Gay and bisexual men convicted of now-abolished sexual offences in England and Wales are to receive posthumous pardons, the government has announced.
Thousands of living men convicted over consensual same-sex relationships will also be eligible for the pardon.
Lib Dem peer Lord Sharkey, who proposed the amendment to the Policing and Crimes Bill, said it was “momentous”.
It follows the pardoning of World War Two code-breaker Alan Turing for gross indecency in 2013.
Under the amendment – dubbed “Turing law” – deceased people who were convicted of sexual acts that are no longer deemed criminal will receive an automatic pardon.
Anyone living who has been convicted of such offences could already apply through the Home Office to have the offence wiped from their criminal records.
But now, if the Home Office agrees that the offence is no longer an offence under current law, they will automatically be pardoned.
Justice Minister Sam Gyimah said it was “hugely important that we pardon people convicted of historical sexual offences who would be innocent of any crime today”.
Lord Sharkey said he understood why some people may not want a pardon, or may “feel that it’s wrong”.
But, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, “a pardon is probably the best way of acknowledging the real harm done by the unjust and cruel homophobic laws, which thankfully we’ve now repealed. And I do hope that a lot of people will feel exactly the same way”.
He said of the 65,000 men convicted under the laws, 15,000 are still alive.
‘I will not accept a pardon’
George Montague was convicted in 1974 of gross indecency with a man. He says he wants an apology – not a pardon.
“To accept a pardon means you accept that you were guilty. I was not guilty of anything. I was only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time,” he told BBC Newsnight.
“I think it was wrong to give Alan Turing – one of the heroes of my life – a pardon.
“What was he guilty of? He was guilty of the same as what they called me guilty of – being born only able to fall in love with another man.”
He added: “If I get an apology, I will not need a pardon.”
He added that there “never should have been an offence of gross indecency”.
“It didn’t apply to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals could do what they liked, in the doorways, in passageways, the back of their car.
“It only applied to gay men. That’s not right, surely?”
The Sexual Offences Act decriminalised private homosexual acts between men aged over 21 in England and Wales, in 1967.
The law was not changed in Scotland until 1980, or in Northern Ireland until 1982.
Announcing the new plan, Mr Gyimah said the government would support Lord Sharkey’s amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill – which would apply to England and Wales, but not Scotland and Northern Ireland as the Justice Department does not cover devolved administrations.
The petition gathered almost 640,000 signatories, including the actors Stephen Fry and Benedict Cumberbatch, who played Turing in the film about the enigma code, The Imitation Game.
The charity Stonewall, which campaigns for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said it has begun discussions with the Scottish government to allow similar procedures to be introduced in Scotland.
In Northern Ireland, the Rainbow Project, also a charity and campaign group, met with the justice minister in August to discuss the law around historical convictions.
Cyanide poisoning
Turing, the Bletchley Park code-breaker, was convicted in 1952 of gross indecency with a 19-year-old man.
He was later chemically castrated and died in 1954 after poisoning himself with cyanide.
His pardon, almost 60 years later, followed a Private Member’s Bill introduced by Lord Sharkey.
The Lib Dem peer said it was “a momentous day for thousands of families up and down the UK”.
He said: “It is a wonderful thing that we have been able to build on the pardon granted to Alan Turing during the coalition.”
Turing’s great niece Rachel Barnes said the moment Turing’s family heard he was to receive a pardon was “absolutely tremendous”.
She told the Today programme: “Alan Turing just so, so deserves this. To think that this is the man who cracked the enigma code and saved countless of millions of lives during World War Two and to think of the treatments that he went through at the hands of the government in 1952 is still unbelievable to us.”
She said that the family has always highlighted his achievements rather than the fact he was a gay man.
She added: “Because we shouldn’t be thinking about his sexuality, we should really be focusing on the successes of this incredible man in history who has done so much for the country and for the world”.
Private Member’s Bill
The government has said it will not be supporting a separate Private Member’s Bill on the subject – introduced by SNP MP John Nicolson – which is set to be debated on Friday.
Mr Nicolson, the MP for East Dunbartonshire, has proposed a blanket pardon for those still living, without the need to apply for their criminal records to be cleared by the Home Office.
Mr Gyimah said such a move could see people claiming pardons for acts that are still illegal.
