National
Romney’s veep options, from bad to worse
Five potential candidates have records hostile to LGBT rights
Amid the media frenzy over who Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will select as his running mate, one thing is clear: the leading candidates’ positions on LGBT issues range from bad to downright hostile.
The Washington Blade examined the records of five prospective vice presidential candidates to see where they stand on LGBT issues: former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, U.S. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Each of the potential choices has views on LGBT rights similar to Romney’s, who says he opposes marriage rights for gay couples, but also opposes discrimination — without backing any particular measure to protect LGBT people from discrimination.
One pick that is receiving considerable media attention is Pawlenty, who was a Republican presidential contender early on before he dropped out of the race after his poor showing in the Iowa Ames straw poll. There is media speculation that he tops the list for running mates being vetted by the Romney campaign, although Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation” he dismissed the rumors, saying he’s “encouraged people who asked this question in the campaign to look at other prospects.”
Pawlenty took a hardline on marriage over the course of his presidential campaign, signing — albeit belatedly — an anti-gay pledge from the National Organization for Marriage to back a Federal Marriage Amendment, defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court and establish a presidential commission on “religious liberty” to investigate the alleged harassment of opponents of same-sex marriage.
“I don’t think all domestic relationships are the same as traditional marriage,” Pawlenty said on CNN in July. “Marriage between a man and a woman is something that should remain elevated socially, culturally, and practically, legally, morally in our society.”
Another possibility for Romney who is receiving considerable attention is Portman, who’s served for two decades as a public official as a member of Congress, the U.S. Trade Representative and director of the Office of Management & Budget. On Tuesday, Portman appeared to be cozying up to Romney, telling the Washington Reuters Summit the candidate would be “willing to risk being a one-term president in order to make the tough decisions that are going to be required.”
The Ohio senator made headlines when he suggested that he opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, after telling ThinkProgress that he has concerns about litigation that could follow if the legislation were passed.
“What I’m concerned about in Paycheck Fairness and other legislation like that is the fact that it will spawn a lot of litigation the way the legislation is written,” Portman said. “So you don’t want it to be a boon to lawyers, you want it to actually help people. But no one should discriminate.”
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said the perception that Portman is opposed to ENDA is inconsistent with what he’s heard based on meetings with the senator’s staff and said Portman — along with “a significant number” of Republican senators — may vote “yes” on the bill.
“Based on Freedom to Work’s conversations with the office of Sen. Portman, we believe he might vote ‘yes’ on ENDA if Sen. Harry Reid brings it to the floor of the Senate for a vote,” Almeida said. “The only way to know for sure is for Reid to fulfill a promise he made three years ago by finally bringing ENDA to the Senate floor.”
Portman’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request to clarify the senator’s position on ENDA. Any such vote in favor of ENDA would represent a change of heart for Portman based on his anti-gay votes while serving as a member of the U.S. House from 1993 to 2005. Portman voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment. In 1999, Portman voted in favor of barring D.C. same-sex couples from adopting children.
Chris Seelbach, a gay Cincinnati City Council member, said he doubts Portman would support LGBT issues if he were elected as vice president based on those votes.
“Based on Sen. Portman’s consistent votes against LGBT families, it seems very clear that he would be no friend to the gay community if elected vice president,” Seelbach said.
Romney is expected to name his running mate prior to the Republican National Convention, which will take place this year during the week of Aug. 27 in Tampa, Fla. Andrea Saul, a Romney campaign spokesperson, declined to comment on any possible selection saying, “We don’t discuss the VP process, sorry.”
The No. 2 person on the Republican presidential ticket could have bearing on how gay Americans who lean conservative may vote in November. Christian Berle, deputy executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said the selection will impact whether the organization endorses Romney this fall.
“As Log Cabin Republicans considers many factors in making a potential endorsement, we’ll of course take into account whom will be in such a critical position,” Berle said. “If Gov. Romney and Republicans want to be successful in November, they must improve their position among moderates, women and younger voters with a message entirely focused around jobs and the economy.”
It’s for this reason that Berle praised Ryan, who was among the 159 Republicans who voted for a gay-only version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act when it came to the House floor in 2007. Ryan later said he took criticism for his vote, but acknowledged he has gay friends, saying, “They didn’t roll out of bed one morning and choose to be gay. That’s who they are.”
Berle said Ryan’s vote for the non-inclusive ENDA in 2007 demonstrates that he recognizes “like all Americans that the workplace needs to be about meritocracy and productivity.”
But besides this vote, Ryan’s record on LGBT issues has hardly been stellar. Ryan voted in the subsequent Congress against hate crimes protection legislation and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. The lawmaker also expressed opposition to same-sex marriage, saying on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last year, “I support the Wisconsin Amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman.”
