Kelley Robinson: There are groups of people that see that the world is changing and evolving in ways that I think are beautiful and amazing, that are making them afraid. And they’re doing so many things, they’re pulling so many levers of power, trying to make sure that the demographics of this country don’t result in a destiny where we actually have more power to create laws and a democracy that looks like us.

And they’re looking at the same numbers I am. They see that the sentiment of this country is not with the past, it’s with thinking about ways for us to create a more inclusive culture for the future, and they’re afraid of that.

Alex Lovit: Welcome to “The Context,” a podcast about the past, present, and future of democracy from the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. I’m your host, Alex Lovit. Our guest today is Kelley Robinson. Robinson is the President of the Human Rights Campaign. The HRC is the largest organization in the US dedicated to equality for LGBTQ+ people—actually it’s the single-largest American civil rights organization of any kind. Prior to that role, Robinson worked for more than a decade with Planned Parenthood, including as Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Vice President of Organizing and Advocacy. This year, Time Magazine named her as one of the 100 Most Influential People Alive. She’s also a Senior Fellow for the Kettering Foundation.

Normally on the show at this point, I’d have a few more things to say to introduce the conversation, but we’re trying something new today. Joining me to help introduce the interview with Kelley Robinson, I have a Kettering Foundation colleague, and actually my boss, Tayo Clyburn. Tayo is the Chief Strategy Officer and Senior Advisor to the President here at the Foundation, and he led the development of our new strategic plan last year with a focus on inclusive democracy. He’s also been an advocate that Kettering’s mission to advance inclusive democracies should include fighting for LGBTQ+ rights. So I thought he’d be a good person to help introduce this Kelley Robinson interview.

Tayo, welcome to “The Context.”

Tayo Clyburn: Thanks for inviting me to join you, Alex.

Alex Lovit: So, I assume listeners of the show are pro-democracy, because otherwise why are they tuning in? And I also assume our listeners understand the importance of LGBTQ+ rights. But I think for a lot of people, these issues might seem disconnected, so let’s connect the dots. Both democracy and protections for LGBTQ+ people are important principles, but how are they connected?

Tayo Clyburn: So I think that at its core, democracy is about equality and the inherent dignity of every person, every individual. and underneath all the democratic principles, be it the rule of law, be it free and fair elections, be it government transparency and accountability, citizen engagement in the project of self-governance, I think equality and human dignity are really the anchors to those concepts.

And so, if that’s true, any form of othering that aims to exclude segments of our society from experiencing equality or any practice that is aimed at stripping members of our society of their dignity has no place in a democracy. You know, the fundamental principles of our democracy really demand that all people are able to live free of discrimination, with equal opportunities to participate in our society, and I think Kelley does a really great job of discussing and pointing out in this episode that that includes the right for individuals to be able to express their identities openly, to express their identities without fear, and in doing so to be able to experience the full protection of the law.

Now, when you see legislation like what we’re seeing today targeting the LGBTQ community, it really sits in direct contradiction to every principle that we argue is fundamental to a democratic society. If equality and human dignity are the anchors of democracy, then anti-LGBTQ legislation along with what Kelley talks about as the normalization of the hate and violence that it fosters, that erodes the very foundation which those anchors are actually planted.

And so that’s why it’s absolutely essential, I think, to recognize that the defense of LGBTQ rights and that the advancement of LGBTQ equality are ultimately crucial to the defense of democracy itself.

Alex Lovit: A lot of your work at the Foundation, and a lot of the Foundation’s work under your leadership, has been around this concept of inclusive democracy. This means inclusion of LGBTQ+ people, but it can also apply to race, religion, gender, and so on. In a sense, the phrase inclusive democracy is redundant, because if some voices aren’t getting included, then it ain’t a democracy. But what does this idea of inclusive democracy mean to you?

Tayo Clyburn: Yeah, I get why inclusive democracy might seem redundant at first, but the reality is our democracy has always been imperfect. Despite the foundational ideas in we the people, that we has historically had exceptions, and there’s always been some fine print that excluded different segments of our population from full rights and protections in the history of injustice and exclusion. And the fact that so many groups continue to face structural and social barriers really highlights the real tensions and inconsistencies in our application of democratic values.

And I think embedded in our focus at the Foundation on inclusive democracy is a naming of those tensions and inconsistencies, and really calling them into the center of our work at a time when there’s a lot of effort going into their sort of erasure.

And I’d also say that inclusive democracy is an articulation of a vision. So when we talk about inclusive democracy, we’re talking about and describing this thing that’s never really existed. We’re talking about a democracy that is multiracial, that it multiethnic, that’s multifaith, LGBTQ-affirming, gender-affirming, a democracy where people do not have to struggle to access the resources they need to thrive. That’s a vision that’s worth fighting for and worth hoping for.

Alex Lovit: Well, those are inspiring words. During the interview with Kelley Robinson that people are about to hear, she quickly mentions a few Supreme Court cases. So partially, I just wanted to run through these so people are aware of what each of those decisions said.

In 2003, Lawrence v. Texas overturned laws that banned sexual intimacy between same-sex partners. Some states began recognizing same-sex marriage in the 1990s and early 2000s, but the federal government passed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in 1996, which denied recognition of same-sex marriages at the federal level.

In 2013, United States v. Winddsor declared DOMA unconstitutional, and in 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges established a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

But that list of legal decisions doesn’t really get at the real impact of these cases on people’s lives. How have these changes to legal rights affected you personally?

Tayo Clyburn: Yeah, I was really moved by this part of Kelley’s episode, when she was talking about how important it is to really hear stories of the impact of anti-LGBTQ attacks on communities and families. And it actually reminded me of the pre-Obergefell days, and how much of an impact that decision had on me and my life in ways that I just didn’t anticipate. And I wanted to share sort of a brief anecdote, because I think also as we think about sort of the threats of things being rolled back, of victories won being rolled back, it’s very much front of mind sort of how far we’ve come and the rapidity with which those victories might be lost.

So for some context on the context, I’m trans-identified with a same-sex partner. My wife [Tara] and I got married in 2013. At the time we got married, same-sex marriage actually wasn’t legal in the State of Ohio, so we got married in a very lovely little, uh, ceremony in her parents’ backyard in Massachusetts.

