Connect with us

National

Kagan’s record, sexual orientation draw scrutiny

LGBT groups mixed on Supreme Court nominee

Published

on

Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a U.S. Supreme Court nominee, could be asked to address past comments on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and same-sex marriage during her confirmation hearings. (Photo by Lawrence Jackson; courtesy of White House)

President Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is inspiring varied reactions, ranging from excitement to caution, as questions linger about her record on LGBT issues.

Many LGBT advocacy groups are pleased that Kagan opposed military recruitment on Harvard’s campus because “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” violates university non-discrimination policies, but others are waiting for her to clarify her positions on LGBT issues in congressional testimony before the Senate.

Meanwhile, questions about Kagan’s sexual orientation distracted attention from her record this week, as some anti-gay conservatives — along with more than a few LGBT bloggers — speculated that she is a lesbian.

Obama nominated Kagan to fill the seat that will be vacated at the end of the term by retiring Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. If the Senate confirms her to the position, there would be three women sitting on the Supreme Court, the most women the bench has seen in its history.

Prior to her tenure as solicitor general, in which she defended federal law before the Supreme Court, Kagan was a clerk for former Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, an associate White House counsel for former President Bill Clinton and dean of Harvard law school.

In a statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Senate would consider Kagan’s nomination this summer and should confirm her nomination before the August recess.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a statement, praised Obama for selecting Kagan to serve on the bench.

“We applaud President Obama for choosing Elena Kagan to become our nation’s next U.S. Supreme Court Justice,” Solmonese said. “We are confident that Elena Kagan has a demonstrated understanding and commitment to protecting the liberty and equality of all Americans, including LGBT Americans.”

Doug NeJaime, a gay associate law professor at Loyola Law School, expressed similar excitement over the nomination of Kagan, whom he called a “fantastic” choice to serve on the bench.

In 2008, NeJaime said he attended a Harvard gay and lesbian caucus conference where Kagan moderated a panel with sexual orientation law scholars. He noted that Kagan “was clearly really knowledgeable about these issues.”

“I think she’ll do a good job in dealing with them and hopefully having conversations with other justices — getting them more on board with what LGBT legal issues entail,” NeJaime said.

But Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director for Lambda Legal, was more cautious about embracing Kagan’s nomination and said she was awaiting the Senate confirmation process.

“She’s just been nominated, and we are studying everything that we can on her,” she said. “We’re looking toward the confirmation hearings so that we can learn more about her positions on legal areas that are core to the right of LGBT people and people with HIV.”

In particular, Gorenberg said she’s looking to see whether Kagan will separate herself from the Justice Department’s legal briefs defending challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which occurred under her watch during the Obama administration.

“Those briefings give us concern, and we certainly voiced it with the Obama administration,” Gorenberg said. “So, what we need to see now is her views apart from an institutional position, and that’s what we’re looking toward in confirmation hearings.”

‘Don’t Ask’ stance
could be obstacle

One potential obstacle that Kagan may encounter on her path to confirmation — despite the favor it may win her among LGBT supporters — is her opposition as dean of Harvard law school to military recruiting on campus because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In October 2003, Kagan wrote in an e-mail to students that military recruiting on campus caused her “deep distress” and that she “abhor[s] the military discriminatory recruitment policy,” according to a recent report in the Washington Post.

She was quoted as calling the recruitment policy in the U.S. military “a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.”

In 2005, Kagan was also one of 40 Harvard professors who signed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of an appellate court ruling overturning the Solomon Amendment, which would have allowed colleges to limit the military’s presence at campus recruiting events. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with the lower court ruling.

Conservative senators could pounce on Kagan’s views on military recruitment on campus as dean of Harvard law school as reason to vote against her confirmation.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement published shortly after her nomination that Kagan’s position is “deserving review.”

“This is a significant issue for me since I worked hard for the passage of the Solomon Amendment,” Sessions said. “Her actions in this case, along with other issues, will need to be addressed, and Ms. Kagan will be given a fair opportunity to respond.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Monday he plans to vote against Kagan’s confirmation — making him the first senator to commit to a “no” vote — because of her position on campus military recruitment.

