Security forces in Qatar arbitrarily arrested and abused LGBTQ Qataris as recently as last month, Human Rights Watch said on Monday, in the run-up to hosting soccer’s World Cup which has put a spotlight on human rights issues in the Gulf Arab state.
Homosexuality is illegal in the conservative Muslim country, and some soccer stars have raised concerns over the rights of fans traveling for the event, especially LGBTQ individuals and women, whom rights groups say Qatari laws discriminate against.
A Qatari official said in a statement that HRW’s allegations “contain information that is categorically and unequivocally false,” without specifying.
Organizers of the World Cup, which starts on Nov. 20 and is the first held in a Middle Eastern nation, say that everyone, no matter their sexual orientation or background, is welcome, while also warning against public displays of affection.
“Freedom of expression and nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity should be guaranteed, permanently, for all residents of Qatar, not just spectators going to Qatar for the World Cup,” HRW said in a statement.
The organization said it had interviewed six LGBTQ Qataris, including four transgender women, one bisexual woman and one gay man, who reported being detained between 2019 and 2022 and subjected to verbal and physical abuse, including kicking and punching.
They were detained without charge in an underground prison in Doha, HRW said, and one individual was held for two months in solitary confinement.
“All six said that police forced them to sign pledges indicating that they would ‘cease immoral activity,’” it said, adding that transgender women detainees were mandated to attend conversion therapy sessions at a government-sponsored clinic.
Qatar does not “license or operate ‘conversion centres,’” the Qatari official said.
One of the transgender Qatari women interviewed by HRW told Reuters on condition of anonymity that she was arrested several times, most recently this summer when she was held for several weeks.
Authorities had stopped her due to her appearance or for possessing make-up, the woman said, adding that she had been beaten to the point of bleeding and had her head shaved.
The behavior center she was mandated to attend told the woman she had a gender identity disorder and accused her of being transgender in search of “sympathy from others.”
“The last thing I want is sympathy, I just want to be myself,” she said.
Individuals will be allowed to make sure that their records with the Social Security Administration align with their gender identity under a plan announced Wednesday.
The action, which is part of the agency’s “Equity Action Plan,” follows through on a March announcement to do so by the agency’s acting commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi.
Kijakazi said the move is part of a “commitment to decrease administrative burdens and ensure people who identify as gender diverse or transgender have options in the Social Security Number card application process.” It’s also part of a larger Biden administration-wide effort to increase acceptance of gender identity.
In June, President Joe Biden signed an executive order meant to take steps to advance LGBTQ equality, including “strengthening supports and protections for transgender Americans.”
At Social Security, the agency will accept the applicant’s self-identified gender identity of either male or female, even if it is different from the designation shown on identity documents, such as a passport or state-issued driver’s license or identity card.
The agency says it is exploring possible future policy and systems updates to support an “X” designation for the SSN card application process for people who don’t identify as male or female.
In June 2021, the State Department started implementing procedures to allow applicants to self-select their gender, including an “X,” and no longer required medical certification if an applicant’s self-selected gender does not match the gender on their other citizenship or identity documents.
The Department of Homeland Security has reformed its screening process at U.S. airports for transgender travelers and the Department of Housing and Urban Development has implemented protections for homeless transgender people who seek emergency shelter access consistent with their gender identity.
Odessa Kelly is the archetype of a grassroots community advocate turned politician. Her long, wavy locs frame the kind of smile that will lend you a cup of sugar or invite you to an impromptu backyard barbecue just because. Kelly speaks like someone who has been in the trenches, can relate to all our struggles, and is authentically rooting for our successes.
A native of Nashville, Kelly grew up on the east side of the city in a poor working class neighborhood riddled by poverty and gun violence. An active and creative child, Kelly played Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) basketball and used her Barbie dolls as hostages in her imaginative G.I. Joe schemes.
“Even though I’m from the hood and we weren’t rich by any means, I had a very blessed childhood,” Kelly said. “I grew up in a house with both of my parents and had a very solid foundation.”
After graduating from Stratford High School (now Stratford STEM Magnet School), Kelly attended Tennessee State University, where she earned a bachelor’s degree in business administration, and later, Cumberland University, where she earned a master’s degree in public service.
