Trump’s tweets get him in trouble all the time. But his recent tweets about banning trans individuals from serving in the military have now led to a lawsuit in federal court. The National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates filed a lawsuit on behalf of five active trans service members in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on Wednesday.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s directive is unconstitutional, as it violates the due process clause and the equal protection clause. According to the lawsuit, the five servicemembers have all  “followed protocol in informing their chain of command that they are transgender. They did so in reliance on the United States’ express promises that it would permit them to continue to serve their country openly. These servicemembers, like many others, have built their lives around their military service.”

Trump’s tweets were muddled, and sudden. The three tweet chain didn’t provide any information for how exactly a ban would be implemented, or what it would mean for trans individuals already serving.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

The announcement blindsided the Pentagon and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since that tweet storm, none of those questions appear to have been answered. The Department of Defense says it is still waiting for formal guidance. But the fear and panic that trans military members felt was real, and the lawsuit argues that the tweet-based directive “already resulted in immediate, concrete injury to Plaintiffs by unsettling and destabilizing plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of continued service.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transgender Military Members Sue Trump Over Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Jeff Sessions vs. Donald Trump?

It seems like Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in a bit of a spat with his boss, President Donald Trump. Trump has sent out multiple tweets specifically targeting Sessions; in addition to calling him “beleaguered” last week, he tweeted criticisms about his job performance yesterday.

Why didn’t A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

…big dollars ($700,000) for his wife’s political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the Swamp!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

But apparently these attacks on Sessions aren’t sitting well with Republicans in Washington. Some of Trump’s top aides are reportedly frustrated with Trump’s criticism of Sessions, including Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon. And some Senate Republicans have made it clear that they won’t support a Sessions replacement. A few have even spoken out against Trump’s attacks. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said it was “highly inappropriate” and “says more about President Trump than it does Attorney General Sessions, and to me, it’s a sign of great weakness on the part of President Trump.”

Republicans say nothing as Trump belittles every enemy, institution, and at-risk group. He goes after Jeff Sessions? Deeply, deeply troubled

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) July 26, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Announces Ban on Trans People Serving in the Military

In a surprise series of tweets this morning, President Donald Trump announced a new military policy. Per Trump’s tweets, he plans on banning trans people from any and all military service.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

It’s unclear which “generals and military experts” he consulted with, but this announcement marks a major departure from current military policy. Last year, it was announced that trans individuals would be able to serve openly in the military. It’s also unclear what will happen to trans people already serving. Exact numbers are, understandably, hard to quantify, but it’s believed that approximately 1,320-6,630 trans Americans currently serve. But their medical care, which Trump cites as the reasoning for precluding them from service, contributes to a miniscule percentage of Department of Defense health care expenditures. Estimates put caring for trans people in the military anywhere from $2-8 million. For context, the DoD’s total yearly health care spending is to the tune of $50 billion.

There are a lot of details still to come, but right now, it seems clear that this move was at least partly political:

Just spoke to a Trump administration official about the transgender military decision. Here’s what they said… pic.twitter.com/eOWdvlxTfd

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) July 26, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Brzezinski and Scarborough Speak Out About Trump Feud

President Donald Trump faced bipartisan criticism after launching a Twitter attack yesterday on the hosts of “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. Many Republicans have expressed disappointment and embarrassment that the president would use such derogatory language. “I see it as embarrassing to our country,” said Maine Senator Susan Collins. It points to the problematic view he has of women, according to Republican pollster Christine Matthews, who spoke to the New York Times. But Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the president’s words as “fighting fire with fire” and said they were appropriate.

Please just stop. This isn’t normal and it’s beneath the dignity of your office.

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) June 29, 2017

This morning, Scarborough and Brzezinski said that officials from the White House called them and said that the National Enquirer, whose owner is a friend of Trump, would run a hit piece on them. According to Scarborough and Brzezinski, Trump would shut down the story if he apologized to them. The couple also said reporters from the Enquirer have been calling Brzezinski’s children and friends.

Here’s the clip:

This is a chilling story. https://t.co/HYJgBnajOy via @Morning_Joe https://t.co/6UCEHzfOET

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Ehe für alle (marriage for all) may soon become the law of the land in Germany after Chancellor Angela Merkel softened her stance on same-sex marriage during an interview on Monday. Merkel said the Parliament ought to carry out a “vote of conscience” on the issue. The body intends to do so on Friday.

Germany is one of the only Western European countries that has yet to legalize same-sex marriage. The country allowed same-sex couples to enter civil partnerships in 2001 and numerous legal battles since then have also won couples the right to inherit items and property. The bill, proposed by the left and green parties following Merkel’s call for a free vote, would add to this list the rights to marry and adopt.

The bill is expected to pass easily on Friday, in part because many believe this law is long overdue. A YouGov poll estimates that two thirds of Germans would advocate for a law allowing LGBTQ individuals to wed and over half of Germans support adoption.

A political move, more than a historic one?

Amid the excitement surrounding the vote, many are speculating that Merkel’s pivot emerged as a political play in her campaign for Germany’s September election, in which she is running for a fourth term.

Merkel, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union, has long resisted demands for same-sex marriage to be passed. “For me, personally, marriage is a man and a woman living together,” Merkel said. But, in recent months, she has faced pressure to follow in the footsteps of more progressive parties on this issue.

Her main opponent in the race, Martin Schulz, is the chosen candidate for the Social Democratic party. On Sunday, Schulz promised that same-sex marriage would be legalized in any government involving his party. Family “is not only father, mother, child,” Schultz told supporters. Family is “there wherever people take responsibility for each other.”

We will push through marriage equality in Germany. This week.

— Martin Schulz (@MartinSchulz) June 27, 2017

Two other parties, the Free Democratic Party and the Green Party have said they would not form a coalition with Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) if same-sex marriage was not on the agenda.

Merkel’s call for the vote may have broadened her pool of potential voters, however she risks alienating the CDU’s sister party: the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union (CSU).

“Germany has more paramount issues to address,” said CSU legislator Peter Ramsauer.

Despite the political motivations behind this decision, many Germans, Europeans, and LGBTQ advocates have expressed their delight that Germany will likely soon join the ranks of countries where same-sex couples can legally marry and establish families–and just in time for the end of Pride month.

For my English speaking followers: German parliament will vote on gay marriage tomorrow – on the 48th anniversary of Stonewall. #Ehefueralle

— Stina ⛱ (@Stinalotte) June 28, 2017

Now only 48% of EU citizens live with marriage equality. From Friday it will be 64%.

#Ehefueralle

— Filipe Henriques (@FHenriques) June 28, 2017

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Merkel Softens Stance On Same-Sex Marriage, Prompting Snap Vote appeared first on Law Street.

After serving seven years behind bars, Chelsea Manning walked out of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas today a free woman.

Manning, 29, was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of secret government files to Wikileaks. The leaked military archives contained files such as diplomatic cables, videos, and PowerPoint presentations, and is considered to be one of the largest leaks of classified information in history.

President Barack Obama commuted the bulk of her remaining sentence–all but four months to be exact–in January, as one of his final acts in office.

Manning, who already has a Twitter account that she updated regularly while in prison, quickly acclimated herself to new forms of social media upon her release. She commemorated her “first steps of freedom” on her newly acquired Instagram account–the app was created in 2010, the same year she went to prison.

First steps of freedom!! . . #chelseaisfree

A post shared by Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea87) on May 17, 2017 at 6:39am PDT

She even went as far to celebrate her first post-prison meal, a greasy slice of pepperoni pizza.

So, im already enjoying my first hot, greasy pizza

A post shared by Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea87) on May 17, 2017 at 9:34am PDT

Over the years, Manning, who has had a Twitter account since 2013, has remained vocal about her imprisonment, transition, and politics.

In a short statement Wednesday, Manning said:

After another anxious four months of waiting, the day has finally arrived. I am looking forward to so much! Whatever is ahead of me is far more important than the past. I’m figuring things out right now — which is exciting, awkward, fun, and all new for me.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chelsea Manning is a Free Woman appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

America’s First Female Muslim Judge Found Dead in the Hudson River

Yesterday, police found the body of Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam, the first female Muslim judge in U.S. history, floating in the Hudson River. Abdus-Salaam was 65 years old and had been reported missing earlier that day. Authorities said there were no signs of foul play so far, but the investigation is ongoing. Abdus-Salaam made history as the first black woman on the New York Court of Appeals–she was nominated in 2013 as part of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s effort to diversify the court. Many described her as a professional and intelligent but above all a warm and empathetic judge who often sided with vulnerable parties. Many high-profile New Yorkers expressed their condolences on social media.

Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam was a trailblazing jurist and a force for good.

On behalf of all New Yorkers, I extend my deepest sympathies. https://t.co/hnic07Shp1

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) April 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Bryan Fischer, host of the talk radio program “Focal Point,” made a statement on Twitter over the weekend claiming that gay people have stolen the rainbow from God. Citing the Bible passage Genesis 9:11-17, Fischer called the rainbow flag the “worst example of cultural appropriation ever.” Considering Fischer posted the tweet the day after April 1, it could have been seen as an April Fools’ Day joke. But that does not seem to be the case.

Worst example of cultural appropriation ever: LGBTs stole the rainbow from God. It’s his. He invented it. Gen. 9:11-17. Give it back.

— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) April 2, 2017

A lot of people responded with their own interpretations of who actually stole the rainbow.

@BryanJFischer oh no, the loathsome gays, they’re hoarding all the light refracted through water vapor in the entire world!!!

— Nate Bethea (@inthesedeserts) April 2, 2017

Many of us know that Super Mario Kart had a track made of rainbows.

Worst example of cultural appropriation ever: LGBTs stole the rainbow from Mario. It’s his. He invented it. Super Mario Kart. Give it back. pic.twitter.com/YLqaN0hdnW

— Joshua MacDougall (@FreakinClever) April 2, 2017

Could it have been the Care Bears?

“Give it back.” pic.twitter.com/9QDJHVGuIu

— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) April 2, 2017

While we’re at it, it’s more than rainbows that are being stolen.

Worst example of cultural appropriation ever: Steve Jobs stole the apple from God. It’s his. He invented it. Gen. 2:2-6. Give it back.

— ㅤ ㅤ ㅤㅤ ㅤleo (@nyazamada) April 3, 2017

Maybe Fischer should think more before speaking his mind.

worst example of cultural appropriation ever: white people stole jesus christ from the middle east. he was jewish and brown. give him back. https://t.co/FuYdT8juiL

— pipit (@seasaltpip) April 2, 2017

Fischer’s statement follows the death of the man who actually created the LGBTQ community’s rainbow flag, Gilbert Baker. He passed away quietly in his sleep last Thursday, at the age of 65. Baker created a bunch of different flags and advocated for gay rights while he was stationed in San Francisco. Even though he was there to serve in the army in the 1970s, he also was an anti-war advocate. He created the rainbow flag for the first openly gay man who was elected for office in California, Harvey Milk, in 1978.

Rest in peace Gilbert Baker – creator of the rainbow flag. A perfect symbol for unity and pride. pic.twitter.com/VDag5KEv6Z

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) March 31, 2017

Bryan Fischer’s views are so extreme that the church where he was serving as a pastor kicked him out. He has blamed gay men for the Holocaust, called for the criminalization of homosexuality, a permanent ban on Muslim immigration, and has made many more extreme comments. He has said Hillary Clinton was possessed by a demon and said Sarah Palin’s joke about waterboarding was “clever and funny,” since “waterboarding is not torture.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bryan Fischer Wants the LGBTQ Community to Give the Rainbow Back to God appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

100+ Arrested and Three Killed in Chechen Crackdown on Gay Men

Over the past week, more than a hundred gay men went missing in Chechnya, the semi-autonomous Russian republic located in the southernmost part of Eastern Europe. The republic is predominantly Muslim and extremely conservative. On Saturday, a Russian opposition newspaper reported that the men had been arrested by Chechen police and confirmed that at least three had been killed.

After 100+ gays seized in Chechnya, human rights official says homosexuality=”evil every Chechen will fight against” https://t.co/dT6zu1NeGv

— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) April 1, 2017

Allegedly, the crackdown started after a gay rights group in Moscow applied to hold Pride parades in areas close to Chechnya. But the leader of the republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, said through a spokesman that the reports are false and impossible. In fact, he seemingly flat-out denied that gay people exist in the area. “You cannot arrest or repress people who just don’t exist in the republic,” spokesman Alvi Karimov said. He added, “If such people existed in Chechnya, law enforcement would not have to worry about them, as their own relatives would have sent them to where they could never return.” These horrendous comments caused international outrage and gay men have started fleeing the republic.

LGBT activist handcuffs himself to Petersburg’s Akhmat Kadyrov bridge to protest news that 100+ gays detained in Chechnya, at least 3 dead https://t.co/V49WGZos45

— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) April 2, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Right in the middle of March Madness, the NCAA has taken another stance against North Carolina’s HB2 law. In a statement released through Twitter by the association on Friday, which coincided with the one-year anniversary of HB2’s passage, the NCAA offered somewhat of an ultimatum and stated that, if North Carolina does not make changes or repeal its controversial transgender bathroom law, it will exclude the state from its process for deciding where to locate its championship games from 2018 to 2022.

NCAA reaffirms North Carolina championship stance. pic.twitter.com/2XqPodlQUP

— Inside the NCAA (@InsidetheNCAA) March 23, 2017

This is not the first time the NCAA has taken action against North Carolina in response to HB2. Last fall, the NCAA pulled its seven planned championship tournament games out of North Carolina because of the association’s “commitment to fairness and inclusion.” This move has taken on brand new significance recently as Duke was knocked out of the second round of the NCAA championship after losing to South Carolina in a game that was originally slated to be played in Greensboro, North Carolina but was moved to Greenville, South Carolina. Many saw the game’s location as a factor in Duke’s performance. In a post-game interview, Duke Coach Mike Kryzewski said in response to whether he was frustrated about the game’s location that if he were president or governor, he would “get rid of it.”

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper tweeted out a statement Friday calling for the state’s Republican lawmakers to “step up, meet halfway, and repeal HB2.” He also called March 24 a “dark anniversary” for the state, referring to the one-year anniversary of the law’s passage.

According to Forbes, the NCAA tournament has a significant economic impact for host cities, as a diverse set of industries benefit from the massive influx of fans coming to watch games.

The NCAA is not the first sports association to pull its events out of North Carolina. This year’s NBA All-Star weekend was slated to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina; however, in response to HB2, the NBA decided to relocate its All-Star festivities to New Orleans.

HB2 is one of, if not the most, salient topic in North Carolina politics right now, and the political back and forth is beginning to turn heads around the country. However, that is apparently not stopping other state legislatures from drafting HB2-type laws, as a transgender bathroom bill in Texas, Senate Bill 6, passed through Texas’s Senate State Affairs Committee and will by voted on by the full Senate. According the The Hill, the law is expected to pass through the full Senate, but will have a shakier path in the House.

HB2 remains deeply unpopular in North Carolina, as a recent poll from Public Policy Polling revealed that 50 percent of those surveyed in the state are opposed to it, and 58 percent of those surveyed think that it’s hurting the state. Things don’t seem to be looking up politically in the state, and repealing HB2 looks like it will be a long, uphill battle, seeing as how on Friday the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature overrode Gov. Cooper’s first veto as governor.

The NCAA will decide on host cities for its championship games by April 18.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The NCAA Offers Politically Divided North Carolina an Ultimatum appeared first on Law Street.

YouTube features a “restricted mode” that is supposed to make the content that it displays family friendly. You would think that just means no violent or sexual content. But it seems like the filter often sorts out content made by or for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and over the weekend many users complained about the issue. Some of YouTube’s biggest stars posted screenshots of what their feed looks like in the restricted mode.

Just looked at my videos with the “restricted mode” on. Seeing a bit of a theme here…

LGBT+ content not safe for kids @YouTube? pic.twitter.com/KnhayE4h1y

— fiona (@neonfiona) March 16, 2017

On Sunday, YouTube said that this filter only affects videos with sensitive content, such as politics, health, and sexuality. But some users called its bluff. Singer-songwriter duo Tegan and Sara, two sisters who are both gay, said that several of their music videos disappeared in the restricted mode. The pair pointed out that the only gay content in the videos is them.

If you put @YouTube on restricted mode a bunch of our music videos disappear. I checked myself. LGBTQ people shouldn’t be restricted. SAD!

— Tegan and Sara (@teganandsara) March 19, 2017

Many users didn’t accept YouTube’s explanation that it was looking into the problem, or that it only affects a small group of users. But the video sharing website has always maintained that the LGBTQ community is important and did so again on Sunday evening.

