National
National news in brief
Casey to introduce LGBT anti-bullying bill & more

Casey to introduce LGBT anti-bullying bill
PHILADELPHIA — U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) has announced plans to introduce federal anti-bullying legislation “in the next couple of days” that would be inclusive of protecting LGBT students throughout the country.
During a May 1 speech at the annual Equality Forum, Casey said the bill, which will be known as the Safe Schools Improvement Act, is necessary because data shows that bullying happens “most frequently to children who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.”
“We must enact legislation to do a better job of protecting children, especially those children who are being bullied every day because they’re gay or lesbian,” he said.
Casey said the bill would call on schools to develop policies to prohibit bullying and harassment and create a system to obtain and report data on the issue. Companion legislation to what Casey’s proposing exists in the House. The sponsor of the House version, which has 108 co-sponsors, is Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.).
After the speech, Casey told the Blade his legislation would be different from the Student Non-Discrimination Act that Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is poised to introduce in the Senate.
Casey said it’s important for the federal government to make clear that it’s going to pay more attention to the issue of bullying.
“As you know, it’s been a significant issue as it relates to gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender children for a long time — or children who happen to have parents who are gay or lesbian,” he said.
Casey said the legislation wouldn’t necessarily have language specifically relating to sexual orientation or gender identity but would have more of a “broader directive” toward all students.
Although he said it’s possible for anti-bullying legislation to pass this year, Casey said he’s “learned to be more realistic about how long bills can take.”
Hawaii passes civil unions bill
HONOLULU — In an unexpected development, Hawaii’s House of Representatives last week voted 31-20 to pass a civil unions bill providing the same rights and benefits of marriage to the state’s same-sex couples.
The vote came April 30 during the final hours of the legislative body’s session and after many political observers expected supporters to postpone a vote because they lacked sufficient support to override any veto by Republican Gov. Linda Lingle.
Lingle has not said whether she will sign or veto the bill. Opponents, led by the state Catholic Archdiocese, are demanding that Lingle veto the measure. Supporters need 34 votes to override a veto, three more than the number who voted for the measure on Thursday.
“The legislature’s passage of a civil union bill marks a major step forward in Hawaii’s journey toward fairness and equality, but falls short of the full security and equality protection that come only with the freedom to marry,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the same-sex marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry.
Hawaii’s state Senate passed the bill earlier this year.
Wolfson played a role in efforts to push for same-sex marriage in Hawaii during the early 1990s, when same-sex couples filed a lawsuit asserting the state’s Constitution required recognition of same-sex marriage. In a highly controversial decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in favor of the couple’s suit, setting in motion a process where Hawaii could have become the nation’s first state to legalize gay marriage.
But opponents fought back, pushing through a ballot measure approved by the voters that amended the state’s Constitution in 1998 to ban gay marriage. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruling in 1993 has been credited with unleashing a nationwide backlash against same-sex marriage that led to ballot measures banning gay marriage in states across the country.
Wolfson and other LGBT activists have expressed hope that that backlash is subsiding, and that more states will soon approve same-sex marriage laws similar to those in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.
Franken to introduce student non-discrimination bill
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is poised to introduce a bill that would bar discrimination against LGBT students in schools throughout the country, according to his office.
“We are hopeful that we can introduce our companion anti-bullying legislation soon,” Jess McIntosh, a Franken spokesperson, told the Blade last week.
In the House, the legislation is known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a gay lawmaker, introduced the measure in January. Polis said the legislation would give schools across the country tools to fight “everything from exclusion from prom, to banning clubs, to lack of actions addressing bullying situations.”
McIntosh said she couldn’t say when Franken would introduce the bill; she also couldn’t confirm whether the language in his bill would match the House version.
Daryl Presgraves, spokesperson for the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, which has been advocating for the bill, praised Franken for furthering the effort.
“Obviously, we’re very grateful to Sen. Franken for realizing that the Student Non-Discrimination Act is an important piece of legislation that will help make schools safer for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression,” Presgraves said.
Immigration reform could include UAFA: report
WASHINGTON — A recently published outline of principles Senate Democrats are seeking as part of upcoming comprehensive immigration reform calls for language that would address inequities faced by same-sex bi-national couples.
The 26-page draft proposal, posted online April 29 by Politico, devotes one line to expressing a desire for language to allow LGBT Americans to sponsor their foreign same-sex partners for residency in the U.S. as part of the final immigration reform bill.
“It will eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status,” says the draft.
