State of Tennessee Officials Agree That a Sign Mandate Targeting LGBTQ+ People Is Unconstitutional and Cannot Be Enforced
Final District Court Order in Curb Records and Mike Curb Foundation’s challenge to HB 1182 ensures the anti-business “Not Welcome” sign law will never take effect
A U.S. District Court has entered a final order prohibiting enforcement of Tennessee HB 1182, a law passed in 2021 requiring businesses to post a demeaning notice if they permit LGBTQ+ patrons to use the same restrooms as other patrons. The order states that the law “is unconstitutional and may not be enforced.” HB 1182 designated precise dimensions, red and yellow coloring, and specific mandated language amounting to a “not welcome” sign to patrons.
The order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, is the result of an agreement with the Defendants, including the Tennessee Governor and other state and Nashville officials, to resolve the federal challenge to HB 1182 brought by independent record label Curb Records and the Mike Curb Foundation. The challenge asserted that HB 1182 promoted a hostile climate for LGBTQ+ people in the state and denied them equal access to businesses open to the public and to employment and educational opportunities.
Mike Curb, founder and Chairman of Curb Records and President of the Mike Curb Foundation, who argued that the law would compel his and other Tennessee businesses to endorse a climate of fear and nonacceptance of LGBTQ+ people, expressed relief that this final order resolves the case and banishes HB 1182 for good.
“Our foundation has been dedicated to inclusion and nondiscrimination, including for LGBT people, from day one,” said Curb. “HB 1182 was an attempt by the government to force me and other businesses in the state to abandon our values and put up a ‘not welcome’ sign to employees and customers. I’m relieved to know that state officials have agreed that the constitution does not permit such a mandate and that this final order means HB 1182 cannot be enforced. The people of Tennessee do not want such harmful anti-LGBT and anti-business legislation and such a law should never have been passed and signed into law.”
Grammy award-winning record producer Mike Curb started his career almost six decades ago in California and Curb Records has operated for the last three decades in Nashville, Tennessee. Curb has worked on LGBTQ+ issues his entire career. In 1978 Curb worked with Harvey Milk on the campaign against the Briggs Initiative and persuaded Ronald Reagan to oppose it, leading to its defeat. The Briggs Initiative would have banned gay schoolteachers in California and was the subject of Harvey Milk’s Academy Award-winning performance in the motion picture Milk, which included footage of Curb and Reagan as leaders who helped defeat the Briggs Initiative. Curb also played a leadership role as a Board member of Belmont University to change the University’s position regarding the LGBTQ+ community. Curb Records and the Mike Curb Foundation have provided grants and gifts totaling more than $100 million in Tennessee in support of education, historic preservation, people facing homelessness, and a wide range of civic and charitable endeavors in local Tennessee communities.
Curb Records and the Mike Curb Foundation were represented in their suit by Sherrard Roe Voigt & Harbison, attorney Abby Rubenfeld, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).
Today President Biden signed into law the Respect for Marriage Act. At a signing ceremony outside the White House, President Biden was joined by Gina and Heidi Nortonsmith of Massachusetts, one of the seven plaintiff couples that successfully won the freedom to marry in the landmark Goodridge v. MA Department of Public Health ruling in 2003.
“Twenty-six years ago, Heidi was pregnant with our first child,” said Gina Nortonsmith. “We were overjoyed and terrified. Although we had been a committed couple for six years, the state wouldn’t let us marry…We realized to access the protections our family needed, we had to sue the state. We became one of the seven plaintiff couples in Goodridge vs. MA Department of Public Health, the case that led to marriage equality in Massachusetts and ultimately, the United States.”
“It takes the efforts of many to bend the arc of history toward justice,” said Heidi Nortonsmith. “Even now there are so many places where people in our community are under attack. The work will continue, but look how far we’ve come. The law that President Biden signs today will make people safer, more secure and less alone. From our family to all of you, thank you for fighting for our equal humanity and dignity. For our right to love and be loved. And for our marriage.”
