I’m not going to try to spin it: Our loss in Maine yesterday, where voters rejected a law that would have given same-sex couples the right to marry, was deeply disappointing and discouraging. All of us here at the LGBT Project started yesterday hopeful and were further encouraged by reports that turnout was well above what was expected. But as the early returns showing with a slight lead turned into a 30,000 vote lead for the Yes side, I had to concede that we’d lost (though I did keep hitting refresh on the results page until the wee hours of morning).
Now I’m here, dejected, eating consolation donuts provided to us by our friends in the Reproductive Freedom Project and wondering when and where we will finally get that first victory for marriage at the ballot box. But part of me can’t help but be excited about the many victories we had yesterday, in races big and small, that prove we’re making progress toward LGBT equality.
Washington
Approval of Washington’s is NOT a done deal (don’t believe everything you read on the Internet), but with over a million votes counted, our side does have a 20,000 vote lead. The that it has almost 400,000 ballots still left to count. Add to that any ballots postmarked yesterday but still in the mail, which will also be included in the final tally. The bulk of the ballots uncounted are coming from the more liberal counties, so we’re hopeful that R-71 will be approved, which will give Washington’s domestic partners the tangible rights given to married couples there, although still not the status and respect that comes with marriage.
Kalamazoo
In spite of from opponents of equality, Kalamazoo’s anti-discrimination ordinance was , with 62 percent in favor. In addition, all six city commissioners who voted for the ordinance were re-elected (the seventh did not run for re-election). This victory, in concert with last year’s victory in Gainesville, Florida, is repudiating the anti-trans scare tactics used by our foes. Voters see through these misleading messages and vote against discrimination anyway.
Municipal Elections
There were some major victories for LGBT candidates in municipal elections last night. Annise Parker, an openly lesbian candidate, came in first in the race for mayor of Houston, the country’s fourth largest city. She and the second place finisher will advance to a run-off. In a squeaker, it appears that Mark Kleinschmidt, an openly gay man, has been elected mayor of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Detroit, St. Petersburg, Akron, Maplewood, Minnesota, and SALT LAKE CITY all elected their first openly gay or lesbian city council members.
Think about that last one for a minute. Salt Lake City, home of the headquarters of the , elected their first openly gay city council member. If that’s not a sign of progress, I’m not sure what is.
Maine
In Maine, despite amazing efforts by the and a host of (including us!), we lost. Ballots outstanding and a potential recount could tighten the margin of defeat, but will not change the outcome. Rumors of low voter turnout in Portland and the youth vote not materializing abound, but the truth is that no one knows what happened yet, and we won’t for at least several days.
What we do know is that this is just round one. For those who don’t know the history, Maine voters also rejected an LGBT nondiscrimination law twice at the ballot box before passing it in 2005. In that multiyear effort, Maine leaders stayed committed to the values of equality and fairness, working and reaching out until the voters got it and agreed. That will happen again in Maine. Opponents of marriage equality may be victorious today, but they should know we haven’t given up. We will be back.
Even with lots of victories, a defeat is a defeat. Take today to lick your wounds. I know I’m going to. But don’t take too long, because tomorrow there’s a Senate hearing on ENDA (more on that in a post later today) and we all need to be back in the game for that one. There’s just too much going on to spend a lot of time on the sidelines. Every face-off, even the ones we lose, gets us closer to equality. We will get there. You can count on it.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.