To mark Veterans Day and as part of our ongoing fight against the transgender military ban, GLAD and NCLR have worked with Kylar Broadus and Transgender People of Color Coalition on a project to highlight stories of transgender veterans (and service members) of color.
Please join us at www.notransmilitaryban.org/stories 了解更多。
September 30, 2019: GLAD signed onto documentation in support of the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals. LGBTQ API DACA recipients will face criminal penalties, imprisonment, discrimination, and violence (including death) if they are removed to their countries of birth. The tens of thousands of LGBTQ DACA recipients, especially those who publicly identified themselves as such, will be at increased risk for discrimination and mistreatment if DACA is rescinded.
Read the Brief from NQAPIA and other organizations:
Today the Trump administration announced a proposed new Health and Human Services rule permitting, among other things, discrimination by taxpayer-funded adoption and foster agencies. The proposed rule would allow agencies to turn away potential foster or adoptive parents based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or because a couple is in a same-sex marriage.
“What children need is supportive care and a safe and affirming home,” said GLAD Senior Staff Attorney Polly Crozier. “This proposed rule not only harms children by reducing the number of potential homes available at a time when there is such incredible need, but it also sends a devastating message to LGBTQ youth in care that they themselves are not worthy. We know that LGBTQ youth, and especially LGBTQ youth of color are overrepresented in the child welfare system. This policy perpetuates bias and stigma that will hurt those young people. Our taxpayer-funded support systems must be focused on helping, not harming, children.”
10 years ago, I married my husband Adam on National Coming Out Day, October 11. We married in Massachusetts, which at the time of our planning, was the only state that would allow us to marry, thanks to GLAD’s landmark victory in 古德里奇訴公共衛生部. We exchanged our vows publicly, as a gay couple, witnessed by our community of friends and family, some of whom we had only come out to very recently.
None of this would have been possible if so many other LGBTQ people hadn’t courageously come out before us. Our brave queer ancestors who lived out loud and fought for survival, and for the freedom to live and love as themselves, paved the path that Adam and I eventually walked down in order to marry.
We’ve come far, and we have plenty to celebrate on this National Coming Out Day. But for too many in the LGBTQ community coming out still presents substantial risks.
Risks, for example, to transgender servicemembers who now risk discharge if they come out under the Trump-Pence administration’s cruel and baseless transgender military ban.
Or risks to people like Aimee Stephens, Don Zarda, and Gerald Bostock, whose cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this week, because they were each fired for coming out as either transgender or gay. Unfortunately, too many LGBTQ Americans must still choose between being honest about who they are, and keeping their jobs and livelihoods.
And now the U.S. Supreme Court is being urged by our opponents, including the Department of Justice, to strip away protections and leave LGBTQ workers out in the cold.
Every person should be able to choose for themselves whether and when to come out. For too many, particularly for those most vulnerable in our community, the risks of coming out remain incredibly high. And for some, the choice of whether to come out itself is a privilege they do not have. For those whose identities as LGBTQ are visible or presumed, and targeted, the combination can lead to tragic, even deadly, results. The nearly daily reports of violence against transgender women of color are a stark reminder of that fact.
GLAD is fighting for a world where every person can come out without fear of discrimination, harassment, or violence. That begins with ensuring that our laws not only protect those who choose to come out, but also send a message of acceptance of all our identities. And by creating a climate where more and more in our community can come out, we also expand public acceptance amongst those who are being exposed to the reality of who we are, and our shared humanity, for the first time.
Coming out can still be both a risk factor and a survival tactic. It’s incumbent upon all of us, LGBTQ or not, to work each and every day to create a climate where being LGBTQ is no longer stigmatized, and where coming out is a celebrated affirmation of our shared and diverse humanity.
GLAD has joined amicus briefs opposing new Department of Homeland Security regulations that upend the standards for determinations of who qualifies as a “public charge.” This change will disproportionately harm LGBTQ people and people of color who have immigrated to the US, including those who are elderly, pregnant, survivors of intimate partner violence, or have disabilities.