Kelly is running against a Trump ally, incumbent Rep. Mark Green (R), for Tennessee’s redrawn seventh congressional district, a formerly Democratic-majority district ruptured by Republican-led gerrymandering that echoes the South’s history of political turmoil.
If elected, Kelly would make history on multiple fronts — she would be the first out Black woman elected to represent Tennessee, the first out Black lesbian to serve in the U.S. House and the sixth openly gay woman to serve in Congress. (Former Rep. Barbara Jordan was revealed to be in a same-sex domestic partnership in her obituary.)
And Kelly is ready to make history along with her state next month, as long as all eligible Tennesseans get out and vote.
“2020 showed us that Tennessee is not a red state, it’s a non-voting state,” Kelly told the Blade in an interview.
Kelly credits the Justice Democrats for being unrelenting supporters of her campaign.
Surprisingly, Kelly was unaware of the history she would make as the first openly gay Black woman to be elected in Tennessee.
“It didn’t hit me until after I decided to run and I was literally reading the prospectus that was put together for me,” Kelly said.
For more than a decade, Kelly worked in the Nashville Department of Parks and Recreation as the leader of the Napier Community Center and executive director of Stand Up Nashville.
In 2018, when Kelly learned the city awarded a $275 million bond to billionaire John Ingram for the construction of Geodis Park, a stadium for the city’s new major league soccer team Nashville SC, Stand Up Nashville got to work securing a community benefits agreement (CBA) with Ingram.
The unprecedented agreement secured affordable housing, a $15.50 an hour minimum wage for all stadium workers, affordable childcare and workforce development.
“That CBA was our pride and joy,” Kelly said.
But Kelly recalls her proudest moment as the time she overheard a group of teenagers she was working with at Napier Community Center discuss how they don’t have to worry about what will happen to them after graduation because they have the community benefits agreement.
“You preach some of these things so much the kids just roll their eyes because they hear it 24/7, but at that point, I knew every bit of stress was worth it,” Kelly said.
Kelly’s love for her city and community didn’t stop with Stand Up Nashville. Now, Kelly channels that same energy and hard work into her campaign to stand up for Tennessee in Washington.
Kelly is a self-proclaimed Blue Dog Democrat whose platform includes Medicare for all and the Green New Deal, which focuses on combating climate change by moving away from fossil fuels and creating millions of high-paying jobs.
“The Green New Deal is me thinking about pathways out of poverty,” Kelly said.
Outside of the political arena, Kelly is a mother of two and a foodie who enjoys gaming, sports, and listening to music. Running for public office can be frenetic, but when Kelly needs to refocus and take a deep breath, she turns on her go-to song, Meek Mill’s “Amen.”
“I’m from the South so I like soulful rap and anything that has a good beat,” Kelly said.
When asked about her plans if she doesn’t win her election, Kelly said she is still considering all options.
“I’m gonna need a minute to make a decision about what I do next. All I want to do is try to win this race,” Kelly said. “And I hope I’m showing up well and speaking to the urgencies of the majority of you out there.”
Republicans in the House of Representatives introduced legislation based on a right-wing conspiracy theory and proposed what critics are calling a federal “don’t say gay” bill.
The bill prohibits using federal funds for programs or events that contain “sexually-oriented material” geared toward children under 10, such as drag queen story hours, which have attracted the attention of conservative politicians and right-wing activists. On Tuesday, Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson introduced the bill with more than 30 House Republican co-sponsors.
The introduction of this legislation is a reaction to far-right conservative outrage over innocuous drag performances that have included the presence of children at family-friendly drag events. An online video of a child attending a drag brunch at a Miami restaurant was widely circulated among right-wing Twitter users in July, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis filed a federal complaint against the restaurant in which he cited a 1947 state Supreme Court ruling that “men impersonating women” constitutes a public nuisance, The Hillreports.
The outlet notes that Johnson’s proposal, the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act, says government agencies on the federal and state level, including the Department of Defense, have used federal funds in the past to promote and host “sexually-oriented events” like drag queen story hours for children.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio in May obsessed about a drag queen story hour event scheduled at a U.S. military base in Ramstein, Germany, and pushed to have the military cancel it. He also included drag panic in one of his campaign commercials recently, leading to drag queen Lil Miss Hot Mess and GLAAD asking why the Republican lawmaker is so obsessed with drag queens.
