queer people exist and are human beings who make valuable contributions to society just like everyone else, students who use the word “gay” as an insult and view being queer as something that’s unnatural and wrong would be less inclined to do so. If the etymology behind homophobic and transphobic slurs are included in the curriculum, cishet students who use these words against their queer peers would be likely to stop after they’re given the understanding of the true weight that they hold. 

Only 15 percent of queer Virginia students who were surveyed by GLSEN in 2017 said that they were taught about the queer community in a positive light, and 3 percent said that the sex education they had received was LGBTQ+ inclusive. 

As well as making queer students more comfortable, LGBTQ+ inclusive sex education would improve the safety of queer students, both physically and mentally. 

According to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 70 percent of new HIV cases were made up of gay and bisexual men in 2017. Sixty-four percent of those new cases were men between the ages of 13-34. A 2003 study by the University of Washington found that almost half of women who had intercourse with women in the past year tested positive for herpes simplex virus type one. 

In order to lower these numbers and give queer students comparable health benefits from their health classes, students need to be educated about Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP), dental dams, and STDs that disproportionately affect those who engage in same-sex intercourse. 

As it is today, the majority of sex education curriculums include no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity. When these things are brought up, they’re often portrayed in a negative way. This contributes to the frequent bullying and discrimination that queer students face due to the LGBTQ+ exclusive climate cishet-only sex education generates. The Center for American Progress reported that almost one-third of LGBTQ+ students have skipped class because they felt unsafe at school. The negative bias around being LGBTQ+ that is caused by only portraying queerness in a negative light makes queer students miss out on academic opportunities and fall behind in their education. 

Excluding queer student’s history and sex education doesn’t do any good for them or their cisgender and heterosexual counterparts. The stories of strong LGBTQ+ leaders and how they broke barriers teach lessons that everyone can learn from, and normalize queer identities and relationships. Inclusive sex education gives queer students the same tools as their classmates to make informed and safe choices. 

Maeve Korengold, 16, is a high school junior and Safe Space NOVA’s newest Student 

/ /

The Sad, Closeted Hypocrisy of Lindsey Graham

Sen. Lindsey Graham returned to the national spotlight this week, overseeing the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett. The irony of this appears largely lost on the mainstream media. 

Graham, for years and years rumored to be gay, is rushing the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice who will likely rule on challenges to the Obergefell marriage decision that will undoubtedly curtail its scope, if not overturn it entirely, as Justices Alito and Thomas revealed last week as their goal. 

The confirmed bachelor’s efforts to keep his sexual orientation a secret suffered a blow this summer, when male escorts and porn stars created a stir with the “Lady Graham” hashtag and revelations about “ladybugs” (Google it if you have an iron stomach). Porn star Sean Harding went public on Twitter, alleging Graham has hired multiple D.C.-based escorts over the years who signed non-disclosure agreements, which have enabled this farce to persist for so long.

Closeted figures like Graham have done so much damage over the years, from Donald Trump’s idol and mentor Roy Cohn, to Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, passing laws and judgment against members of their own community while cowering in the shadows. It’s remarkable that in 2016 Graham ran for president and is now running for re-election to the Senate while largely avoiding questions about his sexual orientation from the media. His disdain for the LGBTQ community is established in a string of votes against our interests, from voting against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to co-sponsoring the Defense of Marriage Act, to shoving a hostile Supreme Court justice down our throats two weeks before a presidential election after vowing he would never do such a thing. 

Graham was asked about marriage during a recent debate with Jaime Harrison, his well-funded Democratic opponent in the South Carolina Senate race. 

“My partner and I have been married for five years and we’ve been together for 22. What will the candidates do to ensure our rights are protected — the rights of the gay people, married in the state of South Carolina,” asked Louis Yuhasz during the debate. 