The proposed language is similar to standalone legislation pending in Congress known as the Uniting American Families Act. The bill would change immigration law to assist an estimated 36,000 same-sex bi-national couples living in the United States.
The draft proposal’s authors are Senate Democrats leading the effort in the chamber for immigration reform: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.).
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, called the proposal “a very significant development” toward including UAFA in comprehensive immigration reform.
“It is a solid indication that lawmakers — in crafting their priorities for the bill — saw this as being one of those priorities,” he said.
Baldwin says OPM has pay-for info on DP bill
WASHINGTON — The only out lesbian in Congress told reporters last week that the administration has sent her information on finding funds to pay for domestic partner benefits legislation for federal workers.
Asked by the Blade on April 28 whether the U.S. Office of Personnel Management had yet provided the data as requested by lawmakers, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) replied, “To me.”
The legislation, known as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, would make available to the same-sex partners of federal workers the same benefits available to the spouses of straight workers, including health and pension benefits.
“We’ll be able to pay for it,” said Baldwin, the bill’s sponsor. “I’m confident that we will be able to offset it so that it will meet statutory pay-go requirements.”
House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over the legislation reported out the bill late last year. But supporters have said they wouldn’t move the bill to the floor unless OPM provided information on how to pay for the legislation’s cost — an estimated $63 million each year — within the agency’s existing budget.
Baldwin said for strategic reasons, she didn’t want to offer more information publicly on how OPM found the needed funds to pay for the legislation.
U.S. Federal Courts
Judge temporarily blocks executive orders targeting LGBTQ, HIV groups
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in federal court

A federal judge on Monday blocked the enforcement of three of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that would have threatened to defund nonprofit organizations providing health care and services for LGBTQ people and those living with HIV.
The preliminary injunction was awarded by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a case, San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal and eight other organizations.
Implementation of the executive orders — two aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion along with one targeting the transgender community — will be halted pending the outcome of the litigation challenging them.
“This is a critical win — not only for the nine organizations we represent, but for LGBTQ communities and people living with HIV across the country,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project director and senior counsel on the case.
“The court blocked anti-equity and anti-LGBTQ executive orders that seek to erase transgender people from public life, dismantle DEI efforts, and silence nonprofits delivering life-saving services,” Abrigo said. “Today’s ruling acknowledges the immense harm these policies inflict on these organizations and the people they serve and stops Trump’s orders in their tracks.”
Tigar wrote, in his 52-page decision, “While the Executive requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the constitution.”
“And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous,” he said.
Without the preliminary injunction, the judge wrote, “Plaintiffs face the imminent loss of federal funding critical to their ability to provide lifesaving healthcare and support services to marginalized LGBTQ populations,” a loss that “not only threatens the survival of critical programs but also forces plaintiffs to choose between their constitutional rights and their continued existence.”
The organizations in the lawsuit are located in California (San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Los Angeles LGBT Center, GLBT Historical Society, and San Francisco Community Health Center), Arizona (Prisma Community Care), New York (The NYC LGBT Community Center), Pennsylvania (Bradbury-Sullivan Community Center), Maryland (Baltimore Safe Haven), and Wisconsin (FORGE).
U.S. Supreme Court
Activists rally for Andry Hernández Romero in front of Supreme Court
Gay asylum seeker ‘forcibly deported’ to El Salvador, described as political prisoner

More than 200 people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday and demanded the Trump-Vance administration return to the U.S. a gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who it “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador.
Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based organization that represents Andry Hernández Romero, is among those who spoke alongside U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Human Rights Campaign Campaigns and Communications Vice President Jonathan Lovitz. Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark, Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, and Tim Miller are among those who also participated in the rally.
“Andry is a son, a brother. He’s an actor, a makeup artist,” said Toczylowski. “He is a gay man who fled Venezuela because it was not safe for him to live there as his authentic self.”
(Video by Michael K. Lavers)
The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The Trump-Vance administration subsequently “forcibly removed” Hernández and hundreds of other Venezuelans to El Salvador.
Toczylowski said she believes Hernández remains at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT. Toczylowski also disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.
“Andry fled persecution in Venezuela and came to the U.S. to seek protection. He has no criminal history. He is not a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. Yet because of his crown tattoos, we believe at this moment that he sits in a torture prison, a gulag, in El Salvador,” said Toczylowski. “I say we believe because we have not had any proof of life for him since the day he was put on a U.S. government-funded plane and forcibly disappeared to El Salvador.”
“Andry is not alone,” she added.
Takano noted the federal government sent his parents, grandparents, and other Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II under the Alien Enemies Act. The gay California Democrat also described Hernández as “a political prisoner, denied basic rights under a law that should have stayed in the past.”