A message to our community … pic.twitter.com/oHNiiI7CVs

— YouTube Creators (@YTCreators) March 20, 2017

Transgender YouTube star Gigi Gorgeous is one of the people whose videos were blocked, and she said that maybe her clips describing her transition were the reason. But, she said, those videos could be very helpful for young people struggling with their own gender identity, who might not know that there are more people like them out there and are looking for role models.

Some people pointed out that the censoring of innocent videos featuring LGBTQ personalities could help increase stigmatization for young gay or transgender people who look to the internet for advice or inspiration. YouTube described the filter as “an optional feature used by a very small subset of users who want to have a more limited YouTube experience.” Apparently the restricted mode relies on users “flagging” certain posts, so it’s not farfetched to believe that some people with anti-gay sentiments are sitting there flagging posts that upset them.

On Monday, YouTube tweeted again that it’s looking into the issue, but many people want more answers about how it could prevent this from happening in the future.

Glad u guys are looking into your mistake. But perhaps u should also share how u will determine what is “sensitive” and will b restricted? https://t.co/ZARor0Lf1E

— Tegan and Sara (@teganandsara) March 20, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is YouTube Restricting LGBTQ Content? appeared first on Law Street.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Rex Tillerson Says Military Action Against North Korea is Possible

This morning, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke at a press conference in South Korea and warned that military action against North Korea is not unthinkable. “If they elevate the threat of their weapons program to a level that we believe requires action then that option is on the table,” he said. North Korea has been pretty active with its nuclear weapons tests recently, with two tests last year and several missile launches. North Korean leaders have also said that they are working on a missile that could reach the U.S.

Tillerson said that the U.S. has been patient with North Korea for a long time, which hasn’t had much effect, but that he obviously wants to avoid an armed conflict. An armed conflict with North Korea is kind of a worst possible scenario–an American Army strategist, Major ML Cavanaugh, even pointed out that a ground war with North Korea would be very difficult. The country’s terrain is hard to navigate, and the North Korean army is likely better trained to handle it than Americans.

But, no one knows what the Trump Administration is thinking. In fact, Donald Trump tweeted about it this morning, seemingly echoing Tillerson’s comments.

North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been “playing” the United States for years. China has done little to help!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

An annual local tradition has turned into a charged political topic, after an LGBTQ veterans organization has been excluded from participating in South Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade. The parade organizer, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, voted  9 to 4 on Tuesday to not allow OUTVETS to march in the parade this year, scheduled to take place on March 19. The action sparked bipartisan backlash from politicians, organizations, and sponsors.

In a Facebook post, the group wrote that the Veterans Council “did not give a clear reason” for rejection of the application, but they assumed it was because it was an LGBTQ organization. The group was able to march for the past two years, but they allege that they were put in the rear of the parade last year.

The New York Times reports that Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh (D) and Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker (R) will abstain from participating in the parade due to the exclusion.

I will not be marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade unless this is resolved. #OneBoston pic.twitter.com/OalXJfZTQR

— Marty Walsh (@MartyForBoston) March 8, 2017

On Thursday, Anheuser-Busch announced that it is “re-evaluating” its participation in the event, potentially leaving the parade without one of its major sponsors. The Teamsters Local 25 Union also declared that its members would not be marching in the parade if the ban was upheld, saying that it was “no longer representative” of its 11,000 members.

In a press release posted to its website, the Veterans Council defended the decision, saying that the parade’s Code of Conduct “prohibits the advertisement or display of one’s sexual orientation,” a rule which the group’s rainbow flag violated. The Council claimed that the policy is “neutral and not one-sided,” claiming that “the council routinely bars controversial groups from across the political spectrum.” The release also claimed that OUTVETS submitted its application after the deadline.

This is not the first time that the parade has clashed with LGBTQ organizations. In 1995, in a case that went to the Supreme Court, the Council was allowed to exclude certain groups based on First Amendment grounds after it refused to allow a gay veterans group to participate.

On Thursday afternoon, it was announced that there would be an emergency meeting on Friday to re-vote on the decision.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade Excludes LGBTQ Veterans, Prompting Backlash appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, which marks the beginning of Lent, the season of fasting and prayer in the Christian faith. To symbolize this, some Christians have ashes in the shape of a cross drawn on their foreheads. But this year, after a turbulent election season and uncertainty about what the future will look like for many minority groups, a faith-based organization in New York City that supports the LGBTQ community will mix its ashes with purple glitter.

“For me, glitter and ashes is the hope I feel in the resurrection of Christ,” said Reverend Marian Edmonds-Allen, who is executive director of the group Parity. The team behind the event, which goes under the name “Glitter+Ash Wednesday,” encourages churches across the country to do the same, as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer people have historically been unwelcome in churches.

Glitter ashes in solidarity with queer community in Hamp on Ash Wednesday. I got some. pic.twitter.com/V7Bn6unQFR

— Monte_Belmonte (@MonteBelmonte) March 1, 2017

But this modern take on a Christian tradition had some people seeing red. Jacob Lupfer, a columnist for Religion News Service in Maryland, doesn’t think this will lead to anything good. “Christianity is already divided, and now it’s along pro- and anti-gay lines,” he said. “It’s liturgically inappropriate to tamper with such an ancient and solemn rite.”

A Chicago Reverend, Donald Senior, agreed: “If you start changing its meaning, some are going to feel this is a political statement,” he said of the religious act, and added that it is a ritual that should be handled with a lot of respect.

Last week, the Trump Administration revoked guidelines from the Obama Administration allowing transgender students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. The decision caused protests across the country, including at the legendary gay bar Stonewall Inn in New York.

Encouraging to see such a large turnout concerned for the safety of trans youth. Must continue to show up & resist to protect #transrights. pic.twitter.com/FEI6jdvsvZ

— Susan Sarandon (@SusanSarandon) February 24, 2017

“Right now there are people in this country that feel threatened that their very presence should not be in public spaces,” said April Gutierrez, a pastor in Chicago who will also participate in the Glitter+Ash Wednesday.

But, there are many Christians who are progressive and want to show people from the LGBTQ community that they are accepted and loved. The author of “Queer Virtue”, Reverend Elizabeth M. Edman, said that the glitter is not meant to be disrespectful. For LGBTQ people, glitter often symbolizes the process of coming out and can be a very serious thing. To those that believe the glitter only means frivolity or party, she said, “It matters to understand that queer people understand very much the life-and-death aspect of Ash Wednesday. Some people hear glitter and think it’s frivolous. For queer people, glitter is serious business.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Christian Groups Show Solidarity With the LGBTQ Community Using Glitter appeared first on Law Street.

Transgender students across the country are fighting for the right to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identities. And an injunction that has thwarted their efforts will officially not be challenged by President Donald Trump’s team.

The Justice Department filed a legal brief on February 10 withdrawing the government’s objections to the injunction, a move that could impact an upcoming Supreme Court case. In August, a Texas federal judge issued the injunction to prevent President Barack Obama’s administration from enforcing a directive which mandates that public schools allow transgender students to choose restrooms based on their gender identities. Non-compliance, according to the previous administration, would violate Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in public schools.

Judge Reed O’Connor wrote in the injunction that the government didn’t follow proper rule-making procedures–also known as “notice and comment”–and couldn’t implement requirements based on “the interpretation that the definition of sex includes gender identity.” 

Trump’s latest move could affect the outcome of a case involving Gavin Grimm, a transgender student who sued the Gloucester County, Virginia school board after his high school refused to let him use the boy’s bathroom. Grimm–who recently received a shout-out from “Orange is the New Black” actress and trans activist Laverne Cox at the Grammys–is scheduled to go to the Supreme Court in March. But the Washington Post reported that because his case is partially based on Obama’s directive, it may not move forward.

While on the campaign trail in April, Trump said he believed that transgender people should be able to “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate.” At the time, he also criticized HB2, a bill signed by North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory that requires people to use only the restrooms corresponding to their biological sex–although Trump primarily addressed the economic impact of the bill on the state’s businesses.

But after the Obama Administration directive came out in May, Trump said he believed the matter should be left up to the states, not the federal government. He used the same argument when he later contradicted himself and announced his support for HB2.   

The DOJ dropped its opposition to the injunction one day after Jeff Sessions was sworn in as Attorney General. Sessions has a history of voting against the expansion of rights for Americans in the LGBTQ community: he has opposed marriage equality, workplace protections for LGBTQ employees, and the inclusion of sexual orientation under the definition of hate crimes. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group which scores politicians on their civil rights records, rates him at 0 percent.

Although Trump has promised to protect LGBTQ Americans (specifically from “the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology”) Vice President Mike Pence’s record on LGBTQ rights is similar to Sessions’. And over the summer, the Republican Party updated its platform to support the idea that parents should be free to make medical decisions for their children. Some saw that move as approval of conversion therapy–the use of psychological and sometimes physical discipline, including electroshock treatment, as a means of changing someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Pulls Support for Transgender Bathroom Protections appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. The shooting of 12 police officers in Dallas, Texas during a protest has left many concerned and downright furious about the future of gun violence in America. See what the nation’s top leaders had to say:

The Presidential Candidates React to #Dallas

Last night Dallas law enforcement officers were shot during a protest. The protests were in response to Alton Sterling and Philando Castile’s recent deaths. The assassinations of these five police officers has left many with a sour taste in their mouth and presidential candidates Trump, Clinton, and Sanders have each offered their words of condolence and solidarity.

Hillary Clinton:

I mourn for the officers shot while doing their sacred duty to protect peaceful protesters, for their families & all who serve with them. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 8, 2016

Donald Trump:

Prayers and condolences to all of the families who are so thoroughly devastated by the horrors we are all watching take place in our country

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 8, 2016

Bernie Sanders:

The attack on police officers in Dallas last night is horrifying and despicable. We must as a nation stand against violence of all kinds.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) July 8, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The atmosphere inside the White House’s first United State of Women summit Tuesday pulsed with pride. Amid the sounds of female-empowerment anthems like Aretha Franklin’s “Respect,” Beyoncé’s “Run the World (Girls),” and Katy Perry’s “Roar,” thousands of diverse women and girls joined one another with a common goal–female empowerment and gender equality.

The day-long summit, which was hosted inside D.C.’s massive Walter E. Washington Convention Center, aimed to educate and inspire women in the U.S. and abroad with talks on everything from economic empowerment and educational opportunity to violence against women.

As its title would suggest, the United State of Women summit was ultimately a celebration of how far women have come, but it was also the perfect forum to discuss what else needs to be done. Heavy applause reverberated from the room as women rejoiced individual efforts to end female genital mutilation, expand maternity leave, and humanize transgender people in our society.

The extensive list of speakers included Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, billionaire Warren Buffet, and Black Girls Rock! founder Beverly Bond, not to mention a whole host of Hollywood’s elite including Kerry Washington, Patricia Arquette, Shonda Rhimes, Amy Poehler, and Mariska Hargitay.

Vice President Joe Biden kicked off the event with remarks about violence against women and President Barack Obama delivered a memorable speech in which he referred to himself as a feminist.

However, attendees spent much of the day waiting in anticipation for First Lady Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey’s seated keynote conversation on the forging of a path for a new generation of women, which touched on the importance of developing self-worth, life post  the White House, and Barack’s swag.

But the United State of Women wasn’t just a White House-sponsored sparring of ideas, it was a precursor for action. That same morning the Obama administration, private-sector companies, foundations and organizations announced “$50 million in commitments, along with new policies, tools and partnerships that will continue to expand opportunity for women and girls.”

One of these opportunities includes the White House Equal Pay Pledge, through which companies agree to conduct annual gender pay analysis and reassess their hiring and promotion processes. So far 28 companies including Airbnb, American Airlines, Amazon, Pinterest, Slack, Spotify, and Rebecca Minkoff have already signed the pledge.

And on Wednesday, First Lady Michelle Obama announced more than $20 million in commitments to the White House’s Let Girls Learn initiative, which aims to “elevate existing programs and invests in new efforts to expand educational opportunities for girls—including in areas of conflict and crisis.”

These initiatives display a clear message that President Obama has no plans of halting his efforts to tackle women’s issues in the final months of his presidency.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post White House’s United State of Women Summit Pushes for Gender Equality appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, in a tragic turn of events, more than 50 people were killed and more than 50 others wounded in a late night shooting and hostage situation in Orlando, Florida. Now considered the deadliest mass shooting in American history, the tragedy took place in a gay Orlando nightclub called Pulse.

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer has now declared a state of emergency in the city. The shooter has been identified as Omar Mateen, 29, of Port St. Lucie, which is roughly 12o miles from Orlando. He was killed by police. He brought multiple weapons into the club, including an AR-15 and a handgun–Orlando’s police chief John Mina said that: “it appears he was organized and well-prepared.”

It is unclear at this point exactly what Mateen’s motivation was, but sources are reporting that he swore ISIS alliance.

As of right now, many survivors are being treated at local hospitals, and there is an urgent need for blood donations in the area.

County fire officials @Local2057IAFF say Orlando has a “urgent need” for blood donations following mass shooting pic.twitter.com/IdTQCPoWk7

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) June 12, 2016

June is pride month in the United States, and pride celebrations occurred in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, and other cities this weekend. Many of those events took some time to recognize last night’s victims–it was announced that the LA Pride Parade today began with a moment of silence for the victims in Orlando.

D.C.’s Capital Pride Festival also held a moment of silence.

From the US Capitol,our thoughts are with the people of Orlando. 1pm moment of silence at today’s Pride Concert. pic.twitter.com/ct4Y4uxQ69

— Capital Pride (@CapitalPrideDC) June 12, 2016

Some of the pride celebrations this weekend, like the one in Philadelphia, announced that they will be adding additional security to the venues.

The FBI and other officials have warned that a lengthy investigation into the shooting a the Orlando nightclub will be conducted–more details are sure to come as the investigation proceeds.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Horrific Orlando Nightclub Shooting Leaves More than 50 Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

#TryBeatingMeLightly: Pakistani Women Fight Back

In Pakistan, a 163-page bill was proposed by the Council of Islamic Ideology allowing men to “lightly” beat their wives. Crazy, I know. A man is permitted, according to the bill, to beat his wife if she speaks too loudly or turns down intercourse. Of course, Pakistani women everywhere aren’t going to stand for this. As a result, photographer Fahhad Rajper’s photo project “TryBeatingMeLightly” is trending on social media.

Rush Limbaugh Talks Gorilla

Limbaugh recently said: “If we were the original apes, then how come Harambe is still an ape, and how come he didn’t become one of us?” Let’s face it Rush, no one takes you seriously. It’s unfortunate that an endangered animal had to die to demonstrate how much of an idiot you are.

Islamophobin: It’s the cure you can chew!

The Council on American-Islamic Relations just released a spoof video for a Islamophobia cure and it’s freaking hilarious. CAIR tackles the very serious issues of violence and discrimination against Muslims and hopes to combat the effects of Islamophobia. Maybe laughter IS the best medicine.

Sims 4 Jumps Aboard the Pride Train

The newest version of Sims 4 will now allow any character of any gender to choose any hairstyle and clothing. Previously, characters were restricted to the clothing and hair of their assigned gender. As LGBT rights become more open in the real world, why shouldn’t they be just as accepted in the virtual one?

Proud of @TheSims for removing gender barriers in Sims 4 pic.twitter.com/QhfSRIhRi8

— Tazreen Tasnim (@tazreentasnim) June 2, 2016

 Zip it, Pagliano!

The latest news in Clinton’s scandal finds her IT staffer tight-lipped and not taking any questions. Bryan Pagliano has decided to plead the Fifth and avoid self-incrimination at a deposition next week. The deposition is part of a Freedom of Information suit filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch related to Hillary Clinton’s private email server. In the meantime, a lot of rumors are floating around about why Pagliano is not testifying.

This is why Pagliano is taking the 5th even with immunity. https://t.co/geKshz2bMu#ClintonCrimeFamily#HillNopic.twitter.com/nce8Q0OJsH

— The Good Hillary (@hillarysusans) June 2, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 2, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate confirmed Eric Fanning as the new Secretary of the Army Tuesday, making him the first openly gay civilian to hold the post. His nomination marks a historic moment in the LGBTQ movement, as Fanning is now the highest-ever ranking openly gay official at the Pentagon.

President Obama nominated Fanning for the position in September, but the confirmation stalled for eight months as Kansas Senator Pat Roberts (R) remained the only holdout due to an unrelated issue.

Roberts lifted the hold only after he was finally given reassurance from Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work that prisoners from Guantanamo Bay would not be transferred to the U.S. military prison at Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas as part of the Obama administration’s efforts to close the controversial Cuban prison.