But NeJaime said he didn’t think Kagan’s position would be problematic because it’s “very much in the mainstream of the legal academic community,” and other law schools besides Harvard have challenged the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment in court.

“It’s not like she was even completely out in front on that issue,” NeJaime said. “I also think public sentiment against ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is pretty high, and so it’s not a non-mainstream position.”

But Gorenberg said Senate opposition to Kagan’s confirmation because of her position on military recruitment is already apparent.

“We can already see that the positions that she promoted as dean that were targeted against discrimination against LGBT people — that those positions are already the subject of potshots from anti-gay extremists,” Gorenberg said. “We saw that instantly upon her nomination, if not before.”

Kagan’s views on military recruitment also raise the question of whether she would be asked to recuse herself in the event a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” case came before the Supreme Court while she’s on the bench.

Gorenberg said “it’s not clear” that Kagan would need to seek recusal in such a situation based on her comments as dean of Harvard law.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request to comment on Kagan’s statements on military recruitment or whether she would have to recuse herself if a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” case reached the high court.

Same-sex marriage
a potential issue

Another topic that may come up during Kagan’s confirmation hearings is her position on same-sex marriage and whether she thinks the U.S. Constitution provides for marriage rights for same-sex couples. Such a position would be especially important for LGBT people because cases on same-sex marriage could be on their way to the Supreme Court.

Kagan previously denied that the U.S. Constitution grants a right to same-sex marriage in a questionnaire answer prior to her confirmation hearings to become solicitor general.

“There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage,” she wrote in a response to a question on the issue.

In response to a subsequent question, she added that she doesn’t believe she expressed an opinion on the question before that time.

Kagan’s response could be troubling for organizations behind federal lawsuits seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act or bans on same-sex marriage within states.

The American Federation for Equal Rights, the organization behind the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case seeking to overturn California’s Proposition 8, didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to comment on the Kagan nomination.

A spokesperson for the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders — which is behind Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, a case seeking to overturn part of DOMA that prohibits federal recognition same-sex marriage — said her organization isn’t commenting on the Kagan nomination because the lawsuit could go to the Supreme Court.

On the Perry case, NeJaime said Kagan’s comment on same-sex marriage could be relevant depending on whether the court takes up the case as a broad question about constitutional rights to same-sex marriage or, more simply, California’s legitimate interest in passing Proposition 8.

“I also think we don’t really know what her position will be on an issue like that until the issue is briefed and until it’s actually at the court,” he said. “I’m pretty confident that she is at least open-minded to LGBT claims under the federal Constitution.”

Gorenberg said she’s “not sure” whether Kagan’s comments would be a predictor of how the nominee would rule if marriage cases came before the Supreme Court.

She said the remarks raise the question of what Kagan meant in her questionnaire answer, but noted that it’s unknown whether Kagan’s position would become more clear during confirmation hearings.

“We would always like to know what would happen in the future on a specific issue, but it’s not surprising to us — for any nominee — that we don’t get a specific forecast on a case because it’s just not standard that the nominees ever give them to us,” Gorenberg said.

Still another issue surrounding the nomination is whether Kagan, who’s unmarried, is a lesbian.

In a deleted CBS News posting published prior to the announcement of Kagan’s nomination, conservative blogger Ben Domenech wrote that confirmation of Kagan would make her the “first openly gay justice.”

The White House disputed Domenech’s characterization of Kagan as an out lesbian and said he was making false charges. After the posting was deleted, Domenech maintained that he heard discussion about her sexual orientation.

In a later posting on the Huffington Post, Domenech wrote that he “erroneously believed” Kagan was an out lesbian because “it had been mentioned casually on multiple occasions by friends and colleagues — including students at Harvard, Hill staffers, and in the sphere of legal academia — who know Kagan personally.”

Sessions’ office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to comment on whether the matter was of concern to the senator or whether he would expect questions on the issue to come up during the confirmation hearings.