Statement from Janson Wu, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders
This is a joyful day. Millions of couples and their children across the country now have the assurance that their families will continue to be respected by our state and federal governments because President Biden has signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law. The effort to pass the Respect for Marriage Act spanned decades and involved the work of so many. It’s passage this year demonstrates the strong and growing support for equality among Americans of all political parties and from all walks of life.
Nearly 20 years ago, Gina and Heidi Nortonsmith, together with other courageous couples, first won the freedom to marry in GLAD’s Massachusetts Goodridge case.
It was thrilling to see them at the White House today as Congress and the President affirmed our nation’s commitment to the freedom to marry the person you love and have your family respected and protected, regardless of race or sex. Today is truly a celebration of love, equality, and dignity for families like Heidi and Gina’s, and for all our families.
We are grateful to President Biden and Vice President Harris, to the Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle who came together to pass this law, and to the millions of people across the country who have fought for decades to get us here. We will take the joy and energy from this celebration to continue the work for full freedom, safety, and justice for all people.
Because of your support, incredible wins like this are possible. Give to GLAD today.
Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed a final version of the Respect for Marriage Act, with a bipartisan vote of 258-169. The U.S. Senate passed the bill on November 29 with a bipartisan vote of 61-36. The bill now heads to President Biden’s desk to be signed into law.
GLAD Executive Director Janson Wu issued the following statement:
“Today’s vote is a win for equality and for the overwhelming majority of Americans across political parties and from all walks of life who support the freedom to marry and want to ensure the dignity, stability and ongoing protection that marriage provides to families and children. The Respect for Marriage Act solidifies that people’s marriages will continue to be respected by our state and federal governments regardless of race or sex.
Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges affirmed that our constitution guarantees the freedom to marry the person you love and have that marriage respected. That is the law of the land and we will defend against any challenge to it that may arise in the future. Yet at a time of escalating attacks on the LGBTQ+ community and unprecedented efforts to unravel protections for fundamental rights, this bipartisan action by Congress provides a critical backstop.
The Respect for Marriage Act provides assurance to millions of LGBTQ+ and interracial couples that no matter what, their marriages will continue to be recognized and respected by federal and state actors and government agencies wherever they live, travel, or relocate. While work remains to ensure full equality under the law in all areas of our lives, this is an important step on the road to ensuring all people are fully protected from discrimination and are free to live, work and support their families and communities. The Congress did something very important with this law and we look forward to continued work with the Congress as well as in our state and local communities to ensure the people’s concerns, our concerns are heard.
We are grateful to the House and Senate leadership and to the Respect for Marriage Act sponsors and look forward to seeing President Biden quickly sign the Respect for Marriage Act into law.”
About the Respect for Marriage Act:
The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act—which has already been invalidated by the Supreme Court—and get the anti-LGBTQ+ federal law off the books. It will also ensure that all state and federal governments recognize and respect a couple’s marriage, regardless of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the couple.
The Respect for Marriage Act is narrow but mighty. It builds on Congress’s power to define federal benefits and its constitutionally express power to state “the effects” of acts, records and judicial proceedings under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In line with Obergefell and Windsor, it requires states and state actors, and the federal government and federal actors, to respect existing marriages of same-sex couples.
The Respect for Marriage Act preempts states from using “sex, race, national origin or ethnicity” of the married pair as a basis for denying rights, protections or duties that pertain to or arise from a marriage. (sec. 4).
Almost by definition, the Congress’s concretizing this in federal law is a mighty recognition that the nation demands that marriages of same sex and interracial couples be accorded dignity and respect. It also creates a private right of action – both for the U.S. Attorney General and for private citizens to file federal court claims and enforce the law.
GLAD Attorney Chris Erchull, Morgan Nighan (Nixon Peabody), Gilles Bissonnette (ACLU New Hampshire), and plaintiffs challenging New Hampshire’s School Censorship Law, Andres Mejia and Tina Kim Philibotte Photo credit: New Hampshire Bulletin
Our public schools have a responsibility to provide a safe school environment where all students can engage with learning and fully benefit from their educational opportunities. But increasingly across the country, schools are being pressured to violate that most basic trust – and students themselves are becoming political targets.