The briefs were filed in the La Clinica de la Raza, State of California, Make the Road New York， 和 State of New York cases September 10, 2019.
La Clinica de la Raza Amicus Brief
Make the Road New York Amicus Brief
September 11, 2019: GLAD has joined a friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Women’s Law Center and others in support of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
The Trump Administration has modified the current standards for a “public charge” in immigration policy. Currently the “public charge” definition pertains to primary dependency on the government, narrowly focused on people primarily dependent on the government through cash assistance or institutionalization for long-term care. Broadening the definition to include immigrants who could potentially be dependent on government assistance in the future further targets specific groups of immigrating people. This change would have a chilling effect that disproportionately impacts people of color, particularly women of color.
LGBTQ群體再次來到美國最高法院。這一次，事關職場非歧視的基本原則——你不應該僅僅因為你的身分而被拒絕工作、在工作中遭受虐待或失去工作。目前，聯邦法律中的性別歧視保護措施涵蓋了許多LGBTQ員工，但只有不到一半的美國州制定了明確保護LGBTQ群體的反歧視法。最高法院現在可能發明將LGBTQ群體排除在聯邦職場非歧視法之外，這令我們所有人都感到擔憂，其影響可能超越職場，延伸至醫療保健、住房和教育等領域。
我們是如何走到這一步的？我們之所以走到這一步，是因為LGBTQ群體的工作者們，無論資歷和績效如何，僅僅因為他們的身份，就不斷被解僱。沒有人能夠免受就業歧視的困擾，有些人甚至更容易受到歧視，包括許多有色人種、移民和從事低薪工作的人。歧視嚴重損害了工作者及其家庭的經濟穩定，也損害了那些因為LGBTQ身份而被認為不值得尊重的人的尊嚴。
本院受理的三起案件顯示了這一問題依然存在。其中兩起案件： Zarda 訴 Altitude Express 和 博斯托克訴喬治亞州克萊頓縣，員工因是同性戀而被解僱。第二巡迴上訴法院判決員工唐‧札達勝訴，他因向一位跳傘客戶出櫃而被解僱。但在第二起案件中，第十一巡迴上訴法院判決雇主克萊頓縣勝訴，傑拉爾德·博斯托克敗訴。博斯托克是一位備受尊敬的法院兒童福利服務協調員，他在加入同性戀壘球聯盟時遇到麻煩，並因「行為不當」而被解僱。在第三起案件中， 艾米史蒂芬斯訴哈里斯殯儀館案一名跨性別女性向雇主坦白後被解僱。美國第六巡迴上訴法院判決史蒂芬斯勝訴。
多年來，LGBTQ 法律運動一直援引聯邦《民權法案》第七章來打擊這種歧視，並主張對 LGBTQ 群體的歧視是「基於個人性別」的歧視。換句話說，我們一直在主張並日益贏得這樣的主張：我們受到國家民權法的保護。 （聯邦法律也禁止因種族、膚色、國籍或宗教信仰而歧視個人，其他法律也為殘障人士提供保護。）
川普政府司法部（DOJ）對員工以及對我們民權法的簡單而有力的解讀提出了質疑。他們在法院審理的案件中支持雇主，並認為由於反LGBTQ歧視，LGBTQ群體應該被排除在《第七章》的保護範圍之外。
同性戀者反歧視聯盟 (GLAD) 與美國公民自由聯盟（ACLU，在三起案件中擔任其中兩起的律師）以及其他 LGBTQ 團體合作，協助最高法院制定並實施了這些案件的「法庭之友」辯護策略。我們依賴法律解讀的黃金標準：第七章的文本以及最高法院長期以來對其的解釋表明，反 LGBTQ 歧視是「基於個人性別的歧視」。最高法院沒有理由修改法律，將 LGBTQ 群體排除在外。
除了代表員工的辯護狀外，還有四位法庭之友的辯護狀——兩位法學教授、一位美國政府前最高法院律師、一位曾在共和黨政府任職的共和黨人和保守派人士——根據法律的字面意思精確地闡述了論點。
試想一下，從概念上來說，對 LGBTQ 人士的歧視無法在不提及性別的情況下進行定義或理解，因此「因為」某人的 LGBTQ 身份而採取的行動必然會考慮到性別。扎爾達 (Zarda) 和博斯托克 (Bostock) 因其性取向而被解僱，也就是說，因為他們是與男性約會的男性。艾米·史蒂芬斯 (Aimee Stephens) 失去了在殯儀館的工作，因為她的雇主「將她歸類為男性」。每個案例中歧視性待遇的原因都在於員工的「性別」。如果札爾達 (Zarda) 和博斯托克 (Bostock) 是與男性約會的女性，她們就不會被解僱；如果史蒂芬斯 (Stephens) 出生時被指定為女性，她們也不會被解僱。最高法院最早的第七章案件， 菲利普斯訴馬丁瑪麗埃塔公司案，建立了一個簡單的歧視測試標準——「如果一個人的性別不同，其待遇就會不同。」這適用於法庭上的所有三名員工。