NeJaime said he didn’t anticipate discussions of Kagan’s sexual orientation to arise during her confirmation hearings, but said it would be “sad commentary” if the matter became a stumbling block for her.

“We don’t know about her sexual orientation one way or the other, and I don’t really anticipate it being an issue that anyone takes up,” he said.

Gorenberg said she didn’t have any information on Kagan’s sexual orientation and didn’t know how lawmakers would respond to speculation that she’s a lesbian.

“There are a lot of senators out there and I don’t know [who] may or may not be inclined to go after any nominee based on their sexual orientation,” Gorenberg said.

She said one of Lambda’s central tenets is that people shouldn’t face discrimination based on sexual orientation and noted that principle could be applied in Senate confirmation hearings.

A friend of Kagan’s told Politico this week that Kagan is not a lesbian.

“I’ve known her for most of her adult life and I know she’s straight,” Sarah Walzer, Kagan’s law school roommate, told Politico. “She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men … She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school … and she just didn’t find the right person.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting

‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’

Published

on

The scene inside April’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner after shots rang out. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.

Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.

“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members. 

She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing. 

Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.  

This post will be updated as more details are announced.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels

New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22

Published

on

(Photo by REDPIXEL.PL/Bigstock)

The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ characters.

On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”

This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”

The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”

It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”

LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.

“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”

Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.

GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.

“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.

“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.

“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”

Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.

“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”

PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.

“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”

This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.

Continue Reading

National

Still marching: Rev. Troy Perry and the ongoing fight for liberation

MCC founder reflects on Pride’s beginning, ongoing power of radical representation

Published

on

Rev. Troy Perry (Photo courtesy of Founders MCC)

Long before tone-deaf Target swag and rainbow-scented hashtags lit up the very queer month of June, Rev. Troy Perry was helping the LGBTQ community create space where it did not yet exist, and he did so with little more than faith and perseverance. This Pride season, as communities around the world fight once again with rising attacks on LGBTQ rights and democratic freedoms, Perry returns to the movement he helped build for a conversation rooted not only in history but in survival. The unveiling of Steps to Liberation at Founders Metropolitan Community Church serves as an uplifting reminder that Pride is not just a parade but also serves as a commitment to continue to advocate for our community.

Joined by original rainbow flag co-creator Lynn Segerblom, Perry looks back on the legacy of the first Pride marches, the spiritual and political power of real representation, and why the rainbow flag still matters nearly fifty years after its creation. As Founders MCC transforms its front steps into a vibrant rainbow pathway, the symbolism feels especially timely — freedom is not a destination, it’s something communities continuously build together, step by step. In our interview, Perry speaks candidly on activism, faith, and his continued belief that even in difficult times, hope remains an unwavering act of resistance.

You’ve been at the forefront of LGBTQ history for decades. What does this moment, unveiling Steps to Liberation, mean for you?  You’ve often spoken about visibility as an act of courage. Why is that still not only true but also essential today?

I will be 86 years old in another month. Not in the best of health and in a wheelchair, but still a LGBTQ activist at heart. I tell my husband, Phillip De Blieck, that I never thought I would live this long. He and I will be celebrating our 41st anniversary this year.

In the early days of our struggle for our liberation, I used to cut up and tell people there’s just nothing like a good demonstration to get my heart pumping. This is what I feel as we dedicate the Steps of Liberation! Another symbol of our freedom. We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re gonna fight to our last breath, to win all the rights that the colors on the steps represent.

When you think back to organizing the first Pride march in Los Angeles, what emotions or memories visit you?

Having the guts to follow through on our vow to hold a pride parade, no matter what! We did follow through and sued the city of Los Angeles for the right to hold that parade. We won! Thank God for the ACLU. The next thing I thought was, my God, look at all the people who have come out to be in the parade, and to watch it. I was also thankful that no one was hurt that day, and the pride I had of being a part of that demonstration.

How does this new installation reflect the spirit of those early days of activism?

The steps of liberation tell all who see it that we are still here and not afraid after 56 years have passed since our first Pride parade.