In the past year, we’ve seen escalating efforts to censor teaching about American history and race, to silence discussions of LGBTQ+ people and families in classrooms, and to ban books – many by LGBTQ+ authors and with LGBTQ+ themes – from school and public libraries. Equally concerning, as LGBTQ+ issues are weaponized for political gain, school districts are being pressured to dilute or abandon policies that have improved access to education for LGBTQ+ students.
We also continue to see dangerous bills introduced in states across the country. These bills would force schools to out LGBTQ+ students before they are ready, deny transgender students access to restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender, and ban transgender girls from playing school sports with their friends. GLAD has been fighting these kinds of efforts in New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island. The next session is likely to be even worse in states in New England and across the country.
Our 2022 Spirit of Justice Honoree, Equality Florida Executive Director Nadine Smith, has led the fight against perhaps the most notorious law targeting schools and students, the so-called “Don’t Say LGBTQ+” law in Florida.
The law went into effect this school year, and unsurprisingly, we are already experiencing the harmful impacts. Complaints in the two legal challenges to the law, brought by Equality Florida, NCLR, and Lambda Legal, provide many chilling examples: At least one teacher was already fired after her students drew Pride flags. LGBTQ+ books have been taken out of some school libraries. Teachers have removed stickers, flags, and other signs of support from their classrooms. Students are afraid that faculty will shut down their LGBTQ+ school groups, and teachers and staff won’t be able to do anything about bullying and harassment.
Challenging New Hampshire’s School Censorship Law
Florida isn’t the only state where such legislation has gone into effect. GLAD is challenging a law passed in New Hampshire last year that explicitly discourages teachers from discussing race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity in the classroom. Our partners are the ACLU-NH, Disability Rights Center – NH, and the National Educators Association – NH chapter.
We represent the NEA-NH and two school administrators, Andres Mejia, Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice for the Exeter Region Cooperative School District, and Christina Kim Philibotte, Chief Equity Officer for the Manchester School District. Our suit argues that the law is deliberately vague and has created a chilling effect on what teachers can say and teach in schools.
“We have dedicated our careers to creating an educational community where every student—including Black and Brown students, students of color, students from the LGBTQAI+ community, students with disabilities, and students from other historically marginalized identities—feel like they belong,” Mejia and Philibotte said when filing the lawsuit. “This law chills the very type of diversity, equity, and inclusion work that is absolutely necessary to ensure that each student is seen, heard, and connected, especially as New Hampshire becomes more diverse.”
Teachers, who have to guess at what crosses the line, face severe consequences if they violate the statute, including the possibility of individual lawsuits brought against them and the loss of their teaching license. GLAD Attorney Chris Erchull says it’s not surprising that educators are confused by the law and choose to steer clear of the topics it mentions, to the detriment of students.
“I’ve heard from teachers who have, for example, taken down LGBTQ+ welcoming signs from their classrooms because of the law,” says Erchull. “The result is teachers are afraid, students feel less supported, and everyone is missing out on learning about vital issues in the world they live in and will contribute to as adults.”
The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. We expect a ruling from the court soon on the State’s motion to dismiss our case, which was argued in September.
Protecting LGBTQ+ Supportive School Policies
As an energized far-right stirs up fears about how public schools teach our children, lawsuits challenging LGBTQ+ supportive school policies – policies that years of research show create better outcomes for all students – are also rising.
In October, GLAD filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Massachusetts Superintendents Association and GLAD in support of a Ludlow public school. The case involves actions taken by teachers and staff to support the well-being of two students, including using the students’ requested names and pronouns and waiting to discuss their gender expression at school with parents until the students themselves were ready to do so. By affirming and supporting students this way, the school was meeting its obligation to provide a safe and equal educational environment for all students. The school district’s motion to dismiss the parents’ case was argued before the U.S. District Court in Springfield on October 17.
Our laws and schools protect children’s safety and support equal educational opportunity so students can learn and grow in ways that lead to healthy participation in our communities as adults. GLAD will continue to challenge these attacks on LGBTQ+ students in the courts and in statehouses. And we will continue to advocate for positive, inclusive school policies that allow all students the opportunity to thrive and the freedom to learn.
