Latest news with #NationalCenterforLGBTQRights
San Francisco Chronicle
29-06-2025
- Entertainment
- San Francisco Chronicle
Pride weekend kicks into high gear with Dyke March, Pride Celebration
A year after the abrupt cancellation of 2024's Dyke March, the fun was more than back — along with a strident note of defiance. Tens of thousands of queer women and their allies thronged Dolores Park on Saturday for a party in the sun, filling the public space with bursting joy and laughter as they gathered to celebrate this year's Dyke Rally and March. Abi Everywhere, 36, was setting up early Saturday with her friend, Ren Hamm, 28, as a steady stream of revelers arrived. They had an inflatable unicorn mostly puffed up, blankets spread across the lawn and cheese plates and sparkling water ready for friends who would be arriving throughout the afternoon. Everywhere and members of her Burning Man community, Camp Beaverton, were among the thousands of queer folk congregating at Dolores Park for Pink Saturday and the Dyke Rally. 'It's a unique opportunity for our community,' said Everywhere, who grew up in a religious household in suburban Houston and couldn't come out until college. 'It's like a family reunion and a good way for the old guard to welcome the new folks.' The first Dyke Marches were held in 1993, with a parade in Washington D.C. in April of that year, and others in New York and San Francisco later that year. Over the decades, the event has drawn tens of thousands of marchers and revelers. Saturday's rally was set to go from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., with performances by musicians, comedians and a drag king, as well as speeches by San Francisco Fire Chief Jeanine Nicholson and Imani Rupert-Gordon, president of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights. The march immediately follows, leaving from 18th and Dolores streets and traveling its usual route to the Castro and back to Dolores Park. A mile and a half away, at Civic Center Plaza, an equally large crowd was assembling to hear music, eat carnival food and celebrate queerness under the sun at the annual Pride Celebration. As the march began Saturday evening, hundreds lined the sidewalks along 18th Street as the Dyke March filled the street. Dykes on Bikes, a group of women motorcyclists, led the parade, followed by a truck filled with dancers and speakers blasting music. Some demonstrators held a sign reading 'Dykes for a Free Palestine,' surrounded by marchers carrying Palestinian flags. Other signs called for an end to deportations and called Immigration and Customs Enforcement 'cowards.' The two themes provided some dissonance, if not a contrast in vibes. Marchers near the very front of the parade danced and clapped and celebrated the event, while about 100 yards behind marchers shouted common pro-Palestinian chants. The festival, which is open to the public Saturday and Sunday, includes six stages with DJ sets, bands and singers, dance battles and other performances. Lara Starr, a Marin County resident, came to the Pride Celebration as part of Free Mom Hugs, a nationwide organization of people supporting LGBTQ events. Starr, who joined the group after her son came out as gay, said the volunteers are there to give hugs — or high fives or fist bumps — to bolster queer people, especially those who do not have support from their parents, as fill-in family members. 'Hydrate. Use sunscreen. Eat your vegetables. We are doing the full mom schtick,' Starr said. Another mom, Beth Stapleton, whose teenager is trans, said she had already hugged hundreds of people hours into the event. 'Some people really need it,' Stapleton said. The theme of resisting rising anti-LGBTQ hate ran throughout the celebration. At a booth on McAllister Street, volunteers with Headcount were offering chocolate to anyone who checked their voter registration. Luis Aguilar, a team lead with the Bay Area chapter of the voter registration organization, said that LGBTQ people face barriers to voting, especially trans people who have to show IDs, so he was particularly motivated to encourage voter registration at Pride. 'There's no other act of rebellion that's bigger than registering to vote and mobilizing a community,' Aguilar said. On the main stage, in front of San Francisco City Hall, performers were connecting discrimination experienced by LGBTQ people with that faced by immigrants. 'None of us are illegal. None of us are aliens,' said Anjali Rimi, board president of the Center for Immigrant Protection. Rimi said her organization works with LGBTQ immigrants seeking asylum due to threats and violence facing them in their home countries due to their sexuality. Kiki Lopez, an artist, also connected Pride with other political causes, including the call to free Sudan, Congo and Palestine. But, despite the political messages, the festivities were still fun. Back at Dolores Park, people lolled in the late morning sun, laughing with friends, sipping on tea, water and harder beverages underneath a cloudless sky. Others set up tents or sun shades as music from nearby speakers filled the air. Venders grilled hot dogs, hawked ice cream bars and drinks. 'I look forward to Pink Saturday as much as Christmas,' said Imani Brown, 42, who was there with her wife, Jenny Kline, and friend, Esther Crane. Brown sported a T-shirt emblazoned with the words 'She/Her/Daddy' — and had her own inflatable unicorn. 'I love this city,' she said. 'It's beautiful, diverse, and not special to be a queer, Black woman. ... It's wonderful, empowering.' The day felt particularly poignant for her and others amidst the current political climate, as jurisdictions around the country have passed legislation to curtail queer rights: On Friday, the Supreme Court had handed down a ruling siding with parents seeking to opt their children out of school instruction involving LGBTQ+ books. 'We're being terrorized by the U.S. government,' Brown said. 'This us us showing up and saying 'We can't be erased.'' Across the park, Aeryn M, 37, and Lauren Stanton, 40, stood under a tent at the 'Screen Door' handing out sunscreen, drinks and snacks to passersby. 'Joy is resistance,' said Stanton, who'd traveled from Long Beach for the party. 'If you're mad because we're thriving, die mad.' This article will be updated as the festivities progress.