“The law of the land by the Supreme Court is that same-sex marriage is now legal,” Graham replied. “I accept that ruling. We’re a conservative state, there are a lot of religious people around this state that believe in traditional marriage. They’re not bigots, they’re not neanderthals for believing in that but this man, under our law, has the right to his relationship. I’ll honor the law of the land. … I’ve tried to be tolerant. I’ve tried to understand that people have different life experiences. I do; I’m not a woman, I’m not a person of color. I listen, but I can tell you right now that when it comes to South Carolina, I think I’ve been an effective voice for who we are and to the gentleman, the law of the land is that same-sex marriage is legal and we will honor that.” 

Of course, that’s a far cry from actually endorsing marriage equality, as the “law of the land” will likely change given the new 6-3 conservative majority on the high court. 

It appears unlikely that Harrison will unseat Graham, but if enough South Carolinians recognize the harmful hypocrisy that Graham embodies, maybe, just maybe, we’ll see much needed change on Nov. 3. 

Patti LuPone said it best when she tweeted earlier this year: “Lindsey Graham you are a disgrace. On a personal note, why don’t you just bite the bullet and come out. You might just come to your senses.”

/ /

Key Rights at Stake in US Supreme Court Pick

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020 leaves a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court and enormous uncertainty over the court’s future role in the protection of fundamental human rights. A nominee for Justice Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court should be evaluated in terms of their likely impact on access to justice for critical human rights guarantees, including the rights to life, due process, free expression, privacy, health, freedom from arbitrary detention, and freedom from discrimination.

The following areas of Supreme Court decision-making–voting rights, the right to health, the right to reproductive freedom, and the interaction between religious freedom and other rights–are only some of the domains in which Justice Ginsburg’s replacement could either help to protect or weaken basic rights, with particularly significant impacts on people of color, women and girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The stakes of the decision before US elected officials are tremendous. We urge senators to thoroughly review any nominee’s record on these and other issues and to question a nominee closely about key rights protections that hinge on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.

Voting Rights

The 15th and 19th Amendments to the US Constitution recognize the rights of all citizens to vote without discrimination. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a party, provides that “every citizen shall have the right and opportunity” without discrimination or “unreasonable restrictions” to “vote and be elected at genuine periodic elections … guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.”

Over Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, the Supreme Court has already eviscerated federal oversight under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, enabling states to impose discriminatory restrictions on the right to vote. The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated these problems and the Supreme Court has already ruled to restrict voting rights, including by rejecting attempts by states in several cases to adapt voting procedures to the pandemic. With new legislation to restore federal oversight over voting pending in Congress, a new justice could play a pivotal role in either erecting new barriers or upholding the right to vote without discrimination.

Right to Health

The right to health under international human rights law does not guarantee a right to be healthy, but obligates governments to enact policies promoting available and affordable basic health services without discrimination. Governments should take particular care to ensure access to those most likely to face obstacles–people living in poverty, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, women, and children, among others. 

As the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid, and reproductive health care rights continue to be the subject of litigation in both federal and state courts, the Supreme Court is likely to act as the final arbiter on the constitutionality and permissibility of these programs. These decisions will have profound and far-reaching rights impact, at a time when the number of uninsured is already increasing. They will potentially determine whether millions of people in the United States will have access to health care during the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond.

Rights to Reproductive Freedom

Everyone should be able to exercise their reproductive rights and maintain their health, privacy, and dignity. In a series of cases over the last five decades, the Supreme Court has taken important steps to protect women’s health and human rights, including their freedom to access contraceptive care and abortion services. Recently, though, the court has shown it is willing to curtail those rights. Justice Ginsburg’s replacement will be poised to protect or undo jurisprudence ensuring women’s access to abortion.

A new justice could eliminate constitutional protections for women’s right to access abortion by upholding excessive regulation of abortion providers or by abandoning the Roe v. Wade line of precedent and instead leaving it to individual states to determine access to legal abortion. If that happens, many states might criminalize abortion. At least four states already have “trigger laws” on the books that automatically outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned, and dozens of others have laws that put access to abortion at high risk.