Fast-forward a couple years—June 23, 2015—Tara went into the early stages of labor. She was pregnant with our daughter. At the time, in 2015, even though we’d been legally married in Massachusetts two years prior to that, our marriage wasn’t recognized in the State of Ohio. So you know, before we went to the hospital for delivery, we did as many other couples—same-sex couples—have done. We had cobbled together some legal documents, sort of a tapestry of witnessed and notarized documents, so that we could ultimately make our union, our marriage legible to others, just in case something unfortunate were to happen at the hospital during the delivery process.

Fortunately our daughter was born happy and healthy on June 25. And then the following morning on June 26, we were learning how to do the little swaddles and learning how to change the diaper and all the things, then we had the television going in the corner of the room where we were waiting for the Court’s decision in the Obergifel case.

I really can’t even express the sense of relief we felt when we heard the ruling, because we knew that it would open the door to so many more protections for our family. For Tara and I as spouses, we were constantly fearful that in some moment of crisis we wouldn’t be allowed access to one another, or we wouldn’t be able to make those difficult decisions on each other’s behalf that unfortunately sometimes spouses and partners have to make. And it also meant a great deal for my parental rights as well.

And so when Kelley talks about the threatening rhetoric around the rolling back of these hard-fought victories, the stakes are high in the lived experiences and everyday lives of LGBTQ people and LGBTQ families.

Alex Lovit: Well, thanks for sharing that. And I think that helps to demonstrate that these aren’t just abstract principles, these are important for real people’s lives. So finally, I just wanted to ask if there’s anything in this Kelley Robinson interview that you thought was particularly important, that should be underlined, or that our listeners should be taking away from this episode?

Tayo Clyburn: So often what I hear today regarding the attacks on the LGBTQ communities is that the scapegoating of the LGBTQ community is an indicator of authoritarian creep. As a vulnerable population, you know that when the rights of LGBTQ folks are stripped away, it’s often a sign that other civil rights are either under threat or will be under threat.

But I think that’s not the full story, and when we leave it there we miss the key role that LGBTQ organizations like the Human Rights Campaign can play as a leader and contributor to the necessary pro-democracy coalition that has to mobilize to meet the urgency of the moment we’re living in.

And it also misses the role that LGBTQ-identified activists have historically played across social movements, from the civil rights movement to Black Lives Matter. So, a key takeaway I think from Kelley’s episode is that the LGBTQ community is powerful, and can and will play a pivotal role in preserving our democracy, just as it always has.

Alex Lovit: Thank you, Tayo, for sharing your story and helping us introduce this conversation with Kelley Robinson.

Tayo Clyburn: Totally.

Alex Lovit: Kelley Robinson, welcome to “The Context.”

Kelley Robinson: Thanks for having me.

Alex Lovit: You’ve been working in political organizing almost from the moment you graduated college. You worked for the Obama campaign, for Planned Parenthood, and now for the Human Rights Campaign. What motivated you to build a career in organizing collective action for a more equitable society? How’d you get started on that path?

Kelley Robinson: Yeah, for me it’s more than a career, it’s like a way of life. I grew up on the South Side of Chicago. I grew up in the church too—and I should say specifically, the Black church. I remember when I was coming up, my mom said no matter what you were up to on Saturday night, Sunday morning you better be up and in those pews. And I remember growing up, I didn’t have a name for it, but what I was actually seeing is what it meant to be invested in your community. My parents used to always say that church isn’t a place that you go, it’s something that you do, it’s something that you’re a part of, with people to serve one another.

So for me, a lot of the early lessons I learned about what it meant to be an organizer and an activist I learned sitting in those pews. I learned about what it meant to understand the challenges our community was facing, but also be called to do something about it. And I carried those lessons with me.

And in college, let me tell you, don’t read the CliffsNotes, because it wasn’t a straightforward path for me to find organizing is actually a career path. I actually dropped out of school—I went to school in Missouri, which Missouri is south of Chicago, and I learned the lessons that many people often do, that in the United States when you go one degree south, the racism is a little bit different. The types if things and ways that people see you in the world are different.

And in Missouri, I really struggled. The ways that racism moved, the way that sexism and homophobia moved, was something unlike what I experienced in Chicago—not that it didn’t exist there, but the ways that people would smile at you during the day and treat you totally different at night was different for me.

So I ended up really struggling, leaving school. I was doing bartending and MMA fighting in the middle of Missouri to make money. And I remember there was a day I got a call from the Obama campaign, and they asked if I wanted to be an organizer. Again, I had no idea what an organizer was, but I figured if you don’t have to get punched in the face to pay your rent, maybe I’ll give it a shot.

And I went in, and suddenly everything clicked. I found a community of folks that were as agitated, as pissed off about things the same way that I was, about racism, about homophobia, about being treated differently, about the conditions we were in. But this group of people, they weren’t disheartened. They actually felt like there was something we could do together that would make a change.

And at first when I walked in the door, it was very much about Barack Obama, but the reason people stayed was about the community, was about each other. It reminded me so much of what it felt like to be in those pews again. So I feel like I’ve had the grace and the luck to be able to find organizing, and it’s not just a career but something that has given my life meaning in so many ways, and also responsibility to really carry forward what it means to create spaces where people feel safe enough and brave enough to imagine a future that is more free than what we can experience today.

Alex Lovit: You mentioned struggling in Missouri when you first got there, but your first organizing work was in Missouri, and then with Planned Parenthood in Iowa and Nebraska. That’s not territory that would traditionally be considered friendly to the cause of reproductive freedoms. What did you learn from working in that territory about trying to push for change?

Kelley Robinson: I have to say, I’m a native Midwesterner, right? I grew up in Chicago. My family’s historical path is that we were the first free Black family in a town called Muscatine, Iowa. And I remember another thing growing up is that my great-aunt, my Aunt Bert, she was the matriarch of our family, so she always told us what it was like to live in Iowa before her and our side of the family moved up to Chicago.