Last month, Armed Services Committee chairman Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) pleaded with Roberts to end the standoff on behalf of the men and women serving in the Army. In an address to the Senate floor, McCain stated:

It is not fair to the men and the women of the United States Army to be without the leadership of a secretary of the Army. Mr. Fanning is eminently qualified to assume that role of Secretary of the Army. So I would urge my friend and colleague to allow me to… to not object to the unanimous consent that I am just proposing.

Prior to being named the Secretary of the Army, Fanning served as the Under Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff for the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Under Secretary of the Army.

Fanning’s confirmation comes just five years after the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which effectively banned openly gay men and women from serving in the military. According to NPR, his nomination was just one of several efforts on behalf of the Obama administration to advance the rights of LGBTQ people in government, including extending federal benefits to same-sex couples and hiring the first openly transgender White House staffer.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter congratulated his former Chief of Staff in a statement Tuesday saying,

Eric is one of our country’s most knowledgeable, dedicated, and experienced defense officials and I am confident he will make an exceptional Secretary. Eric’s experienced leadership will be an invaluable asset to the Army at this important moment.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Confirms Eric Fanning, First Openly Gay Secretary of the Army appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

US Government Issues Guidance on Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms

Because we all need a little hand-holding on how not to be jerks, the Obama administration is releasing guidelines on how to deal with transgender bathroom use. The letter tells public schools how to make sure none of their students are discriminated against. Any state or school that does not abide by the administration’s “interpretation of the law” could face major consequences, like loss of federal aid, as seen in the current battle with North Carolina.

The federal policy on use of bathrooms by transgender students triggered a swift reaction https://t.co/NV7ldBZS0I pic.twitter.com/8hJLjecQd4

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 13, 2016

Flint Lets It Rain for the Month of Pay To Clear Out Pipes

The State of Michigan is encouraging Flint residents to use up all the water their hearts desire this month because it will be footing the bill. As with most things that are free, the scenario will play out as a win-win–Flint residents get 100 percent free water and the city’s pipes will be flushed out after remaining sedentary for months. And who knows, maybe Flint will get to clear its name as well? 

President Obama drinks filtered city water in Flint, Michigan, to show it’s safe https://t.co/s3RKh6Savu pic.twitter.com/1avslXmJgR

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) May 4, 2016

Twitter Suspends Azealia Banks’ Account After Her Rampage on Zayn Malik

The 23-year-old rapper has seen better days. We all fondly remember the inappropriate but fun “212,” right? But today Banks seems to have lost her damn mind. Her recent kerfuffle with singer Zayn Malik comes as no surprise as she’s been involved in several Twitter feuds, like a bizarre one with Sarah Palin. Azealia Banks’ hate finally caught the attention of Twitter admins for ‘abusive tweets and behavior” and she has since been suspended.

The World’s Oldest Person Died Today

At 116 years old, Susannah Mushatt Jones passed away. Born in 1899, the Alabama native had seen a whole century pass and then some. The internet is in awe of what this woman must have seen and endured in her great lifetime. Another centenarian,  Emma Morano-Martinuzzi is now the world’s oldest person, also 116 years old. So what IS the secret to a long life?

A Story of three smugglers and their $3M drug stash

This week three women touched down in O’Hare International Airport from a trip Japan. No one would ever guess they were carrying a buttload of opium and heroin worth over $3 million dollars in street prices. These cute little old ladies almost got away with it too, if it weren’t for those darned customs agents. They are each being held on $50,000 bond.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats in the North Carolina state legislature have finally filed the repeal of HB2, the aptly named “bathroom bill,” that has been the center of attention nationwide for the past few weeks. All it took for them to get this repeal in order was, oh, I don’t know, the disapproval of Bruce Springsteen, Paypal, Cyndi Lauper, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Mumford and Sons, Cirque du Soleil, and countless more people, groups, and companies.

After over a month since HB2 was passed, it seems like the anger about the bill is starting to get through to the dense legislature and seemingly oblivious Governor, Pat McCrory. Today, Equality NC delivered 190,000 signatures to the Governor’s office, calling for the repeal of HB2.

We are delivering nearly 190,000 petition signatures calling for repeal of #hb2 @ACLU_NC @HRC @CSElive #RepealHB2 pic.twitter.com/s8BSKIu8fT

— Equality NC (@equalitync) April 25, 2016

Boxes filled with signatures just deliver to Gov Office. #HB2 calling for repeal #abc11 #ncpol pic.twitter.com/pqRU3s70Sz

— Elaina Athans (@AthansABC11) April 25, 2016

Thankfully, House Democrats responded by filing HB946, which is the repeal of HB2.

On the first morning of session, a bill has been filed to repeal HB2. pic.twitter.com/GPPxzN7Ob4

— Guilford Green (@GuilfordGreen) April 25, 2016

#BreakingNews–#ABC11 is there as Democratic lawmakers file House Bill 946, hoping to repeal House Bill 2. pic.twitter.com/ytaEcBS7Zi

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

What this new bill will do is relieve any businesses whose policies were affected by the mandates in HB2 of their obligations to the bill. Essentially, policies won’t have to be changed in response to HB2 if the repeal is passed.

Some people in North Carolina, however, are in support of HB2 and have been protesting any kind of repeal, claiming that HB2 protects women and children in public restrooms.

Supporters of House Bill 2 in NC now rallying near opponents. #ABC11 pic.twitter.com/CExZHTlzAT

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

The NC Values Coalition even hosted a rally in downtown Raleigh in support of the discriminatory bill, claiming to be standing up for traditional values.

Signs of thankfulness for Governor @PatMcCroryNC to stand firm on #HB2. #StandWithNC pic.twitter.com/L9U7sERy7p

— NC Values Coalition (@NCValues) April 25, 2016

If you’d like to see more infuriating tweets, feel free to search the hashtag “#StandWithNC” on Twitter to see some of the ridiculous arguments that proponents of HB2 are making–a large chunk of whom are white men purporting that this bill is the only way to protect women and children from dangerous instances of pedophilia.

If anyone needed more reasons to despise this bill, Ted Cruz has come out in favor of it this week in a speech in Indiana, saying:

So let me make things real simple: Even if Donald Trump dresses up as Hillary Clinton, he shouldn’t be using the girls’ restroom.

To be clear, Donald Trump dressing up as Hilary Clinton and a person being transgender are two totally different things. Cruz attacked Trump for his anti-HB2 opinions, saying that:

He joined them [liberals] in calling for grown men to be allowed to use little girls’ public restrooms. As the dad of young daughters, I dread what this will mean for our daughters—and for our sisters and our wives. It is a reckless policy that will endanger our loved ones.

What Cruz’s argument fails to realize is that the HB2 isn’t “protecting women and children” from grown men. It’s forcing people who identify with one gender to use the bathroom of another, for example, James Sheffield:

@PatMcCroryNC It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife. #HB2 #trans #NorthCarolina #shameonNC pic.twitter.com/4b4OdmfmeN

— James P Sheffield (@JayShef) March 24, 2016

Under HB2 this man would be forced by law to use the women’s restroom. How do you feel about that Ted Cruz? Not to mention the fact that even Fox News acknowledges the fact that there are no instances of criminals using transgender protections in order to defend any kind of sexual harassment charges in public bathrooms. Neither groups on the left nor groups on the right have any evidence that any man has ever claimed to be transgender in order to disguise himself as a woman and sexually harass women, which is what HB2 supporters and Cruz are claiming will happen if HB2 is repealed.

At the end of the day, this law is discriminatory, and the people of North Carolina are getting fed up–myself included. Thanks to Democratic lawmakers, though, it’s looking like there is the possibility for a repeal in the near future. And, thank goodness, because it’s about time.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Legislators File HB2 Repeal: It’s About Time appeared first on Law Street.

The fight over who can use which bathroom has a new battleground–Target. The retail chain announced it will allow individuals to use whichever bathroom matches their gender identity. Now, some are boycotting Target over that announcement, with the hashtag #BoycottTarget.

The announcement came on Tuesday, when Target posted a statement on its website. It explained the motivations for the policy, stating in part:

Inclusivity is a core belief at Target. It’s something we celebrate. We stand for equality and equity, and strive to make our guests and team members feel accepted, respected and welcomed in our stores and workplaces every day.

We believe that everyone—every team member, every guest, and every community—deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally. Consistent with this belief, Target supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to LGBT individuals, and opposes action that enables discrimination.

When trans-inclusive bathroom policies are enacted, sexual assaults do not increase. What does increase is the safety of those in the transgender community. A 2013 study found that 70 percent of transgender respondents were ‘denied entrance, were harassed or assaulted when attempting to use a public restroom of their identifying gender.’

Yet, that hasn’t stopped #BoycottTarget from trending; as of now, just under 400,00 people have signed the petition, and plenty of people are voicing their views on Twitter, and other forms of social media.

We are announcing boycott of @Target due to their dangerous bathroom policy. https://t.co/GQI0Oe8VAO #BoycottTarget pic.twitter.com/RB11tfeXDW

— American Family Assc (@AmericanFamAssc) April 21, 2016

@Target I have loved shopping at your stores: spent A LOT of money. No longer, though. Bathrooms are biological, not social. #BoycottTarget

— Cathy Knowlson (@Ckbeme) April 21, 2016

It’s gone too far. @Target I used to be proud I once worked for you. #BoycottTarget pic.twitter.com/EUuAfwNmAO

— Proud Trumpkin (@MomBlogs4Trump) April 21, 2016

Why isn’t @Target forced to provide a safe restroom for my daughter yet a baker is forced to bake a cake!?! WTH!?! #boycotttarget

— Jo Anne Smoot ºoº (@joannesmoot) April 20, 2016

It seems like with this boycott of Target, and in light of anti-LGBT laws recently passed in both North Carolina and Mississippi, this is a debate that isn’t going to go away anytime soon. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BoycottTarget: Backlash After Target Announces Inclusive Bathroom Policies appeared first on Law Street.

A pastor who accused Whole Foods of anti-LGBTQ discrimination is now facing accusations and a lawsuit against him alleging that he made up the entire incident.

Jordan Brown, an openly gay pastor at the Church of Open Doors in Austin, Texas, filed a lawsuit against Whole Foods after he allegedly received a cake at the chain’s flagship Austin location on April 14 with an anti-gay slur written on it. While he requested that the bakery write “Love Wins” on top of the cake, he claims that the bakery associate decided to add homophobic language to it:

LOVE WINS FAG. That’s not the cake I ordered, @WholeFoods and I am offended for myself & the entire #LGBT community pic.twitter.com/cuxuv6mL3G

— Jordan D Brown (@PasJordanBrown) April 18, 2016

Brown’s suit alleges that he didn’t notice the writing until he was on his way home, and proceeded to pull the car over and call the corporate office to report what had happened. After he didn’t receive a response, he then called the store itself and received an apology from a Team Leader who promised to investigate the matter. However, a few hours later, he received a call back from the same employee who said that there appeared to be no wrongdoing on the part of the store or the bakery associate.

Brown proceeded to post a now-deleted video that same day in which he tearfully recounted the incident. He also pointed out that the seal on the box hadn’t been broken, as evidence that he hadn’t tampered with the cake.

On Tuesday, Whole Foods responded in a statement that shot down Brown’s accusations as “fraudulent.” The company also released security footage that pointed to the fact that Brown would have easily been able to see the writing through the clear portion of the packaging before he left the store. The company also stated that the bakery associate in question was a member of the LGBTQ community. As of publication, Brown hadn’t yet responded to the latest statements by Whole Foods.

If it turns out that Brown was faking the incident after all, he made a strange choice in choosing which company to go after. Whole Foods has a history of upholding LGBTQ rights as a company, offering benefits to same-sex partners since its founding and participating in pride parades. The company also reinforced its support for LGBTQ rights in its latest statement, posting a photo of its Austin staff with the caption #LoveWins.

The jury’s still out on whether or not Brown was making this up, but this response by Whole Foods is just the icing on the cake for anyone doubting his story. Stay tuned for updates.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Whole Foods Shoots Down Claims of Homophobia Against Openly Gay Pastor appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a sad time for LGBTQ rights in North Carolina and Mississippi, where discriminatory legislators have recently passed horrifyingly intolerant laws that specifically target members of the LGBT community. In response to these laws, companies, celebrities, and communities have begun to speak out for the rights of LGBTQ people and stand up for the repeal of hateful policies.

The North Carolina bill, which requires transgender people to use bathrooms that match the sex listed on their birth certificate, was signed into law last month by Governor Pat McCrory. The Governor claims that this law is a matter of protecting the safety and privacy of women and children in North Carolina. The new law in Mississippi allows churches, religious groups, and private businesses to deny service to people based on their gender or marriage status if they conflict with the businesses’ religious beliefs. Not only are these laws draconian, but they are also getting both North Carolina and Mississippi into some serious trouble.

For starters, these laws are probably going to be challenged constitutionally in court. While it is most likely that these bills are being driven by unwarranted fear and misunderstandings about gender identity, rather than a pure hatred for the LGBTQ community, there is a question of the constitutionality of blatantly discriminatory laws.

North Carolina’s law, specifically, could lose the state $4.5 billion in federal education funding from Title IX because of its violation of the Title’s provisions:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

This law discriminates against transgender students in the school system, and, therefore, could call into question whether or not the state should still earn Title IX funding.

On the topic of financial hits the two states will be taking, North Carolina is expected to lose millions after PayPal pulled out of its planned expansion in Charlotte. The expansion was going to bring around 400 new jobs to the state, each with estimated yearly salaries of around fifty-one thousand dollars. On top of these tangible losses, large companies, and tech businesses are voicing their opposition to discriminatory laws like the ones in Mississippi and North Carolina. Some of Mississippi’s largest employers, like Nissan and Toyota, have spoken out about how the law will hurt tourism and harm the state’s economy. Funny or Die released a parody tourism commercial for Mississippi, tastefully highlighting exactly how these laws will drive away tourists.

In addition to decreases in tourism, entire cities and states are banning business travel to Mississippi and North Carolina because of these recently enacted laws. Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington are four states who have prohibited employee travel to these two states, with many more sure to join in soon. Several cities including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco  have also placed travel bans to both states. While travel bans are, for the most part, symbolic, they have the potential to affect local economies and reinforce the overwhelming lack of support for these two states.

If all of the economic hits and the national shame weren’t enough to convince you of how terrible these laws are, big names from all across the country are also lashing out, including, but certainly not limited to, Joel McHale, Ellen Degeneres, and The Boss himself–Bruce Springsteen.

Springsteen canceled his tour stops in North Carolina in response to the bill, claiming that:

Some things are more important than a rock show, and this fight against prejudice and bigotry, which is happening as I write, is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.

“Bruce Springsteen joins North Carolina backlash”https://t.co/NBiQWZJxkf

— Bruce Springsteen (@springsteen) April 9, 2016

Ellen, who is an avid supporter of the LGBTQ community, tweeted support for the people who are being targeted in North Carolina and Mississippi.

The people of #NorthCarolina and #Mississippi deserve better. We won't stop fighting until they get it.

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) April 5, 2016

And finally, in perhaps what is the best response to this law, Joel McHale decided to perform in Durham, North Carolina and then donate all of his profits to the LGBTQ center of Durham. After reasonably pointing out that “this [law] is fucking crazy,” he announced this decision and promptly received an uproarious cheer from the audience.

Honestly, these laws are downright embarrassing and a great reminder of exactly why we need to keep fighting for all kinds of equality in this country. It is asinine that in 2016 we are still having to tell elected representatives that banning people from using a bathroom and refusing to serve customers because of their sexuality or gender identity is blatant discrimination. So, to Pat McCrory (the governor of my home state), Phil Bryant (Mississippi’s Governor), and the rest of state representatives who have voted in favor of or spoken in favor of laws that are taking our country back centuries in terms of civil rights, I say pull it together. Stop making myself and countless other American citizens feel ashamed of our hometowns because of your antiquated, evil, discriminatory laws. Stop being so hateful towards people who are literally just being themselves. Stop making your states the laughing stock of the entire country and do your actual job: stand up for your people and their rights instead of tearing us all down.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina and Mississippi: States Face Consequences for Discriminatory Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Lawmakers in many states still seem to be having a hard time coping with the idea of not only same-sex marriage, but that same-sex couples should receive equal rights.

Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia are not the only states to seemingly reject the principle of the SCOTUS decision last year, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage, but they are the three most recent examples. If we tried to actually discuss all of the different states’ provisions following the Supreme Court ruling, it would take hours to read this. According to the Human Rights Campaign, last year more than 100 anti-LGBT bills were filed in 29 states.

Kentucky and Georgia are two states that have recently passed religious liberty legislation through one or both of their houses. Kentucky’s bill, SB 180, passed through the senate with a 22-16 vote and is now awaiting its fate in the house. Georgia’s HB 757 passed through both the senate and the house and has been sent to the governor’s desk. The governor, Nathan Deal, has expressed that he will not sign the bill into law in its current form. Meanwhile Alabama is changing around marriage laws following the 2015 Obergefell decision.