此外，自 1989 年 普華永道 在有利於女性的裁決中，她因「不夠女性化」而被一家會計師事務所拒絕成為合夥人，法律規定基於性別刻板印象的歧視就是性別歧視。正如最高法院在那項裁決中所說，「雇主透過假設或堅持認為員工符合其群體相關的刻板印象來評估員工的時代已經過去了。」法院確認性別歧視涵蓋性別和社會角色，這必然也說明了對 LGBTQ 人群的歧視。對於跨性別者來說，不僅存在關於男性和女性應該如何認同、外表和行為的刻板印象，而且還有 155 萬人在出生時被指定為特定性別，但他們的認同、外表或行為與指定的性別不一致。在 Stephens 案中，殯儀館館長說，「男性應該看起來像個男人」；下級法院正確地駁回了這種作為解僱 Aimee Stephens 的理由。在札爾達案中，下級法院直接將關於性取向的刻板印象視為性別歧視，稱“如果雇主基於女性無法[被其他女性吸引]或女性一定不能被其他女性吸引的信念而採取行動，那麼其行為就是基於性別。”儘管這些論點（以及其他論點）都基於法律條文和最高法院的判例，但雇主和美國司法部長表示，「性別」是指基於出生時指定的性別而對男性和女性的不同待遇，並且「性別」在1964年不可能被理解為指代LGBTQ人群。但正如著名歷史學家和語言學家的法庭之友意見書所表明的那樣，在1964年，「性別」是一個寬泛的術語，在工作場所被理解為禁止性別角色的期望。由於LGBTQ族群與這種性別不符的現象聯繫在一起，因此執法該法律的聯邦機構實際上在該法律通過後的最初幾年就處理了LGBTQ人士的投訴。
但即使雇主和司法部認為1964年的「性別」僅僅指出生時被指定的性別，也無助於他們贏得訴訟。即使他們如此解釋，扎爾達和博斯托克被解僱是因為他們是與男性約會的男性，而如果他們是與男性約會的女性就不會被解僱，而斯蒂芬斯被解僱是因為雇主關注她出生時被指定的性別，這一點依然成立。
所有這些都表明，法官或公眾對1964年法律的預期涵蓋範圍在分析上並不重要，重要的是它透過文本、最高法院的解釋和國會的修訂所代表的含義。正如斯卡利亞大法官在一個案件中所寫，他承認男性可以根據《第七章》對其他男性提起性騷擾訴訟（而且1964年性騷擾並不被認為屬於性別歧視），我們的法律“常常超越了主要弊端，涵蓋了相當程度的弊端”，並且“我們受制於我們的法律，而不是立法者的主要關切”。
隨著雇主及其支持者提交的簡報，法院顯然正遭受大量的恐嚇，這並不令人意外——這些論點的核心在於否認一些簡單的事實，即有些人是 LGBTQ，不會因為我們的身份而對任何人構成威脅。其他支持雇主的簡報則提出了擔憂，除非法院將 LGBTQ 人群排除在第七章之外，否則宗教組織和個人將不得不遵守非歧視規定，即使目前已有有限的豁免。這顯然是在向法院懇求，要求法院拒絕將 LGBTQ 人群納入法律範圍，而不是簡單地適用國會先前通過的第七章中精心製定的宗教豁免條款，這些條款適用於所有其他受該法律保護的人群。
以下是為支援員工而提交的 47 份簡報的部分內容：
關於第七章文本和意義的簡報
簡報解決影響
該案將於 2019 年 10 月 8 日進行口頭辯論，法院可能會在 2020 年 1 月至 6 月之間的某個時間做出裁決。
我們的反歧視法旨在確保人人享有更大的公平與平等。最高法院對此案的裁決可能會影響就業以外一系列領域對性別歧視的解讀，包括醫療保健、住房和教育。這些案件中的雇主實際上是在要求最高法院透過虛構將LGBTQ群體排除在我們的聯邦民權法之外的做法，向後退了一大步。
在我們密切關注法院結果並準備回應的同時，無論結果如何，我們現在都可以採取行動，按下 參議院 並要求全國各地的州立法機構頒布法律，例如聯邦《平等法案》和我們現有的新英格蘭反歧視法，明確地保護 LGBTQ 族群在生活的各個方面。
GLAD Law has signed onto an amicus brief in support of Lee Boyd Malvo, whose successful habeas petition to be re-sentenced following the USSC decision in Miller v Alabama is being challenged by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia is essentially arguing that Malvo’s life without parole sentence–imposed after a capital jury declined to sentence him to death–was a discretionary rather than mandatory sentence and thus outside Miller’s mandate. Juvenile Law Center’s amicus brief will urge the Supreme Court to abide by its holdings in Miller 和 Montgomery that only youth found to be permanently incorrigible are eligible for life without parole sentences and that this determination has yet to be made regarding Malvo.