When she passed away a few years ago—she lived to be 102 years old, but when she passed away, we went down to Muscatine to celebrate her life, and we heard the stories of our family, of what it meant for her in the course of her life to sit at the footsteps of people who were born into slavery, what it looked like for our ancestors to make their way in bondage from places like Mississippi and Louisiana to actually build a life, to find ways to make sure we could all be educated, to make sure we could build the families of our choice in Iowa and beyond.

So for me, when I think about the Midwest, I want to make sure that people understand the arc of history is long, and where the Midwest is now is not the way it’s always been, because you’ve got to remember, Iowa was one of the first states to rebuke the Fugitive Slave Act, right, making it a place where a lot of folks who were escaping slavery in the south could actually find refuge. Iowa was the third state to legalize same-sex marriage, before California, all right?

So I just want to say, a lot of people will have a little tone when they talk about the Midwest, but the Midwest has always been a place of cultivating activism and leadership and creating change. Now, that’s also the reason why I continue to do the advocacy work that I do right now. It’s too easy for people to say that so much of what we’re fighting for as progressives—equal rights, reproductive freedom—that these are ideas of the coast. That is not true.

Fundamentally, what we’re fighting for is the ability of every person to decide what they want to do with their bodies and their lives, regardless of how they love, regardless of their skin color, and regardless of where they live. So much of that work needs to be focused on places like the Midwest and the south where many of us have been building movements for so long, movements that have been transformative.

So I’m really proud of the work that I’ve done particularly in the Midwest and south, and I’ll always think that these areas of our country are so fertile for real meaningful conversations, because just because you look at the color of a state on a political map, it does not dictate the way that the people actually want to live in their states.

Alex Lovit: Well, as an Ohioan, I’ll thank you for saying these are Midwestern values and not just coastal values. You worked with Planned Parenthood, as we mentioned, for more than a decade, advocating for reproductive freedoms in the United States, and then in 2022 you made the shift to become President of the Human Rights Campaign, where you’re pushing for safety and rights for LGBT + people. How do you see the connection between those two causes, and what caused you to move to HRC?

Kelley Robinson: Wow. I can still remember the feeling when we got the leak that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. And I even remember more acutely what it felt like the day the Supreme Court actually released the decision, where they said out loud that Roe v. Wade had been overturned and abortion was no longer the right of the land.

I was sitting in a room where I worked at Planned Parenthood, surrounded by leaders from different healthcare institutions across the country, and immediately I think we looked at each other and through holding back tears we said, we’ve got to get to work. And we started making phone calls to people who would be impacted, people who had appointments that day or the next day, people whose lives would be drastically changed by the outcome of that decision.

And I even remember further what happened when you read further in Clarence Thomas’ dissent, where he said out loud, next he encouraged the Court to come for Windsor and Obergefell and Lawrence, Supreme Court cases that fundamentally protected our rights to love and to marry who we choose in this country.

When all this was happening, I got married in 2020. My wife is the love of my life, she’s wonderful. And we had a child in 2021. And I remember at that very moment really being so clear about how fragile our democracy is, how fragile our rights are in this country, and needing to do something to fight for my family in a different way.

So I got the opportunity to come to the Human Rights Campaign, and that’s what it’s been about every single day, making sure that we are very clear that the rights we’ve gained over the last 20 and 40 and 50 years are at stake—shoot, over the last 400 years are at stake right now, if we do not take action, and understanding very clearly that they are coming for our communities and the institutions that have advanced progress most boldly over the last 100 years.

They’re not coming after women and queer folks and folks of color because we’re weak. They’re coming after us because they’re afraid of our strength. So this feels like one of those moments where I feel really clear about what the assignment is in front of us, and really clear about how interconnected our fights are.

I mean, look, you could even look at somebody like Ron DeSantis, who is suddenly able to quote intersectionality almost as good as Dr. Kimberle Crenshaw. He effortlessly moves between talking about attacks on the Black community and attacks on the LGBTQ+ community, attacks on education and attacks on abortion rights. The way they are weaving this puzzle together should give us a roadmap to how strong we could be if we actually fought together and saw our issues as not only connected to one another but connected to our very work of preserving democracy.

Alex Lovit: So, you just mentioned Kimberle Crenshaw, who’s been a previous guest on this program, actually, and her concept of intersectionality, which is about how different types of prejudice and oppression can overlap, so let me ask you about that. You’re the first queer Black woman to lead the HRC, and that puts you at the intersection of a lot of identities that have faced historical and ongoing oppression. How has this concept of intersectionality affected you personally, and how does it inform your approach?

Kelley Robinson: For me, intersectionality, it’s not a theory, it’s a way of life. I think that the only way we can move forward in terms of getting movement, in terms of getting freedom, is by embracing the wholeness of all our identities. And look, I also remember what it was like growing up as a Black queer kid on the South Side of Chicago where it’s like you don’t feel like you’re Black enough in some spaces, you’re not queer enough, am I performing my womanhood and my femininity in the right ways? And I think it took a long time for me to be fully affirmed in being 100 percent Black, feeling like I could fully embrace my womanhood, and feeling like I could fully embrace my queerness.

And I want everybody to be able to feel that, that no matter what identities you bring to the table, you can be 100 percent every one of them. And there should be laws that protect you, your workplace should stand behind you, and you should have a community of folks that are ready to advocate with you.

Alex Lovit: You’ve had a lot of success both at Planned Parenthood and at HRC at increasing those organizations’ number of supporters and contributors. I want to ask about both how you did that and why you did that, and maybe it makes more sense to start with the why. What role do members play in organizations like the ones you’ve led? Why is this network of millions of members across the United States important and impactful for the HRC’s work?

Kelley Robinson: I’ve always believed in people-powered movements. I think that engaging people, hearing their stories, and giving them ways to take action is the single-most effective thing we can do to make systemic change, long-term change that really impacts people’s lives. I got the honor to be able to do that at Planned Parenthood during some really critical moments.

I remember after Donald Trump’s election, not only did we see millions of people raising their hands to join the fight for reproductive freedom, but we also saw hundreds of thousands of people showing up to get IUDs, a method of birth control that would outlast Donald Trump’s presidency.