Religious liberty laws prohibit the local or state government from infringing on businesses’ rights to deny services to people who violate their religious beliefs. Such legislation is usually written in a way that does not explicitly mention the LGBT community, but this aim is implied by the swift wave of new legislation following same-sex marriage’s effective nationwide legalization and recent cases of businesses refusing service to same-sex customers based on their religious beliefs.

Many cases about businesses and state officials refusing services to same-sex couples have been brought to court recently, including: in May 2014, a Colorado bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage citing religious beliefs, and the infamous Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Kentucky

Kentucky’s recent legislation was created to enhance the state’s 2013 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The new legislation clarifies that businesses cannot be punished in certain cases for violating pre-existing local ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Albert Robinson of London, said the legislation is designed to protect everyone’s religious liberties…but critics worry it doesn’t extend to civil liberties.

Robinson spoke on the senate floor and said that businesses should have the freedom to refuse service if they are required to “use their skills to provide a customized service celebrating something that violated one of the tenets of their faith.”

But religious liberty legislation has a history of causing economic problems for the states that enact it. Last year following the passage of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the state saw a loss of  a dozen conventions resulting in a $60 million loss in revenue, according to a document prepared by Visit Indy obtained by the Associated Press.

Georgia

In Georgia, where a similar bill has passed through both houses in the state legislature, the effects of its possible passage are causing some businesses to plan on relocation.

Telecommunications firm 373K, which was founded by Kelvin Williams and is located in Atlanta, is one of the outspoken businesses against the bill. Williams, who is gay, said he and his employees supported the decision to relocate to possibly Delaware or Nevada if the bill passes.

“For the past year we’ve been building a global carrier network. We have to start hiring more,” Williams said to CBS News. “I can’t always find the perfect person in Georgia. I might have to reach out across the world. Would I want to move to Georgia if someone else offered me a job after this? The answer was no.”

Alabama

Alabama is a bit of a different situation, but still relevant for the discussion of anti-LGBT proposals. Recently, the Alabama Senate passed a bill that would do away with marriage licenses and change to contracts that are filed with the state. Alabama (like many other states) was previously having the issue of some county probate judges who had stopped giving marriage licenses altogether in order to avoid giving them to same-sex couples.

Openly gay Representative Patricia Todd, who opposed the bill, deemed it unnecessary and said that the judges should just do their jobs, according to the Associated Press.

There is no way to tell how this will affect other aspects of the law, especially when it comes to divorce. If one aspect of the marriage system is altered in the eyes of the state, other things will likely need to change as well. For example, will divorce procedure need to be changed? How is that going to work? There is really no way to tell how this is going to change the system, all to alleviate the pain and burden on a few officials who refuse to do one of their explicitly stated jobs. If any of these bills are enacted into law, it will be interesting to see the outcome and the potential economic and social consequences that could arise.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s 2016 and Some State Lawmakers are Still Trying to Fight LGBT Equality appeared first on Law Street.

Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School is under investigation by the American Bar Association (ABA) for possible discriminatory practices. There are concerns that the law school discriminates against students who are LGBTQ, or who begin their career at the school as Mormons, and then change their faith. A student group called FreeBYU has brought these concerns to the ABA, officials from the organization are now reviewing the complaint.

BYU Law requires its students to sign a strict honor code, which forbids homosexual relationships. Additionally, it bars students from leaving the Mormon faith before graduation, although non-Mormons are allowed to admitted to the school from the get-go as long as they pay a higher tuition rate. If students break the honor code, they could be kept from completing their degrees. The members of FreeBYU are claiming that these actions violate the ABA’s nondiscrimination guidelines.

A petition asking to “Restore Religious Freedom at BYU” that focuses particularly on the treatment of students who have left the Mormon church has garnered almost 3000 signatures, and points out that students who left the Mormon faith while enrolled used to be allowed to continue on as students, as long as they paid the higher tuition rate levied on non-Mormons. According to FreeBYU, that law was changed in 1993.

Exactly what rules a private law school–particularly one that is religiously affiliated–has to follow are difficult to untangle. But as Annie Knox, of the Salt Lake Tribune explains:

Religious institutions such as BYU have some leeway in tailoring their admissions and hiring processes to indicate a ‘preference’ for people with a certain religious affiliation, according to the most recent ABA guidelines, so long as the preferences are clear before students and faculty come to campus. But the standards may not be used to limit academic freedom or to discriminate when it comes to admission or retention of students. The professional organization of attorneys and law students forbids schools from ‘taking action’ based on race, religion, gender, nationality, sexuality, age or disability.

Spokespeople from BYU have acknowledged that the school was asked to provide information to the ABA after a request was made a few months ago, and that the school is confident it will retain its accreditation. But at this point, that decision will be left in the ABA’s hands–if the organization believes that BYU Law has indeed acted incorrectly, an investigator may be sent to the school and the question could end up in front of an accrediting committee.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Claims of Discrimination at BYU Law May Spark ABA Involvement appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re recovering from a busy Thanksgiving weekend and looking to catch up on what’s been going on at Law Street, look no further. ICYMI, check out the best stories of the past week.

#1 What’s Up With All the “White Student Unions?”

College students around the U.S. and Canada have been seeing “White Student Union” pages pop up for their respective schools–as of this morning there were more than 30 around the country. But is this a new trend–are random college students really trying to create “white student communities,” or just a bunch of annoying trolls? Read the full story here.

#2 American Medical Association Calls for Ban of Prescription Drug Ads

It doesn’t matter what you’re watching–it’s almost impossible to get through a TV program without seeing at least a few ads for prescription drugs. But is the constant barrage of drug ads a good thing? The American Medical Association (AMA) has decided no, and is calling for a ban on direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs. Read the full story here.

#3 LGBTQ Groups Are Not Happy with the New “Zoolander 2” Trailer

The newest trailer for “Zoolander 2” follows the main characters, Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller) and his fellow model buddy Hansel (Owen Wilson), from the 2001 original as they deal with their inevitable replacement by newer, fresher-faced models. But one of those new faces is sparking quite the controversy: an eyebrow-less Benedict Cumberbatch as a gender-flexible androgynous model named All that Stiller and Wilson find confusing. In the trailer, Stiller asks Cumberbatch if the character is a male or female model, and Wilson follows up by asking, “do you have a hot dog or a bun?” LGBTQ groups, trans advocates, and many onlookers are not pleased. Read the full story here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The newest trailer for “Zoolander 2” follows the main characters, Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller) and his fellow model buddy Hansel (Owen Wilson), from the 2001 original as they deal with their inevitable replacement by newer, fresher-faced models. But one of those new faces is sparking quite the controversy: an eyebrow-less Benedict Cumberbatch as a gender-flexible androgynous model named All that Stiller and Wilson find confusing. In the trailer, Stiller asks Cumberbatch if the character is a male or female model, and Wilson follows up by asking, “do you have a hot dog or a bun?“

LGBTQ groups, trans advocates, and many onlookers are not pleased. Los Angeles Magazine called the trailer “sexist and transphobic” and called out the movie for using women and trans individuals as punchlines. Sarah Rose, an LGBTQ activist, created an online petition calling for a boycott of the movie for “its offensive representation of non-binary individuals!” The petition refers to Cumberbatch’s character as an “over-the top, cartoonish mockery of androgyne/trans/non-binary individuals. This is the modern equivalent of using blackface to represent a minority.” Rose also argues that “by hiring a cis actor to play a non-binary individual in a clearly negative way, the film endorses harmful and dangerous perceptions of the queer community at large.” As of now, the petition has almost 10,000 signatures. The Zoolander team has made no official response to the criticism.

Overall, 2015 has been such a pivotal year for androgyne/trans/non-binary individuals. Between influential public figures sharing their own personal histories of struggle with gender identification, and the subsequent media coverage of many different peoples’ stories, there has been a significant growth in knowledge and awareness of gender identification. We have begun the groundwork to a change in the ways in which we view gender and identification altogether. Is “Zoolander 2’s” proposed depiction of Cumberbatch’s character a mockery of this movement, or a testament to society’s increased comfort level with these issues that we are able to satirize them? Although progress has been made, the LGBTQ community still faces violence, stigma, and misunderstanding. This social movement toward better understandings of gender fluidity and identification is still in its infancy, and “Zoolander 2’s” lack of sensitivity may ultimately hinder this progress.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBTQ Groups Are Not Happy with the New “Zoolander 2” Trailer appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, I wrote a breakdown of some of the top races to watch on election day 2015. Here are the results of these contentious votes:

Virginia’s General Assembly

Why we should have watched it: With just a few key races promising to decide the lean of the state Senate overall, and Governor Terry McAuliffe pushing hard for a Democratic Senate, it was certainly a race to watch. Given that Virginia promises to be a hotly contested swing state in 2016, seeing just how purple the state has become is always interesting.

What happened: The GOP retained control of the state senate, and therefore the General Assembly as a whole. This leaves McAuliffe still without allies, and may indicate an uphill battle for whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee for 2016.

San Francisco’s Airbnb Vote

Why we should have watched it: San Francisco voters were offered a sort of referendum on Airbnb’s model of short-term rentals. Proposition F promised to levy some serious restrictions on the company. Add to that Airbnb’s $8 million dollar investment in fighting against the proposition, and a series of weird ads that certainly turned San Francisco voters off, and it became a tense race from start to finish.

What happened: Airbnb’s massive investment paid off, as voters rejected Proposition F. So, Airbnb will continue business as usual in the city where it is headquartered, but it was still a very expensive fight. As other cities may try to create similar restrictions, Airbnb might not want to make spending that kind of cash a precedent.

Kentucky Gubernatorial Race

Why we should have watched it: The Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway faced off against tea party candidate and businessman Matt Bevin. This was an incredibly hotly contested race; recent polls actually showed Conway in the lead. Bevin last year tried to primary Mitch McConnell, and was almost successful, and then beat a more establishment Republican for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

What happened: Bevin won, marking the first time in a while that a Republican has taken the governorship in Kentucky. Moreover, he showed that tea party wins aren’t a thing of the past. His successful rallying against the establishment may indicate who Kentucky will vote for in 2016.

Ohio Marijuana Initiative

Why we should have watched it: There were a lot of weird aspects to Ohio’s attempt to legalize marijuana. For one, it would have been the first state to legalize recreational marijuana having not first legalized medical marijuana. Moreover, there were concerns of a “marijuana oligopoly,” given that only 10 facilities backed by a group of investors would receive licenses to grow it. So, some that rallied against it were more fighting against the threat of a restricted market than the legalization of weed itself.

What happened: The initiative failed, so weed won’t be legalized in Ohio. However, it’s unclear whether it was rejected because of the oligopoly fears, or because Ohioans actually didn’t want to legalize weed. If it’s the former, we should expect to see another measure up for vote soon that allows a wider market.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

Why we should have watched it: The city of Houston, Texas voted on an equal rights ordinance that would have included protections for the LGBTQ community, including on the basis of gender identity. However, the entire thing became a nasty firefight when groups that opposed the ordinance began suggesting that it would allow predators to enter women’s bathrooms.

What happened: The fear-mongering paid off, and the ordinance didn’t pass. The opponents focused on one incorrect assumption, and were successful. Although the U.S. is doing a little better on LGBTQ rights in the wake of Obergefell, the resounding defeat of the ordinance in a relatively liberal city run by Annise Parker, one of the most high profile openly gay mayors in the United States, isn’t a great sign.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Results are in: Election Day 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

A new report entitled “Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth” was just released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) today, calling for an end to the use of conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ youth. While the Obama Administration has been calling for an end to this type of therapy since last year, and legislation against it has made it through a few state legislatures, this report is another major step toward ensuring that young people are no longer subjected to the harmful and inappropriate practice.

Conversion therapy, sometimes referred to a reparative or sexual reorientation therapy, is a widely discredited practice that attempts to “change” an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It is derived from the incredibly inaccurate, but once widely believed, premise that LGBTQ individuals are suffering from disorders and need to be “cured.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, it can include practices such as “violent role play, reenactment of past abuses, and exercises involving nudity and intimate touching.” It can lead to increased anxiety, depression, and in some cases, be a catalyst for suicidal tendencies.

It has been condemned by major health and psychological organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, it has only expressly been made illegal by four states–California, New Jersey, Illinois, and Oregon–as well Washington D.C. Legislation to end this practice has been introduced in 21 states. The hope appears to be that this report will spark even more action.

SAMHSA Special Expert on LGBT Affairs Elliot Kennedy explained the major takeaway of the report saying:

Conversion therapies or other efforts to change sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression are not effective, reinforce harmful gender stereotypes and are not appropriate mental health treatments.

Kennedy also told Reuters Health that “variations in sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are normal.”

The recent, highly-publicized death of Leelah Alcorn, a 17-year-old transgender woman who committed suicide after her parents forced her to attend conversion therapy, particularly incited calls for change. The Obama administration responded with a statement that supported ending the use of this therapy for minors. This SAMHSA report is another step toward ending the clearly harmful practice, but it’s also still not enough. Until no more young people are objected to the kind of abuse and unethical practices that Alcorn was, there is still more work to do.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Report Calls for an End to LGBTQ Conversion Therapy appeared first on Law Street.

The newest update to Windows is here, complete with a pretty unique feature. The newest version of the system will send weekly “activity updates” on children’s accounts to their parents, allowing the parents to see their browsing histories and usage. But Window’s new parental control feature is a potentially dangerous invasion of privacy for young people.

The feature, according to Business Insider, is automatically turned on for family accounts on a computer running Windows 10. Each week, the parental account will get an email with information about the activity on the child’s account. As Microsoft put it on its website:

When you add a child’s Microsoft account to your family, you’ll get regular activity report emails summarizing how much time they spent on the PC, the websites they visited, the games and apps they used, and the terms they’ve looked up in search engines like Bing, Google, or Yahoo! Search.

But the internet has long been a valuable resource for young people to explore parts of the world on their own. It allows young people to connect with others outside of their immediate area and discover new hobbies or interests.

The internet has also been a particularly important resource for LGBTQ teens who are looking for resources. Some of these teens could be accidentally outed to their parents by Window’s new service. LGBTQ youths are still subject to abuse, harassment, and rejection by their families at heartbreakingly frequent rates. The Center for American Progress reports that roughly half of LGBTQ youth face a negative reaction from their families when they come out. According to the Williams Institute, a non-profit organization that works with LGBTQ young people, roughly 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ. For a young person who is not ready to have that conversation with his parents yet, the fact that his internet searches can out him has the potential to become incredibly dangerous and damaging.

Another big flaw in this supposed “safety feature” implemented by Windows is that it doesn’t tell the young people they are being monitored. There’s apparently a small pop up that informs the user that their use could be monitored, but there aren’t any details about what extent, or the very active way in which Microsoft informs parents.

It’s understandable that some parents would want to know what their child is looking at on the internet, but this new Windows feature could end up doing more damage than good.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Window’s New Parental Control Feature Could Accidentally Out LGBTQ Youth appeared first on Law Street.

Even though only 19 percent of Americans surveyed by the Public Religion Research Institute said they would oppose a lesbian or gay athlete signing onto a professional sports team, there are still many obstacles that exist to LGBTQ players being out in pro sports.

Women have been coming out publicly in professional sports for years, but men in the big leagues have faced a great deal of obstacles keeping their positions on teams.

As more and more professional athletes are coming out, what are the legal rights and difficulties of LGBTQ athletes in professional sports?

Out Athletes in Pro Sports

Not only have queer women been coming out publicly in professional sports for quite some time, several have been actively outspoken against homophobic laws. Speaking out against Minnesota’s 2012 attempt to ban gay marriage in the state, WNBA star and Olympic gold medalist Seimone Augustus told the Associated Press:

I felt like it was the perfect time for me, being on a platform where I can make a change with my voice and my situation… Maybe inspire someone else to come out and be comfortable with themselves. Or maybe someone else’s parents will see my parents saying that it’s OK to be with your child and love your child unconditionally regardless of your sexual preference.

This outspokenness accompanies the activism of fellow out WNBA star Brittney Griner against the constraints placed on her at Baptist school Baylor University.  Griner has commented candidly on the hypocrisy of homophobia in sports:

The more I think about it, the more I feel like the people who run the school want it both ways: they want to keep the policy, so they can keep selling themselves as a Christian university, but they are more than happy to benefit from the success of their gay athletes. That is, as long as those gay athletes don’t talk about being gay.