NBC News
18-06-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court ruling on transgender youth medical care leaves key legal questions unresolved
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Tennessee law banning certain care for transgender youth left various legal questions open, even as other laws aimed at people based on gender identity, including those involving sports and military-service bans, head toward the justices. That means that even though transgender rights activists face a setback, the ruling does not control how other cases will ultimately turn out. 'This decision casts little if any light on how a majority of justices will analyze or rule on other issues,' said Shannon Minter, a lawyer at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights. Most notably, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, did not address the key issue of whether such laws should automatically be reviewed by courts with a more skeptical eye, an approach known as "heightened scrutiny." Practically, that would mean laws about transgender people would have to clear a higher legal bar to be upheld. The justices skipped answering that question because the court found that Tennessee's law banning gender transition care for minors did not discriminate against transgender people at all. But other cases are likely to raise that issue more directly, meaning close attention will be paid to what the justices said in the various written opinions, as well as what they did not say. Some cases might not even turn on transgender status. For example, the court could could determine that certain laws — such those banning transgender girls from participating in girls' sports or restrictions on people using restrooms that correspond with their gender identity — are a form of sex discrimination. There are cases all over the country on a variety of trans-related issues that could reach the Supreme Court at some point. 'There are myriad examples of discrimination against transgender people by the government making their way through the lower courts,' said Chase Strangio, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. President Donald Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, which the court already allowed to go into effect, is one of those potential cases. There are also several appeals currently pending at the Supreme Court involving challenges to state sports bans. One of those cases involves West Virginia's ban on transgender girls participating in girls sports in middle school, high school and college. The court in 2023 prevented the law from being enforced against a then-12-year-old girl. Just this week, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot prevent transgender and nonbinary Americans from marking "X" as their gender identification on passports. Reading the signals for future cases As soon as the 6-3 ruling was released, experts were reading the tea leaves in Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion as well as the three concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions. The bottom line is that only three of the six conservative justices in the majority explicitly said they do not think transgender people are a "suspect class," which would trigger heightened scrutiny of laws targeting them. Those justices are Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. In a concurring opinion, Barrett indicated the court should not play a major role in reviewing whether lawmakers can pass laws that affect transgender people. She gave restroom access and sports bans as examples. Legislatures, she added "have many valid reasons to make policies in these areas" and laws should be upheld "so long as a statute is a rational means of pursuing a legitimate end." Alito, in his own opinion, said the court should have decided whether transgender-related laws merit heightened scrutiny. "That important question has divided the courts of appeals, and if we do not confront it now, we will almost certainly be required to do so very soon," he wrote. In his view, transgender people are not a suspect class, in part because they "have not been subjected to a history of discrimination" similar to other groups the court has previously recognized merit special protections, including Black people and women. Carrie Severino, a conservative legal activist, said Alito was right to say the court has to decide the issue. That three of the majority tipped their hands was "an encouraging sign that the court understands the risks of throwing the door open to novel protected classes," she added. But neither Roberts and fellow conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said anything about their views. Gorsuch's reticence is especially notable, as he authored the court's surprising 2020 ruling that extended discrimination protections to gay and transgender people under the federal Title VII employment law. The court, to the disappointment of some conservatives, did not say that 2020 ruling is limited to the context of employment, although it ruled Wednesday that it did not apply to the specific medical care issue raised in the Tennessee case. With the three liberal justices all saying they believe heightened scrutiny should apply, civil rights lawyers representing transgender plaintiffs still in theory see a path to victory in future cases. "The court left open the possibility that heightened scrutiny could apply," Strangio said.