And here at the Human Rights Campaign, it’s always been about people power. We’ve got 3.1 million members across the country, and these aren’t just names on a list. These are people that actively care about this issue, people that show up and lobby their congressperson, people that are showing up at school board meetings, people that are volunteering to read stories about nonbinary lives to kids as part of our National Day of Reading and other programs, to let kids know they’re accepted no matter who they are.

I think this is a critical moment where we need more. We know that especially when we think about issues of LGBTQ+ equality, we are not the minority. We are the majority in this country. Nearly 80 percent of Americans support things like nondiscrimination for LGBTQ+ people. The vast majority of Americans support healthcare access for trans folks. This is not a marginal side issue, this is where the majority of people are.

So our job at movement organizations like this is to give people an opportunity to raise their hand and say they want to be a part of the fight, and then give people meaningful actions to do that can make a difference.

Alex Lovit: What role does social media play in your organizing efforts? The internet can be a great thing if you’re a gay kid in a conservative community looking for an online space for acceptance. Unfortunately, the internet can also be a place to build community around something like QAnon. So how does HRC use social media, and is it possible to capitalize on the positive aspects of social media without having the negative consequences?

Kelley Robinson: Yeah, absolutely. Some of my early career was in the Obama 2008 campaign, and a few months ago there was the 15-year reunion of people that engaged in that campaign effort. And as part of the program we sat around and we heard stories from Barack Obama talking about the state of organizing. And it reminded me that in the 2008 Obama campaign, we called social media new media, because it was new. The idea that people were sharing their ideas online and using that as a place to build political alliances was new back then.

But the interesting thing, because one of the key pieces of social media that we used back then was a tool called MeetUp—and MeetUp still exists. I don’t know if folks are using it the way they were back then, but it still exists. But the thing about it was that you didn’t just say what your ideas were online, you weren’t just anonymous through the whole process of engaging with people. There was a point where you actually met up, where you got in-person, talked to people that were different from you, that looked different, that had different lives, that had different types of families, and had to figure out what that meant as you shared your stories, and find ways you were finding common values.

And I think the challenge right now is that the internet is such a powerful tool, but it’s also limited if we don’t ever meet up, if we don’t take those relationships offline and in-person to build greater community.

The other kind of scary part about the internet right now is there’s so much misinformation and disinformation that’s out there. What is a powerful tool to combat isolation for queer kids who are trying to discover themselves and not feel so alone can also be a dangerous tool, when you think about all the negative rhetoric about queer kids and trans kids that exists online, and how people can be pummeled with that and think it’s truth when in fact it is a lie.

So I think this is a moment where we can’t pretend like technology isn’t happening around us, like it doesn’t exist, but we’ve got to take the lessons from the past and use them to inform the future. I think when it comes to thinking about social media as a way to organize, I think it’s a powerful entry point, but how do we get people in-person to build even deeper relationships with one another that can transform laws and policies and workplaces and schools?

And then, when we think about the emergence of new technologies like generative AI, which is right around the corner and really righty in front of us right now, we have to understand how other forms of new technologies have fundamentally transformed our lives for the good and also for bad. I remember at the dawn of the search engine, when you searched for a Black person you’d get a picture of someone only behind bars or a mugshot, or you’d search for an LGBTQ person and you’d get horrific information not really true to who we are, who our lives are.

We have to understand that bias is built into the system right now and create ways to counter that. That’s why so much of our work is both with people on the ground and building our membership and building our movement, and also working with the platforms that manage these technologies, the Facebooks, the Instagrams of the world, to really make sure we’re informing the future of technology by understanding where we’ve been.

Alex Lovit: Let’s talk a little bit about the history of the LGBTQ+ rights movement in the US. It’s easy to tell this story as a success story, with public opinion on LGBTQ+ issues shifting dramatically over a fairly short span of time—for example in 1996, when Gallup began polling about same-sex marriage, only 27 percent of Americans were in favor of marriage equality, and today that number is 71 percent. So in the span of a single generation, really, that’s a huge shift. How do you understand how that change has occurred in that short span of time?

Kelley Robinson: Oh, wow, that’s such a good question. There are so many layers to it. The first thing I would say is that no social movement happens in isolation. So to get to what we call the modern LGBTQ+ movement, the ‘70s, after the Stonewall Riots, or to get to the marriage equality movement of 2015, that doesn’t happen without learning from and building power across movements, through engaging actively in the Civil Rights Movement over the ‘50s and ‘60s, or understanding how the farm workers’ movement and the lessons they learned there contributed to our understanding of how you build movement in this country, or the second-wave feminist movement of the ‘60s or the HIV crisis of the ‘80s.

And I think it’s important to put in context that the success of any movement has always been dependent on the success of all of our movements, because we’ve been building people power and infrastructure and the ability to influence institutions of power all along the way.

And then the second thing I would say is, if I look more narrowly at the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, it is phenomenal, it is absolutely phenomenal the progress we’ve made in a single generation. Like you said, less than a third of Americans support same-sex marriage in the mid-’90s. Not only that, the Defense of Marriage Act becomes the law of the land. Getting from there 25 years ago to today having 70 percent of the country support same-sex marriage, and the Respect for Marriage Act being the law of the land—and no less signed into law by the same President that supported the Defense of Marriage Act—that is a transformative shift, a shift that I can’t think of many other social movements that have been able to accomplish.

And there are so many lessons there about how we got there and also the work we still have to do, but I always have to take a moment to appreciate that incredible change we’ve been able to realize and manifest in the LGBTQ+ movement.

Alex Lovit: So this movement we’re talking about for recognition and rights for LGBTQ+ people was accomplished in part through political organizing, as you’re discussing, but also a part of that story is the personal bravery of gay people accepting themselves and being more public about that part of their identity. In 1985, for example, three-quarters of Americans said they didn’t know a gay person, that no one had come out to them. Today, those numbers are reversed—three-quarters of Americans say they do know someone who has come out to them as gay.

This choice to come out or to invite people in is a deeply personal one, and it still today comes with costs for people who are historically and today can face ostracization and violence. HRC publishes coming out guides which help people think through this decision, and also those guides are pretty frank about the risks. How does HRC think about helping people through that decision, and how do you think about those personal decisions as part of this broader movement history?