In a move that harkens back to the 1984 movie Footloose, when Kevin Bacon’s character discovers a small midwestern town in which dancing was made illegal, Republicans once again prove that life imitates art.
Specifically, the legislation prohibits taxpayer dollars from funding programs, events, or literature that expose children younger than ten to “lewd or lascivious dancing.”
Although children in the United States are not being exposed to inappropriate sexual behavior, nor are they being sexualized — in fact, a GLSEN study released Tuesday shows that most kids don’t even learn about LGBTQ+ topics in school — the bill reveals its actual bigotry within its text.
It defines “sexually-oriented material” as images, descriptions, and simulations of sexual acts, genitalia, or “any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”
Harvard’s Cyber Law Clinic instructor Alejandra Caraballo described the bill as a federal version of Florida Gov. Ron Desantis’s “don’t say gay” law.
“Universities, public schools, hospitals, medical clinics, etc. could all be defunded if they host any event discussing LGBTQ people and children could be present,” she wrote on Twitter. “The way they define “sexually oriented material” simply includes anything about LGBTQ people.”
Caraballo warns that one enforcement mechanism in the bill is similar to Texas’ SB8, which made ordinary citizens bounty hunters if they suspected a person was involved with an abortion.
“It includes a private right of action against any government official AND private entity for a violation,” she writes. “This is SB8 style bounty lawsuits against anyone accepting federal funds. This will be a ban on all discussion of LGBTQ people in any entity that received federal funds.”
Growing up gay in Rwanda was like “living in prison” for Innocent.
As a child, he was singled out by children and adults alike because he was seen as “feminine”. Teachers who should have tried to put a stop to homophobic bullying instead encouraged it, saying Rwandan culture didn’t accept queer people.
Innocent fled Rwanda and arrived in the UK as a refugee. He’s built a new life for himself as an openly gay man. For the first time, he feels free.
That’s why he was so shaken when he heard that the UK government is planning to deporting asylum seekers it deems “illegal” to Rwanda. The plan, launched by previous home secretary Priti Patel, has been denounced as unnecessary, inhumane, racist, and a recipe guaranteed to result in the deaths of LGBTQ+ asylum seekers.
It has been met with legal challenges – including those that grounded the first scheduled deportation flight – but a change in leadership hasn’t stopped ministers from pushing ahead. Patel’s successor Suella Braverman has been slammed for saying it’s her “dream” and “obsession” to get the plan up and running.
It’s a bitter pill to swallow for LGBTQ+ Rwandans like Innocent – his experience of growing up in the country proved to him how dangerous it can be for queer people.
You feel like no one cares about your life – even God doesn’t like you, even God doesn’t love you.
Innocent knew he was gay by the time he was 13.
“Emotionally it was really challenging because all I wanted was just to change it,” he explains.
As a teenager, Innocent went to a priest to seek guidance about his sexuality. He hoped he would get support, but the response he received was “devastating”.
“At church they were preaching that God is love. I was naive and I was thinking, if God is love and this is a man of God, he’s going to be able to accept it – to at least see me as a human being.”
LGBT+ campaigners join Gay Liberation Front (GLF) veterans to mark the 50th anniversary of the first UK Pride march in 1972. (Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty)
But the priest had the “opposite reaction” – he told Innocent that his feelings were sinful and that he must change if he wanted to avoid burning in hell.
“You feel like no one cares about your life – even God doesn’t like you, even God doesn’t love you. I felt powerless.”
At that time, Innocent was still reeling from the trauma of living through the Rwandan genocide. Over just 100 days in 1994, around 500,000 to 662,000 people – mostly from the Tutsi minority ethnic group – were murdered – Innocent’s parents were among them.
Because he was an orphan, Innocent was eligible to go to the UK as a refugee at the age of 16. He knew moving away would give him the chance to live openly as a gay man – something he would never be able to do in Rwanda.
“When I arrived in Europe, it was like getting out of hell,” he says.
Innocent has built a life for himself in the UK – he is now an out and proud gay man. He still keeps his sexuality from some of his relatives back home because he knows that attitudes have not changed.
