National
Fla. gay Republicans hail Romney victory
Log Cabin warns of ‘anti-gay pandering’

Mitt Romney won a decisive victory in Florida this week, as Newt Gingrich appeared to lose momentum. (Blade file photo by MIchael Key)
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Gay Republicans joined many of their straight counterparts in Florida Tuesday night in congratulating former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for his decisive victory in the Florida Republican primary.
But R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the national Log Cabin Republicans, while also congratulating Romney, cautioned him against engaging in “anti-gay pandering or divisive social politics.”
Cooper told the Blade his comment was a reference to statements Romney has made in news media interviews over the past several months in which he appeared to be appealing to conservative voters hostile to gay rights.
Officials with Log Cabin’s chapters in the Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Tampa areas said support for Romney was strong among LGBT Republicans in the state. Romney won by a lopsided margin in a Jan. 28 straw poll of Log Cabin members at an informal gay Republican caucus in Miami.
“I’m pleased that Romney won,” said Andy Eddy, board member of Log Cabin Republicans of Broward County, which includes the city of Fort Lauderdale and the nearby gay enclave Wilton Manors.
“Many of our members support him and believe he has the best chance of beating Obama,” he said.
With 100 percent of the election precincts counted, Romney captured 46 percent of the vote. His closest rival, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich received 32 percent, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum received 13 percent, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul received 7 percent.
In Florida’s winner take all primary, Romney captured 50 delegates, giving him a boost going into a series of upcoming primaries and caucuses leading up to Super Tuesday on March 6, when 10 states hold primaries.
“This big win for Gov. Romney makes it all but certain that he will emerge as the nominee of the Republican Party,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud.
“Gov. Romney’s win tonight is particularly pivotal given the size of the state and the importance Florida will have in electing the next president,” he said. “Gov. Romney’s message of economic hope and renewal has clearly resonated with the voters of Florida.
“The truth that neither Barack Obama nor his friends in the liberal media want to discuss is that most Americans, gay or straight, are no better off than they were in 2008 and that is a product of Obama’s failed big government policies,” said LaSalvia, who personally endorsed Romney earlier this month.
Cooper said Log Cabin has a longstanding rule of not endorsing presidential candidates until the time of the Republican National Convention. He said on Tuesday night that the timing of the club’s endorsement vote is strictly “administrative” in nature and has no bearing on the group’s views of Romney.
During the Log Cabin caucus in Miami on Jan. 28, which followed a national Log Cabin board meeting, Cooper and officials with Log Cabin chapters in Florida said the group’s members clearly were leaning toward backing Romney.
Hastings Wyman, editor of Southern Political Report, a newsletter specializing in reporting on politics in the South, characterized as “remarkable” Romney’s dramatic rise in popularity in Florida. He noted that Romney had been trailing Gingrich in the Sunshine State by double digits in the days following Gingrich’s win in the South Carolina primary.
“I think the biggest single factor was money,” said Wyman, in referring to Romney’s lopsided lead over Gingrich and the other three GOP contenders in money raised for his campaign.

Newt Gingrich has vowed to fight on after losing big to Mitt Romney in Florida’s primary this week. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
“I also think Romney did much better in the last two debates in Florida,” Wyman said. “Gingrich just didn’t look as strong. The performance and appearance in the debates by Romney was much better.”
Wyman, who is gay, said it’s hard to predict how Romney will deal with gay issues if he’s elected president.
“I think he would be perfectly comfortable in supporting civil rights for gays,” he said. “But I don’t’ think he would do anything to hurt him politically. I think he would be somewhat better than the others, but he’s not going to do anything to upset his base.”
In his election night statement, Cooper of Log Cabin Republicans cautioned Romney and the other GOP presidential candidates that adopting a “big tent” policy inclusive of gays would be the best tactic for the Republican presidential nominee to defeat Obama in November.
“Our local chapter leaders report that, like Florida voters overall, Log Cabin members in the Sunshine State were drawn to Romney’s business sense and clear plan to return America to prosperity through a strong private sector,” Cooper said.
“Still, there remain serious reservations about recent statements by Romney to so-called ‘pro-family’ groups,” Cooper said. “The real question now is whether Romney can win a majority of Americans, including younger voters, independents and disaffected Democrats,” he said. “Log Cabin Republicans are looking for a candidate who can rebuild the big tent, unite our party and claim a mandate to restore liberty and fiscal responsibility to the United States. Whether that candidate is Romney remains to be seen.”