“This would cause an extraordinary and unnecessary amount of distress to victims,” he added.
Paul Twocock from Stonewall welcomed the announcement but said it supported Mr Nicolson’s Private Member’s Bill.
Mr Twocock said the bill “explicitly” excluded pardoning anyone convicted of offences that would still be illegal today, including non-consensual sex and sex with someone under 16.
Happn, the leading global dating app that enables users to discover the people they’ve crossed paths with in real life, has teamed up with the national lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization, GLAAD, to encourage Happn users to take a stand against LGBTQ bullying.
In support of GLAAD and Spirit DayThursday, Oct. 20, Happn will launch a powerful U.S. campaign grounded in the frightening statistic that nearly three-quarters (74%) of students reported experiencing some type of peer victimization in the past school year. According to research by GLSEN, bullying and harassment remain a significant concern of students, families and schools all across the country. Furthermore, despite legal and cultural changes, LGBTQ students continue to face hostile school climates.
On Spirit Day, a full screen image will pop up when users first fire up Happn. “Words Can Hurt” will appear in the foreground of the first image. The secondary image is a call-to-action that cites the harrowing youth statistic, encourages Happn users to take part in Spirit Day, and directs them to glaad.org/spiritday, where they can:
Go purple. Use GLAAD’s mobile app to turn your Happn profile picture purple.
Join the conversation. Take part in the movement on social media – Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat – by using #SpiritDay.
Make a donation. Provide a contribution that will help GLAAD carry out its work – including Spirit Day – as the organization seeks to accelerate acceptance for LGBTQ people around the world.
“We choose words carefully in portraying ourselves in order to charm others when filling out our dating profiles. If only we could be equally as mindful of the derogatory words used towards the LGBTQ community,” said Didier Rappaport, CEO and co-founder, Happn. “To show our support for the GLAAD youth-driven cause, Happn is leveraging its platform to raise awareness, and challenging its users to rewrite the script for LGBTQ acceptance in America and across the globe.”
In a lawsuit challenging the North Carolina law banning transgender people from using restrooms that correspond to their gender identity, LGBT rights groups yesterday asked a federal appeals court to broaden a preliminary injunction in order to protect all transgender people in the state from discrimination.
In August, a district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the North Carolina university system from enforcing H.B. 2 against the three individual transgender plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Carcaño v. McCrory, which is scheduled for trial in May 2017. The advocates also asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite the appeal and schedule oral argument for January.
“Every day that H.B. 2 singles out transgender North Carolinians — whether at school, at work, or just moving through their daily lives — is another day that the transgender community is told that they are second class,” said Chris Brook, ACLU of North Carolina legal director. “Though the district court recognized the serious harm to three of our clients at UNC as a result of H.B. 2, that recognition unfortunately didn’t extend to the harms that law inflicts on other transgender individuals in public buildings across North Carolina. We hope and expect that the Fourth Circuit will expand this ruling to protect all transgender people.”
The appeal brief filed yesterday argues that H.B. 2 violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because it specifically targets transgender people, and that discrimination against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination. While North Carolina has argued that H.B. 2 advances interests in public safety and privacy, ACLU and Lambda Legal argue that these interests, which can be protected in other ways, do not justify the harms H.B. 2 imposes on transgender people and that to restore the status quo, the court must grant a broader preliminary injunction while the case proceeds to trial.
“H.B. 2 makes transgender North Carolinians pariahs in their own state. Courthouses, airports, libraries, public schools, highway rest stops, police departments, state hospitals, and the very halls of government itself are now unsafe for, and unwelcome to, transgender North Carolinians,” said Jon W. Davidson, national legal director at Lambda Legal. “Such unequal treatment simply cannot be squared with the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equality under the law. The Fourth Circuit should order this broader relief, pending trial.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of North Carolina, Lambda Legal, and the law firm of Jenner & Block are challenging the law in federal court on behalf of four LGBT North Carolinians in addition to members of the ACLU of North Carolina. The lawsuit was filed days after H.B. 2 was passed by the North Carolina General Assembly and signed by Gov. Pat McCrory. In it, the groups argue that H.B. 2 sends a purposeful message that LGBT people are second-class citizens who are undeserving of the privacy, respect, and protections afforded to others, and that transgender individuals are expelled from public life since they are not allowed to use the restrooms and changing facilities that match who they are.