Boston Globe
18-06-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
What does upholding Tennesee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors mean for similar bills in N.H.?
New Hampshire Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up If either becomes law, New Hampshire would be the first state in New England to enact such bans, joining 25 other states that have banned such care for youth, according to the that provides research to promote equality. Advertisement A Advertisement Erchull said the US Supreme Court ruling finds that a ban on medical care for minors is not sex-based discrimination, but rather a regulation of medical procedures based on age. He disagrees, and notes that legal avenues are still available to challenge HB 377 should it become law in New Hampshire. That could include a challenge based on the New Hampshire constitution, arguing that the intent of the law was to harm transgender people, or a challenge on the basis of parental rights. 'It's legislation that very clearly impacts a family's ability, a parent's ability, to make important decisions with medical consultation about how to care for their children,' he said. 'And this is coming from the same exact people, the same exact legislators who tout National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director 'Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians. This decision will cause real harm,' he said. Some New Hampshire Republicans celebrated the US Supreme Court decision. 'I applaud Tennessee for protecting children from irreversible harm by banning puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors,' said New Hampshire state Representative Sayra DeVito, a Danville Republican who is a co-sponsor of HB 377. 'Children deserve the chance to grow, mature, and fully understand themselves before making permanent decisions about their bodies,' DeVito said in a statement. 'There's no discrimination in protecting children. Tennessee is leading with courage and common sense.' Advertisement Representative Erica Layon, a Derry Republican, said she hoped the Supreme Court's decision would 'bring reason back to healthcare for young people.' 'I believe that history will view these surgeries as just as harmful as other conversion therapies practiced in the past upon gay, lesbian and bisexual youth,' she said. Democrats in New Hampshire, however, are criticizing the decision. House Minority Leader Alexis Simpson of Exeter said the decision cuts off parents' access to critical, evidence-based treatment for their children. 'These attacks aren't about protecting kids, they're actively putting lives at risk, with anti-trans laws tied to a New Hampshire families with transgender children had been anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Rosie Emrich sits for a portrait with her eight-year-old transgender child at their house in Hooksett, N.H., on April 17, 2025. Emrich said that her family is considering moving from New Hampshire to Massachusetts because of a series of bills that could limit her child's ability to access gender-affirming care. Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe Rosie Emrich, who has a transgender child said the US Supreme Court's decision was 'heartbreaking.' 'I feel sort of gutted,' she said. 'I think maybe I let myself get a little too hopeful.' Emrich has been weighing whether For now, she said, she plans to focus her attention on urging New Hampshire's Republican Governor Kelly Ayotte to veto HB 377. 'It does definitely bring a lot bigger sense of urgency to the stuff going on here in New Hampshire and the push to try to have the governor hear the impacts of this,' she said. Advertisement Lawmakers from the House and Senate met this week for negotiations over which version of HB 377 should proceed. The House has agreed to the Senate's position on the bill, and lawmakers have until Thursday afternoon to sign off Ayotte has not said if she supports a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Amanda Gokee can be reached at