Jerame Davis, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, an LGBT group that is backing Obama, said Romney’s win in the Florida primary was due to his ability to “outspend and throw more mud than all of his opponents combined.”
He called Romney “a very unpopular frontrunner” whose support is not as strong as the “not-Romney” wing of the Republican Party.
Although the conservative GOProud and more moderate Log Cabin leaders often disagree over how the LGBT community should interact with the Republican Party, the two groups appeared to be in agreement this week over how to secure LGBT votes for Romney if he wins the nomination for president.
Both LaSalvia and Log Cabin members in Florida said they would stress that LGBT people, like all other voters, care about issues beyond gay rights. While Romney may not be as supportive or outspoken on LGBT issues as Obama, they said they will stress that Romney’s economic policies would help gays where it counts the most, “in their wallets and pocketbooks,” as Log Cabin’s Tampa chapter president Jim Pease said.
“So why do I think gays will do well under Romney?” asked gay Republican activist Jim Driscoll, a former Bush administration appointee to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. “Romney’s opposition to discrimination against gays in jobs, etc., is genuine. He is not uncomfortable with gay people.”
Gay Democrats argue that unlike Obama, Romney hasn’t taken a position on whether he would support and sign the Employment Non-Discrimination, or ENDA, which would ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Attempts by the Blade this week to reach a Romney campaign spokesperson to determine Romney’s position on ENDA and other pending LGBT-related bills in Congress were unsuccessful.
LaSalvia notes that Obama has said he doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Gay Democrats respond by saying Obama has supported virtually all other items on the LGBT rights agenda, including repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in states that have legalized them.
In what will likely emerge as the gay Republicans’ key talking point in the fall general election, LaSalvia said gays are not “one-issue” voters.
“Something I say a lot, is especially true when contrasting Obama’s policies with any of the Republican candidates, is that I believe that free market solutions benefit all Americans, but especially gay Americans,” he said.
“Whether it’s Social Security reform that includes private inheritable accounts, free market health care reform that would allow same-sex partners to go on the open market and purchase family plans, or tax reform to make the tax code simpler and fairer, Romney and the other Republican candidates are offering solutions to problems facing all of us that are far better for our country than Obama’s failed policies,” LaSalvia said.
Davis from National Stonewall Democrats said most LGBT voters will dismiss such arguments as “ridiculous.” He said NSD and the Democratic Party has and will continue to show that Obama comes out far ahead on LGBT and non-LGBT issues.
Davis said both Log Cabin and GOProud were downplaying what he called Romney’s most anti-gay stand – his agreement to sign a pledge issued by the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage to support a U.S. constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
“It’s the height of hypocrisy” that gay Republicans would attempt to excuse Romney’s support for the NOM pledge, Davis said.
“They should be ashamed for excusing any of these GOP swindlers for pandering to these regressive demagogues who seek to not only take away our rights, but persecute us back into the closet,” he said.
A random, unscientific sample of interviews with 14 gay men at Fort Lauderdale’s gay beach on Tuesday appeared to confirm the longstanding leanings of that city’s LGBT community. All 14 said they strongly support the re-election of Barack Obama and would be unlikely to vote for any Republican.
“As a gay man, I won’t vote for any Republican, said Al Adamczyk, a longtime Fort Lauderdale resident. I’m gay and I’m proud of it. Gay Republicans are idiots.”
Daniel Jeffers, a gay Air Force veteran who just moved to Fort Lauderdale with his partner, Jerry Finster, said the two believe Obama has been good on both gay and non-gay issues and would never consider voting for a Republican candidate for president.
“Some gays want him to do more,” said Finster of Obama. “He is doing everything possible. I think independents will vote for him. The Republicans are a joke. Out of a scale of five stars, I have six stars for Obama.”
National
HRC report: LGBTQ students face ‘far greater challenges’ in non-supportive states
Survey finds anti-LGBTQ school harassment, bullying highest in 17 states
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the national LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, has released a report showing LGBTQ public school students are more likely to face bullying, harassment, and “other barriers” in states that have less overall supportive LGBTQ laws and policies.
The report is based on the HRC Foundation’s National Educator Survey of School Climate and Bullying, which was released on Sept. 17.
“The report finds that harassment, bullying, and other barriers to LGBTQ+ inclusion are more prevalent in states with limiting policies, where educators report widespread restrictions on LGBTQ+ resources, visible expressions of support, and assistance for transgender students,” a statement released by HRC says.