Check out the community conversation with GLAD, Equality Florida, and others about anti-LGBTQ+ school legislation and policies and how advocates, parents, and students are challenging them.
The U.S. Senate has passed the Respect for Marriage Act with a bipartisan vote of 61-36. The House passed an earlier version of the Respect for Marriage Act with a strong bipartisan majority this summer. The amended Senate bill will now move back to the House for a final vote before heading to President Biden’s desk.
Mary Bonauto, GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS (GLAD) Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies, who argued the landmark Obergefell marriage equality case before the Supreme Court, issued the following statement:
“Today Senators on both sides of the aisle came together to ensure that married couples and their families will remain protected under law. In a time of escalating attacks on our LGBTQ+ communities, it is also important to see our country come together to protect fundamental rights. This bill solidifies what Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges affirmed, that people’s marriages are to be respected regardless of race or sex. As the votes in Congress attest, LGBTQ+ people belong and are part of our families, our communities, and our country. This is a critical victory on the road to the day when all people are fully protected from discrimination and have the freedom to make decisions about their lives and families.
The Respect for Marriage Act provides assurance to millions of LGBTQ+ and interracial couples that their marriages will continue to be recognized and respected by state actors and government agencies wherever they live, travel, or relocate. It removes from the law the stain on LGBTQ people from the discriminatory “Defense of Marriage Act” and codifies what the Courts have ruled – that states and the federal government must respect validly celebrated marriages without regard to the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the couple. It has broad bipartisan support because Americans from all walks of life seek to support rather than disrupt family relationships for themselves and their loved ones.
We applaud the sponsors, including Senator Baldwin and Senator Collins, for working with people concerned both about marriage and family relationships as well as religious concerns to find a way forward. The bill is a critical backstop for marriage and families should there be changes to the law of the land, which is something we will fight. The bill’s protections and religious amendments are carefully stated to ensure that the Respect for Marriage Act supports the status quo of official governmental respect for marriages rather than being used to strengthen or diminish legal claims or defenses when there are conflicts involving religious beliefs and marriage. It also ensures that religious houses of worship, educational institutions, and religious nonprofits need not host a wedding on their premises, or provide goods or services, as is the case already with some state marriage enactments.
We are grateful for the leadership of Senator Baldwin and Senator Collins, who spearheaded this effort in the Senate, and for the commitment of Leader Schumer and the many Senators on both sides of the aisle who voted to support this important bill. We look forward to final passage in the House and to seeing President Biden sign the Respect for Marriage Act into law.”
A 23-year veteran of the Air Force and Marine Corps and his 21-year-old adult daughter today filed a challenge to a 1976 federal statute that prohibits the Military Health System, administered by an entity within the Department of Defense called TRICARE, from providing coverage for medically necessary surgical treatments for gender dysphoria for dependents of servicemembers. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.
The plaintiff John Doe receives healthcare coverage for himself and his family through the military health system, just as other current and former servicemembers do. John’s daughter, Jane, is a 21-year-old transgender woman who, as a college student, remains on her father’s health plan.
At the recommendation of her doctors, Jane, who suffers from gender dysphoria, began treatment for gender transition, as a young adult. While TRICARE covers the cost of medications Jane needs, it does not cover essential surgical care.
“I just want what others who have served their country want – the ability to take care of my family,” said John Doe. “My family has served right alongside me. My wife and I want our daughter to be healthy and happy, like any parents would. My daughter shouldn’t be denied the healthcare she needs just because she’s transgender.”
Healthcare experts and professional health organizations including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association recognize gender affirming surgeries as safe, effective and medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria.
“People who have sacrificed to serve our country should not be denied the ability to care for their families,” said GLAD Attorney Ben Klein. “The U.S. military is taking steps to ensure transgender servicemembers are treated fairly and with the respect they deserve. There is no justification for TRICARE to deny coverage for service members’ loved ones, just because they are transgender.”
“The military has made serious progress in treating transgender service members more fairly,” said GLAD Attorney Jennifer Levi, who also brought a legal challenge that blocked the former ban on military service by transgender Americans. “And now it’s time to end this outdated and archaic denial of healthcare for transgender members of military families.”
