One Year After the Orlando Nightclub Shooting, Solidarity Continues Its Struggle Against the Forces of Division
On the morning of June 12, 2016, I awoke to the horrifying, devastating news that there had been a mass shooting at an LGBTQ nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The scope of the tragedy was not yet clear at that point, but I already had feelings of dreadful sadness wash over me. I remember sobbing as I told my own partner what had happened at Pulse.
Forty-nine lives, overwhelmingly young and Latinx, were lost in the attack — the deadliest against the LGBTQ community in U.S. history.
As has so often been the case in the history of our country, tragedies like this show us the very worst of humanity, but they also bring out the best. The outpouring of compassion in the hours, days, and weeks following this attack infused a degree of hope into the most hopeless of situations. Within hours of the incident, on Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern, and South Asian communities began from anti-Muslim rhetoric to incidents of harassment and violence.
But the LGBTQ community would not let their tragedy beget more tragedy. In the midst of their own trauma and mourning, the LGBTQ community made clear that they would not stand silent while Muslims were attacked. And standing side-by-side with the LGBTQ community were , holding fundraisers for the victims and their families, donating blood, and offering statements of unity and solidarity. For many, this was the first show of support between these communities, while for others, including LGBTQ Muslims, it was much-needed love and solidarity in a moment of heartbreak.
Those who perpetuate attacks of violent hate do so with the goal of sowing division and turning us against each other. Time and time again, we see them fail. As President Barack Obama just hours after the attack:
So this is a sobering reminder that attacks on any American — regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation — is an attack on all of us and on the fundamental values of equality and dignity that define us as a country. And no act of hate or terror will ever change who we are or the values that make us Americans.
Over the past year, we have seen, sadly, still more violence perpetuated against individuals because of who they are, whom they love, or how they worship. In each case, we have seen communities come together and stand in solidarity to make clear that hateful violence does not represent us. We are better than that. We have each other’s backs and will not be divided.
On this one-year anniversary of the tragedy at Pulse, that is the lesson that we should all seek to emulate.
The 49 people whose lives were lost in the attack at Pulse are:
- Edward Sotomayor Jr. (34 years old)
- Stanley Almodovar III (23 years old)
- Luis Omar Ocasio-Capo (20 years old)
- Juan Ramon Guerrero (22 years old)
- Eric Ivan Ortiz-Rivera (36 years old)
- Peter O. Gonzalez-Cruz (22 years old)
- Luis S. Vielma (22 years old)
- Kimberly Morris (37 years old)
- Eddie Jamoldroy Justice (30 years old)
- Darryl Roman Burt II (29 years old)
- Deonka Deidra Drayton (32 years old)
- Alejandro Barrios Martinez (21 years old)
- Anthony Luis Laureanodisla (25 years old)
- Jean Carlos Mendez Perez (35 years old)
- Franky Jimmy Dejesus Velazquez (50 years old)
- Amanda Alvear (25 years old)
- Martin Benitez Torres (33 years old)
- Luis Daniel Wilson-Leon (37 years old)
- Mercedez Marisol Flores (26 years old)
- Xavier Emmanuel Serrano Rosado (35 years old)
- Gilberto Ramon Silva Menendez (25 years old)
- Simon Adrian Carrillo Fernandez (31 years old)
- Oscar A. Aracena-Montero (26 years old)
- Enrique L. Rios Jr. (25 years old)
- Miguel Angel Honorato (30 years old)
- Javier Jorge-Reyes (40 years old)
- Joel Rayon Paniagua (32 years old)
- Jason Benjamin Josaphat (19 years old)
- Cory James Connell (21 years old)
- Luis Daniel Conde (39 years old)
- Shane Evan Tomlinson (33 years old)
- Juan Chevez-Martinez (25 years old)
- Jerald Arthur Wright (31 years old)
- Leroy Valentin Fernandez (25years old)
- Tevin Eugene Crosby (25 years old)
- Jonathan Antonio Camuy Vega (24 years old)
- Jean C. Nives Rodriguez(27 years old)
- Rodolfo Ayala-Ayala (33 years old)
- Brenda Lee Marquez McCool (49 years old)
- Yilmary Rodriguez Sulivan (24 years old)
- Christopher Andrew Leinonen (32 years old)
- Angel L. Candelario-Padro (28 years old)
- Frank Hernandez (27 years old)
- Paul Terrell Henry (41 years old)
- Antonio Davon Brown (29 years old)
- Christopher Joseph Sanfeliz (24 years old)
- Akyra Monet Murray (18 years old)
- Geraldo A. Ortiz-Jimenez (25 years old)
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.