The theme of IDAHOBIT 2026 is “The Heart of Democracy.” In your view, how has the LGBTQ movement played its part in influencing our country’s democracy?

I think that most of us have played by the rules and use the cards dealt to us to make a difference in our democracy here in the USA. The LGBTQ community has changed so much in 56 years. Today, members of our community are serving in every political office in our country. We have gay and bisexual city council members, lesbian governors, and trans state legislators. We have a gay man who has run for president of the United States. The heart of democracy is a right given to all of us to work to change our country so that all of us are treated the same. Nothing more, nothing less!

You’ve often spoken about visibility as an act of courage. Why is that still not only true but also essential today?

I tell groups of young LGBTQ people to be yourself. Flaunt it! Coming out of the closet is the best thing you can do. Whether you come out fast or slow, just come out. If you are going to do it, now is the time. I am so proud of young people who are using the Internet, TikTok, and YouTube to make a difference for us. Your siblings are looking for you!

What do you hope someone feels the first time they walk up the Rainbow Steps?

God, does this feel good! Why didn’t I do this a long time ago?

How has faith intersected with activism in your life?

This is my testimony. Most of my relatives would tell you that I have been deeply spiritual all my life. I have had the opportunity to live a very interesting life. I started preaching when I was 13 years old. I was licensed to preach in the Southern Baptist church at age 15. I married heterosexually at age 18. I started pastoring my first church at age 19. I am the father of two children. I am a Vietnam-era veteran. I was divorced at age 26 and founded Metropolitan Community Church at age 28. I have been slapped in the face, spat on, had some people try to murder me, and cursed by some throughout my life, all because I dare call myself a clergyman as a gay man. Has it been worth it? Absolutely. I would not change my life for anything. I try to always keep my faith intact.

In moments when progress feels uncertain or under threat, what keeps your hopes up?

I have my husband, Phillip, and friends that I can talk to. I also have a favorite scripture that keeps me going: though God slay me, I will trust in God. Job 13:15

How do you see younger folks carrying forward the legacy you helped build?

Don’t give up the fight. Organize, organize, organize!

The launch of Flag50 looks ahead to the 50th anniversary of the rainbow flag. What do you think folks should be reflecting on as that milestone approaches?

I love the Pride flag! It gives us hope that there can be a tomorrow. I love the colors and what they represent. Hopefully, we will be able to teach this in our schools one day, along with the American flag and how each of those colors is meant to give us dignity, as well as hope.

How do art and public installations like this one shape cultural change in ways that perhaps policy can’t?

Laws are important because they protect us, but art touches the heart first. A public installation like the Steps of Liberation tells our story without anyone having to say a word. A young person can walk up those steps and realize they are not alone. Families can see our colors and remember that LGBTQ people are part of every community in America. Art creates visibility, and visibility changes hearts and minds. Sometimes culture changes before politics catches up. I believe symbols matter. The rainbow flag matters. These steps matter. They remind us that liberation is not just something you read about in history books. It is something we continue to live every day.

What threats facing our LGBTQ community today concern you more than others?

I worry when people try to erase us, especially our transgender brothers and sisters and LGBTQ young people. I have lived long enough to know that fear and hatred can grow when people stop seeing each other as human beings. We cannot go backward. I also worry when people become discouraged and think their voice no longer matters. That is exactly when we must organize, vote, speak out, and stand together. We have survived attacks before, and we will survive them again, but only if we refuse to be silent. Silence has never protected our community. Courage and love have.

What does it mean to you to take that next step, and how would you advise our readers to take it?

Every generation has its own next step to take. For some, it means coming out. For others, it means speaking up when someone is being mistreated. It may mean marching, voting, creating art, serving your community, or simply learning to love yourself exactly as God made you. The important thing is not to stand still. Keep moving forward. Keep believing that change is possible. I have spent my whole life taking one step after another with people who dreamed of a better world. My advice is simple: do not wait for someone else to do the work. Take the next step yourself, and bring somebody with you.

Continue Reading

Popular