We’ve got a culture that is OK with casual homophobia and sexist language… What Jason Collins’ presence does–now people have to be held accountable. Because what people said before was, ‘Well, he said that, but he wasn’t talking to anyone, and no one’s gay here, so no one’s offended by it.’ Now that Collins is in existence, people realize there are more Jasons out there, more Michael Sams out there, that when you say something homophobic, you’re actually affecting someone who you truly believe exists now.

Rights and Responsibilities

Advocates of LGBT rights in professional sports have argued that it is the responsibility of professional sports leagues to proactively protect players–and coaches and staff–from discrimination.

In Sam’s case, however, Dr. John Fitzgerald Gates, National Diversity Expert, Principal, and Chief Strategist of Criticality Management Consulting and Former Associate Dean of Harvard College, wrote the following about NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell:

(He) did nothing to assure that Sam would be treated with the respect and fairness accorded other players, or to protect him against being fired because he is gay. According to Goodell, in the NFL: ‘We do things the right way. We will give them that education and training. I hope that will solve the problem.’ But Goodell’s deduction is flawed, for if education and training solved discrimination we surely would have educated and trained our way beyond it by now. As with racial and gender bias, laws must be constructed and enforced to ensure equal protection to LGBT professional athletes. Goodell welcomed Sam onto the field of play without providing him the protection from discrimination that other players have, thereby leaving him uniquely and unfairly vulnerable. Goodell codified the NFL’s right to discriminate when he should have had the courage, like President Obama, to ban it.

It is worth noting that the NFL does, in fact, have provisions in place to protect players from discrimination and harassment based on their sexual orientation. Indeed, when the MLB spoke out against homophobia in the major leagues, it was following the precedent of the NFL, stating that:

Public Religion Research Institute: Ahead of Super Bowl, Nearly Three-in-Ten Americans Support Lifetime Ban for Football Players Who Commit Domestic Violence

OutSports: Trans Athletes

Sports Illustrated: Why NBA Center Jason Collins is Coming Out Now

Huffington Post: The Moment is NOW for Professional Sports to Ban LGBT Discrimination

Huffington Post: Michael Sam: The Practical and Legal Implications of a Gay Professional Athlete

CBS News: NFL Agrees to Do More to Protect Gay Players

Daily Mail: Basketball Star Brittney Griner Opens up About Being a Lesbian at Baylor University and How She was Told to Keep ‘Her Business’ to Herself

Jurist: How Four Major Sports Leagues Influence LGBT Rights

Think Progress: The Benchwarming Journeymen Who Changed American Sports Forever

Think Progress: Dallas Cowboys Cut Michael Sam from Practice Squad

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBTQ Pro Sports: Obstacles and Victories appeared first on Law Street.

The Girl Scouts of Western Washington were more than thrilled when they recently received a $100,000 donation to fund activities for girls participating in the organization. However after seeing the note that came attached to the donation, the program made a hard call–to send the money back. According to Seattle Metropolitan magazine, the note read:

Please guarantee that our gift will not be used to support transgender girls. If you can’t, please return the money

This past May the Girl Scouts of America clarified its  longtime policy of allowing transgender girls to be Girl Scouts. While that decision resulted in applause from some, it also garnered protest–presumably the people who sent the note and donation fall into that camp.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Western Washington Chapter, Megan Ferland, claimed to feel very sad after receiving the letter, but sent it back without any hesitation. She said: Girl Scouts is for every girl. And every girl should have the opportunity to be a Girl Scout if she wants to.

With $100,000 covering nearly a third of the organization’s financial assistance program for the year, returning the gift was a big loss. So in an effort to replace the donation, the Western Washington council set up an Indigogo fundraiser, and received significantly more than the original donation. The “Girl Scouts is #ForEVERYGirl” page was able to raise more than $175,000 from more than 3,200 donors in one day, and more than $249,000 from over 4,900 donors in two days.

This is reportedly the second time the Western Washington Girl Scouts under the leadership of Megan Ferland have taken a stand to support transgender individuals, even though the organization has received some controversial feedback in regards to the issue. “Our position is not new,” Andrea Bastiani Archibald, the Girl Scouts USA’s chief girl expert, told CNN. “It conforms with our continuous commitment to inclusivity.”

However, as much as various arms of the Girl Scouts organization have stood up for transgender individuals, Boy Scouts of America has taken a different road when it comes to acceptance of LGBTQ individuals. After long debate, the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council was finally able to vote and ease a long-standing ban and allow openly gay young men in the organization in 2013. The policy took effect in January 2014. Although the vote was considered a milestone, there were some who were distraught with the outcome. There was talk of a new organization being formed, but that has yet to come to fruition. “This has been a challenging chapter in our history,” the BSA chief executive, Wayne Brock, said after the vote. “While people have differing opinions on this policy, kids are better off when they’re in Scouting.”

With a long road ahead, it seems both organizations are taking the necessary steps to ensure Boy and Girl Scouts of America include all people, although the Boy Scouts are clearly trailing behind the Girl Scouts somewhat. This move toward equality is certainly a good thing–whether it means extending membership or not taking donations that don’t go to further equality. 

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Girl Scouts Reject Anti-Transgender Donation appeared first on Law Street.

So, this week in LesboLand… K-Stew’s mom apparently outed her (in a week of oh so many highly public parental outings); Orange is the New Black basically broke the internet; and Wells Fargo is the latest massive corporation to want to use white lesbians to make a profit.

It must be Pride Month.

(Or just another week in the life of lesbian drama. I’m not picky about cause and effect.)

I came out a decade ago, and a decade ago, I didn’t know about Pride Month. (WE GET OUR OWN MONTH. Which is upsetting for all kinds of reasons related to heteronormativity and the fact that mainstream Prides are so super white-washed and corporatized…but I told myself when I sat down to write this that I wouldn’t be quite as ornery as I usually am. Let’s see how that goes.)

Today, my bedside table has not one, not two, but three stacks–borderline obnoxiously sized stacks (this is not a massive bedside table we’re talking about here)–of queer YA books on it, not to mention a couple of nifty (if not overpriced) Babeland products, and my YA fantasy novel manuscript (spoiler alert: QUEERNESS).

Over a decade ago, I skittishly went online–remember this sound??–and, sweat forming on my upper lip, copy-pasted into Word Perfect as many Star Trek: Voyager fan fiction stories under the “femslash” category as I could. I would read them nervously, quickly, always ready to click into another document with my AP U.S. outlines open, my eyes stuck on one part of the screen as I created a scroll-effect from holding down the delete key as I read.

Erasing the evidence of my queerness (because I didn’t recognize it–though everyone else did–in my flannel, keys-on-belt-loop, thumbs-hooked-into-pockets, all-I-ever-think-about-is-women…ness), even though I didn’t know that’s what it was.

Today, I make no effort to hide my queerness. It’s not something that occurs to me anymore. And there’s a lot of privilege wrapped up in that. I know. I know.

And I feel it every time the OITNB theme song whines out of my roommate’s bedroom (or my own)–we’re still so starving for “representation”–often, no matter what the racist cost of that representation.

Because if OITNB weren’t mediated by a blonde white woman; if The Fosters didn’t positively portray such a brutal and racist criminal justice system; if mainstream Prides were still protests, marches against intersectional systemic oppression rather than white-dominated, corporate parties.

I wonder what Pride Month would look like in the mainstream media.

(And there’s the orneriness.)

But we need to stay ornery. Because yep, we are everywhere. But we’re also oppressed by white-supremacist, heteropatriarcal, ableist systems.

Everywhere.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lesbians! Lesbians Everywhere! appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015

Two high-profile decisions will impact millions of lives this month, including millions of millennials, as the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinions on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage. These cases face what many regard as the most conservative court in decades, but center on two of the most prominent and progressive social justice movements in decades. At a recent Center for American Progress (CAP) event focused on the important cases of this term, I was able to hear the implications of these cases, and they’re definitely worth our attention. In the justices’ hands rests the future and stability of the American health care system and legality of marriage equality for all. The stakes couldn’t be higher this month, and that’s exactly why you should be informed of what’s going on. Here’s a breakdown—in plain English—of what you need to know:

King v. Burwell: Battle Over ObamaCare

Just because you’re young and healthy doesn’t mean you don’t need health insurance, and this particular court case will definitely impact young people. A little background is important to grasp how, though. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in March 2010. It established health insurance exchanges–marketplaces that facilitate the purchase of health insurance in each state. Exchanges provide a set of government-regulated, standardized health care plans from which individuals may purchase health insurance policies. If the individual has a limited income, the exchange allows that person to obtain premium assistance (AKA: premium subsidies) to lower the monthly cost of the health care plan, making the plan affordable.

The ACA provides states three options for the establishment of exchanges: state run exchanges, a partnership with the federal government, or complete federal control of the exchange within the state. In 2014, appellants in Virginia, D.C., Oklahoma, and Indiana argued that premium subsidies are only available under a state-run exchange, citing one clause that says that premium subsidies are available “through an Exchange established by the state.” Using this phrase, litigants argue that the ACA provides premium assistance exclusively to individuals purchasing health care on state-run exchanges.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying that the context of the phrase reveals that Congress obviously intended for the subsidies to apply in all exchanges. But in July 2014 David King, a Virginia resident, and his co-plaintiffs  petitioned the Supreme Court and in November, the court agreed to accept the case. Oral arguments were in March 2015 and in June the outcome will be released, which has the potential to strike a detrimental blow to the Affordable Care Act. Since the ACA was signed into law, thirty-four states chose not to set up their own exchange marketplace and instead allow the federal government to operate the exchange, accounting for 75 percent of the people nationwide who qualify for premium subsidies. If the Supreme Court reverses the previous decisions and rules that only state-run exchanges qualify for premium assistance, that 75 percent will no longer be considered eligible for assistance. If the Court rules against the Obama Administration this month, about 6.4 million Americans could lose their health care premiums.

"Nearly 1 in 3 uninsured Americans have already been covered—more than 16 million people" —@POTUS #ACAWorks pic.twitter.com/rXVNHrkiW1

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 9, 2015

But there’s no certainty which way this will go. At the panel discussion on Monday at CAP, Elizabeth G. Taylor, Executive Director at the National Health Law Program expressed her skepticism of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case. “What I fear is that not only do we not have an activist court, but that it is standing in the way of efforts by publicly-elected officials to name and address social problems.” Ian Millhiser, Senior Fellow at CAP, argued that the King v. Burwell case is the “weakest argument that I have ever heard reach the Supreme Court.”

It’s especially important to keep in mind that young people will be disproportionately impacted by a SCOTUS ruling against Obamacare; over 2.2 million enrollees are between the ages of 18-34, making millennials the largest group insured under the ACA. For example, a decision against the ACA could cause young people under the age of 26 (who are automatically covered under their parents’ plans, thanks to ObamaCare) to lose their health care plans if their parents can no longer afford health insurance without federal subsidies. Whether or not SCOTUS protects those Americans remains to be seen.

Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality’s Latest Frontier

Obergefell v. Hodges will decide whether or not states are required to license a marriage between same-sex couples, as well as if states are required to recognize a lawfully licensed, out-of-state marriage between two people of the same sex.

Obergefell v. Hodges – the case #SCOTUS is considering, whether #LGBT couples have a constitutional right to marry http://t.co/FCJ6yo0ZGD

— V R Gaitonde (@weareji) June 9, 2015

Again, this decision will be important for young people, particularly because of the part we’ve played in the debate. Of Americans under age 50, 73 percent believe in marriage equality. Roberta A. Kaplan, Partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, stated at the CAP event Monday that the arguments in favor of marriage equality have remained the same over the years, but what has changed is the ability of judges to hear those arguments. “There’s no doubt that what made this change is the American public,” she said. While the Supreme Court does not exist to respond to the public, it certainly appears to be aware of the momentum behind the marriage equality movement. Just weeks after Ireland became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage on a national level by popular vote, SCOTUS will issue an opinion that could put the U.S. in the same progressive bracket as 18 other countries, allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide.

Regardless of the decision though, the fight for equality won’t be over. Let’s say the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality both ways. States will be required to marry same-sex couples and recognize marriages performed out of state. But the next concern for these couples is the potential for more subtle discrimination. “Same sex couples will be allowed to marry but states will be able to discriminate in other ways,” warned Millhiser. Losing jobs, healthcare, or being denied housing and loans without explicitly stated homophobic motivations are classic examples of discrimination that could very well be implemented on the state level by authorities who are adamantly against same-sex marriage. If the ruling does come out in favor of gay couples, increasing skepticism is a must to keep unlawful, prejudiced actions in check.

Both of these cases have a lot on the line, although obviously for very different reasons. Michele L. Jawando, Vice President of Legal Progress at CAP said, “I would like to believe that the court is paying attention, and I do believe that the American people have a role to play when it comes to these decisions.” This is where you come in. Speaking loudly and acting louder can truly change the course of history. Lobbying Congress, rallying for your cause, educating yourself and speaking out to educate the public on the importance of these issues are crucial methods of putting public and political pressure on the justices. I’d like to believe that the American Constitution is a living and breathing document that transforms throughout history, expanding to encompass progressive views and constantly redefining what it means to be an American; let’s hope I feel the same way at the end of June.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015: 

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Two Supreme Court Cases We Should All Be Watching appeared first on Law Street.

Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as Bruce Jenner, an Olympic gold medalist and personality of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” just reintroduced herself to the public in her debut on the cover of Vanity Fair. The Vanity Fair portrait, shot by photographer Annie Leibovitz, as well as sneak peeks from Jenner’s interview trended worldwide with overwhelming support. The full 22-page cover story will be released on June 9.

“I’m not doing this to be interesting. I’m doing this to live.” #CallMeCaitlyn http://t.co/Mwfy5PkjTp pic.twitter.com/V2NmSJG2eV

— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) June 1, 2015

Millennials took to social media to react to the Vanity Fair news, expressing support, inspiration, and hopefulness that the visibility of Jenner as a trans woman will stimulate necessary change in a world full of LGBTQ+ animosity and violence. Tweets in response to Jenner’s “Call Me Caitlyn” announcement fixated on two primary themes. The first theme was that having a public, affluent woman speaking out for trans rights and sharing the struggles of being a transgender person will cause erroneous, outdated perceptions on what constitutes gender to be shifted in a more understanding direction. There’s also hope that Jenner’s openness will shed light on an issue that is too often kept quiet. The second theme is that, for many, Jenner symbolizes happiness, bravery, and freedom for LGBTQ+ communities.

Transgender people are disproportionately victims of violence across the world and in the United States. Most shocking are the statistics of sexual violence, with a reported 50 percent of transgender people abused or assaulted at some point in their lives. The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) released a survey in February 2011 documenting transgender violence. An alarming 78 percent of those who identified as transgender or who expressed gender non‐conformity experienced harassment while in grades K-12, 29 percent reported being harassed by police officers, and six percent were physically assaulted by police officers. A 2013 report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) found that transgender people were seven times more likely than non-trans people to experience physical violence when interacting with the police. Additionally, the report found that transgender people of color were six times more likely to experience physical violence from the police compared to white cisgender survivors. Transgender women were four times more likely to experience violence from the police; transgender men were 1.6 times more likely.

LGBTQ+ people who also belong to habitually marginalized populations such as minorities, lower socioeconomic groups, or who were formerly incarcerated experience even more targeted and often more severe violence. Although Caitlyn Jenner does not represent any of these marginalized groups (as a white, wealthy, non-incarcerated athlete and TV personality) she is considered one of the most famous, openly-transgender Americans. She can still offer support to these groups through encouraging tolerance and acceptance of trans people.

In many cases, both the media and law enforcement attempt to cover up violence inflicted on LGBTQ+ people through a lack of reporting and non-documentation of hate crimes. The Transgender Violence Tracking Portal, (TVTP) launched in 2014, has attempted to counter the deficiency of trans violence reporting through providing reports of these acts. Raising awareness of the incessant yet ignored problem of trans violence and pressuring law enforcement to protect the rights of trans people have become increasingly discussed subjects, provoked further by Jenner’s transition and her June 1st announcement.

There is obviously a huge problem with transgender violence in the United States, which stems from a lack of tolerance, understanding, and acceptance of trans people. These statistics do not include the individuals whose rights were suppressed by the courts–which have their own issues with biases and marginalization. These numbers also do not incorporate the voices that were silenced out of fear or powerlessness. The first step toward sustainable change is visibility of an issue. So, thank you, Caitlyn.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Caitlyn Jenner’s Debut: Will it Help Combat Anti-Transgender Violence? appeared first on Law Street.

Just a cursory glance at recent social movement-esque trends on Twitter reveals a disturbing tendency of national conversations.