“As a former servicemember myself, I know firsthand how many sacrifices military spouses and families make,” said Orrick’s Shane McCammon, who served for over 12 years as an active-duty Air Force JAG and a leading member of the firm’s pro bono effort in this case. “These unsung heroes are entitled to get their medically necessary healthcare, and in this instance needed care free from discrimination. The Supreme Court has already recognized that discrimination against individuals based on their gender identity is unlawful, and the medical community has vastly expanded its understanding of gender dysphoria and transgender health care. It’s time to finally remove this relic from the books and bring the law into the 21st century.”
The plaintiffs are represented by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) attorneys Ben Klein and Jennifer Levi, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP attorneys Shane McCammon, Matthew Moses, Seth Harrington, Brittany Roehrs, and Ethan Dowling. They are challenging the statutory exclusion of coverage for transgender dependents’ medically necessary care as a violation of their constitutional rights to Equal Protection and Due Process, and as a violation of the federal Rehabilitation Act.
“I just want what others who have served their country want – the ability to take care of my family…My daughter shouldn’t be denied the health care she needs just because she’s transgender.”
–John Doe, plaintiff in Doe v. Austin
UPDATE: Victory! On November 1, a federal district court judge issued a ruling in our plaintiffs’ favor, saying that the exclusion of this essential health care is unconstitutional as applied to transgender people experiencing gender dysphoria.
A 23-year veteran of the Air Force and Marine Corps and his 21-year-old adult daughter are challenging a 1976 federal statute that prohibits the Military Health System, administered by an entity within the Department of Defense called TRICARE, from providing coverage for medically necessary surgical treatments for gender dysphoria for dependents of servicemembers.
The plaintiff John Doe receives health care coverage for himself and his family through the military health system, just as other current and former servicemembers do. John’s daughter, Jane, is a 21-year-old transgender woman who, as a college student, remains on her father’s health plan.
At the recommendation of her doctors, Jane, who suffers from gender dysphoria, began treatment for gender transition, as a young adult. While TRICARE covers the cost of medications Jane needs, it does not cover essential surgical care.
Healthcare experts and professional health organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, recognize transgender care surgeries as safe, effective, and medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria.
John Doe and his daughter are represented by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) attorneys Ben Klein and Jennifer Levi, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP attorneys Shane McCammon, Matthew Moses, Seth Harrington, Brittany Roehrs, and Ethan Dowling. They are challenging the statutory exclusion of coverage for transgender dependents’ medically necessary care as a violation of their constitutional rights to Equal Protection and Due Process, and as a violation of the federal Rehabilitation Act.
With Some on the Supreme Court Questioning Individual Rights, Our Work Continues to Ensure Recognition and Protection for Our Families
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this summer overturning Roe v. Wade is already having devastating consequences for millions across the country who need access to abortion care. The impacts of restricting or altogether banning abortion, as some states are doing, will fall hardest on people and families of color and those without the financial resources to travel out of state or seek alternative routes to care.
The LGBTQ+ and reproductive justice movements are fundamentally connected, and GLAD is working with our partners in the reproductive equity movement to fight for access to abortion for all who need it. This summer in Massachusetts, under the legislative leadership of LGBTQ+ caucus members such as Sen. Joanne Comerford, Sen. Julian Cyr, and Rep. Kate Hogan, we helped secure the passage of a new law to increase protections for access to both abortion and gender-affirming care. We are consulting with other New England states on similar measures.
The impact of the Dobbs ruling extended beyond harmful restrictions on abortion. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in a concurring opinion that critical decisions impacting LGBTQ+ people’s relationships, family-building, and the freedom to marry – including Lawrence (affirming the right to consensual same-gender intimacy) and Obergefell (affirming the freedom to marry) – should also be reconsidered.
To be clear: Lawrence and Obergefell remain the law of the land – and GLAD will defend those decisions against any challenges as both good for our country and rightly decided. And we are confident we will win because constitutional guarantees of both liberty and equal protection underpin those rulings. Millions of Americans count on their own ability, or that of family members, to be able to marry the person they love and build a family. No possible government interest would justify destabilizing families by dismantling marriage equality.