Katie Belanger, executive director of Fair Wisconsin, dismissed the notion that a Vice President Ryan would be a champion for LGBT equality upon taking the oath of office.
“Rep. Ryan has maintained a consistently anti-fairness voting record on issues of importance to our community, during the last five congressional sessions, including voting in 2002 against a policy that members of Congress voluntarily adopted to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in their own congressional offices,” she said.
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (photo by Gage Skidmore via wikimedia)
Many pundits have speculated that Rubio is on the list of names Romney is considering for his running mate. Romney said earlier this month the senator was being “thoroughly vetted” for a position as No. 2 on his ticket.
New to federal office, Rubio hasn’t been called on to vote on LGBT issues yet, although he’s been closely aligned with the conservative Tea Party movement. Among his “no” votes were against an LGBT-inclusive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Rubio has expressed differing views from Romney on the Federal Marriage Amendment, saying “ultimately marriage is regulated by states,” but has expressed opposition to same-sex marriage based on his religious beliefs.
“I believe marriage is a unique and specific institution that is the result of thousands of years of wisdom, which concluded that the ideal — not the only way but certainly the ideal — situation to raise children to become productive and healthy humans is in a home with a father and mother married to each other,” Rubio said.
Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida, said the LGBT community wouldn’t be able to trust Rubio if he were vice president during a Romney administration.
“I don’t think he believes the foolishness he says, he’s pandering as fast as he can, and in that sense, he and Romney are made for each other,” Smith said. “They’re both weather vanes.”
Another potential running mate is Jindal, who was considered a potential candidate for president prior to his widely panned response to President Obama’s State of the Union address in 2009. Last month, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist praised Jindal in an op-ed for Politico, later reportedly saying “Jindal is a leading option” for vice president.
But Jindal is known for having anti-gay views and maintaining close ties with anti-gay figures. Jindal campaigned for governor on rescinding an order put in place by Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco protecting gay state workers from discrimination — a pledge he fulfilled upon taking office.
Once elected, Jindal established a Louisiana Commission on Marriage & Family, appointing to the body anti-gay activists such as the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and the Alliance Defense Fund’s Michael Johnson.
SarahJane Brady, managing director of the Forum For Equality Louisiana, said Jindal has “continuously repressed and ignored the needs” of LGBT people in Louisiana.
“Bobby Jindal has proven himself repeatedly to be an enemy of fairness and equality,” Brady said. “Should Gov. Romney choose Bobby Jindal to be his running mate, that would send a message of open hostility to the LGBT community.”
Kansas
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
A new Kansas bill requires transgender residents to have their driver’s licenses reflect their sex assigned at birth, invalidating current licenses.
Transgender people across Kansas received letters in the mail on Wednesday demanding the immediate surrender of their driver’s licenses following passage of one of the harshest transgender bathroom bans in the nation. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit to block the ban and protect transgender residents from what advocates describe as “sweeping” and “punitive” consequences.
Independent journalist Erin Reed broke the story Wednesday after lawmakers approved House Substitute for Senate Bill 244. In her reporting, Reed included a photo of the letter sent to transgender Kansans, requiring them to obtain a driver’s license that reflects their sex assigned at birth rather than the gender with which they identify.
According to the reporting, transgender Kansans must surrender their driver’s licenses and that their current credentials — regardless of expiration date — will be considered invalid upon the law’s publication. The move effectively nullifies previously issued identification documents, creating immediate uncertainty for those impacted.
House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 also stipulates that any transgender person caught driving without a valid license could face a class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. That potential penalty adds a criminal dimension to what began as an administrative action. It also compounds the legal risks for transgender Kansans, as the state already requires county jails to house inmates according to sex assigned at birth — a policy that advocates say can place transgender detainees at heightened risk.
Beyond identification issues, SB 244 not only bans transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity in government buildings — including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops — with the possibility for criminal penalties, but also allows for what critics have described as a “bathroom bounty hunter” provision. The measure permits anyone who encounters a transgender person in a restroom — including potentially in private businesses — to sue them for large sums of money, dramatically expanding the scope of enforcement beyond government authorities.
The lawsuit challenging SB 244 was filed today in the District Court of Douglas County on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas, and Ballard Spahr LLP. The complaint argues that SB 244 violates the Kansas Constitution’s protections for personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and freedom of speech.
Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a temporary restraining order on behalf of the anonymous plaintiffs, arguing that the order — followed by a temporary injunction — is necessary to prevent the “irreparable harm” that would result from SB 244.
State Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat and the only transgender member of the Kansas Legislature, told the Kansas City Star on Wednesday that “persecution is the point.”
“This legislation is a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans,” said Monica Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas. “It undermines our state’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and persecution.”