That’s why he was “horrified” when he discovered the UK government was planning on deporting some asylum seekers to Rwanda.
“I was just wondering how that could happen,” he says.
“There’s a lot of evidence that sexual orientation and gender identity is still taboo and the government doesn’t want to do anything about that.
“People are still being bullied, being put in prison, being tortured almost, and rejected by the community wherever they go. That is how it is now for LGBT people who live there.”
Protesters from the LGBTQ+ group hold a banner during the demonstration at Home Office. (Hesther Ng/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty)
If he had a chance to sit down with the prime minister and the home secretary, his message to them would be simple.
“The policy has to change,” Innocent says.
“You can’t do it. You can’t just send people to a place where they will face discrimination. They will be seen as criminals.
“What I would say is just do more research, understand how the LGBT community live in that country. Most of the people there – even some of my friends who are still there – they don’t exist. They live a lie, they get married, they have to lie to the police, they have to lie to their wives. You live a lie your entire life.”
He doesn’t think it’s right for asylum seekers to be sent away as part of the government’s wider effort to deter immigration.
“Even if it worked, do we really want to compromise human rights just to prevent people from coming to the UK? For me, that doesn’t sound like the UK values that I know.”
Rwanda refugee plan carries ‘disproportionately higher risk for LGBTQ+ people’
A spokesperson for Rainbow Migration, an LGBTQ+ asylum advocacy group, noted that the UK government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda has been held up by legal challenges – but it is still planning flights for this year.
“We see that the risk is disproportionately higher for LGBTQI+ people, as Rwanda is a country from which people like Innocent flee and claim asylum because they are persecuted for their sexual orientation or gender identity,” the spokesperson said.
While homosexuality is no longer criminalised in Rwanda, same-sex sexual relations is still seen as a taboo issue – public attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people are not kind.
Even the UK government’s own website acknowledges that homosexuality is “frowned on” by many in Rwanda and that LGBTQ+ people may experience “discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities”.
In June, a gay man from Uganda told Africa Newsthat he was “beaten terribly” in Rwanda for king gay, while a trans woman told the publication: “I cannot go anywhere or apply for a job. Not because I am not capable of that, but because of who I am.”
A spokesperson for Rainbow Migration said there is “not much of a screening process that takes place” within the Home Office when a person’s asylum claim is being considered.
“This creates a high risk that they could be sent to Rwanda if the plan is eventually allowed to proceed.”
When approached for comment, a spokesperson for the Home Office said its Rwanda scheme is a “world-leading” programme which will “see those who make dangerous, unnecessary and illegal journeys to the UK relocated to Rwanda”.
“Our assessment concluded that LGBT+ people did not face a real risk of persecution,” the spokesperson said.
“The overall findings were that Rwanda is fundamentally a safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers, including working with the UN Refugee Agency which said the country has a safe and protective environment for refugees.”
Gerald Bostock – the namesake for the 2020 historic Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. ClaytonCounty that made anti-LGBTQ discrimination illegal in the workplace – has finally settled his own discrimination lawsuit.
Bostock spent over ten years working for Clayton County, Georgia as an advocate for victims of child abuse and neglect. He was abruptly fired in 2013, six months after he joined a gay softball league and subsequently endured homophobic comments from colleagues. When he was let go, his employer cited “conduct unbecoming a county employee” as the reason. Bostock believes his termination was directly related to his sexual orientation.
In conjunction with two others, Bostock’s case led the Supreme Court to declare that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which bans workplace discrimination on the basis of sex – applies to LGBTQ people.
That victory, however, did not mean Bostock’s personal case against Clayton County was over. Once the Supreme Court declared anti-LGBTQ discrimination against employees to be illegal, he then had to go back to court to determine whether or not he was actually the victim of it.
The case was settled on October 5, according to court documents obtained by Law & Crime, though the terms of the settlement are not yet public.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County has already had significant ripple effects.
In its wake, President Biden signed two executive orders that said federal agencies should “fully implement” the decision by applying the reasoning that anti-LGBTQ discrimination inherently involves sex discrimination.
His actions included Title IX’s protections in education. The decision has been used to protect LGBTQ students in court.