I am currently arching one eyebrow–judging hard–at the fondness we seem to have for localizing national problems in Midwestern states. Observe: homophobia, we locate in Indiana with #BoycottIndiana, almost as though it is the only place with queerphobic laws. Racism and police violence, we locate in Ferguson, as though this city in Missouri itself embodies racism across the country. Even Colorlines.com, an excellent source for intersectional news about structural racism in the U.S., has a separate tab for “Ferguson” on its site. Many tweets hashtag the names of several Black men who were brutalized by cops (or cop stand-ins, in the case of Trayvon Martin), but the only location identified is #Ferguson. No #StatenIsland or #NewYorkCity (where Eric Garner was strangled to death) or #LosAngeles (where Rodney King was savagely beaten by cops in 1991).

Focusing on individuals rather than identifying larger trends (like city-wide implementation of racist stop-and-frisk policies, or nationwide and international waging of a racist “war on drugs”), this place-based use of hashtags allows us to displace racist violence into conveniently “conservative,” Midwestern states like Missouri and Indiana.

This is similar to the trend in films such as “Boys Don’t Cry” and “Brokeback Mountain,” which portray violent homophobia and transphobia as individual acts of hatred rather than structural realities. They also position these acts as being located primarily in rural locations like Falls City, Nebraska and the mountains of Wyoming.

While I was born and raised a city girl, I know (because I have friends, I’ve dated different folks, and I read things like this and this) that vibrant queer cultures exist in rural spaces, and, though I navigate the streets of New York City with the privileges of being white, I know that racist, queerphobic violence is inflicted vis a vis laws and police batons in city centers every day.

As writer Lauren Anderson notes,

[R]ural gay youth teach [urbanites]:
1. Identities are a process of collective action, not a condition waiting for discovery
2. Multiple visibility strategies in play
3. We need to stop moralizing about who does queerness right.

When we erase these kinds of perspectives by asserting that coastal urbanity is the only site of vibrant queer cultures, all it does is romanticize queerness in cities and propagates violence to fellow queers who are from rural areas and/or from Midwestern and southern cities.

And speaking of violence…

Using Ferguson to represent racism and Indiana to represent homophobia risk erasing the massive violences inflicted on queer people of color (as well as white queers and non-queer people of color) that occur in everyday life in cities. Frighteningly, it may well be precisely this erasure that makes #BoycottIndiana and #Ferguson so popular: if we blame individual conservatism and “backward” rural cultures, then we do not have to do the hard labor of dismantling the structural white supremacy and anti-queerness upon which this country–including its cities–operates.

(Looking for more than what I can explain with my limited perspective? Try renting Scott Herring’s Another Country: Queer’s Anti-Urbanism from the library, or read the introduction online here.)

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Boycott Indiana, #Ferguson, and Romanticizing Coastal Cities appeared first on Law Street.

The blanket ban on Medicare coverage of sexual reassignment surgery, which had been in place since 1989, was lifted in May 2014. With this move, Medicare officially recognized sexual reassignment surgeries as non-experimental and medically necessary for some suffering from gender dysphoria. Many consider the lifted ban a major victory for transgender rights; however, the move also sparked controversy as many people felt Medicare needs to prioritize the coverage of other medical concerns. Read on to learn how and why Medicare made the decision to lift its ban on sexual reassignment surgery.

What does it mean to be transgender?

According to GLAAD, transgender is “an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.” “Transsexual” is an older term “preferred by some people who have permanently changed–or seek to change–their bodies through medical intervention.” Gender identity is a person’s innate sense of being female, male, or other. Gender expression is how “a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice, or body characteristics.”

It’s important to note that being transgender is not considered a mental disorder as it does not cause significant distress or disability; however, those who identify as trans* have difficulty finding “affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination.” The culmination of these experiences can lead to higher levels of anxiety and/or depression than among the cisgender population.

What is Gender Dysphoria?

Gender Dysphoria It is a diagnosis given to people who “experience intense, persistent gender incongruence.” They do not identify with the physical sex they were assigned at birth. For an official diagnosis, the incongruence must last for at least six months. For children, the wish to be a different gender must be apparent and verbalized. People with gender dysphoria exhibit an overwhelming desire to be rid of his or her biological gender characteristics or “strong conviction that one has feelings and reactions typical of the other gender.” In order to cure gender dysphoria, some opt to undergo hormone therapies and or/medical surgeries.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) recommends a “real-life experience” and hormone therapy before surgery. A real-life experience is a specific duration of time that a transgender person must completely live as their desired gender while maintaining a mentally healthy and active lifestyle. People transitioning from male to female take testosterone-blocking agents along with female hormones like estrogen and progesterone in order to develop characteristics such as breasts, softer skin, and less body hair. Female to male candidates take testosterone in order to deepen the voice, shrink the breasts, and increase physical strength.

After hormone therapy, there are a plethora of surgical options. People transitioning from male to female may choose to undergo a breast augmentation, orchiectomy (removal of the testicles), penectomy (removal of the penis), vaginoplasty (creation of the vagina), clitoroplasty (creation of the clitoris), and/or labiaplasty (creation of labia). The new constructions are generally built from penile tissue. There is also voice modification surgery to deepen the voice. Transitioning from male to female generally costs $40,000 to $50,000. Female to male transition surgeries are less medically successful. Trans males can undergo a mastectomy (removal of the breast tissue), hysterectomy (removal of the uterus), and salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries). Patients can have a metoidioplasty (enlargement of the clitoris), but the construction of a penis has yet to be medically perfected. Collectively, transitioning from female to male costs about $75,000. Both trans females and trans males can receive cosmetic surgeries as well.

Medicare’s Prior Policy

Since 1989, Medicare specifically denied coverage for sex reassignment surgery under the National Coverage Determination 140.3. The decision was based on a 1981 National Center of Health Care Technology report, which stated:

Because of the lack of well controlled, long term studies of the safety and effectiveness of the surgical procedures and attendant therapies for transsexuals, the treatment is considered experimental. Moreover, there is a high rate of serious complications for these surgical procedures. For these reasons, transsexual surgery is not covered.

Basically, the surgeries were considered too risky and dangerous.

Since then, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association began advocating sex reassignment surgery as a productive, effective relief for victims of Gender Dysphoria. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Departmental Appeals Board overturned the decision in May 2014. The board stated that the policy was “based on outdated, incomplete, and biased science, and did not reflect contemporary medical science or standards of care.” This doesn’t mean candidates will automatically be approved for sex reassignment surgery, but approval or denial will be given based on individual cases, not a blanket policy.

Case Study: Denee Mallon

Medicare’s reevaluation of the ban started when 74-year-old army veteran Denee Mallon was denied her request for gender reassignment surgery by Medicare. In turn, she challenged the government insurance ban against sex reassignment surgeries.

After receiving the surgery, Mallon happily stated, “I feel congruent, like I’m finally one complete human being where my body matches my innermost feelings, my psyche. I feel complete.”

Mallon initially realized her gender identity when she was a 12 year old child in the 1940s. She continued to live as a man, having five kids and entering three marriages. When she could afford sex reassignment surgery in the late 70s and early 80s, her doctors refused to approve it because she was participating in consensual sex with women. When she finally received approval in the late 80s, she could no long afford it. She lived her life as a woman aided by hormonal therapy starting at age 40. She hid the fact that she was born male until 2012 when she became open about it and came out of what she calls “stealth mode.”

In response to critics calling being transgender a “lifestyle” choice, Mallon stated, “It’s far deeper than that. It’s so a part of my basic psyche, there’s no escaping it. I’ve tried to be the kind of man that society wanted and my feminine self just kept creeping up.”

Mallon decided to challenge Medicare after she was refused sex reassignment coverage by both her secondary private insurer and Medicare. She could not afford the expensive surgery living on $650 a month in Social Security income. The challenge and review process took about 18 months, before Medicare decided to lift the ban.

Pros of Lifting the Ban

Health Benefits

According to a British study, 88 percent of patients whounderwent male to female sexual reassignment surgery were content with the results. Those with Gender Dysphoria that undergo the transition process have substantial mental health improvement and a decrease in substance abuse and depression. According to a 2010 U.S. study, 41 percent of transgender people have attempted suicide. Sex reassignment surgery is a critical step in creating mental stability for some.

Marci Bowers, a transgender obstetrician and gynecologist in Burlingame, California, reported only two out of 1,300 people on whom she has performed sex reassignment surgery wanted to reverse the procedure. This is a 99.85 percent success rate.

Starting a Trend

The lifted ban is not only a significant win for transgender rights, but perhaps a catalyst for more change to come. Many public and private insurers take cues from the government. This could be the start of a long line of insurers securing coverage for these types of surgeries. In 2002, zero Fortune 500 companies offered transgender benefits. Ten years later, 19 percent did, and by 2014 it was 28 percent.

As of today, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois, New York, Vermont, and Washington D.C. have banned anti-transgender discrimination in health insurance, and they legally require insurers to provide transgender health insurance.

Backlash

The first attempt to lift the ban came in 2013, but there were protests from conservative and religious groups. Defenders of the ban don’t believe these types of surgeries should be paid for by tax payer money.

Leanna Baumer, a senior legislative assistant with the Family Research Council, stated:

Real compassion for those struggling with a gender identity disorder is to offer mental health treatments that help men and women become comfortable with their actual biological sex — not to advocate for costly and controversial surgeries subsidized by taxpayers.

Frank Schubert, national political director for the National Organization for Marriage, doesn’t believe condoning the surgery sends the right message to America’s youth “to respect who they are, how they were born.”

Conclusion

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that an overwhelming majority of those who undergo sex reassignment surgery for Gender Dysphoria find a substantial increase in their quality of life. In a demographic that experiences high rates of depression and suicide, the importance of these procedures is clear. The high expense of these surgeries essentially eliminates the option if they aren’t covered by insurance. Most people don’t have an extra $50,000 to spend on treatment for any medical condition. The lifted ban holds important symbolic value for the future and what’s to come.

Resources

Primary

American Psychological Association: What Does Transgender Mean?

Additional

Advocate: HHS to Reevaluate Ban on Gender-Confirming Surgeries

How Stuff Works: Stages of Gender Reassignment

NBC News: Sex Reassignment Surgery at 74

GLAAD: GLAAD Media Reference Guide

National Center for Transgender Equality: Know Your Rights

Trans Health Care: List of U.S. States That Have Banned Anti-Transgender Discrimination in Health Insurance

USA Today: Medicare ban on sex reassignment surgery lifted

Washington Post: Ban Lifted on Medicare Coverage For Sex Change Surgery

Washington Post: Here’s How Sex Reassignment Surgery Works

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sexual Reassignment Surgery: The Path to Medicare Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Much ado has been made about the potential impacts of gay marriage on immigrants, and the potential impacts of comprehensive immigration reform on LGBTQ people. But what does all that mean? How do laws aimed at immigrants and laws aimed at LGBTQ people impact those who are both immigrants and LGBTQ? Read on to learn about the different difficulties of LGBTQ immigration, what progress is being made, and what problems still exist.

“Don’t Separate my Family”: Marriage and Immigration

When people hear about immigration and gay rights together in mainstream media sources, chances are that the conversation is about the impacts of gay marriage on immigration policy and individual couples in which one partner is an immigrant and the other is a citizen.

In the build up to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which provided full federal recognition of legally married same-sex couples by striking down a critical component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many couples in which one partner was not a citizen were featured in efforts of advocacy for gay marriage. A perfect example is the couple featured in the YouTube clip above. In the aftermath of federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a good deal of media coverage focused on long-term lesbian and gay relationships in which one of the partners was granted legal immigration status through marriage to a citizen partner. This New York Daily News article, for example, frames the triumph of gay marriage advocates in New York through the lens of immigration, discussing same-sex marriage as a win for a binational couple’s ability to obtain a green card for one of the partners.

Legal recognition for same-sex marriage has somewhat been a boon for proponents of more accessible immigration. LGBTQ couples no longer need to live in fear that they will not be able to live together in the U.S. because their marriage isn’t recognized: after the DOMA decision, same-sex couples have the right–as straight couples do–to have an immigrant partner obtain a green card through their marriage to a citizen spouse. Prior to the DOMA decision, no federal rights of marriage, including federal taxes and federal benefits, were afforded to same-sex couples, even if they were married in a state where it was legal. There was a lack of ability to obtain a green card for an immigrant partner in a binational couple; these rights are now assured. Transgender immigrants in a binational marriage, rest assured–whether you’re in a straight or  gay/lesbian relationship, the DOMA decision ensures that you or your partner can qualify for a green card.

New Concerns After the DOMA Decision

After the DOMA decision, however, concerns remain for LGBTQ immigrant couples. For example, investigative reporter Seth Freed Wessler writes for Colorlines.com that,

The parts of the marriage-based visa process that include investigation by federal immigration officers into the validity of a marriage… [can pose a problem for] LGBT couples who may not be out to their families, communities, neighbors or bosses, the prospect of a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer showing up at their apartment building or calling their mother to ask about the relationship poses a pretty serious risk.

This is indeed something to be concerned about, and it may well bar access to green cards for many LGBTQ immigrants. Yet it is precisely this articulation of the U.S. as a liberal bastion and safe-haven for LGBTQ people–juxtaposed against “homophobic” countries–that causes many LGBTQ people to critique the entire framing of same-sex marriage as a vehicle for positive immigration policy.

Many LGBTQ people argue that fighting for marriage takes away attention, energy, and resources (millions and millions of dollars worth) from addressing the underlying issues of structural racism, state oppression and heteronormativity that shape anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ attitudes to begin with. Queercents writer Yasmin argues that marriage “being presented as THE immigration cause for LGBT people” detracts crucial attention away from comprehensive immigration reform, which she and many others assert should be the focal point of immigration efforts. Responding to American Apparel’s same-sex marriage-inspired “Legalize Gay” shirts Yasmin writes that:

Do people wearing this t-shirt have a clue what it really means to be illegal? To be, for instance, an ‘illegal alien’ who gets swept up in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid and be deported soon thereafter? To not be able to travel freely because they lack the proper documentation? To pay for their school tuition and rent in cash because they lack social security numbers? [And i]t’s not just the undocumented whose lives are effectively erased by this t-shirt, but the millions who are being funneled into the prison industrial complex in order to increase its profits.

Even if an undocumented immigrant who is LGBTQ is familiar with the fears and oppressions discussed here, they may not have marriage available to them–or may not desire marriage–if they want a green card.

Executive Action and Legal Challenges

President Obama’s executive action in November 2014 that attempted to grant relief from deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants is being legally challenged by 26 states. These legal challenges have left millions of people in limbo, without knowing their status or rights, because the parents of U.S. citizens and families who were protected from deportation under his executive orders now must wait to learn what courts will decide about the legal challenges.

The impacts of Obama’s exercise of executive power (and, then, the impacts of the legal challenges to this power) for LGBTQ people have been much debated in LGBTQ communities. Staff correspondents Rachel Roubein and Lauren Fox argue in the National Journal that Obama’s actions on immigration were a tremendous help to LGBTQ people. They cite, among other things, the life-saving potential of prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases, which can prevent many LGBTQ people from being deported.

Other critics are less optimistic about the potential of Obama’s executive action to serve as the immigration overhaul that many desire, even if the cases against it are unsuccessful. Colorlines.com reporter Julianne Hung reminds her readers that:

The terms [of the action] are stringent: It will apply only to those who have been in the U.S. for five years or more; those who came to the country as young teens; and parents of U.S. citizen children and green-card holders. People with various criminal violations on their records will be barred from relief.

While these familial provisions were portrayed as being meant to keep families together, they do not grant access to many of the 267,000 undocumented LGBTQ adults who will not qualify for relief under Obama’s action because they lack these kinds of familial connections. These stringent terms may be particularly prohibitive for many of the 20,000-50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants in the country, for whom accessing potential relief will likely be particularly difficult due to virulent institutional transphobia that trans immigrants face.

“Mass Incarceration of Immigrants”

Currently, there’s a “mass incarceration of immigrants” in which the state and prison corporations generate many billions of dollars of profit from privately run and revenue-generating facilities that lock up people who are immigrants. In light of that, many LGBTQ immigrants are concerned about prisons generally, and the ways transgender people are targeted for especially horrific treatment in prisons and immigration detention centers. When the Department of Homeland Security came out with new immigration detention policies in 2014 that were aimed at preventing sexual abuse in immigration detention facilities, many lauded the changes as a victory. LGBTQ immigrants in these centers often experience much higher rates of abuse than their non-LGBTQ peers, so the changes were often welcomed by LGBTQ immigration advocates.

However, transgender immigrants did not receive adequate protections under the new guidelines. National Center for Transgender Equality director of policy Harper Jean Tobin referred to the new policies in the following way:

A tremendous missed opportunity which adds urgency to ending our multibillion-dollar mass incarceration of immigrants… The lack of adequate protections for transgender immigrants in particular makes it clear that these vulnerable individuals are not safe in detention facilities and should no longer be detained.