Kelley Robinson: Absolutely, and I think you bring out such a great point here that the decision an individual makes to come out is also informed by the setting and context they’re living in. And when I think about a lot of the success of this era of the LGBTQ+ movement, it’s been about allowing people to be visible and unapologetic about who they are, but also creating institutions that will protect them in doing so.

So much of what contributes to people being able to come out and that makes our coming out guide a great resource, that allowed Ellen DeGeneres to come out on her show, was the work we had done and communities had done for so long behind the scenes to make it a place that was more safe for people to take that leap or to take that risk, and also to have a community that would hold them when they were taking a risk.

So, I think a lot about the corporate work we’ve done. We started a program here called the Corporate Equality Index a little bit over 20 years ago. And it’s always been the benchmarking tool for companies to show they have policies and practices that are inclusive for LGBTQ+ people. Not only that, we started to do more work this year about our Corporate Citizenship Report that allows those same companies to evaluate how every element of their business is thinking about equity and inclusivity when it comes to our community.

But I say that because to have people come out, you’ve got to make sure you’re not going to lose your job at work, you’ve got to make sure you’re not going to get fired or kicked out of your school, you’ve got to make sure that people have some elements of safety that make coming out more possible and accessible to more people.

So I’m really proud of the corporate work we’ve done, because it’s allowed that to be true. I remember when Absolut Vodka started releasing ads centering gay men and gay men’s lives and what that did to change visibility. I remember when Levi Strauss would actually be explicit about their support for people living with HIV and AIDS, and how that shaped the narrative and the ideas of who we were. I remember when Subaru got in these streets and started marketing directly to lesbians—it wasn’t only a statement about how we were becoming a powerful economic segment, but it was also a statement about how we were becoming more inclusive in public life.

So I think about all of those things that have had to happen too as a real success point of the movement, of not only thinking about how we empower individuals to make powerful choices about their own visibility, but also how we create the infrastructure, the movement, the institutions that will support them in those decisions.

Alex Lovit: One thing that strikes me about the history of the LGBTQ+ movement is the solidarity across that alphabet, the choice of the Ls and the Gs and the Bs and the Ts and everybody else to work together. For example, at the height of the AIDS crisis of the 1980s and ‘90s, gay men were at high risk of that disease, and a lot of lesbians were involved in practically helping to care for AIDS victims and also politically organizing on their behalf despite the fact that lesbians themselves were at quite low risks of the disease.

How do you think about this idea of solidarity? Why is it so important for the LGBTQ+ movement to maintain that solidarity?

Kelley Robinson: I think that solidarity across movements is so important and so powerful, and I also think that’s why our opposition spends so much time trying to divide and to conquer us and to threaten us into isolation, because they know that if we truly come together as an LGBTQ+ community, every single part of our community, across communities of color, across immigrant communities, we are stronger together, and there’s truly nothing that can penetrate us as a community if we are to come together.

But I also think those are the threats that are in front of us at every single step of the fight. So there are some moments of victory that I think we can celebrate. I think the ways our community came together in the midst of the AIDS crisis, when the government was trying to ignore the epidemic, and we created needle exchange programs to keep each other safe; we established new methods of thinking about our religious heritage like the MCC Church to still allow people to get death rites and be dignified in their different stages of life—the ways that we have come together have been profound and transformative.

And I think that right now, we’re actually standing at another one of those crisis points, because we’ve made so much progress, particularly for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in this country. There have been moments in our movement history where we were not coming together in the solidarity we needed to around trans lives. I do see us trying to correct that, especially as we look to the future, and I also see headwinds from our opposition that are trying to pull us apart.

That’s why especially in this moment, I want to be very clear that any of the attacks we’re seeing, particularly on the trans community, that is an old playbook they’ve tried to play against every single one of us. I mean, the same horrific things they’re saying about trans people today they said about lesbian and gay people 25 years ago. And now we’re in a fundamentally different space. The same horrific things they’re saying about trans people today they said about people living with HIV and AIDS 30 years ago, and now we’re within arms’ reach of ending the epidemic in our lifetime in this generation.

Look, the same horrific things they’re saying about trans people today, you better believe they said about Black women 100 years ago, and now I’m sitting here running the Human Rights Campaign, you’ve got Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sitting on the United States Supreme Court, you’ve got Dawn Staley running them all around the basketball courts too.

We have been able to come together and still move forward, and I think this is one of those moments where especially as we see them targeting a portion of our community that they see as more vulnerable and at-risk, that we have to remember those lessons from the past, the lessons of when we’ve gotten it right and when we’ve gotten it wrong to understand we have to come together in a pivotal way right now and center those that are most at-risk.

Alex Lovit: Last year under your leadership, the HRC declared a state of emergency for LGBTQ+ Americans. What motivated this action?

Kelley Robinson: That was in response to hundreds and hundreds of anti-LGBTQ+ bills that were moving across the country, but also everything that was accompanying those bills, because even when those bad bills weren’t signed into law, they were creating a culture of fear for so many of us, a culture that has resulted in headwinds to the progress we’ve made in companies through attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion; a culture that resulted in an epidemic of continued violence against our community, especially our trans community, especially Black trans women.

So we wanted to make clear exactly what was happening, and make very urgent what was at stake if we didn’t come together to act differently.

Alex Lovit: Can you describe a little bit what these laws are, like what types of laws are you seeing? What should we be concerned about?

Kelley Robinson: We’re seeing a variety of different types of bills come. They’re trying to attack every part of our lives as LGBTQ+ people, they’re trying to roll back the progress of the last 40and 50 years. I’m talking about bathroom bans, things we’ve haven’t seen since the early 2010s. We’re seeing book bans, don’t say gay or trans bills, we’re seeing attacks on people’s ability to access healthcare in states. It’s really concerning and troubling, because again, we are also seeing a group of young people who are more queer than ever. I mean, 30 percent of Generation Z identifies as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, many of them identifying as trans and nonbinary.

They are seeing these bills move forward at a time when they should feel secure and protected in being able to be their whole selves. So when I think about the state of emergency and what’s at stake, it’s not only about the bills, it’s about a culture of hate and violence being perpetuated through state legislatures.