Even without fully overturning Roe, a decision that narrows the court’s understanding of what kinds of restrictions or regulations present an undue burden on a person seeking an abortion, or one that redefines the test for analyzing the constitutionality of abortion regulations, could severely curtail reproductive rights in the United States.

LGBT Rights

Sexual orientation and gender identity are integral aspects of our being and should never lead to discrimination or abuse. International human rights law protects the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) to privacy, nondiscrimination, and equal protection of the law. While a recent 6-3 Supreme Court ruling banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity should remain settled law, other issues that are likely to come before the court will also be highly consequential for LGBT people. The court is likely to be confronted with efforts to limit the scope of or reverse landmark decisions protecting the rights of LGBT people, such as Obergefell v. Hodges, which established that same-sex couples enjoy the same marriage rights as different-sex couples. Even if this decision were not overturned altogether, a new justice may be considering challenges aimed at allowing states to discriminate against same-sex married couples.

Ensuring Religious Freedom Without Undermining Other Rights

Freedom of religion is protected under international human rights law as well as the US Constitution. While a government can craft accommodations for religious objectors, they should ensure that these are carefully constructed so that they do not come at the expense of the equality or dignity of others.

The next justice will most likely weigh in on whether an employer’s religious liberty permits them to refuse contraceptive coverage to their employees. Under the Affordable Care Act, Congress delegated the authority to define the scope of reproductive health services to Department of Health and Human Services experts. A 2011 recommendation included all Federal Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, sterilization, and education and counselling as part of preventive health services.

But in a line of cases, including Hobby Lobby v. Burwell (2014) and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania(2020), the court has permitted employers to raise conscience-based objections to the contraceptive mandate. In Ginsburg’s dissent to the 2020 Little Sisters ruling, she stated, “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.” Continued litigation on this issue is expected, as the question whether the expansion of the refusal exemption is reasonable has been returned to lower courts.

The new justice will also be central to deciding cases involving efforts to seek religious exemptionsfrom laws that protect the rights of LGBT people and reproductive rights. International human rights law recognizes the importance of the rights to freedom of conscience and religion, but also elaborates their limits, particularly where their exercise threatens to negatively impact the fundamental rights of others.

In recent years, litigants have sought to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the US Constitution’s free exercise of religion clause to challenge laws requiring government officials to register the marriages of same-sex couples and laws prohibiting discrimination in education, employment, housing, health care, and public accommodations. In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, sidestepping the larger questions. The court is set to consider the issue this fall in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case involving a religious foster care agency that argues that it has a right to receive state contracts and support even if it will not comply with the city’s nondiscrimination requirements.  

/ /

LGBTQ: The Letters Republicans Didn’t Utter

Call it the convention that dared not speak our name. LGBTQ people earned not a single mention during Republicans’ pageant in red, through four nights of televised speeches last month. 

This refusal to acknowledge the existence of more than 15 million LGBTQ people, 5 percent of the populace and residents of every ZIP code in America, shows a paralyzing hypocrisy. The Republican Party depends on anti-gay intolerance to rev up its base at election time but has to feign tolerance when the broader public is watching, knowing bigotry turns off a key slice of getable voters. 

The GOP platform, held over from 2016, embraces the brutal practice of reparative therapy to coerce youth to renounce their emotions and identity. Most Republican candidates oppose and even seek to nullify existing protections in law that protect the safety of LGBTQ people, including in medical settings, marriage and the adoption process. Still, the party covets the support of donors who cringe at overt homophobia. Stuck in this dilemma of the party’s own making, silence can be as good as it gets. 

The run-up to the GOP convention included two anti-LGBTQ slurs that were anything but quiet. In Kansas City, the baseball play-by-play announcer of the Cincinnati Reds, Thom W. Brennaman, was caught on a microphone talking about “a fag capital of the world.” During the game, and despite apologies, Brennaman, who happens to be a past donor to the Republican Party and candidates, was suspended and banished from the broadcast booth. 