There have been many fights over transgender rights across the country, but the showdown in Illinois’ District 211 has been particularly ugly. After “Student A” successfully fought the school for access to the same locker room other girls used, a group of anonymous students turned around and sued, claiming that her access caused them “emotional distress.” A federal judge was not impressed by their claims.
On Tuesday, United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert recommended against granting these students a preliminary injunction blocking Student A and other trans students from the facilities. “High school students do not have a fundamental constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs,” he explained.
A magistrate judge’s recommendation must be adopted by a district judge before it has the force of law, so Gilbert’s recommendation must still clear that hurdle.
Throughout the recommendation, Gilbert laid out in detail why these students are not harmed by sharing a space with a transgender classmate. Indeed, they are not even required to share a space with her, as there are alternative restrooms that they may use. If they’re uncomfortable, they can voluntarily use a different facility or make use of a privacy stall without forcing transgender students to be ostracized to other spaces.
Though the plaintiffs — who insistently misgendered Student A throughout their briefs — would disagree, Gilbert agreed that “a transgender person’s gender identity is an important factor to be considered in determining whether his or her needs, as well as those of cisgender people, can be accommodated in the course of allocating or regulating the use of restrooms and locker rooms. So, to frame the constitutional question in the sense of sex assigned at birth while ignoring gender identity frames it too narrowly for the constitutional analysis.”
A decision issued just last week from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was instrumental in helping him arrive at that conclusion. Since 1984, there has been a circuit precedent that the term “sex” be defined narrowly according to “tradition” and biology. But last week, in a case about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the appellate court vacated a ruling based on that precedent, opening the door for judges in the circuit to reconsider how narrowly protections should be defined. For Gilbert, this made it easy for him to agree with the federal government’s interpretation of Title IX’s “sex” protections that allowed Student A access to the locker rooms in the first place.
He also made a point that has not come up in other cases about student facility access. Title IX, he explained, permits schools to provide facilities that are divided by gender, but it does not require them to do so. As it stands, District 211’s policy is to segregate the genders and to respect transgender people’s identities; as Gilbert described it, “Cisgender boys use the boys’ restrooms with transgender boys just like cisgender girls use the girls’ restrooms with transgender girls.” But even if the facilities were completely gender-neutral, they wouldn’t violate Title IX’s sex protections.
The student plaintiffs’ claim that a transgender student would violate their sense of privacy and safety was not convincing. “There is absolutely no evidence in this record that allowing transgender high school students to use restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity increases the risk of sexual assault,” Gilbert pointed out in a footnote. He also highlighted that the military now “allows transgender personnel to serve openly and fully integrated in all military services” and the NCAA “includes transgender student-athletes in collegiate sports consistent with their gender identity.”
“Neither the Restroom Policy nor the Locker Room Agreement shocks the conscience,” he wrote. Given the accommodations available, “put simply, this case does not involve any forced or involuntary exposure of a student’s body to or by a transgender person assigned a different sex at birth.”
Though the case will still proceed, it’s a major loss for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an anti-LGBT legal organization that is pursuing numerous cases across the country to challenge LGBT nondiscrimination protections or actually force discrimination upon transgender people. ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb bemoaned in a statement, “Young students should be not be forced into an intimate setting like a locker room with someone of the opposite sex.”
Meanwhile, the ACLU, which represents Student A and two other rising transgender students at the school, celebrated the outcome. John A. Knight, Director of the ACLU of illinois’ LGBT Project, said in a statement, “Barring Student A and other transgender students from the restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender challenges their basic identity and humanity, suggests that they should be ashamed of who they are, and puts them at serious of long-term emotional and psychological injury. We are pleased that Judge Gilbert rejected specious arguments about privacy and protected the interests of all the students.”
When it comes to letting transgender people simply using the restroom, religious conservatives are quick to warn that any accommodations pose a massive threat to women’s “safety and privacy.” But after newly discovered tapes of the Republican nominee for president bragging about sexually assaulting women were published last week, many of those same conservatives are still standing by their endorsements.