Alex Lovit: How do you understand the motivations and driving forces behind this current wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and rhetoric? Who’s pushing these ideas, and what are they hoping to gain from it?

Kelley Robinson: Well, we know that we have an organized opposition. There are people that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars at organizations like the Heritage Foundation or the Alliance Defending Freedom that are set on trying to roll back our rights. You don’t have to look further than the Supreme Court. The same organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom, that funded the Doobs decision that overruled Roe v. Wade, they’re the same group that was behind the 303 Creative decision that created a loophole for discrimination last year, all in the same Supreme Court session. So we have to be clear that our opposition is organized, and we need to be organized in the same way.

But you asked me why, and ultimately I think this is about power. I think that there are groups of people that see the world is changing and evolving in ways that I think are beautiful and amazing, that are making them afraid. And they’re doing so many things, they’re pulling so many levers of power trying to make sure the demographics of this country don’t result in a destiny where we actually have more power to create laws and a democracy that looks like us.

And they’re looking at the same numbers I am. They see that nearly 30 percent of Generation Z identifies as a member of our community. They see that the youngest generations are more diverse than ever. They see that the sentiment of this country is not with the past, it’s with thinking about ways for us to create a more inclusive culture for the future, and they’re afraid of that. So they’re trying to gerrymander our districts, they’re trying to restrict our right to vote, they’re trying to push us back into the closet to try to resist change that’s coming.

Alex Lovit: You’re talking there about building a democracy that looks like us. Some people defend these anti-LGBTQ+ laws as products of democracy. The argument here is, for example, if the popularly elected legislature and Governor of Florida want to pass bathroom bans and restrictions on trans healthcare and restrictions on educators, that’s what the people of Florida want, so they should get it. What’s wrong with that way of thinking about democracy, and what does a more inclusive version of democracy look like?

Kelley Robinson: I mean, first I think we have to come back to how are we electing our representatives, and is it truly representative democracy? When you look at the ways that some of these states are gerrymandered, you’re creating an environment where the voters aren’t selecting their representatives, the representatives are selecting their voters. And that’s fundamentally flawed.

And I think right now, we have to be thinking about how we are truly protecting our representative democracy and the institution so that the people’s voices can be heard.

But I know this—when you look toward the numbers of what the majority of Americans believe, regardless of the color of their states, they believe in common sense laws that increase our ability to have equality, that increase the ability of every person to be able to access the American dream. I mean, 80 percent of folks support things like nondiscrimination protections for our community. The vast majority of folks in this country do not support book bans, they support people being able to access information in schools that represents a variety of communities.

So when you actually ask people what they want, these laws do not represent that. So to me, there’s a lot of flaws in the premise of that, but at the end of the day I think it really points to a bigger concern—this is a moment where we have to make sure that the structures of democracy actually allow for the voices of our people to be heard. And right now, from the Supreme Court to the gerrymandering of the states, there are too many barriers to that, to actually creating a true representative democracy.

Alex Lovit: I want to ask about geographic polarization and sorting. Many trans and gay folks have felt compelled to leave states with anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, and that can be a legitimate choice, although uprooting one’s life comes with social, psychological, financial costs. And then this becomes another factor dividing the country into red states and blue states.

Is that something you’re worried about, and what do you say to people who say, if you don’t like the politics of your state, then move?

Kelley Robinson: Well, I can say this—they’re not living in the world of most Americans to think that people can just so easily move out of their states. I mean, look, my dad, I don’t think he left the State of Illinois until he was maybe 50 years old. Many people are not having the experience where they’ve got the resource or the ability to so easily pick up their lives and move. It’s just totally unrealistic.

Now some people are being forced to make that decision, and when they do we hope they find places that are more welcoming, but the vast majority of people are having to try to figure out, how do I survive in a state that is trying to eliminate me or my family from public life, and what does that look like for me to build a community where I can survive? And that is devastating.

I mean, either the decision that people have to make, whether that is to abandon their homes because they have to or to stay in their homes and fight, either decision isn’t one we should have to make in the world in 2024, but it is. So I think right now, we have to be really fighting on all fronts. At the end of the day, we are one United States of America, and the rights you have, the civil rights you have, should not be dictated by the state you live in, should not be dictated by the zip code you live in. That’s what’s in front of us right now, and I think we all have to be pushing to a higher standard for all of our elected representatives.

Alex Lovit: You’re describing there all of the attacks that are happening, both legislative and even worse physical in some cases, and I hope that helps listeners understand why the HRC felt it necessary to declare this state of emergency. Can you summarize the actions HRC is taking to oppose this trend?

Kelley Robinson: Yeah. I just want to say this too—the impact of these laws on real people is devastating. I talked to a mom in Texas who said she was making the decision to leave her state because she’d rather mourn her home than her child. I talked to a pediatric surgeon in Louisiana, one of only two or three people that even does his work in the state, that after the state moved forward don’t say gay bills, where he was afraid talking about his family in his school district would mean there were negative repercussions for his children, he had to leave the state—and that left that state with only one or two more pediatric heart surgeons available in the state.

So when people have to make these decisions, it’s not only horrific and saddening and heartbreaking for the family, but it’s taking important people and resources out of the communities that need them.

I say that because when you look at the numbers and the stats, it can get easy to say, this is a big issue, but we have to be listening to the stories of what is really happening to real people as a result of these laws and policies. And there haven’t been people I’ve heard that have said wow, we’re so much better off because of all of them. It’s the stories like this, we’re hearing real impact.

So for us, when it comes to moving ahead and moving forward, I think there’s a couple things I’m keeping in mind. The first is, it hasn’t always been like this, so it doesn’t always have to be like this. This wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and seeing hundreds and hundreds of bills moving has really been a crisis of the last three or four years that we are addressing head-on.

And this crisis is actually a result of all the progress we’ve made, the progress we’ve made in businesses and school settings and politics, we’re seeing backlash to that. And the history of America, every time we make progress we have seen a backlash to it. Just look back over time at every social movement. I say that because I think we have to put ourselves in context of what we are fighting now and today, and understand that what we have to do is continue moving forward and stay steadfast in the fight.