Famed trans activist Gavin Grimm, for example, won in federal court against a Virginia school district that banned him from the boys’ bathroom. The court said that based on the reasoning in Bostock, the school was in violation of Title IX.
Also using Bostock, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in 2020 that another transgender boy, Drew Adams, had to be allowed to use boys’ restrooms.
Another federal judge cited Bostock when blocking a Trump administration rule that would have made it easier for medical professionals to claim a religious exemption and refuse to treat transgender people.
And this year, out Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), and the ACLU cited Bostock in their case before the Michigan Supreme Court which led to the decision that businesses, landlords, and others cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity, even though the state’s civil rights legislation doesn’t specifically mention those categories.
A major policy change from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) allows certain same-sex spouses of veterans to qualify for survivor benefits.
The VA requires couples to be married for one year for surviving spouses to qualify for survivor benefits and eight years for a higher rate of benefits.
Prior to the policy change, which was announced last week, many surviving spouses of LGBTQ veterans did not meet those requirements due to bans on same-sex marriages prior to the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S.
According to the VA, “This wrongly precluded many survivors of those LGBTQ+ Veterans from becoming eligible for survivor benefits because their Veteran spouse died before the marriage met VA’s length-of-marriage requirements.”
Under the new policy, the VA will now count the duration of those same-sex marriages from the point at which the surviving spouse can establish a “marriage-type” relationship. Commitment ceremonies, joint banking accounts, or joint purchase of a home all qualify as proof of a “marriage-type” relationship.
According to Military.com, anyone who applies within the next year will get benefits backdated to October 11, 2022, but the benefits are not retroactive beyond that.
“VA is closing a gap in benefits for surviving spouses of LGBTQ+ Veterans, righting a wrong that is a legacy of the discriminatory federal ban on same-sex marriages,” Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough in the announcement. “It is VA’s mission to serve all veterans — including LGTBQ+ veterans — as well as they’ve served our country, and this decision is a key part of that effort.”
In July, 41 senate Democrats sent a letter to McDonough calling on the VA to ensure that same-sex spouses who were unable to marry before the Obergefell decision would be eligible for survivor benefits.
“It’s unacceptable to me that surviving partners of veterans have been denied the VA care, benefits, and services they deserve because they did not have the right to marry,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said in a statement following the announcement of the policy change. “I’ve been fighting for years to tear down barriers like these for our veterans, and I’m glad VA took this important step — but our work is not done.”
Lawyers for Larry Vilord, who appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims last year after being denied enhanced survivor benefits given to those married at least eight years, said that the VA’s announcement left open questions and that the lack of retroactivity leaves out same-sex survivors who were never legally married.
“We are particularly concerned about LGBTQ+ survivors establishing ‘marriage-like’ relationships if they were never allowed to marry in the first place,” said Harvard Law School’s Veterans Legal Clinic staff attorney Peter Perkowski.
Last week’s policy change follows the VA’s announcement last year that veterans given other-than-honorable discharges due to their sexual orientation under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be eligible to receive full benefits.
In three weeks, voters across the country will cast their ballots in congressional, mayoral, and local elections. For many candidates, housing issues form a crux of their campaign platforms, tapping into their constituents’ frustrations from lack of affordable housing and skyrocketing rents.
According to a 2020 report conducted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, every $100 increase in median rent is associated with a 9% increase in the estimated homelessness rate. This situation disproportionately affects the LGBTQ community, in which 17% of queer adults have experienced lifetime homelessness, more than twice what was found in a general population study.
ADVERTISING
“In Los Angeles, the biggest factor for people becoming homeless is the cost of rent,” said Hugo Soto-Martínez, an LA City Council candidate whose district includes the Eastside queer enclave of Silver Lake “A full 60% of people who cite the reason for becoming homeless is because they can’t afford rent. So it’s a huge issue. Silverlake is traditionally one of the most gay-friendly neighborhoods in the city of Los Angeles. So that’s also pushing out a very vibrant community that has been there for many years.”
Hugo is one of the many local politicians that support rent control policies, which cap annual rent increases by a fixed percentage. LA County is protected by the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), which sets maximum rent increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The theory behind this policy is that limiting the rate of rent increases will keep housing affordable and reduce people from being priced out of their homes.
