National
Calif. man could become first openly gay dad in Congress
The mayor of Palm Springs is making a bid to become the first openly gay member of Congress who’s married with children.
Steve Pougnet, 46, a Democrat, is seeking to oust Republican incumbent Mary Bono Mack next year to represent California’s 45th district in the U.S. House. A win for Pougnet would make him the fourth sitting openly gay member of Congress.
Pougnet, who’s currently mayor of Palm Springs and a former city council member for the city, said in an interview with DC Agenda that he’s running for a House seat because he’s always had a “huge passion” for public service.
“I’ve always had the ability to lead, to bring people together,” he said. “And I think that’s why I moved pretty quickly in my young political career, because I’ve always had the ability to bring people together and to lead.”
Pougnet said he’ll need about $2.5 million to win and “a lot of hard, hard work” that relies heavily on grassroots outreach. He has secured an endorsement from the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and applied for support from the Human Rights Campaign.
He currently has no Democratic challenger for his primary in June, and would face Bono Mack in November 2010.
No stranger to helping the state’s LGBT community, Pougnet was involved last year in the fight against Proposition 8, which ended marriage rights for same-sex couples in the Golden State. He helped Equality California raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to preserve same-sex marriage and married 118 same-sex couples — more than any mayor in California.
“So, I have stood up for the issue of marriage equality,” he said. “I’m the mayor who married more couples than any other mayor in the state of California. One hundred eighteen — on our own time — we don’t get paid to do that because it was the right thing to do.”
Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said Pougnet was “a great leader” in the fight to protect same-sex marriage.
“Steve chaired our Equality California’s Equality Awards in Palm Springs last year, and helped raised several hundred thousand dollars with us in the fight against Prop 8 at that dinner,” Kors said. “And he’s been involved in the cause for as long as I’ve known him.”
Kors said Equality California hasn’t traditionally endorsed candidates in federal elections, but that policy may change next year, and it would be difficult for his organization’s political action committee to support someone other than Pougnet.
“I think his victory would demonstrate that an openly gay candidate can win in a district that still is on the conservative side,” Kors said.
Pougnet was among the couples married last year in California. He wed his partner of 18 years, Christopher Green, who’s worked for more than 20 years in sales and marketing at Amgen, a biotech company. They have 3-year-old twins, Julia and Beckham.
During the course of his political career — as well as his current bid for Congress — Pougnet said his sexual orientation hasn’t been a major issue.
“Every once in a while you get a piece of hate mail, especially over Proposition 8, because I was very public,” he said. “Honestly, I think when you serve the people and all the people, and you’re working on the issues that are important to many different segments of the community, people respond to that.”
One of Pougnet’s priorities if he’s elected to Congress is improving the economic conditions for his constituents. He noted that his district has an unemployment rate of more than 15 percent and home foreclosures per capita are among the highest in the country.
But Pougnet also said he’s committed to advancing LGBT issues, should he be elected to Congress. He pledged to vote in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and a bill that would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency, as well as backing repeals of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act.
“Those issues are no-brainers for me,” he said. “For me, the issues are something I wholeheartedly believe in and don’t have a problem supporting.”
Asked whether Congress and President Obama have moved quickly enough on LGBT issues, Pougnet said the administration has been dealing with a host of problems left over from the Bush years, but that lawmakers could have acted more quickly on overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“I do think that one issue that could have been done quickly is ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ because when you have an issue like that where when you start looking at the polls, the majority are firmly in favor of repeal,” he said.
Pougnet said he wants Obama to issue a stop-loss order to prevent the discharge of more LGBT service members until Congress can accomplish repeal.
“There certainly might be some initial, ‘My God, what’s he done to the military?’ type of thing, which is ridiculous, but that moves away very quickly,” he said. “And I think this issue we’re talking about is protecting American soldiers, men and women. That repeal would end up saving lives.”
Gay conservatives back Bono Mack
Even though he enjoys support from many LGBT groups, Pougnet is running against an incumbent lawmaker that some describe as a pro-gay Republican.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of gay conservative group GOProud said his organization is among those supporting Bono Mack.
“She’s been a strong advocate for gay and lesbian Americans in Congress and she’s exactly who we need in that seat,” he said.
Bono Mack has often taken pro-LGBT stances throughout her tenure in the House. She voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006, voted twice in favor of hates crimes protections legislation, and in 2007 voted in support of ENDA.
Ryan Watkins, campaign manager for Bono Mack, said her record shows her commitment to fairness.
“Congresswoman Bono Mack’s entire career has demonstrated her belief that individuals should be judged on their own merit,” he said.
“Tolerance and diversity are fundamental values that she embraces.”
LaSalvia criticized Pougnet for not taking a position on the estate tax, which LaSalvia said is discriminatory because it means inheritance from an LGBT person to their same-sex partner could be taxed, unlike the inheritance between straight married couples.
“He needs to realize that this is a congressional campaign and not a beauty pageant,” LaSalvia said. “If he doesn’t want to take positions on issues, he should run for Date Festival princess instead of Congress.”
Jordan Marks, campaign manager for Pougnet, said in an e-mail that Pougnet is focused on plans to create jobs in his district and is not responding to such criticism from Washington groups.
“The reality is residents of the district are facing a very difficult economy and that is what this campaign will be about. Bono Mack should disavow cynical attacks like this. This all just shows we need new leadership in Washington,” Marks said.
Even with her votes in favor of the LGBT priorities, Pougnet criticized Bono Mack for not taking a stand last year on Prop 8 as well as not stating her position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“For her, she kind of wavers, waffles,” Pougnet said. “She didn’t want to upset one half and not the other half. My issue with that is come clean.”
Watkins said Bono Mack hasn’t taken a position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because she feels “military personnel decisions should be made by the leaders of our Armed Forces, not Congress.”
“If military commanders believe a change is warranted, she will revisit the issue,” he said.
As for Prop 8, Watkins said Bono Mack didn’t declare her position because it was a state issue and more properly left to the voters to decide.
But Pougnet said Bono Mack has taken a position on a state issue that will have significant impact on the people of California by endorsing Republican candidate Meg Whitman — an opponent of same-sex marriage — in next year’s gubernatorial election.
“She’s now very involved in the biggest state issue that we have, which is the next governor of the state of California, because Sacramento is such a mess,” Pougnet said. “She’s endorsed Meg Whitman, who is not a marriage equality person. Not at all.”
In uphill battle, Pougnet trails in campaign funds
Pougnet faces a significant challenge in his bid for Congress. A Republican has held the seat for California’s 45th congressional district since at least 1982, and Bono Mack won the seat last year by taking more than 60 percent of the vote.
Still, Pougnet has filled his coffers with significant funds. According to the most recent information on the Federal Elections Committee web site, he’s thus far secured $443,330 for his campaign. It’s short of Bono Mack, who’s raised $664,775, but his supporters say it’s enough for him to mount a serious challenge.
Andy Stone, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Pougnet has a good shot at winning because the demographics in the district are changing and the area has had particular growth in non-white residents.
“If you look specifically at the voter registration numbers, the margin of difference between registered Republicans and registered Democrats has declined by more than half from just a couple years ago to today,” he said.
Stone also said Pougnet is a strong candidate because of his background as a public official.
Federal Government
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Lebanese LGBTQ group responds to latest war
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
PHOTOS: Denali at Pitchers
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
La X vuelve al tribunal
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
-
2026 Midterm Elections5 days agoHRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
-
Rehoboth Beach5 days ago
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
-
Eswatini5 days ago
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
-
National5 days ago
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