“SB 244 is a cruel and craven threat to public safety all in the name of fostering fear, division, and paranoia,” said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “The invalidation of state-issued IDs threatens to out transgender people against their will every time they apply for a job, rent an apartment, or interact with police. Taken as a whole, SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”
“SB 244 presents a state-sanctioned attack on transgender people aimed at silencing, dehumanizing, and alienating Kansans whose gender identity does not conform to the state legislature’s preferences,” said Heather St. Clair, a Ballard Spahr litigator working on the case. “Ballard Spahr is committed to standing with the ACLU and the plaintiffs in fighting on behalf of transgender Kansans for a remedy against the injustices presented by SB 244, and is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights jeopardized by this new law.”
National
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Top editorial staff let go last week
Former staff members at the Advocate and Out magazines revealed that parent company Equalpride laid off a number of employees late last week.
Those let go included Advocate editor-in-chief Alex Cooper, Pride.com editor-in-chief Rachel Shatto, brand partnerships manager Erin Manley, community editor Marie-Adélina de la Ferriére, and Out magazine staff writers Moises Mendez and Bernardo Sim, according to a report in Hollywood Reporter.
Cooper, who joined the company in 2021, posted to social media that, “Few people have had the privilege of leading this legendary LGBTQ+ news outlet, and I’m deeply honored to have been one of them. To my team: thank you for the last four years. You’ve been the best. For those also affected today, please let me know how I can support you.”
The Advocate’s PR firm when reached by the Blade said it no longer represents the company. Emails to the Advocate went unanswered.
Equalpride on Friday announced it acquired “Them,” a digital LGBTQ outlet founded in 2017 by Conde Nast.
“Equalpride exists to elevate, celebrate and protect LGBTQ+ storytelling at scale,” Equalpride CEO Mark Berryhill said according to Hollywood Reporter. “By combining the strengths of our brands with this respected digital platform, we’re creating a unified ecosystem that delivers even more impact for our audiences, advertisers, and community partners.”
It’s not clear if “Them” staff would take over editorial responsibilities for the Advocate and Out.
Federal Government
Two very different views of the State of the Union
As Trump delivered his SOTU address inside the Capitol, Democratic lawmakers gathered outside in protest, condemning the administration’s harmful policies.
As President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address inside the U.S. Capitol — touting his achievements and targeting political enemies — progressive members of Congress gathered just outside in protest.
Their message was blunt: For many Americans, particularly LGBTQ people, the country is not better off.
Each year, as required by Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president must “give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” The annual address is meant to outline accomplishments and preview the year ahead. This year, Trump delivered the longest State of the Union in U.S. history, clocking in at one hour and 48 minutes. He spoke about immigration, his “law and order” domestic agenda, his “peace through strength” foreign policy doctrine, and what he framed as the left’s ‘culture wars’ — especially those involving transgender youth and Christian values.
But one year into what he has called the “Trump 2.0” era, the picture painted outside the Capitol stood in stark contrast to the one described inside.
Transgender youth
In one of the most pointed moments of his speech, Trump spotlighted Sage Blair, using her story to portray gender-affirming care as coercive and dangerous. Framing the issue as one of parental rights and government overreach, he told lawmakers and viewers:
“In the gallery tonight are Sage Blair and her mother, Michelle. In 2021, Sage was 14 when school officials in Virginia sought to socially transition her to a new gender, treating her as a boy and hiding it from her parents. Hard to believe, isn’t it? Before long, a confused Sage ran away from home.
“After she was found in a horrific situation in Maryland, a left-wing judge refused to return Sage to her parents because they did not immediately state that their daughter was their son. Sage was thrown into an all-boys state home and suffered terribly for a long time. But today, all of that is behind them because Sage is a proud and wonderful young woman with a full ride scholarship to Liberty University.
“Sage and Michelle, please stand up. And thank you for your great bravery and who can believe that we’re even speaking about things like this. Fifteen years ago, if somebody was up here and said that, they’d say, what’s wrong with him? But now we have to say it because it’s going on all over, numerous states, without even telling the parents.
“But surely, we can all agree no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will. Who would believe that we’ve been talking about that? We must ban it and we must ban it immediately. Look, nobody stands up. These people are crazy. I’m telling you, they’re crazy.”
The story, presented as encapsulation of a national crisis, became the foundation for Trump’s renewed call to ban gender-affirming care. LGBTQ advocates — and those familiar with Blair’s story — argue that the situation was far more complex than described and that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions places transgender people, particularly youth, at greater risk.
Equality Virginia said the president’s remarks were part of a broader effort to strip transgender Americans of access to care. In a statement to the Blade, the group said:
“Tonight, the president is choosing to double down on efforts to disrupt access to evidence-based, lifesaving care.