Almost all of the campaigns against transgender equality have been focused on painting transgender women as “male” predators looking to access women’s spaces in order to violate them. The messaging was first used in 2012 to oppose LGBT protections in Anchorage, then again last year to oppose the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, and it has been the defense of North Carolina’s odious HB2. Women who were survivors of sexual assault were even the face of the failed campaign to overturn transgender protections in Washington state, even though there is zero evidence that respecting trans identities makes bathrooms or locker rooms any less safe.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, is actually a man who has openly bragged about sexually assaulting women and been accused of such assaults on multiple occasions. He also admitted to walking around backstage at one of the beauty pageants he owns while the female contestants were naked and changing. Here’s a look at people who think someone who likes to “grab them by the pussy” is still a vote-worthy candidate for president, paired with statements the same people have made about whether transgender people should be allowed to pee in peace.
Gov. Mike Pence
On transgender protections: “Policies regarding the security and privacy of students in our schools should be in the hands of Hoosier parents and local schools, not bureaucrats in Washington, DC. The federal government has no business getting involved in issues of this nature. I am confident that parents, teachers and administrators will continue to resolve these matters without federal mandates and in a manner that reflects the common sense and compassion of our state.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “It’s absolutely false to suggest that at any point in time we considered dropping off this ticket… He said last night very clearly that that was talk, not actions. And I believe him and I think the contrast between that and what the Clintons were involved in 20 years ago — the four women that were present last night — was pretty dramatic.”
Ben Carson
CREDIT: AP Photo/Gerald Herbert
On transgender protections: “How about we have a transgender bathroom? It is not fair for them to make everybody else uncomfortable. It’s one of the things that I don’t particularly like about the movement. I think everybody has equal rights, but I’m not sure that anybody should have extra rights — extra rights when it comes to redefining everything for everybody else and imposing your view on everybody else.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “Those of us who do not want to see America fundamentally devolve into something worse must be wise enough to recognize the scheme that is being played out here. We must demand not only that the issues be discussed but also that we make our decisions based on issues and not on personalities or decade old statements and behavior by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.”
Mike Huckabee
On transgender protections: “Now I wish somebody had told me when I was in high school, that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in P.E. I’m pretty sure I would’ve found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.’”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I certainly don’t condone what he said in what he thought was a private moment 11 years ago, but here’s a good reminder that in these times of ubiquitous microphones and cameras, there are no private moments. I can truly hope he’s genuinely contrite and has outgrown it and that he himself is as repulsed by it as are those who view it.”
Gov. Chris Christie
On transgender protections: “Men go to men’s rooms, women go to women’s rooms and there really shouldn’t be a whole lot of confusion about that — public accommodations. And I don’t think we should be making life more confusing for our children… The fact though is that we want our kids not to have to decide which bathroom they get to go in. And not to be subject to peer pressure about which one to go in. And not to be subject to the embarrassment that could come with going in a bathroom where somebody maybe doesn’t agree that they should be in there or not.”
Sen. Ted Cruz
On transgender protections: “You don’t have a right to intrude upon the rights of others because whether or not a man believes he’s a woman, there are a lot of women who would like to be able to use a public restroom in peace without having a man there — and when there are children involved, you don’t have a right to impose your lifestyle on others.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I am supporting the Republican nominee because I think Hillary Clinton is an absolute disaster. Now my differences with Donald, I have articulated at great length during the campaign. And I tried all my might. I got to tell you, it was an amazing journey.”
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “As I have made clear, my support for Donald Trump in the general election was never based upon shared values rather it was built upon shared concerns… At this point in the political process, because of our lack of engagement and involvement as Christians, not just in this election but in the government and culture as a whole, we are left with a choice of voting for the one who will do the least damage to our freedoms.”
Ralph Reed, Faith and Freedom Coalition
On transgender protections:
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I just don’t think an audiotape of an 11-year-old private conversation with an entertainment talk show host on a tour bus, for which the candidate has apologized profusely, is likely to rank high on the hierarchy of concerns of those faith-based voters.”
James Dobson
On transgender protections: “If you are a married man with any gumption, surely you will defend your wife’s privacy and security in restroom facilities. Would you remain passive after knowing that a strange-looking man, dressed like a woman, has been peering over toilet cubicles to watch your wife in a private moment? What should be done to the pervert who was using mirrors to watch women and girls in their stalls?”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “The comments Mr. Trump made 11 years ago were deplorable and I condemn them entirely. I also find Hillary Clinton’s support of partial birth abortion criminal and her opinion of evangelicals to be bigoted. There really is only one difference between the two. Mr. Trump promises to support religious liberty and the dignity of the unborn. Mrs. Clinton promises she will not.”