Unfortunately, rent control in Los Angeles currently suffers from legal loopholes. One is the Costa-Hawkings Rental Housing Act, a 1995 state law allowing landlords to reset rental rates on rent-controlled units once they have been vacated. It also prohibits RSO units in buildings built after 1978.
LA landlords can also circumvent rent control through the Ellis Act, which allows landlords to evict tenants from RSO units if they are planning to “go out of business.” The law claimed to protect small mom-and-pop building owners who want to retire, but in practice, it’s been used by corporate landlords to rebuild these properties as new buildings, which, thanks to Costa-Hawkings, are exempt from rent control.
“It takes RSO units off to the market,” said Hugo. “You see a lot of the fourplexes in the city. They’ll demolish them and rebuild, you know, 20-unit apartments. And so when they do that, there’s no requirement to replace the RSO [units] so they can make them affordable.”
Washington D.C.
Problems with housing affordability aren’t unique to Los Angeles. A similar problem is found in Washington DC, where mayor Muriel Bowser is running for a third term. Bowser has boasted of committing over $170 million towards affordable housing. But, a 2021 audit from the city’s Office of the Inspector General concluded that she failed to meet the legally mandated goal of directing at least 50 percent of DC’s annual Housing Production Trust Fund towards creating and preserving homes for the city’s lowest-income residents.
Like Los Angeles, DC benefits from rent control, which since 2006 has capped rent increases to CPI plus 2%. For residents over the age of 62, or those with disabilities, the increase excludes the additional 2%. For Joel Cohn, legislative director of the DC Office of the Tenant Advocate, the city’s rent control policies have proven effective.
“The success of the program is a qualified yes,” Cohn assured, “Say you’re an elderly tenant, and the rent increase only goes up by the CPI each year. You’re going to have a stabilized unit.”
Unfortunately, echoing Los Angeles’ problem with Costa-Hawkings, DC suffers from a vacancy increase. After a tenant moves out of a unit, a landlord can jack up its rent by 10% to 20%, depending on the length of time the tenant lived there.
“In some cases, where you have a unit in a university area, and there’s a lot of turnover in units in those areas, that can be problematic.” Cohn explained, “Because you’re essentially getting increased 10%, year after year. And that leads to a loss of affordability for that unit unless mom and dad are paying for it.”
To balance out these limitations in rent control, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and myriad other cities have adopted a “Swiss cheese” strategy to housing protections. Although rent protections, like slices of Swiss cheese, may have holes in them, if you line up enough of them, the holes get covered up. A prominent housing strategy frequently layered with rent control’s goal of keeping people in their homes is rent relief. During COVID, many cities enacted temporary moratoriums on rent increases and evictions for non-payment, which were bolstered by the federal Rental Assistance Program that repaid outstanding back rent directly to landlords.
“If someone’s in crisis, and they’re about to be thrown out. I think that’s, that’s a good program to have,” said Hugo, who hopes to see aspects of this rental relief expanded in Los Angeles. “Moreover, it’s also more cost-effective and cheaper for the city to keep folks in their home rather than be thrown out.”
Measure ULA, which would create a one-time tax on properties that sell for over $5 million to support the expansion of rent relief, will be on the ballot in November. A portion of that money will go towards emergency rental assistance for seniors. But even rent relief has encountered difficulties.
“Emergency rental assistance was very, very slow,” admitted Hugo. “The process was very cumbersome. A lot of people did not receive their money. And it just took a very long time. I think the process could have been much better. But I think in its totality, all the things that were passed were effective in maintaining people in their homes.”
Austin, TX
While in many cities rent relief exists to augment rent control, in Austin, Texas, rent relief exists in lieu of rent control due to a statewide law prohibiting limits on rent increase. To Celia Israel, a Democrat and mayoral candidate, the ban reflects the political nature of Texas.
“We are resistant to government intervention. Unless, of course, you’re talking about my uterus,” quipped Israel.
Austin currently leads the nation in population growth, with a current population of over 2 million people, a 2.79% increase from 2021. But, the city’s housing has not kept pace with this influx of residents.
“People are moving here in droves. And by moving here, they are exacerbating the affordability crisis. Austin has been struggling with growth for decades now. It’s a city that has become content with ‘If we don’t build it, they won’t come.’ And it’s certainly true of our housing supply issues.”