Many transgender asylum seekers are detained in the wrong facilities, particularly women being placed in all-male facilities, making those women targets of extreme sexual violence in immigration detention facilities.

This kind of abuse is experienced at higher rates by transgender immigrants, but LGB immigrants also are sexually abused at 15 percent higher rates than their non-LGB peers in detention facilities.

Organizations like the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the Sylvia Rivera Project’s Immigrant Rights Project work at the intersections between immigration and LGBTQ justice. They operate in ways that attempt to make detention safer for LGBTQ immigrants specifically while also working to make detention and deportation non-existent for all immigrants.

Conclusion

For immigrants who are LGBTQ, obstacles to obtaining a green card and safety from deportation can be much greater than for immigrants who are not LGBTQ, though the obstacles and the stakes are quite high for all immigrants. Same-sex marriage may chip away at these obstacles for some LGBTQ immigrants in binational, married relationships, but more overarching reform of the system of detention and deportation of immigrants may be a more holistic way forward for LGBTQ immigrants.

Resources

Primary

Oyez: United States v. Windsor

Additional

National Immigrant Justice Center: Stop Abuse of Detained LGBT Immigrants

Sylvia Rivera Law Project: Immigrant Rights Project

National Center for Transgender Equality: Our Moment For Reform

ABC News: DOMA Ruling Could Mean Green Cards for Gay Immigrants

Colorlines: LGBT Immigrants Could Face Hard Road Applying for Green Cards

Washington Post: Gay Marriage Fight Will Cost Tens of Millions

MakeZine: Is Gay Marriage Racist?

Queercents: Legalize Gay: Or, So You Think You’re Illegal?

Queercents: Uniting American Families Act: Fact, Fiction, Money, and Emotions

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to the Immigration Accountability Executive Action

AlJazeera: 26 States Sue Obama Over Immigration Plan

National Journal: In Immigration Action, the LGBT Community Once Again Feels Left Behind

Feministing: Is Mass Incarceration and Detention of Women Becoming the New Normal?

Center for American Progress: Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in U.S. Immigration Detention

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBTQ Immigration: Not Just About Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) are staples of American society that have each been around for more than 100 years. Although they are separate organizations, as each has its own congressional charter and upholds its own membership rules, they both promote leadership and civic duty. It is inarguable that the two organizations instill many important values in their young troops; however, they have had radically different approaches to modernization, particularly when it comes to LGBT acceptance. While the Girl Scouts accept girls and women of all different backgrounds, the Boy Scouts still discriminate against gay adult leadership. Read on to learn how and why the BSA and GSUSA have gone down such divergent paths.

 Who are the Boy Scouts of America?

The BSA was established in 1910 and it has four fundamental groups: Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouting, and Venturing. There are more than 2.6 million youth members and over one million volunteers involved in BSA. Boy Scouts aim to earn merit badges, awards given by demonstrating mastery of a skill or field of study, including camping, citizenship in the community, and first aid.

• Mission Statement: “The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.”
• Scout Oath: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
• Scout Law: “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

BSA Stance on Homosexuality

The BSA affirmed its position against admitting gay scouts and leadership in 1991. The release included the following statement:

We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does.

In 2007, the BSA confirmed, “we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals,” although the organization claimed to not actively seek out a person’s sexual orientation.

Opposition to Those Policies

In 2012, Merck & Co pulled funding because of the BSA discrimination policy. The prior year, Merck had donated $30,000 to BSA. Other companies that followed suit included Intel, UPS, Ernst & Young, IBM, Levi Strauss & Co., J.P. Morgan, American Airlines, Medtronic, Portland General Gas and Electric, Hewlett Packard, Textron, Fleet Bank, CVS/Pharmacy Stores, and Carrier Corp.

Even President Obama advocated for the BSA to lift the ban.

In house, the BSA sent a survey to one million of its members regarding their position on gay members. The results said “overwhelming majorities of parents, teens and members of the Scouting community felt it would be unacceptable to deny an openly gay Scout an Eagle Scout Award solely because of his sexual orientation.”

Policy Change

At a meeting in Grapevine, Texas in 2013, the BSA voted 61-38 to overturn the standing rule regarding BSA youth. The ruling officially came into effect January 1, 2014 stating “no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.” However, the ban was not lifted for scout volunteers and leaders over the age of 18. Lifting the ban for leadership was never under consideration.

Backlash From Both Sides

The ban lift resulted in a wave of criticism from both ends of the spectrum. In an interview with ABC, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention executive committee, Frank Page, stated, “I think I can say with pretty strong accuracy that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are very disappointed in the latest change in policy…deeply disappointed.”

The Southeast Christian Church, located in Louisville, Kentucky, publicized a move to sever ties with the Boy Scouts, forcing the BSA to lose approximately 300 families. The Assemblies of God, the world’s largest Pentecostal group, also withdrew support.

On the other hand, according to Rich Ferraro, a spokesman for the gay-rights watchdog group GLAAD, “Until every parent and young person have the same opportunity to serve, the Boy Scouts will continue to see a decline in both membership and donations.”

In accordance, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the rule “incoherent,” claiming, “The proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 – then, when he comes of age, he’s removed from the Scouts.” He claims that it sends a message that gay adults are somehow inadequate to lead and mentor troops.

Disney also announced it would pull all funding from the BSA starting in 2015 because of the ban on gay leadership.

How is BSA not breaking anti-discrimination laws?

As a private, religious organization, the BSA is shielded from federal and state discrimination laws based on the freedoms of speech and association. They can legally exclude atheists, agnostics, and people in the LGBT community.

The American Civil Liberties Union is one organization that has ceaselessly attacked the BSA for this policy. For example, it was present in the 2000 Supreme Court case of The Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale. Dale, a former Assistant Scout Master, was kicked out of the BSA for his sexuality. In New Jersey, there is a law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Dale’s favor, but the opinion was overturned a year later by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion:

The Boy Scouts’ right to express their views against lesbians and gay men would be hampered if the organization was forced to admit openly gay people as leaders…lesbians and gay people, if they are honest about their sexual orientation, make a statement in their very existence, and groups like the Boy Scouts therefore have a right to exclude them.”

The ACLU called it a “damaging but limited” defeat as the “ruling is limited to groups that exist for the purpose of expressing views and ideas.” So, any nondiscriminatory progress the BSA has made or will make in the future will be made from within. Legally, its hand cannot be forced.

Leaders Kicked Out

Jennifer Tyrrell was a former den mother of her son’s Cub Scout chapter. In April 2012, she was told she could no longer hold her position due to sexual orientation. She had served in the position for over a year. When she was kicked out, she started her advocacy against the BSA to end its discrimination of the LGBT community and launched a petition, stating, “the Boy Scouts are once again forcing me to look my children in the eyes and tell them that our family isn’t good enough.”

In the following video, Tyrell talks about the BSA’s policy change and her petition.

Geoff McGrath, a former Scout leader from Seattle, Washington, is often considered one of the first leaders removed after the policy change. BSA stated they did not know about his sexual orientation when his chapter was approved, although McGrath reported that he never hid his gay identity or support of gay rights. In an interview with NBC News he stated, “They are complaining that the problem is a distraction to Scouting and they don’t seem to understand that the distraction is self-inflicted.” McGrath’s brother and nephew rode their bikes from the Northwest to Boy Scout headquarters in Texas in order to raise awareness of the policy.

Who are The Girl Scouts of the USA?

Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts in Savannah, Georgia in March 1912. Currently, there are approximately 2.8 million Girl Scouts and volunteers affiliated with the organization. GSUSA aims to encourage healthy living opportunities, promote economic opportunities, foster global citizenship and a global voice, and support a strong nonprofit community and girl scout experience for girls. A core value and key component in GSUSA is diversity. It strives to reach girls from all different backgrounds.

GSUSA’s Position on Sexual Orientation

A GSUA document entitled Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, explains its policy.

Regarding sexual orientation, Girl Scouts of the USA holds fast to a commitment to embrace diversity and has in place a policy that prohibits discriminatory treatment of any kind, including on the basis of sexual orientation. This policy which applied to interactions with girls and adults, must be honored by every person working in the Girl Scout movement. Keep in mind that it is not appropriate to ask or assume what a girl’s sexual orientation is.

How has GSUSA supported the LGBT community?

GSUSA’s inclusion policy allows transgender children to be Girl Scouts. Girl Scouts of Colorado stated, “We accept all girls in kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.”

In 2007, GSUSA honored 18-year-old Girl Scout Madeline as a National Young Woman of Distinction for her project promoting awareness to the intolerance shown to the LGBT community. This is the highest award given by GSUSA.

GSUSA has featured additional resources on its website for Girl Scouts to research, such as the Global Fund for Women and Tolerance.org. Each of these sites provides information and supports LGBT initiatives.

At a 2011 Convention, GSUSA held a seminar called “Moving Beyond Diversity to Inclusion,” which discussed some LGBT issues. At this same convention, GSUSA honored Annise Parker, Houston’s first openly gay mayor, as a guest speaker.

LGBT Activists/Leaders of GSUSA

Unlike the BSA, GSUSA welcomes leaders who are members of the LGBT community. Debra Nakatomi, GSUSA Board Member, is an LGBT activist who provides training in advancing LGBT rights. Lynn Cothren, former GSUSA Director of Administration from 2005-12, is a gay-rights advocate, speaker, and former board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Timothy Higdon, former GSUSA Chief of External Affairs from 2010-12, is an LGBT activist, employee of Amnesty International, and a leader in the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Conclusion

Whether the BSA’s lifted ban on gay membership will ultimately extend to adults is up in the air. Hopefully, its first step toward tolerance will not be its last as there are more hurdles to overcome. There are ramifications for the BSA only lifting its ban on youth members, as many worry that the message sent is that gay leaders are somehow inadequate. The policy also tells Scout youth that being an openly gay adult is unacceptable. Critics of the policy are concerned that a gay scout who has upheld the Boy Scout code during his entire career is stripped of his titles when he reaches 18, and condemn the policy as unfair. However, many see  the Girl Scouts of the USA as trailblazers who exemplify the civil freedoms America represents. Two similar organizations have ended up on significantly different paths–while modernization is always a slow process, it seems as though GSUSA will end up on the right side of history.

Resources

Primary

Boy Scouts of America: About the BSA

Boy Scouts of America: Current Policy

Girl Scouts: Who We Are

Girl Scouts: America’s Top Girl Scouts Named 2007 National Young Women of Distinction

Additional

100 Question for Girl Scouts: The Girl Scouts and the LGBT Agenda

ABCNews: Some Churches Say They’ll Cut Ties to Boy Scouts Following Its Lifting Ban on Gay Scouts

ACLU: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling That Boy Scouts Can Discriminate is Damaging but Limited

CNN: Disney to Pull Boy Scouts Funding by 2015 Over Policy Banning Gay Leaders

DiversityInc: Merck Condemns Boy Scout Gay Ban, Halts Funding

FoxNews: Transgender Girl Scout Controversy Sheds Light on Organization’s ‘Inclusive’ Policies

GLAAD: Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout Leader Who Was Removed For Being Gay

Huffington Post: Geoff McGrath, Gay Boy Scout Troop Leader, Allegedly Kicked Out of Organization

Scout and Pride: BSA and Homosexuality

WNDMoney: Look Which Companies Dumping Boy Scouts

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts Take Different Paths to LGBT Inclusion appeared first on Law Street.

Happy almost Valentine’s Day, my lovelies!

How many of you are planning to spend this Saturday with your wonderful, Cupid-bestowed, significant others?

Awesome. All of the single people want to punch you lovebirds in the face.

But, despite the wave of existential dread this holiday brings to single people everywhere (#foreveralone, am I right?), SCOTUS seems to be in a weirdly lovey mood. In what can only be interpreted as an early Valentine’s Day gift to coupled-up gay people nationwide, SCOTUS dropped a solid hint on Monday that it’ll be making gay marriage a nationwide reality soon.

Early Monday morning, SCOTUS refused to extend the stay on a lower court’s decision that declared Alabama’s ban on gay marriages unconstitutional. Basically, that means that SCOTUS is allowing gay marriages to happen in Alabama right now, despite the fact that the constitutionality of state-level gay marriage bans isn’t on deck to be decided upon until later this summer.

Folks, this is a big fucking deal for gay marriage.

The validity of state-level gay marriage bans are currently under SCOTUS’ consideration, and it’s uncertain which way the court will rule. Will SCOTUS decide that individual states totally have the right to ban gay marriage? Will it decide that that’s bullshit, and all of the states have to allow marriages of all people, regardless of the couple’s gender pairing?

Basically, until this summer, the answer on that is TBD.

With that understanding, SCOTUS could do well to allow states that currently have gay marriage bans to continue on with their marriage banning. If these states were forced to allow gay marriages during this current limbo period—and if SCOTUS ultimately decided that state level marriage bans were A-OK—then a whole mess of married couples would suddenly find themselves in a legal quagmire.

So, why create all that mess? It would make more sense to wait until the decision is final, and then marriages can proceed or not, depending on the official decree.

But that’s the opposite of what SCOTUS did on Monday morning!

The justices ruled, without further comment, that the federal district court in Alabama’s ruling could go forth, allowing thousands of gay couples in the state to get married.

Why would SCOTUS do that if it was planning to uphold the constitutionality of gay marriage bans this summer?

Monday’s decision strongly suggests that, come summertime, SCOTUS will rule that state-level gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, and unfettered gay marriage will reign throughout the land.

I’m really hoping that decision comes through in time for Gay Pride. Can you imagine the parties? GOOD LORD. I’m already excited.

For marriage equality advocates across the nation, SCOTUS’ decision Monday morning comes as a welcome victory. Gays in Alabama are happily marrying, and most likely, all of the gays in all of the states will be able to follow suit very soon.

Hurray for all the gay couples who want to get married, for lots of totally valid reasons! Tax benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, health insurance sharing, co-parenting and custody benefits, and citizen sponsorship are just a few of the myriad benefits that legal marriage affords to couples. Signing your name on that dotted line is a huge deal for a lot of people, and it’s a right that tons of people—many of whom I personally know and love—are fighting really hard to secure.

However.

Let’s not forget that marriage is a discriminatory and problematic institution. It’s not the magical cure-all for the LGBT community’s marginalization and disenfranchisement. It’s not even the most pressing issue on our list of things to fix, despite what organizations like the HRC and Lambda Legal might have you believe.

Violence, poverty, unemployment, criminalization, and homelessness are all issues that are—or should be—more highly prioritized on the docket of LGBT issues than gay marriage. Because let’s face it—while well-to-do gay couples are busy planning their weddings, queer youth of color are dying in the streets.

Literally. I’m not exaggerating. Nearly half of the homeless population is comprised of LGBT kids. Trans women of color are getting murdered left and right. This shit is real.

So, while I’m totally enthused about SCOTUS’ hat tip this week in favor of the gay marriage fight, I’m not waving the rainbow flag of victory just yet. No matter which way their final decision goes this summer, we’ll still have a lot more work to do before the queer community can live safely and equitably in American society.

So Happy Valentine’s Day, lovelies! You might be able to get married soon. And then, after your wedding bells have died down, we’ll all have to keep working towards real justice.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Happy Valentine’s Day! Gay Weddings May Soon Be Sanctioned by SCOTUS appeared first on Law Street.

Sign into your Facebook or Twitter at any time and you will see YouTube video after YouTube Video that promotes some sort of political message — from feminist videos about reclaiming our bodies to videos from those in support of the Second Amendment. These videos are increasingly effective and everyone is capitalizing on the immense word-of-mouth profitability that can come from a simple “like” or “share” on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Tumblr.

What used to be a playground for grassroots campaigns is now a major part of marketing for non-profits, politicians, and everyone in between. Still, the question remains – are they working? Are we going too far? Is this the future of marketing for everything?

Why YouTube?

YouTube is the major platform for these videos, and they then go through other social media blogs and eventually end up on your phone, tablet, or laptop, where you no doubt see it from your aunts, friends, or professors.

According to the Kissmetrics Marketing Blog, more than 700 hundred videos are shared every minute on Twitter alone. Sure, a great deal of those are cat videos, cover performances, or someone dancing – but many of them are also videos that have the intent to promote social change.

Hunter Walk, YouTube’s Director of Product Management, spoke with Forbes magazine to explain the YouTube for Good team, an initiative formed nearly three years ago to make the video-sharing site more useful to activists, educators, and nonprofits, along with the ways in which the site, popular vloggers, and others can change popular public perception about YouTube from an entertainment source to an important resource in social change.

“We want YouTube to be a platform where advocacy, education and free expression live,” Walk told reporter Rahim Kanani. “Rather than have a small group of employees dedicated to philanthropy or social innovation, we want employees to think about building ‘good’ into everything we do, like making sure a new product designed for an individual user also works well for a nonprofit.”