The federal Respect for Marriage Act
Congress also has a rightful role to play in ensuring continued recognition of marriages and assuring families that it will protect their most important relationships. GLAD is a leader in the effort to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, long overdue federal legislation that will officially repeal the entire Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). GLAD led the first multi-plaintiff legal challenges to Section 3 of DOMA (recognition of marriages across the US) and coordinated an amicus effort in the Windsor Supreme Court case. The decision in Windsor resulted in Section 3 being declared unconstitutional. The Respect for Marriage Act will ensure federal and state governments continue to recognize and respect all marriages without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity, or race – no matter what.
The bipartisan bill passed the House this summer, and we must all call on the Senate to pass it as soon as they return to session in November. Take action now to protect marriage equality.
Advancing state-level protections for families
Protecting our children and our families, however they are formed, has been a pillar of GLAD’s LGBTQ+ justice work for over four decades. Parentage – the legal relationship between a child and their parent or parents – is fundamental to children’s security and well-being. For several years, GLAD has led efforts to update state laws determining who is recognized as a legal parent. GLAD has worked in numerous states, including Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Colorado, to increase family protections through parentage reform legislation.
The ongoing work to fully secure our LGBTQ+ families is even more urgent now, in the wake of the Dobbs ruling.
In recent months, we’ve seen a trial court in Maine strip a child of her LGBTQ+ married mother because of a lack of biological relationship. We’ve seen the Idaho Supreme Court refuse to recognize an LGBTQ+ married parent as a parent because she had no genetic relationship with her child. In New Hampshire, the state child support agency recently tried establishing a known gamete donor as a legal parent and demanding financial support from him. GLAD represented the donor and coordinated with the mother’s counsel to spell out that she is the child’s sole legal parent and that it is critical for parents, children, donors, and the state to have clarity about who is a parent.
And in Massachusetts, almost 20 years after GLAD’s Goodridge victory made it possible for same-gender couples to marry legally, LGBTQ+ families still face harm because state laws have not been updated to reflect how families are formed today.
GLAD leads, along with Resolve New England, a coalition of families, attorneys, and partner organizations dedicated to passing the Massachusetts Parentage Act (MPA). The MPA will update state law to clarify who can be a parent and how to establish parentage and add important protections for children born to unmarried parents and through assisted reproduction and surrogacy. It will also enable LGBTQ+ parents to establish parentage the same way other families do, including through a voluntary acknowledgment of parentage.
Without the MPA, the current state of family law in Massachusetts renders LGBTQ+ families and their children second-class. Parents – married and unmarried – may still have to undergo the expensive, time-intensive, and disrespectful process of adopting their own children to fully secure their families. Without clear inclusion in our state parentage laws, parents and children face separation by the child welfare system. There are no protections for children born through surrogacy, meaning some children wait years to establish their parentage. And de facto parents, a status available through Massachusetts courts since 1999, have no access to full legal parentage, leaving them unable to provide health care to their children or make decisions for them.
De facto parentage prioritizes children by protecting their relationship to a person who has functioned as their parent, often when another parent is unable to care for the child. It protects children – particularly those from families facing economic insecurity – and keeps children out of the child welfare system. But currently in Massachusetts, de facto parentage allows only visitation, a second-class status that perpetuates harm to children and families. Only legal parentage allows access to the building blocks of stability and well-being – decision-making, child support, access to benefits, and more.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has called on the legislature to update parentage laws to provide more clarity for family courts. The MPA will provide a clear standard for courts to resolve competing claims of parentage. It also creates a much more rigorous standard for establishing de facto parentage than exists under current law – including a standing requirement, seven factors that must each be proven by clear and convincing evidence, as well as explicit protections for survivors of domestic violence.
GLAD has worked on updating parentage laws in every other New England state. We must enact laws to protect children in Massachusetts and across the country. We will never stop working for the equality, safety, and dignity of our LGBTQ+ families – to defend our right to marry whom we choose, expand reproductive freedom, and protect parental relationships of all types. We aspire to a future where everyone can build and protect their family with the recognition and respect we all deserve.