Gary Bauer, American Values
On transgender protections: “This is yet another example of the Obama administration’s bizarre obsession to force women to be unwilling participants in a radical social experiment… Now Obama’s HUD bureaucrats are putting those women at risk for abuse and worse by men claiming to be women.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “ The comments are obviously disgusting and unfortunate. But Donald Trump did not run as a evangelical or as somebody who ran the kind of campaign that a Pat Robertson would run. We’ll still support him, still work hard for him. His policies are 100% better than Hillary clinton’s for the country. I don’t see how any values voter that is sensible would take a tape from 11 years ago with totally inappropriate language and says somehow that leads me as a voter to stay home or vote for Hillary Clinton or throw your vote away on a third party candidate.”
Robert Jeffress, First Baptist Church in Dallas
CREDIT: Facebook/Robert Jeffress
On transgender protections: “Gender is an absolute, just like age is an absolute, and just because some hairy-legged man feels confused about his gender, doesn’t mean he gets to come in and shower with my daughter in a shower room.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “It was lewd, obscene, indefensible — but not enough to make me want to vote for Hillary Clinton. I might not choose this man to be a Sunday school teacher at my church, but that’s not what this election is about.”
Michele Bachmann
On transgender protections: “What we have seen happen since this discussion started, are men of varying ages going into women’s bathrooms and trying to videotape women unawares. Now that’s a real problem. And I think we need to be very clear that women, girls, older women are vulnerable and are deserving of protection.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “This is bad boy talk, and of course that’s what [Hillary Clinton] wants everybody to talk about… If anybody understands bad boy talk, Hillary Clinton understands bad boy talk. She engages in a certain amount of it herself I think.”
Pat Robertson
On transgender protections: “We don’t want men going into women’s bathrooms, we don’t want predators going out where little girls are, we don’t want voyeurs having free access to the women’s locker rooms during games when they’re changing clothes.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “ “A guy does something 11 years ago, it was a conversation in Hollywood where he’s trying to look like he’s macho. And 11 years after that they surface it from The Washington Post or whatever, bring it out within 30 days or so of the election and this is supposed to be the death blow and everybody writes him off… They think he’s dead, he’s come back. And he came back strong. So, he won that debate.”
Pat McCrory (R), North Carolina governor
On transgender protections: “Does the desire to be politically correct outweigh our children’s privacy and safety? Not on my watch.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I condemn in the strongest possible terms the comments made by Donald Trump regarding women. I find them disgusting.” [But McCrory did not withdraw his endorsement of Trump.]
Dan Patrick, Texas lieutenant governor
On transgender protections: “It is clear that the Obama administration is trying to force an ill-advised, eleventh-hour bathroom edict on Texas and all American schools that ignores both common sense and common decency. Obama’s bathroom policy, which applies to grades K-12, creates a problem where none existed. It will disrupt schools across Texas, creating potentially embarrassing and unsafe situations for girls who would be forced, under his order, to share bathrooms, locker rooms and showers with boys.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks:
hil Robertson, Duck Dynasty
On transgender protections: “Men should use the men’s bathroom and women should use the women’s bathroom. Just because a man may ‘feel’ like a woman doesn’t mean he should be able to share a bathroom with my daughter, or yours. That used to be called common sense. Now it’s called bigoted.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I would say [evangelical leaders] need to lighten up, start going out and preaching the gospel to different people, including Donald Trump, and give him some time to think about spiritual matters, and work with him, and not condemn anybody.”
Alveda King
On transgender protections: “In other words, by turning a blind eye to the dearth of perversion within our communities — the sex traffickers, child molesters, adulterers and fornicators, racists, and so many other sin sick souls — and suggesting that allowing everyone to use the same public bathrooms will solve America’s problems, the current government administration, no matter how well intended or ill advised they are, is headed for disaster.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “ While writing, saying and doing much, Mr. Trump is apologizing for his past sins. He’s walking away from supporting abortion, hurling insults and more. Now, America needs to follow suit and apologize for the scourge of legal abortion that has left millions of empty cradles, wombs barren, women’s health damaged, and families broken. As Americans, we all need to follow Mr. Trump’s lead and ask God for forgiveness for the sins of our nation, and yes, for ourselves.”