YouTube reaches a massive number of people from ages in all areas of the country through the website itself and the subsequent social media shares. The videos seem to have a larger impact on creating actionable feelings — or instilling the thought that someone must donate, sign a petition, share the content, change their behaviors, and/or talk to politicians among other actions — than other forms of online marketing, articles, banners, ads, or hashtags.

FCKH8

Some of the most infamous social change videos come from the FCKH8 company. Its brand of social change is vulgar, in your face, and somewhat controversial. While the apparel company started with tackling homophobia, it has since gone toe-to-toe with racism and sexism. Its most recent video takes aim at the pay gap, sexual abuse, and gender roles – all things that need to be discussed. However, the way it tackled the subject — using young girls dressed as princesses engaged in f-bomb filled rants — has caused some to question whether these subjects are as damaging to their minds as the topic at hand. For sure, this isn’t a video for everyone:

“What’s more offensive?” FCKH8 asks. “A little girl saying f***, or the sexist way society treats girls and women?” But many people are asking: What’s more offensive: The way society treats women, or children dropping f-bombs according to a script, written by adults to sell T-shirts?

Karin Agnes at Time blasts the video, saying: “The problem is that this FCKH8 effort isn’t an outlier in feminism in America today. Comedian Sarah Silverman starred in a video as a woman who decided to get a sex change operation because she would supposedly get paid more as a man. What? This was an effort to raise money for the National Women’s Law Center, which ‘has worked for 40 years to expand, protect, and promote opportunity and advancement for women and girls at every stage of their lives—from education to employment to retirement security, and everything in between.’ Maybe this silly ad helped them raise money, but wouldn’t a serious attempt have been better for women?”

Online news source Sp!ked takes aim at the adults behind the video, asserting that “this just isn’t the way adults are supposed to act.” According to Jezebel, this isn’t the company’s first time in hot water — it recently went through a similar fight when it took on the topic of Ferguson in a “Hey White People!” video.

Laci Green

Sometimes it isn’t a company or a political group that is trying to incite social change, but rather a single person trying to change minds one at a time. Laci Green is a popular vlogger who talks about it all: equality, feminism, sex, consent, relationships, to name only a few topics. While the production value isn’t high and the set designs aren’t immense (in fact, the videos are usually filmed in her apartment), her words cut deeper, ring truer, and stay longer because of it – she truly seems like “one of us.”

Green has a frank style – she is going to tell you what she thinks, she’s going to back it up with facts, and she’s going to take you on headfirst if she feels like she needs to. Green was one of the major YouTubers who stood up for the victims of fellow YouTuber Sam Pepper who was accused of various cases of sexual harassment. But instead of just using it as a way to get viewers, she used it as a learning moment for her viewers and another way to discuss consent, feminism, and personal rights.

Green is a fan favorite of more than 1,000,000 subscribers. Her Sex+ channel started small, but has made an impact that runs deep through the community and with her fans. She may not scream as loud or offend as many along the way, but her steps toward social change are precisely calculated, never flinching, and growing stronger.

It Gets Better

One of the most widespread campaigns on YouTube has been the It Gets Better Project, the mission of which is to communicate to LGBTQ youth around the world that the future will get better, and that they need to band together to inspire those changes needed so that the world will get increasingly better.

From the It Gets Better Website:

“The It Gets Better Project has become a worldwide movement, inspiring more than 50,000 user-created videos viewed more than 50 million times. To date, the project has received submissions from celebrities, organizations, activists, politicians and media personalities, including President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Lambert, Anne Hathaway, Colin Farrell, Matthew Morrison of “Glee”, Joe Jonas, Joel Madden, Ke$ha, Sarah Silverman, Tim Gunn, Ellen DeGeneres, Suze Orman, the staffs of The Gap, Google, Facebook, Pixar, the Broadway community, and many more. For us, every video changes a life. It doesn’t matter who makes it.”

The channel also has many fan-made entries of “real” people who have overcome issues and gone on to live happy, full lives. One extremely touching video comes from Google, where Woody from “Toy Story” tells us, “You’ll be fine, Partner.” For many, it was a Kleenex-inducing moment, but for others, it seemed too much.

One man told the Christian Post that “he was surprised and disappointed that they would use a children’s character for the project,” citing that “endorsing something that at this point children have no need to know about, it’s disappointing.”

Speaking Out Against YouTube Videos

Shortly after the FCKH8 video featuring young girls swearing debuted, it was taken down by YouTube because it violated the company’s terms and conditions. Though it was quickly reinstated, the question remains: how far is too far? With many videos never receiving more than a handful of reviews, it takes more than luck to get attention. There is even a Tumblr dedicated to stopping the company: StopFCKH8.tumblr.com, which makes multiple assertions as to why the company is “bad” for the people it is supposed to represent.

There is also a portion of the population that lives to “troll” or attack the comments, subscribers, and actual performers of these videos. Laci Green recently had an altercation with a man on Twitter in which she was called “sensitive.” The same happens in some of the comments of her videos, people coming in to personally attack both Laci and the people who comment on her videos. The comments section of anything on the internet can attract negativity, but these videos seem to draw even more people in — so what can we do? For certain, young girls, for example, having their beliefs used against them can have negative results. Still, it doesn’t make sense for uploaders to have to continually monitor comments on hundreds of videos; nor does it make sense to not have a comments section at all.

Do the negatives outweigh the positives?

Speak Out for YouTube Videos

YouTube has the undeniable power to unite forces, especially younger audiences, and the shift toward using that power for good is promising. According to Media for Social Change, “Now that YouTube Channels are slowly taking the place of the television channel, it’s become more easy than ever before for changemakers like us to put our message in front of more people. No need to woo the gatekeepers, or pay thousands of dollars in advertising dollars. No need to compete with the big boys with big resources for airtime that’s limited.” By using the platform as a source of both entertainment and inspiration, and sometimes blurring the lines between the two, YouTubers are on the cusp of a social revolution.

The responses from the various projects have been nothing short of remarkable. The It Gets Better Project has grown from a buzzworthy series of videos into an inspirational mantra for youth. They are taking famous faces and connecting them to the change, sharing the positives and the negatives, no longer hiding behind fake smiles and gimmicky stories. Laci Green has become a strong backbone for many — including young people who reach out to her for advice, support, and a shoulder to cry on.

Conclusion

In addition to the videos mentioned, there are thousands of others produced to promote social change. Many of them are not as popular as the ones that have gone viral. Many of the ones that have gone viral have done so not for the best of reasons; instead of the message being celebrated, they are reviled for the content or mocked mercilessly in parody videos.

So is there a limit to what we can do on YouTube, or should we continue pushing through the censorship and keep creating content that is available at the click of a button?

Resources

Shareable: 10 Viral Videos for Social Change – Sharable

The Point with Ana Kasparian: Can Social Media Drive Social Change?

Media for Social Change: Changemakers

Kissmetrics: The 2013 YouTube Marketing Guide

Spiked Online: The Fairytale Feminism of FCKH8

Jezebel: Little Girls Cussing For Feminism Would Be Great if it Weren’t an Ad 

It Gets Better: About the Project

Guardian: Sarah Silverman Sparks Row With ‘Sex Change’ Equal Pay Video

Stop FCKH8: FCKH8 Needs to Stop

Media for Social Change: 5 Top YouTube Channels Doing Good

Forbes: Why YouTube is the Ultimate Platform for Global Social Change

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YouTube for Social Change: Can Improving the World go Viral? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit recently ruled that states cannot deprive a person of the fundamental right to marry simply because he or she chooses a partner of the same sex. This marked the first time that a federal appeals court has weighed in on the matter, and the early thinking is that the Supreme Court may take this case. Finally, marriage equality in all 50 states, right?

This is all good, yeah, woohoo! (Sidenote: my gaydar sucks big time. Straight guys are gay, gay guys are straight. Hell, lesbians are twinks and vice versa, but I thought I had developed a fail-safe. To determine if a guy is family, I simply look down at his ring finger. Last week, I caught myself doing this. I looked down at this dude’s finger, which indeed was adorned with a ring. Done — he’s straight. Then I remembered the whole marriage equality thing: he’s gay! But, as he opened his clearly European mouth and uttered something about the weather, his Belfast burr turning “air” to “ire,” I remembered the Euro-metrosexual-monkey-wrench! Gay or straight, damnit?! Alas, I resigned myself to utter cluelessness.)

Courtesy of Quick Meme

In all seriousness, it’s really awesome that the lines between gay relationships and straight relationships are increasingly blurry. That’s not the endgame, though. Even if the Supreme Court takes this Utah case and sides with the 10th Circuit about the fundamental right to marry (big assumptions with the Roberts Court), it won’t affect other types of discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Marriage equality is only the opening salvo in a still-uphill battle for full equality. We ought not lose sight of that.

Don’t get me wrong, ever the Machiavelli in me says sure, get to marriage equality by any means necessary. Those means, under the reasoning of the 10th Circuit, would be the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. That is, if the Supreme Court rules favorably in this case, and on due process grounds, it would mean that no person, gay or straight, can be deprived of the right to marry. But due process deals only with “fundamental rights.” What about laws that discriminate against gay men in blood donation? What about workplace discrimination?

Courtesy of Matt Buck via Flickr

A decision on due process grounds would not touch these other types of discrimination, but a ruling under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause would. That would deal with all manner of discrimination against the LGBTQ community, including marriage equality.

Brief Equal Protection primer: Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, laws that single out a specific group for differential treatment or disproportionately impact that group, if challenged, are subject to judicial review. If the law discriminates on the basis of a suspect classification, such as race, it must satisfy the most exacting degree of review — strict scrutiny. Thanks to second-wave feminism, discrimination on the basis of sex/gender is subject to intermediate scrutiny. As it stands now, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to the lowest, most deferential level of judicial review — rational basis review.

Blah, blah, blah, I’m losing you so let me get to the point. Until the Supreme Court rules on equal protection grounds rather than due process that sexual orientation-based discrimination merits a higher level of judicial scrutiny, discriminatory laws will continue to receive minimal judicial scrutiny.

I’m glad that marriage equality is sweeping across the country, and that the Supreme Court may finally have occasion to legalize it nationwide. Indeed, by no means would this be a pyrrhic victory. However, it would only nominally affect other issues of discrimination against the LGBTQ community, issues that are arguably more important than marriage equality.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [Victoria Pickering via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Due Process is the Red Herring in the LGBTQ Movement appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks!

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks for women out there.

First—as I’m sure you recall—SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, giving employers the right to deny workers birth control coverage because of religious exemptions, and essentially giving douche-wad bosses everywhere the potential to control their employees’ uteruses.

Awesome.

And now, things are getting much, much worse.

Following the Hobby Lobby decision, religious institutions, religiously-run corporations, and basically anyone who is a fan of Jesus and also has some modicum of control over other people’s lives, are filing for the right to discriminate against people under religious exemptions.

Say good-bye to your civil rights, folks.

A group of 14 religious leaders wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in closely-held corporations. George Fox University demanded a religious exemption that would allow it to bar a transgender student from living on campus, and the Department of Education granted it.

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her?

And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

Loves, this shit is scary. And not fear-monger-y type scary. Legit disturbing.

When the Hobby Lobby decision first came down it signaled yet another chip away at civil liberties and women’s rights in this country. One more piece of legal bullshit that diminishes a woman’s right to control her own body. One more reminder that women aren’t seen as real people or full adults in the United States, but rather as wards of the state, our spouses, our fathers, or apparently, our employers.

But as awful as that is, the asshat Justices who voted for this decision assured us that the Hobby Lobby ruling would end there. It would be a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation, and that feminists would only have to fight against this one, single issue. Access to birth control regardless of what your boss’s religious beliefs are.

Justice Ginsburg called bullshit, and now I’m calling that she was right.

This ruling is not narrow. We can no longer be solely concerned with its reversal because women deserve the right to control their own goddamn bodies.

Nope. Instead, it’s turning out to be frighteningly broad, as the Supreme Court demands reviews of similar cases in lower courts and considers handing out more religious exemptions based on the precedent that Hobby Lobby’s now set.

Where does this end? There’s really no way to know just yet, but the possibilities are kind of endless.

Don’t want to hire women at your company? Sure thing, buddy! Claim that doing so would place an undue burden on you as a result of your religious beliefs and you’re good to go.

Don’t want to hire black people at your company either? No problem. Religious exemptions all around.

Can’t stand the thought of your female employees having consequence-free sex? Awesome. Religious exemption and boom! You just gained control over your workers’ uteruses. Don’t you feel better knowing your vagina-laden employees aren’t sleeping around (at least, not without feeling extreme anxiety about their reproductive systems)?

And maybe you don’t want to pay LGBT people the same amount of money as your straight employees. Or maybe you don’t want to hire them at all! Cool, dude. Religious exemption.

This shit is ridiculous. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court just created a loophole for every piece of non-discrimination legislation ever enacted. Civil rights of all kinds—not just for women—are at serious risk. If anyone feels like they want to engage in some good, old-fashioned discrimination, they can pretty much do so! They just have to make a case for getting a religious exemption first.

And clearly, based on the fact that Hobby Lobby won its case, despite building it on a foundation of craptastic non-science, that’s not super hard to do.

So, way to go, SCOTUS! You really fucked things up for all of us, this time. Not only have you created an environment where everyone can be their own law book, but you’ve sent us down a path that will undoubtedly be littered with regressive politics.

The fight for personhood just got that much harder, lovelies.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daryl Clark via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

Gather ‘round, Constant Reader (if I may be so presumptuous with my very first blog post). Let’s wax nostalgic for a tick.

There we go. That should set the mood.

It’s 1987. Hollywood’s been treating the world to some gems: Adventures in Babysitting; The Lost Boys; Nightmare on Elm Street III. On the politics front, the sun is setting on Reagan’s presidency and the Cold War. Most importantly, though, the Washington football team (which shall remain nameless) has made it to Super Bowl XXII. It’s halftime and they’ve just hung 35 second-quarter points on the Broncos — a Super Bowl record. By game’s end, the Washington football team’s quarterback, Doug Williams, would be become the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl.

Despite Williams’ achievement, the idea persisted that black quarterbacks aren’t as smart as their white counterparts. Years later, this refrain played out to major controversy when Rush Limbaugh called Donovan McNabb, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, overrated, explaining that the liberal, mainstream media with its PC bromides just wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

Fast forward to this year. And thank you, by the way, for allowing me a momentary walk down memory lane. It does indeed warm my very gay heart cockles to talk football (usually 49ers). But, with that jaunt I have a point: the NFL appeared to have progressed by leaps and bounds when the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam earlier this year, the first openly gay football player in the NFL.

Courtesy of PopWrapped

To boot, the cameras then panned to him planting an Al-and-Tipper-level kiss on his boyfriend.

Yeah, that disaster

Even more, Michael Sam is black and in an interracial relationship. Boom! Check, check, and check. Who’da thunk the NFL could be so forward? So au currant?

I tried to place the Michael Sam moment into the larger context of recent progress generally. In President Obama’s purportedly transcendent America, same-sex marriage has rapidly swept across the country. Just earlier this year, for instance, Judge John E. Jones III of Pennsylvania’s Middle District struck down Pennsylvania’s same-sex marriage ban, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. Pennsylvania thus became the nineteenth state to effectively legalize same-sex marriage. Last year, the Supreme Court issued favorable rulings in the California Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.

Then I remembered that I’ve only ever lived really in the most liberal of hotbeds, Los Angeles and New York City, and I slowed my roll. In fact, I think we all ought to slow our rolls. While the LGBTQ community continues to march toward full equality, other minority communities are seeing their gains erode. Just look at the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities. (As an aside though, yay for Justice Sotomayor’s blistering, two-snaps-and-an-around-the-world smack down dissent!)

The LGBTQ community is rightfully and deservedly celebrating its recent electoral and legal victories. As a member of the community I have tempered my elation, though, because I feel deeply that the fortunes of “discrete and insular minorities” are intertwined. No doubt, the Michael Sam moment was indeed big; a watershed moment totally deserving of celebration. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. The NFL still makes its bones playing to the hyper-heteronormative crowd. Just sit through those Go-Daddy commercials during the Super Bowl. We aren’t yet living in the post-racial, post-gender, post-et-cetera world promised with the election of Barack Obama. Bigotry accumulated over time tends to pervade everything from society’s institutions to even its more subtle, discursive acts of culture. I’ll more fully celebrate the Michael-Sam-type moments when progress begins to happen on all fronts, not just one.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [VJnet via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Community Makes Great Strides, Other Minority Groups’ Rights Eroding appeared first on Law Street.