“As just one example,” the statement adds, “while 59 percent of educators in states with limiting policies report restrictions on supporting their transgender students, just 6 percent to 8 percent of educators in states with supportive policies report the same, underscoring the impact of these policies on school climate, student well-being, and the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections for LGBTQ+ youth and inclusive classrooms.”
The report says the survey consisted of responses by 826 educators in 42 states who worked as teachers, principals, counselors, administrators, and others who worked in support services. All worked at schools with students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, most being public schools and a smaller number being charter schools, the report says.
It says the survey was conducted between April 15 and May 21, 2026, and included a survey questionnaire with about 55 questions covering a wide range of LGBTQ related school issues.
According to the report, its classification of LGBTQ supportive and non-LGBTQ supportive states is based on a detailed analysis of the LGBTQ related laws and policies of all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories conducted by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, which describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit thinktank.”
The report includes a chart consisting of 51 boxes representing the 50 states and D.C., with 32 plus D.C. colored as blue and said to have overall LGBTQ supportive policies. The 17 boxes colored in red are said to have overall non-LGBTQ supportive policies and laws, Each of the boxes has the initial of a state or D.C. printed inside it.
In addition to D.C., the chart shows Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts as among the supportive states. Florida, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio are among the states shown to be non-LGBTQ supportive.
The HRC statement includes these “key” findings from the survey:
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 59 percent of educators report restrictions on supporting transgender students, compared to just 6-8 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive policies, nearly 50 percent of educators reported restrictions on LGBTQ+ books or resources, compared to just 7 percent of educators in states with supportive policies.
- Roughly 32 percent of educators in states with restrictive policies reported anti-LGBTQ+ harassment was a moderate or serious problem, compared with 11 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 29 percent of educators were very worried about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, compared to 15 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 36 percent of educators witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying, compared to 27 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 75 percent of educators reported no restrictions on LGBTQ+-supportive displays, highlighting a substantially more supportive school environment than in states with restrictive policies.
- Educators in states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies also reported significant harassment of students based on appearance (57 percent), race or ethnicity (43 percent), sexual orientation (42 percent), and gender identity or expression (39 percent). (No direct comparison figure from supportive-policy states is provided in the data above.)
“Every young person deserves to feel safe and supportive at school, but this report makes clear that for too many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender youth, are being failed by policies designed to exclude them,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in the HRC statement.
“We know that when students feel seen, supported, and affirmed, they are more likely to thrive, but when schools become places of exclusion or hostility, young people pay the price through lower engagement, missed opportunities to learn, and poorer mental and physical health,” Robinson said.
The HRC statement notes that the survey findings come at a time when a growing number of states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ students and the school officials and teachers who support them. It says that for the first time, the survey found that “educators themselves are also experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, highlighting the growing impact of these policies on school staff as well as students.”
The full survey findings and report can be accessed here:
U.S. Supreme Court
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons
SCOTUS could further restrict rights of trans inmates
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow its policy limiting gender-affirming treatment for federal inmates to take effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy, which had become policy nearly a decade ago for inmates who were transitioning.
The Trump administration argues in its application that its policy restricting transgender rights was properly adopted and that the judge overstepped, posing nationwide “security and prison-administrative concerns.”
If allowed, the policy would halt surgeries, hormones and social accommodations such as wigs while allowing mental health therapy to continue as the legality of the policy reversal is litigated.
The government also argues in the application that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for the inmates said the policy is “a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” and said withholding necessary gender-affirming healthcare constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Blade has covered the ongoing developments surrounding changes to Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate policy that went into effect earlier in Trump’s term. The changes primarily focus on rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates.
Earlier this year, the Blade published a joint letter from multiple senators in response to the rollback of the policy. Multiple senators — including Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) — sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall III calling for them to reverse the policy change, saying it endangers inmates’ health and safety.
The senators described how the policy shift, along with President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is forcing policy changes they argued are rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
Federal Bureau of Prisons responded to the Blade’s request for comment in May, declining to reconsider its transgender inmate policy.
The Blade reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons once again over the application to the Supreme Court, but did not hear back before publication.
Federal Government
Education Department rolls back protections for LGBTQ students under Title IX
The DoE policy rescinds Biden-era protections
The Department of Education rolled back a Biden-era Title IX interpretation on Monday that secured sex-based discrimination protections for students on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Title IX was established in 1972 as landmark civil rights law. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke about the revision of the policy, claiming the decision would explicitly help “women and girls.”