As a former residential realtor, Israel has witnessed the consequences of this lack of affordable housing firsthand.
“I’m going to paint a canvas for you. I’ve had clients who were looking to rent, and it was just as simple as, let’s contact a realtor and see what’s available. Well, what was available was way out of their price range. They thought they made good money. And then, often, you can’t find a one-bedroom apartment for under, let’s say, $1,700 a month. They were not only dealing with very limited options, but they were also dealing with other renters who were willing to pay for an entire year’s lease in cash.”
In Austin, housing issues have become a primary concern for the city’s queer community.
“We have an LGBTQ quality of life committee, said Israel. “I called up the chair of that committee and said, ‘what are the top issues that you’ve been seeing?’ And in another time, and in another dimension of time and space, you would think that they would say we want an LGBTQ community center or police reform. Their number one issue was affordability. They want to be a part of our community, and our community is just becoming conditioned to push people out. That’s regardless of your skin tone or your sexuality, and I thought that was a very telling priority for the LGBTQ community in Austin.”
For Hugo, another important tactic for battling problems with affordable housing is knowledge.
“The number one way we’re gonna stop a lot of like the housing issues is by educating and having people self-organize,” Hugo posited, “For tenants and renters to understand their rights. That they have to be at the frontline of pushing back against these things. Because it’s hard to enforce. And so what the city could do is just have massive outreach and money dedicated to educating and training tenants.”
With elections looming, it is worth noting that an informed renter is usually an informed voter.
A mural painted by a high school student came under fire when parents alleged it was promoting LGBTQ imagery and witchcraft.
Earlier this year, a Grant, Michigan, high school sophomore won a contest “to brighten up” the middle school health center, according to a statement from Grant Public Schools (GPS). GPS says the student received approval to paint images of “smiling children” and as well as the message “Stay Healthy.”
In the painting, there are three children. A boy is seen in a light blue, pink and white T-shirt, the colors of the transgender Pride flag. A girl wears pink, royal blue and purple, the colors of the bisexual flag. And a second girl is in rainbow Pride colors.
GPS Superintendent Brett Zuver was a contest judge. He did not respond to an email asking if he understood the meaning of the colors when the student’s design was chosen as the winner. GPS said the final mural included “some features” that were not part of the agreement, including a demon face inspired by a popular video game called Genshin Impact, and a “Hamsa hand,” also known as the Hand of Fatima or Hand of Mary. The palm-shaped design has been a symbol for good luck or protection for centuries in many cultures, including Latin American.
At a school board meeting on Oct. 10, parents accused the student artist of promoting witchcraft by including the Hamsa hand as well as the video game character that bears the likeness of a demon. Parents also objected to the use of LGBTQ colors.
“I put my art up there to make people feel welcome,” the student artist said, her voice breaking, in footage captured at the meeting by WZZM-TV, a local news station based in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
One man at the meeting called the mural “hate material.”
Another adult at the meeting said, “I feel like (she) did a really good job finding excuses to defend the things you put on. None of us are that stupid.”
Tracey Hargreaves, a friend of the student artist’s family, shared a photo of the original design for the mural. Courtesy Chandler Morris
Tracey Hargreaves, who has two children in the Grant Public School system, came to the defense of the student artist.
“I am a conservative, right-wing, gun-loving American,” Hargreaves declared at the meeting. “And I’ve never seen more bigoted people in my life.”
In an interview with TODAY.com, Hargreaves said, “The meeting turned into a hate fest. Usually there are 10 people at these meetings, 50 showed up. It wasn’t even about the mural … People were talking about how we need to pray the gay away.”
Get the Morning Rundown
Get a head start on the morning’s top stories.SIGN UPTHIS SITE IS PROTECTED BY RECAPTCHA PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF SERVICE
“I had to stand up and say something,” Hargreaves added. “It was out of control. You can’t catch gay, honey. It’s not contagious.”
The student artist left the meeting in tears, according to Hargreaves.
“She tried to explain herself, but no one would listen. They were convinced that the Hand of Fatima … was satanic,” Hargreaves said.
Lori Donati, who works at the middle school health center where the mural is displayed, told NBC affiliate WOOD-TV, which is based in Grand Rapids, earlier this month that she was “thrilled” with the result.