StartOut, a national non-profit organization that supports, educates and connects LGBTQ entrepreneurs, today announced the launch of its online platform, the StartOut Community. It is designed to address the multifaceted needs of LGBTQ entrepreneurs. The primary goals of this digital portal are to accelerate the ability of LGBTQ founded and run companies to reach sustainable success, showcase the significant contributions StartOut members make to societies all over the world, and help level the economic playing field for LGBTQ entrepreneurs.
StartOut’s inaugural research study, The State of LGBT Entrepreneurship in the U.S., conclusively shows that startups founded by LGBTQ entrepreneurs are at risk for discrimination—affecting where founders choose to locate their businesses, to what extent they can raise capital, and how they build trust with investors. Based on the data and findings from this research study behind us and seven years of “real-life” success accelerating LGBTQ entrepreneurship, StartOut is now taking its programs to the next level with the launch of the StartOut Community. Supported by ROI Genius, the new complementary platform is open to all LGBTQ entrepreneurs, friends, supporters, and allies globally. The platform includes:
Online forums, organized by topic and industry, designed to allow users to take advantage of StartOut members’ deep entrepreneurial and business expertise
Forums to share experiences and advice specific to our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender entrepreneur communities
Invitations to local and national events
Educational content
Inspirational member successes stories
Andres Wydler
“Designed for massive scalability, our new StartOut Community is the first platform of its kind tailored specifically to the LGBTQ entrepreneurial community,” says Executive Director Andres Wydler. “Too many LGBTQ entrepreneurs still lack role models they can relate to and the professional networks to advance their businesses. We are determined to connect our members with the contacts they need to succeed, and provide the visibility, recognition and respect they deserve, no matter where they live.”
Following this initial launch, StartOut will release its premium features, including a searchable directory to connect its members 24/7; a nationwide mentorship program, supported by AT&T; and an investor portal to connect LGBTQ-friendly investors with StartOut premium members.
To support and help fund the ongoing development and program management for this groundbreaking portal, you may become a member at https://startout.org/membership.
Today, on National Coming Out Day, we celebrate one of the most powerful forces in the fight for LGBT equality. When someone decides to come out as member of the LGBT community, it gives their friends, family, loved ones and neighbors a personal reason to support LGBT rights, and it inspires more members and allies of the LGBT community to stand up for what is right, even in the face of discrimination, bigotry and violence.
Despite the great strides we’ve made in recent years – marriage equality, the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and more – the sad fact remains that coming out is still a risky, even dangerous thing to do for too many Americans, young and old. But that’s why it’s so important. Together, we can end the discrimination and build a brighter, safer future for all.
“The Democratic Party is proud to stand with the LGBT community, and proud to support candidates for elected office who are fighting for the promise of full equality. If we hope to continue building on the progress of the last eight years, we must elect Hillary Clinton and Democrats up and down the ballot across the country.”
HRC Friday released its Congressional Scorecard measuring support for LGBTQ equality in the 114th Congress. The scorecard shows continued strong support for LGBTQ equality from Democrats and growing bipartisan support for LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections. The 114th Congress saw a record number of Republicans vote at different times to affirm President Obama’s executive order prohibiting discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
“LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections gained important bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. Unfortunately, despite those gains, the 114th Congress failed to advance any pro-equality legislation and remains an impediment to progress for the LGBTQ community,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “Today, a majority of Americans — Republicans, Democrats and independents — all believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live their lives free from fear of discrimination and be protected from discrimination. It’s long past time that Congress reflects the opinion of the majority of fair-minded Americans.”
With 190 Democrats in the House and Senate receiving perfect 100 scores, pro-equality legislation received exceptionally high levels of support from Democratic lawmakers. In comparison, one House Republican and one Senate Republican earned perfect scores.
“Building on our incredible support from Democratic elected officials, gaining ground with fair-minded Republicans is important next step to win the support we need to pass important legislation like the Equality Act,” added David Stacy, HRC’s Government Affairs Director. “Winning 62 Republican votes in the House is a historic achievement that can help lay the groundwork for future success.”