So we’re looking at this at every level. We’re doing work with the administration—we have a great pro-equality administration, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and a fantastic United States Senate that is pro-equality. We’ve got states that are doing some transformative work too. And we’re also fighting back in the places that we need to.

But in this moment, we’re doing everything we can to advance equality and push forward laws, and we’re also working within institutions to make them safer for our community. We do an immense amount of work with corporations and thinking about their policies, because at the end of the day, most people in America are having to work. Our Corporate Equality Index supports companies in creating inclusive policies that hit over 29 million workers across this country, which is huge.

And this election is right around the corner. We have got to show up. When we show up, equality wins, full stop and period. So we’ve identified 75 million equality voters around the country who prioritize LGBTQ+ issues when deciding who to vote for. That’s something we should be enthusiastic about and excited about. In a world where there’s so much to be afraid of, I want people to know this is still a democracy, our votes still matter, and we have to show up. And when we show up, with the power we’ve got, with the solidarity we’ve got, we will win.

Alex Lovit: Speaking of the upcoming election, HRC has published research into the Trump administration’s policies and impacts for LGBTQ+ people. In 2020, you also published a document entitled “Blueprint for Positive Change,” that have a bunch of policy recommendations for the then-incoming Biden administration. You said earlier that administration had been pro-equality.

But can you summarize what’s at stake in this election? This is a case where we have two Presidents that have already served a term, so we have some idea of what they will do. What’s at stake for LGBTQ+ issues in this election?

Alex Lovit: Literally everything. This election isn’t just about choosing between two candidates, it’s about the difference in choosing between two countries, two visions of what our world could be based on who’s in office. And when you look at Joe Biden and Kamala Harris against Donald Trump, the choices could not be more stark and they could not be more clear.

I mean, the Biden/Harris administration has done so much to protect our community, from signing the Respect for Marriage Act into law to issuing an executive order to implement the Bostock Decision that really does enforce civil rights status and protections in so many areas of our lives to putting forward record numbers of rules to increase efforts to protect us against discrimination in so many different settings.

Not only that, if you look at their administration, they are the most diverse administration we’ve ever seen. You’ve got Karine Jean-Pierre sitting at the podium, you’ve got Admiral Rachel Lavine at HHS, you’ve got Secrete Pete Buttigieg leading the Transportation Department—this is huge.

Now put that against what could be with Donald Trump—again, we don’t have to wonder, because he’s already been there, and Project 2025 tells us a roadmap of what they intend to do. With him in office, you would see an even more conservative Supreme Court, one that has already overturned Roe v. Wade and has vowed to come for Obergefell and Windsor and Lawrence, other Supreme Court cases that have fundamentally given us protections in this country. You would see him reinstitute a ban on transgender people serving in the military. You would see him make active steps to undo all the work we’ve made toward equality in this country.

And not only that, the idea of having him in office, the person that when neo-Nazis were marching in Charlottesville called them good people, the person who said that businesses should be able to hold up signs that say “We don’t serve your kind here” to indicate they don’t want to serve LGBTQ+ people—I can’t imagine my child seeing that and seeing that as an example of leadership. That’s not who we are. As a country, we are better than that.

Alex Lovit: I want to ask a little bit about the legal protections that LGBTQ+ people already have in this country—and I think a lot of folks don’t really understand what protections exist or don’t exist. You earlier mentioned the 2020 case of Bostock v. Clayton County. I think a lot of people haven’t heard of this case. What does that case say, and what are the limitations of what it says?

Kelley Robinson: Yeah, the Bostock decision provides protections for us against being fired or discriminated against in the workplace, and it really undergirds ensuring that federal protections are applied to us and our rights, but it’s still limited. We still need something like the Equality Act in place that affirms federal nondiscrimination protections across the full country.

So again, the Bostock decision is something good that takes us a step further in that direction, but we need something broader that protects us in all areas of public life. The Equality Act would actually codify protections for LGBTQ+ people beyond employment, and also into housing, credit, education, and jury service.

So the Bostock decision is good, but it’s still incomplete in making sure we have a full range of rights. To put that frankly, today you could go to a restaurant in Texas and be turned away because you are gay. Today, you could try to get a haircut in Florida, and with a 303 Creative decision be turned away because that person’s considered to be a hair stylist or an artist. There are still so many ways that discrimination is actually legal against too many members of our community.

I was told one time, look, if I’m traveling somewhere and someone discriminates against me, I have to ask myself is it because I’m Black, is it because I’m queer, or is it because I’m a woman, because not all three of those identities are currently protected in the same way.

Alex Lovit: You’re talking about the importance of passing the Equality Act to really codify some of the protections from Bostock. I would say we may have learned something from the Dobbs decision about how it’s important to pass protections the Supreme Court have guaranteed—those aren’t necessarily forever unless they’re really passed into law.

So I want to ask about the Respect for Marriage Act, which was passed in 2022 and formally required the federal government and state governments to recognize same-sex marriages. Why was this important even though the Supreme Court had already ruled that same-sex marriages had to be recognized?

Kelley Robinson: I think for the very reason you just said—it was important because we know with this Supreme Court, nothing is certain. The rights we have that have been established through court cases and case law are fragile, very fragile. I mean, it was one day where protections for abortion that had been guaranteed, felt guaranteed for 50 years, were suddenly overturned and millions of people were at-risk, and now we’re in an environment where half the country lacks access to abortion care.

So we have to be very clear that any righty we have that has been established through case law and through the Supreme Court is fragile, and we have to find ways to codify those protections into law. The Respect for Marriage Act does just that for same-sex marriage protections. It also does that for interracial marriage protections too, as Loving v. Virginia again is a Supreme Court precedent.

The other thing I think is important when it comes to marriage, it’s not only about a party where you get to celebrate and affirm your love, though that’s a great part of it. It’s also about the thousands of benefits that people get through marriage, from Social Security benefits to healthcare benefits to retirement benefits that are caught up in that. So a lot of what we’re talking about here is actually one way that we’re able to ensure that a whole swath of people gets access to federal protections that otherwise were not guaranteed.

And to the visibility point, it gives us a way to again ensure that our lives and our relationships can be validated out loud and in public.