“Thanks to today’s action, the published Title IX regulations faithfully reflect court orders and congressional intent — reducing confusion for parents, students, and educational institutions. We will continue to relentlessly champion equal opportunity for all Americans and hold accountable any school or college that violates the rights, privacy, or athletic opportunities of our women and girls,” McMahon said via press release.
Prior to her work under the Trump-Vance administration, McMahon was a World Wrestling Federation/World Wrestling Entertainment executive before resigning to pursue a career in politics. She was appointed to the Connecticut State Board of Education by then-Gov. Jodi Rell in January 2009, but resigned from her role shortly afterward to run what ultimately became two failed campaigns for Connecticut’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010 and 2012.
A “fact sheet” provided by the Department of Education also called the inclusive sexual assault and gender identity protections expanded under the Biden-Harris unlawful, saying, “This change is necessary to provide clarity in the Code of Federal Regulations so that institutions, administrations, students, and families can see the rules that are actually in force and to help eliminate public confusion about the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to stretch Title IX’s legal protections to cover ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.’”
This is not the first time this policy has faced judicial hurdles. While Biden was still in office, the plan was struck down in multiple courts in Republican states.
Opponents of the move say it will harm transgender athletes and weaken protections for sexual assault victims.
“Sexual harassment and assault continue to be pervasive in schools and, to the fullest extent possible, we should be working to enforce the laws that protect student survivors of sexual violence. Yet, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Trump administration have decided to ignore what survivors need, instead weaponizing Title IX to attack trans students,” said Shiwali Patel, senior director of education justice at the National Women’s Law Center.
This is a return to a first Trump term policy after Biden issued an executive order to attempt to curb discrimination for all — especially those with different sexual orientations and gender identities — that had been given a pass during Trump’s first term. Much of Title IX’s policy has a narrow vision of what sex protections look like that often and enthusiastically leave gender-diverse and non-heterosexual people out.
In March 2021, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14021, “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,” to attempt to undo some of the flagrantly anti-LGBTQ policy the Trump-Pence administration had set forth relating to Title IX protections for LGBTQ students and sexual assault survivors.
The secretary focused this “win” for the administration as one more step toward restricting transgender students from competing in women’s sports, but the 2020 rule, completed under former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, didn’t explicitly ban trans students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity. It did limit the types of sexual harassment and assault complaints that schools had to investigate and required live hearings so male students could respond to accusations.
McMahon didn’t discuss those aspects in her statement or in requests for comment. The 2020 rule drew praise from conservatives and intense opposition from advocates who said it downplayed sexual abuse and left victims unprotected.
In a statement, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Education Committee, said, “Returning to the 2020 regulations restores longstanding protections for women and girls that the Biden-Harris administration attempted to dismantle and realigns Title IX policy with court precedents.”
LGBTQ activists have called this decision a direct attack on LGBTQ safety — particularly for trans students who continue to face a barrage of legislative, executive, and judicial attacks in recent years from the Trump-Vance administration.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the world, released a statement following the DoE’s announcement.
“Title IX is, quite simply, about protecting students and ensuring that they are safe from abuse, harassment, and discrimination while they pursue their education. But Donald Trump and his cronies aren’t interested in any of that,” Robinson said. “Donald Trump’s Department of Education has completely lost sight of that mission. Instead of enforcing protections for students, they’re rescinding them. They don’t care if sexual harassment and assault go unaddressed. And they’re happy to strip funding away from school districts and states that are actually trying to keep students safe.
“We know who will be hurt: women, girls, and others who are vulnerable to sexual harassment, assault and abuse — including LGBTQ+ students. The fact that they’re dropping this rule into place abruptly, without a comment period, denying families, educators, loved ones, and the students themselves a say in how they should be treated, shows how little they care about the safety of our students.
“This is a monstrous injustice, and it drives home how essential it is that we take action at the polls this November to start bringing some accountability to an administration that has turned its back on the very students Title IX was written to protect,” she added.
The Washington Blade reached out to the DoE for comment and questions on whether Title IX protections still included LGBTQ students, and received this email response from Education Spokesman Sabin Sidney:
“Your questions indicate you are clearly missing the entire point of this Final Rule. The Biden Administration illegally rewrote Title IX to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identification’ in the definition of sex-based discrimination. The Trump Administration is rescinding this rule—only after every federal court that heard legal challenges rejected it as unlawful.
“Since January 2025, the Department has been enforcing Title IX consistent with the President’s Executive Order grounded in biological truth that there are only two sexes. The Trump Administration is restoring the original promise of Title IX and providing clarity to students, parents, and educational institutions. We will vigorously defend equal opportunity consistent with the law’s intended purpose.”