When MPA Coalition member J. Shia was 19, her girlfriend at the time got pregnant. Their relationship moved from romantic to friendship, but when Audai was born and his mother began to struggle with a number of issues, J stepped up to take care of him and has acted as his parent ever since.
J. shares a heartbreaking story of how Audai was placed in foster care because the state refused to recognize J’s parental status, even though she has raised Audai since birth. While obtaining legal guardianship enabled her son to return to her care, people still question their family relationship regularly.
“Every day I carry a notarized copy of my son’s guardianship form in my wallet. I need to present this for schools, his doctors’ and dentist appointments,” J. says. “I’m constantly being questioned. For someone who’s been Audai’s primary parent since the day he was born, this situation is wildly degrading. I am his parent, not just his guardian.”
J. has to get permission before traveling with Audai out of state, and she has to reapply for his health insurance every year. Beyond the day-to-day practical difficulties, J. lives knowing that, at any moment, her guardianship could be revoked. The MPA would allow parents like J to seek de facto parent status that is equal, legal parentage, with all the rights and responsibilities of parentage. And this status would not require terminating Audai’s birth mother’s rights or excluding her from his life. Massachusetts has fallen behind other states in protecting children of de facto parents, and the MPA will remedy this vulnerability.
FAQ: steps to protect your LGBTQ+ family in the wake of Dobbs
The Dobbs decision landing at a time when LGBTQ+ people are already facing staggering legislative attacks around the country has rocked our community. GLAD worked with COLAGE, Family Equality, and NCLR to publish an FAQ to provide information on steps LGBTQ+ people can take now to protect their spousal and parenting relationships. We also encourage anyone to contact GLAD Answers with specific questions.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing several cases this term with important implications for nondiscrimination protections, voting rights, and civil rights.
Among these are two cases, argued on October 31, that address whether colleges and universities can continue to consider race as one factor among many in admissions to ensure a diverse student body and learning environment. GLAD joined a brief supporting the universities’ admissions practices with the National Women’s Law Center, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and more than 30 other organizations. Read the brief in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.
Merrill v. Milligan, argued in early October by NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Solicitor General, and private counsel, is a case brought by Black Alabama voters who state that the state’s 2021 redistricting map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. While Black people represent 27% of the state population, Alabama has only one majority Black district out of 7, giving rise to the claim that the map illegally dilutes the voting power of the Black community.
A Colorado website company that wants to enter the wedding business without serving same-sex couples is the plaintiff in 303 Creative v. Elenis. This case brings the question of whether our nation’s public accommodation laws will continue to prohibit businesses from refusing service to people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, their religion, their sex, or their race.
[If] you run a business, no matter what you make or how you think or feel about it, once you open your doors to the public, you serve everyone.
The company is aided by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the legal organization advancing many religion-based challenges to nondiscrimination laws. Their team seeks to use the First Amendment’s protection of free speech to turn away same-sex couples they would rather not serve. ADF and the business claim that abiding by Colorado’s nondiscrimination law would compel them to convey a message with which they disagree, i.e., support for same-sex couples’ weddings.
Sellers and service providers are free to express their beliefs, religious and otherwise, like every other individual — that is a fundamental liberty protected by the constitution. But as a nation, we also agreed a long time ago that if you run a business, no matter what you make or how you think or feel about it, once you open your doors to the public, you serve everyone.
GLAD submitted a friend-of-the-court brief co-authored with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and a team of lawyers at White & Case LLP chronicling the development of nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations, that is, public-facing businesses. These federal and state laws, from the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the Colorado law at issue in this case, have been enacted and enforced to realize our nation’s aspirations of full citizenship and equal participation in a free marketplace for everyone.
“Our public accommodation laws are a unifying force that respects the rights of every person to obtain the goods and services they need to live their lives.”
Historically, the Supreme Court has flatly rejected 1st Amendment challenges to nondiscrimination laws. In the 1968 case Newman v. Piggie Park, a barbecue restaurant argued it should not have to serve Black customers equally because doing so would mean conveying a message of support for integration, which was against the owner’s “sincerely held religious beliefs.” The Court said such a claim was “frivolous” and made clear that what the restaurant owner tried to cast as “speech” was the exact type of conduct that public accommodation laws were enacted to prohibit — the act of discrimination in turning someone away because of who they are.