“Everyone’s accepted at our clinic,” Donati said. “What she (the artist) was trying to say (is that) everyone’s accepted no matter what your background is or who you are. You are loved and accepted and that’s exactly our philosophy with our office, too.”
On Oct. 13, GPS announced that “at the student artist’s request, the mural will be returned to its original form as originally submitted and approved by the Administration.” That means the images of the children and animals will remain, but symbols including the Hand of Fatima and the video game character will be removed.
The student artist’s father declined an interview when contacted by TODAY.com. Zuver, the school superintendent, said in an email that the student artist and the school board “came to a very positive resolution.”
“(She) asked to make some adjustments by removing some of the items that were not on the original submission that was approved,” Zuver said. “There are some symbols that were used to fill in space. She said the wall was bigger than she thought and didn’t want to leave too many blank spaces.”
“I am a very proud of her,” Zuver added. “She is a great young lady.”
There are “clearly partisan” divides over the inclusion of content addressing LGBTQ+ issues, race, and other supposedly controversial subjects in schools, says a new study from the University of Southern California.
“While Republican state leaders are backing public schools away from directly addressing race, gender, and sexual identity — as well as their historical injustices — in the U.S., Democratic state leaders are pushing in the opposite direction, mandating curricula and coursework discussing America’s racist origins and legacies and highlighting the contributions throughout history of women and people of color,” says the study, titled “A House Divided? What Americans Really Think About Controversial Topics in Schools.”
Among the general population, both Republicans and Democrats surveyed by USC said it’s good to teach high school students about certain subjects, including sex education, voting rights, and racism, but there was a great divide when it came to discussion of LGBTQ+ matters. Eighty-five percent of Democrats approved of teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity, but among Republicans, 37 percent said it’s OK to teach about sexual orientation and 32 percent felt that way about gender identity.
Most respondents didn’t approve of assigning books that depict same-sex relationships, but more Democrats than Republicans said these books should be available in school libraries as optional reading for high schoolers — 84 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of Republicans.
“Americans overwhelmingly want high school to be a place where students learn about multiple sides of controversial topics, and they are free to access books touching on a variety of controversial content,” the study states.
However, many Americans — both Democrats and Republicans — did not believe that elementary-age students should have access to LGBTQ+ content. About 53 percent of respondents said elementary school students should be able to read books portraying families with same-sex parents; 73 percent agreed to this for high schoolers. But a majority opposed elementary-age children having access to books depicting sexual experiences, either same-sex or opposite, or books that portray what the survey called broadly “experience of transgender people” or “experiences of lesbian or gay people.”
Republicans believe schools deliver what they would deem objectionable subject matter to their children and are more likely to want more control over what their children learn, while Democrats, on the other hand, favor giving teachers more authority over curricula.
Nearly six out of 10 of all respondents said transgender rights should be taught generally, while 65 percent said teachers should teach about LGBTQ+ rights.
Democrats were more willing to teach children opposing points of view on various subjects. Democrats and Republicans support teaching about anti-abortion rights arguments in about the same numbers — 77 percent and 74 percent, respectively. In contrast, as opposed to 60 percent of Republicans, 92 percent of Democrats support teaching about pro-choice positions.
There are deep partisan divides over who should decide what goes into school curricula. Half of Republicans believe parents should be the most influential, compared to 20 percent of Democrats. Many Republican-sponsored “parental rights” bills reflect these views, requiring schools to post all instructional materials online and to provide parental oversight in other ways.
Regardless of their political party, many adults do not comprehend critical race theory, which conservatives have used as a liberal bogeyman in recent years. Right-wingers have thus distorted the term, using it to refer to any issue about race or equity. Some 15 percent of respondents said they knew enough to explain the term to others. However, half of the respondents had no idea what the term was or had heard it but didn’t know what it meant.
Critical race theory was poorly understood even by those who claimed to be familiar with it. Only 16 percent of these participants correctly guessed that colorblindness, which entails treating people equally regardless of skin color, did not fall into critical race theory. According to critical race theory, a clear understanding of race is crucial to eliminating racism.
The USC Rossier School of Education and Dornsife Center surveyed 3,751 households nationwide for the study.