“Rather than allowing families and doctors to navigate deeply personal medical decisions free from federal interference — or allowing schools to respond with nuance and compassion without putting marginalized children at risk — the president is instead advocating for reckless, one-size-fits-all political control.
“At a time when Virginians are worried about rising costs, economic uncertainty, and aggressive immigration enforcement actions disrupting communities and families, attacking transgender young people is a blatant political distraction from the real challenges facing our nation. Virginia families and health care providers do not need Donald Trump telling them what care they do or do not need.”
For many in the LGBTQ community, the rhetoric inside the chamber echoed actions already taken by the administration.
Earlier this month, the Pride flag was removed from the Stonewall National Monument under a National Park Service directive that came from the top. Community members returned to the site, raised the flag again, and filed suit, arguing the removal violated federal law. To advocates, the move was symbolic — a signal that even the legacy of LGBTQ resistance was not immune.
Immigration and fear
Immigration dominated both events as well.
Inside the chamber, Trump boasted about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants detained in makeshift facilities. Outside, Democratic lawmakers described those same facilities as concentration camps and detailed what they characterized as the human toll of the administration’s enforcement policies.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), speaking to the crowd, painted a grim picture of communities living in fear:
“People are vanishing into thin air. Quiet mornings are punctuated by jarring violence. Students are assaulted by ICE agents sitting outside the high school, hard working residents are torn from their vehicles in front of their children. Families, hopelessly search for signs of their loved ones who have stopped answering their phones, stop replying to text… This is un-American, it is illegal, it is unconstitutional, and the people are going to rise up and fight for Gladys Vega and all of those poor people who today need to know that the people’s State of the Union is the beginning of a long fight that is going to result in the end of Republican control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States of America in 2026.”
Speakers emphasized that LGBTQ immigrants are often especially vulnerable — fleeing persecution abroad only to face detention and uncertainty in the United States. For them, the immigration crackdown and the attacks on transgender health care are not separate battles but intertwined fronts in a broader cultural and political war.
Queer leadership
After delivering remarks alongside Robert Garcia, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, took the stage and transformed the freezing crowd’s anger into resolve.
Garcia later told the Blade that visibility matters in moments like this — especially when LGBTQ rights are under direct attack.
“We should be crystal clear about right now what is happening in our country,” Garcia said. “We have a president who is leading the single largest government cover up in modern history, we have the single largest sex trafficking ring in modern history right now being covered up by Donald Trump and Pam Bondi In the Department of Justice. Why are we protecting powerful, wealthy men who have abused and raped women and children in this country? Why is our government protecting these men at this very moment? In my place at the Capitol is a woman named Annie farmer. Annie and her sister Maria, both endured horrific abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. As we move forward in this investigation, always center the survivors; we are going to get justice for the survivors. And Donald Trump may call this investigation a hoax. He may try to deflect our work, but our message to him is very clear that our investigation is just getting started, and we will we will get justice for these survivors.”
He told the Blade afterwards that having queer leaders front and center is itself an act of resistance.
“I obviously was very honored to speak with Kelley,” the California representative said. Kelley is doing a great job…it’s important that there are queer voices, trans voices, gay voices, in protest, and I think she’s a great example of that. It’s important to remind the country that the rights of our community continue to be attacked, and then we’ve got to stand up. Got to stand up for this as well.”
Robinson echoed that call, urging LGBTQ Americans — especially young people — not to lose hope despite the administration’s escalating rhetoric.
“There are hundreds of thousands of people that are standing up for you every single day that will not relent and will not give an inch until every member of our community is protected, especially our kids, especially our trans and queer kids. I just hope that the power of millions of voices drowns out that one loud one, because that’s really what I want folks to see at HRC. We’ve got 3.6 million members that are mobilizing to support our community every single day, 75 million equality voters, people that decide who they’re going to vote for based on issues related to our community. Our job is to make sure that all those people stand up so that those kids can see us and hear our voices, because we’re going to be what stands in the way.”
A boycott — and a warning
The list of Democratic lawmakers who boycotted the State of the Union included Sens. Ruben Gallego, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Chris Murphy, Adam Schiff, Tina Smith, and Chris Van Hollen, along with dozens of House members.
For those gathered outside — and for viewers watching the livestream hosted by MoveOn — the counter-programming was not merely symbolic. It was a warning.
While the president spoke of strength and success inside the chamber, LGBTQ Americans — particularly transgender youth — were once again cast as political targets. And outside the Capitol, lawmakers and advocates made clear that the fight over their rights is far from over.
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Spring into sold
Plan your wedding the LGBTQ way
Calendar: February 27-March 5
Rob Jetten becomes first gay Dutch prime minister
More than a dozen LGBTQ athletes medal at Olympics
New book profiles LGBTQ Ukrainians, documents war experiences
PHOTOS: Queen of Hearts