Alex Lovit: We’ve been talking about some of the things that HRC is doing to protect LGBTQ+ people during this time of legislative onslaught. Do you have any general advice for what Americans should be thinking about and how they can get involved in this fight?

Kelley Robinson: Yeah, I mean, the first thing I would say is show up and show up with us. You can visit HRC.org/weshowup, and it’s a great place to, if you’re feeling anxious, if you’re feeling afraid, to put that fear into action. Because the way that we are going to turn the tide on so much of what we are experiencing is by electing people who share our values and interests, and ensuring we stay engaged with those people so they pass laws and policies that protect us. So We Show Up is again a great way and a vehicle to get involved.

I also think that for me, when I was coming up, they said if you really care about something, you’ve got to give of your time, your talent, your testimony, and your treasure. So give of your time and your talent by volunteering with organizations you care about, give of your testimony by telling your story—the single most powerful thing to move people on our issues is hearing the story of somebody they care about and why these issues matter. And then again, give of your treasure—find organizations or candidates you believe in and give them some of your resources to help continue the fight.

But again, there are more of us than there are of them, and when we come together and give in all the ways we can, we win.

Alex Lovit: So some of the people listening to this might living in states where, some of the people are living in states where they’re subject to these anti-LGBTQ+ laws, so they’re feeling the impact of that. Other folks maybe are in states where they’re not directly affected. Do you have advice for people living in red states versus people living in blue states? Are there different ways people can show up?

Kelley Robinson: I want to say this—I believe in our movement and our people, and I’m optimistic about the world ahead. And that doesn’t mean I’m naïve to the unique challenges that are facing people right now and today. And I just want to say that clearly.

My first week on the job was the week of the Club Q mass shooting that happened where five members of our community lost their lives. And my wife at the time was working in the gun violence prevention movement. I remember we came together—it was right before Thanksgiving—and our little area that we were staying became a situation room for the movement in so many ways. We were working together in ways I would’ve never thought would happen in my first couple weeks together, never would hope to happen in that way again.

And I also remember what happened a couple weeks later. We were in Washington, D.C., and the Respect for Marriage Act passed into law. We had an event at the HRC building where we invited members of the community to come together. Even the owner of Club Q came to that celebration. And when that bill passed into law, he leaned over to me and said that was the first time since the attack that he had experienced joy. And I thought that was so profound.

And I say that because we’re living in a moment where joy and grief have to exist at the same time, where it’s possible to feel emotions that are conflicting, even incongruent, in the same moment, in the same breath. You can feel both joy and grief, you can feel both hope and despair, you can feel victorious and still know we’ve got challenges and battles to face.

And I say that because in this moment, I think no matter where you live in this country, no matter what the political posture is or the things we’re going through, we have to find a way to keep choosing hope, to keep choosing victory, to keep choosing joy, to keep choosing each other. And I think in this moment, building that kind of resilient community is more important than ever, because it feels like in a lot of ways we’re on the precipice of massive change—and the headwinds are always greatest before you get to some of those breakthroughs.

Alex Lovit: So you’re hopeful but not naïve. And in your public persona you often come across, including this interview, as energetic and optimistic. Obviously the stuff we’re talking about is hard. These are real people suffering real pain. And in your position I’m sure you’re often hearing the worst stories about hate and violence. Where do you draw your hope? Why do you remain convinced that we can build a better society that’s inclusive and accepting for LGBTQ+ people?

Kelley Robinson: Well, I will say, even when things are hard, I don’t want a time machine. I don’t want to be Black, queer, and a woman in any other time period but today. Don’t take me backwards in the time machine, because as hard as things are, they are still the best they’ve ever been, and that’s because our community has come together and fought together. We’ve been able to believe that more is possible than what we’re experiencing today.

So I get hope from our ancestors and people that have come in the fight before, and I also get a lot of hope from the future of this fight. Every time I talk to somebody under the age of 15, they have such beautiful visions for what could be possible. They have such aspirations for who we could be together, if we didn’t just focus on preserving democracy but actually reimagined it.

And I think that we’re at a moment where we have to ensure, especially you and I and other folks that would listen to this podcast, that we are protecting the idea of democracy enough that these ideas of what it could be can actually come into fruition, because I think the big scary thing to me on the other side of this is, what happens if the institution of democracy gets so out of whack the people’s voices can no longer be represented? That’s how we actually lose. And this is a moment that all we have to do is preserve what we have and create enough space for our next generation to reimagine it.

Alex Lovit: Well, Kelley Robinson, you truly are an inspiration, and thank you for helping us understand how democracy and equality are connected. They have to go hand-in-hand. And thank you for joining me on “The Context.”

Kelley Robinson: Thanks for having me.

Alex Lovit: “The Context” is a production of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. Thank you to the Kettering Foundation’s Chief Strategy Officer and Senior Advisor to the President, Tayo Clyburn, for his help with this episode and for joining me on the mic at the beginning. I didn’t say this when I introduced Tayo, but he was an early champion of this podcast within the Foundation, and although we don’t usually include his name in the end credits, he is involved in reviewing and making editorial suggestions on every episode. Thanks, Tayo.

If you enjoy the show, please leave a rating or review at Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, or tell a friend about us.

I’m Alex Lovit. I’m a Senior Program Officer and Historian with the Foundation. Isabel Pergande is our Research Assistant, [George Strake, Jr.], is our Episode Producer, Melinda Gilmore is our Director of Communications.

Visit Kettering.org to learn more about the Kettering Foundation or to subscribe to our newsletter. If you have questions or comments about the show, drop us a note. Our email is TheContext@Kettering.org.

We’ll be back in this feed in two weeks with another conversation about democracy.

The views expressed during this program are critical to us having a productive dialogue, but they do not reflect the views or opinions of the Kettering Foundation. The Foundation’s broadcast and related promotional activities should not be construed as an endorsement of its content. The Foundation hereby disclaims liability to any party for direct, indirect, implied, punitive, special, incidental, or other consequential damages that may arise in connection with this broadcast, which is provided as-is and without warranties.

Transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a Kettering Foundation contractor and may contain small errors. The authoritative record is the audio recording.