Several commercial sponsors and professional sports have at long last put anti-gay slurs on a par with other forms of bigotry as disqualifiers. Conservative politics have not caught up. Witness U.S. Senate candidate Don Bolduc in New Hampshire, who last month labeled his opponents as “liberal, socialist pansies,” a dated anti-gay epithet. 

The silence observed at the GOP convention is familiar to those of us who contended for years with Republican parents and relatives. No mention was a concession or, as perhaps they let us know later, an indulgence of our presence at the dinner table or the reunion. 

But times are changing. By disappearing any mention of gay people, the GOP convention reflects a state of denial that is itself disappearing. 

More than 75 percent of Americans claim an openly LGBTQ friend, coworker or family member (and where exactly are the outliers hiding?). Polling in 2019 at the outset of the first-ever serious campaign for president by an “out” candidate, Pete Buttigieg, showed that 68 percent of Americans were comfortable or enthusiastic about a bid like his for the nation’s highest office. 

That message of inclusion and pride was both shown and told at the Democratic convention the week before. Buttigieg, a military veteran, spoke plainly about coming out and getting married. Lori Lightfoot, the lesbian mayor of Chicago, Danica Roem, the transgender state delegate from Virginia and Robert Garcia, the gay mayor of Long Beach, all had significant moments on camera. So did Judy and Dennis Shepard, parents of gay hate crime victim Matthew Shepard, in Wyoming. 

The late conservative commentator Marvin Liebman argued that homophobia was a glue that held the Republican Party together. A gay man who came out late in life, he gave many conservative operatives their first jobs and lived long enough to make them reckon with the inconvenient fact of his sexuality, repressed for decades but expressed without shame in the seven years before his death in 1997. 

Coming out still takes courage, as many a teenager can testify. The policies of the Trump administration, whether to take away anti-bias protections in health care, to deny transgender students access to restrooms of the gender they identify with or to ban transgender people from the military, perpetuate stigma and make the path of openness no easier. 

At Republicans’ convention in Cleveland in 2016, one month after the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, this president showed he could say “LGBT.” But in his quest for re-election, while flouting laws against using federal installations as props and staging areas during four nights on television, the large and diverse community of LGBTQ Americans never got named a single time. That refusal to value the lives and votes of one in 20 Americans—and those who love us unconditionally—is another testament to the cowardice of this presidency and the party that made it possible. 

Hans Johnson has advised LGBT organizations and ballot measure campaigns in nearly every state. A longtime Washingtonian and former Blade columnist, he now lives in Los Angeles. 

/ /

RNC Prove to be Racists, Anti-LGBTQ and Sleazy Charlatans

,

While 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton deemed Donald Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables” during the campaign, the list of Republican National Convention speakers this week may be taking the term to a whole new level.

Trump’s reelection convention will feature an extensive lineup of racists, anti-LGBTQ activists, and con men. And that doesn’t count Trump himself.

Related: Budweiser trolls Donald Trump and the deplorables in new Super Bowl ad

Anti-LGBTQ activist Franklin Graham will speak. He recently made news when the field hospital he operated during the height of New York’s COVID crisis refused to accept any volunteers who wouldn’t denounce LGBTQ rights.

The gun-toting St. Louis couple, Patricia and Mark McCloskey – who threatened Black Lives Matter protesters and became a national laughingstock and personification of white privilege – will also speak. It was recently revealed that not only do they want people of color kept outside the gates of their rich neighborhood, they sued their neighborhood association in an attempt to prevent gay couples from moving into the community.

Dana White, the president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, will speak shortly before President Trump officially accepts the nomination for reelection. MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has become BFFs with Trump recently over their shared love of quack medical cure-alls, will also be in attendance.

Nick Sandmann, the high school kid who made headlines during a confrontation with a Native American protester and a group of militant Black Christians, will share the depth of his knowledge with the virtual crowd. Actor Scott Baio from Happy Days and Charles in Charge will also drop some deep thoughts, presumably about something.