GLAD strongly opposes the proposed regulation that changes the interpretation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Healthcare Act that would eliminate existing critical protections for LGBT people, especially transgender people, and people living with HIV. Our nation has a long and shameful history of discrimination on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including in healthcare. While lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have frequently been refused medical care based on the view that their sexual orientation is pathological or immoral, transgender people have been subjected to particularly pernicious discrimination across all sectors of the healthcare industry. For many years, healthcare providers and insurers refused to recognize gender dysphoria as a valid medical condition and improperly categorized medically necessary treatment, including hormone therapy and gender affirming surgeries, as cosmetic or experimental. This shocking lack of access to medical care resulted in profound debilitation and suffering.
You can read the public comment in full here.
This weekend saw two more mass shootings in the U.S. – one in Dayton, OH and the other in El Paso, TX. While we have not yet learned the motivation behind the violence in Dayton, the El Paso suspect allegedly posted a xenophobic, anti-Hispanic manifesto in an online forum. This follows an all-too-familiar pattern of race-motivated violence on our communities, emboldened by toxic, anti-immigrant sentiments straight from the top of our government.
Violence against the Latinx community directly impacts our LGBTQ family – which includes immigrants, Latinx and people of color. We send our deepest condolences to the victims of Sunday’s shootings, and their loved ones in the US, in Mexico, and beyond.
The sadness we feel for our fellow Americans is compounded with the frustration that these shootings continue to hurt our communities with no reasoned legislative or policy response in sight. While it can feel hard to keep moving forward, we cannot afford to be complacent. Along with common sense gun safety reform, we must continue to call out racism and xenophobia in all its forms. The Trump presidency has fanned the flames of white supremacy – what once was quietly smoldering in our country is now loud and proud. But they are still few – and with our movements united, we are many.
Especially now, we must continue to strive towards a better and more compassionate country for all of us.
香港中文 
Español de México 
Português 
简体中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Polski 
Русский 
Deutsch 
Kreyòl Ayisyen