Members of Congress were scored based on their votes and co-sponsorships of pieces of legislation that are key indicators of support for LGBTQ equality. Despite the 114th Congress failing to enact any legislation to protect the LGBTQ community, majorities emerged in both chambers on key LGBTQ issues.
In the House, a historic 62 Republicans voted at different times to affirm President Obama’s executive order prohibiting discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — nearly double the total from Republicans on previous LGBTQ non-discrimination votes. And in the Senate, bipartisan majorities voted for amendments supporting spousal benefits for same-sex couples, non-discrimination protections in runaway and homeless youth programs, and non-discrimination protections in education.
For more information on the HRC Congressional Scorecard go here.
Today Log Cabin Republicans announced its Board of Directors has issued the first wave of endorsements for its federal political action committee (PAC) in the 2016 election cycle, including two candidates — Paul Babeu and Clay Cope — who are poised to make history as the first openly gay non-incumbent Republicans to be elected to the United States House of Representatives.
“These candidates for elected office represent the future of the GOP — strong, pro-equality Republicans with a winning message and a viable path to victory in November,” Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory T. Angelo stated. “LCR PAC will be working from now until Election Day to ensure these common-sense conservatives take their rightful place in the GOP congressional caucus as part of an inclusive Republican majority.”
“I’m honored to earn the support of Log Cabin Republicans, since they stand for personal liberty, less government, and support free market principles that will create jobs.” —Sheriff Paul Babeu.
“I’m very proud to receive the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest group of gay and lesbian conservatives in the country. My campaign for Congress is now endorsed by the Republican Party of Connecticut, the Independent Party of Connecticut, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, and the Log Cabin Republicans.” —Clay Cope.
Back in August, Cope declared that he supports Trump and Pence because “they don’t believe in discrimination.”
Last month Babeu was endorsed by Dr. Ben Carson. Babeu earned his first mention here on JMG years ago when he was outed via his Adam4Adam profile. Last month he was endorsed by gay former GOP US House Rep. Jim Kolbe, who was outed in 1996 after his vote for DOMA, although in 2013 Kolbe was a signatory to an amicus brief in support of the repeal of Prop 8. Babeu has stated that marriage should be left for the states to decide. Earlier this year the Phoenix New Timesreported that Babeu is currently living with a 22 year-old whom he met in 2012. In March 2012 the Mexican national ex-boyfriend of Babeu sued him for $1M, alleging that Babeu had threatened to have him deported if the boyfriend were to out him. Babeu’s run for the US House fizzled shortly thereafter, but not before it was revealed that he had spoken at an event staged by a group that wants to end illegal and most legal immigration and wants to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States.
Research has shown that one in three LGBT travellers experience homophobic or transphobic treatment while on holiday.
The news comes from a report into the issues faced by LGBT travellers worldwide.
The report reveals more than one in three (37%) LGBT travellers have experienced some form of discrimination whilst on holiday, with 6% experiencing a threat of physical violence due to their sexuality.
The report also highlighted that sexuality had a major influence on where LGBT Brits travelled, with two thirds (63%) refusing to travel somewhere that had an unwelcoming attitude towards the LGBT community.
A quarter (23%) of LGBT travellers admitted changing the way they act and try to camouflage their sexuality when on holiday.
Most alarmingly, an overwhelming 80% said that the travel industry don’t do enough to inform the LGBT community about local laws prior to departure.
The research was carried out for Virgin Holidays, which has launched a campaign with Stonewall on the issue.
There have been a series of high-profile cases in recent years of LGBT British holidaymakers experiencing discrimination abroad.
Ruth Hunt, Stonewall CEO, said: “It’s difficult for travel companies to negotiate the ever-changing landscape around global LGBT equality.
“Travel companies should be doing everything they can to keep their staff and customers safe when travelling anywhere in the world.
“We would love to see others join forces with Virgin Holidays and work towards a world where lesbian, gay, bi and trans people feel able to travel freely without fear of discrimination, and are accepted without exception.”
Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson said: “We believe everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, has the right to be whoever they are, wherever they are. That’s why it is shocking that in today’s society some of us can’t even enjoy a simple holiday without fear of discrimination.”