As with any good mafia syndicate, Trump’s family members will also appear to help convince voters to stick by the Don. Melania Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, and even Tiffany Trump will try to “sway” voters. Almost half of the keynote speakers will be part of the President’s family.

Even Don Jr.’s girlfriend will be on stage. Ivanka’s husband will too. They both work in the White House too, of course.

A host of Republican politicians and administration officials with ties to anti-LGBTQ hate groups will share the stage throughout the week-long event. Vice President Mike Pence will also address the party, presumably to lecture them on the dangers of dancing and rap music.

No word yet whether or not the Deplorable Choir will sing. But since the GOP is stuck with Kid Rock for entertainment, what could it hurt?

/ /

The Problem with Gay Republicans

So, what did you get up to on your summer vacation? I myself did the usual gay hot spots along with many of my fellow queer Washingtonians — Rehoboth Beach for a few weekends here and there, Provincetown, Mass. All in all, a pretty gay little summer. 

Just as our summers were wrapping up, Vice President Mike Pence was wrapping up his own rainbow tour of Europe, including stops in Ireland, where he dined with the country’s gay prime minister and his husband. Later, on to London, where Pence got all dreamy-eyed sitting across from Boris Johnson, gushing over both him and Brexit generally. The trip overall was no big deal, really. Most people seemed to ignore him, or, as the case with Iceland’s first family, straight up gay troll him. They famously wore rainbow bracelets in photos with the Vice President when he visited Reykjavik. Wherever he went, no one really seemed to want him there. The Irish Times didn’t dance around anything, calling the whole thing nothing but a real shit show.

Whatever you call the visit, you can’t call it, or Pence for that matter, anti-gay. That would be terribly unfair, according to Trump White House chief gay Judd Deere. That’s what he told us via his Twitter account anyway. That if you still think Pence is anti-gay, like everyone on the planet does, just remember he had lunch with gay people. True Kellyanne Conway-esque logic there. Sort of like saying, “Yes, your uncle is a complete anti-gay bigot. But may I remind you he really enjoyed Robin Williams’ performance in ‘The Birdcage?’ So, don’t you feel a bit foolish now?”

But who is Judd Deere exactly? Like me, he’s gay, and he’s from Arkansas. And he’s stepped up to the press plate at the White House following the departure of fellow Arkansan Sarah Huckabee Sanders. This column isn’t really about how anti-gay this administration is, or how Deere is wrong to enable and promote it. That’s all pretty obvious. But how, as gays, do we treat queer quislings like Deere? What do you do with this administration’s useful gay idiots? Some have argued that if you see Judd Deere out in a gay bar, you should tell him he isn’t welcome. And I have to say, this strategy is pretty damn tempting. This of course would involve some effort on my part — committing Deere’s face to memory, actively scanning bars for him, approaching him, unwelcoming him there. It’s a lot. But still, would it be fair for Deere to enjoy our gay spaces when he touts policies that fly in the face of everything these spaces represent — safety, security, free expression, and inclusivity.

There’s all of that, and now that summer is behind us, things could really come to a head this fall, as the Supreme Court is set to hear three cases of interest to us. The question, succinctly, is whether or not we can be fired for being gay. Trump’s Justice Department says yes, we can, submitting a briefing arguing so at the end of August. The cases are set to be heard this October. Aren’t you tired of having your basic rights argued over? Deere has made his thoughts clear on all of this. Calling the Equality Act passed by the House earlier this year full of “poison pills.”  The Equality Act would include workplace protections (safety and security) for LGBT Americans. 

I know what some of you might be thinking. There are gays of every stripe, be more tolerant, blah, blah, blah. This gay Republican thing would’ve been cool, say, in 1995, when all Republicans hated us, and so did about half the Democrats. But now, in 2019, the lines are pretty well drawn. So I’m fairly intolerant of gay Republicans like Deere. So perhaps in Rehoboth or Provincetown, or around our town, maybe I’ll get the chance to tell him one day. 

Brock Thompson is a D.C.-based writer. He contributes regularly to the Blade.

1 2 3