That understanding of our nondiscrimination laws has held for over half a century and should also hold today. To grant the far-reaching and unprecedented exemption sought by 303 Creative risks turning us back towards a time when commercial businesses could blatantly deny access to not only LGBTQ+ people but also Black, Irish, Jewish, Catholic, or Asian Americans, as well as women, people with disabilities, and people of many faiths.
“Our public accommodation laws are a unifying force that respects the rights of every person to obtain the goods and services they need to live their lives,” says Mary Bonauto, GLAD Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies. “The change sought here would take us backward to a time when sellers regularly turned people away because of who they were. But we agreed long ago that that is not the country we want to live in.” GLAD is watching this case closely and urging the Court not to make a drastic change in the law that will lead to more discrimination, polarization, group-based animosity, and people struggling to get the goods and services they need.
“People shouldn’t have to call ahead to find out whether a business will serve people of their faith or their race or if they will be denied service because they are LGBTQ+,” Bonauto adds. “Exclusion and segregation in the public market harm us all.”
This year, for Native American Heritage Month, we spotlight organizations that are led by or serve Native American individuals and communities. Throughout the country, groups like the ones featured below are building support structures for LGBTQ+ and 2-Spirit tribal members and other Indigenous folks.
Southwest Indigenous Women’s Coalition
Southwest Indigenous Women’s Coalition (SWIWC) works to create safe indigenous communities by supporting tribes to increase their capacity to address and respond to violence through education, training, technical assistance, policy advocacy, and culturally sensitive supportive services. SWIWC serves all 22 tribes in Arizona. SWIWC also has a Native LGBTQ/2S Advisory Council to advise the SWIWC staff and Governing board on the best ways to educate, support, and empower Native communities to increase awareness, safety, healing, justice, and resources for the LGBTQ/2S+ community. The LGBTQ/2S Advisory Council offers guidance on training and technical assistance (T/TA) approaches, data inclusion, resource development/funding opportunities, policy development, and tribal and on-site trainings with activities that come directly from the voices and presence of the LGBTQ/2S+ community.
The Indigenous Peoples Task Force was founded to develop and implement culturally-appropriate HIV education and direct services to the Native community in Minnesota. The Indigenous Peoples Task force works to strengthen the wellness of communities and restore relationships between individuals and the relationship people have with the earth. Through their HIV Program, the Indigenous Peoples Task Force supports all people living on Reservations and in Greater Minnesota to navigate housing and medical care through services that are rooted in indigenous ways of knowing and healing.
Navajo Nation Pride/Diné Pride is the largest indigenous LGBTQ/2S+ pride. Navajo Nation Pride/Diné Pride honors and celebrates the LGBTQ/2S+ community while reaffirming the sacredness of their identities. Diné Pride reintroduces the traditional knowledge and teachings that kept LGBTQ/2S+ individuals safe and revered at one point in history.
National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center
The National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center (NIWRC) provides national leadership to end violence against American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women by supporting culturally grounded, grassroots advocacy. NIWRC develops resources and training opportunities to support Tribes, grassroots advocates, and survivors in prioritizing the safety of Native women and their children and requiring accountability of offenders and communities. The Montana-based organization offers LGBTQ/2S+ focused toolkits and webinars.
Bay Area American Indian Two-Spirits (BAAITS) is a community-based volunteer organization that exists to restore and recover the role of Two-Spirit people within the American Indian/First Nations community. BAAITS creates a safe environment for Two-Spirit people to socialize and explore their heritage through culturally relevant activities for LGBTQ/2S+ individuals of Native American ancestry, including an annual powwow.
Native Movement
Alaska-based Native Movement supports grassroots-led projects that dismantle oppressive systems for all and ensure social justice, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, and the rights of Mother Earth. Native Movement is committed to supporting community initiatives toward personal and communal healing, including gender justice. Native Movement demands justice for the thousands of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, and 2-Spirit people and works to support healing by acknowledging the correlation between violence against the earth and gender-based violence.
Español de México