“He is not a case number,” said Takano. “He is a person.”
Hernández had been pursuing his asylum case while at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.
A hearing had been scheduled to take place on May 30, but an immigration judge the day before dismissed his case. Immigrant Defenders Law Center has said it will appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the Justice Department oversees.
“We will not stop fighting for Andry, and I know neither will you,” said Toczylowski.
Friday’s rally took place hours after Attorney General Pam Bondi said Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump-Vance administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador, had returned to the U.S. Abrego will face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee.
National
A husband’s story: Michael Carroll reflects on life with Edmund White
Iconic author died this week; ‘no sunnier human in the world’

Unlike most gay men of my generation, I’ve only been to Fire Island twice. Even so, the memory of my first visit has never left me. The scenery was lovely, and the boys were sublime — but what stood out wasn’t the beach or the parties. It was a quiet afternoon spent sipping gin and tonics in a mid-century modern cottage tucked away from the sand and sun.
Despite Fire Island’s reputation for hedonism, our meeting was more accident than escapade. Michael Carroll — a Facebook friend I’d chatted with but never met — mentioned that he and his husband, Ed, would be there that weekend, too. We agreed to meet for a drink. On a whim, I checked his profile and froze. Ed was author Edmund White.
I packed a signed copy of Carroll’s “Little Reef” and a dog-eared hardback of “A Boy’s Own Story,” its spine nearly broken from rereads. I was excited to meet both men and talk about writing, even briefly.
Yesterday, I woke to the news that Ed had passed away. Ironically, my first thought was of Michael.
This week, tributes to Edmund White are everywhere — rightly celebrating his towering legacy as a novelist, essayist, and cultural icon. I’ve read all of his books, and I could never do justice to the scope of a career that defined and chronicled queer life for more than half a century. I’ll leave that to better-prepared journalists.
But in those many memorials, I’ve noticed something missing. When Michael Carroll is mentioned, it’s usually just a passing reference: “White’s partner of thirty years, twenty-five years his junior.” And yet, in the brief time I spent with this couple on Fire Island, it was clear to me that Michael was more than a footnote — he was Ed’s anchor, editor, companion, and champion. He was the one who knew his husband best.
They met in 1995 after Michael wrote Ed a fan letter to tell him he was coming to Paris. “He’d lost the great love of his life a year before,” Michael told me. “In one way, I filled a space. Understand, I worshiped this man and still do.”
When I asked whether there was a version of Ed only he knew, Michael answered without hesitation: “No sunnier human in the world, obvious to us and to people who’ve only just or never met him. No dark side. Psychology had helped erase that, I think, or buffed it smooth.”
Despite the age difference and divergent career arcs, their relationship was intellectually and emotionally symbiotic. “He made me want to be elegant and brainy; I didn’t quite reach that, so it led me to a slightly pastel minimalism,” Michael said. “He made me question my received ideas. He set me free to have sex with whoever I wanted. He vouchsafed my moods when they didn’t wobble off axis. Ultimately, I encouraged him to write more minimalistically, keep up the emotional complexity, and sleep with anyone he wanted to — partly because I wanted to do that too.”
Fully open, it was a committed relationship that defied conventional categories. Ed once described it as “probably like an 18th-century marriage in France.” Michael elaborated: “It means marriage with strong emotion — or at least a tolerance for one another — but no sex; sex with others. I think.”
That freedom, though, was always anchored in deep devotion and care — and a mutual understanding that went far beyond art, philosophy, or sex. “He believed in freedom and desire,” Michael said, “and the two’s relationship.”
When I asked what all the essays and articles hadn’t yet captured, Michael paused. “Maybe that his writing was tightly knotted, but that his true personality was vulnerable, and that he had the defense mechanisms of cheer and optimism to conceal that vulnerability. But it was in his eyes.”
The moment that captured who Ed was to him came at the end. “When he was dying, his second-to-last sentence (garbled then repeated) was, ‘Don’t forget to pay Merci,’ the cleaning lady coming the next day. We had had a rough day, and I was popping off like a coach or dad about getting angry at his weakness and pushing through it. He took it almost like a pack mule.”
Edmund White’s work shaped generations — it gave us language for desire, shame, wit, and liberation. But what lingers just as powerfully is the extraordinary life Ed lived with a man who saw him not only as a literary giant but as a real person: sunny, complex, vulnerable, generous.
In the end, Ed’s final words to his husband weren’t about his books or his legacy. They were about care, decency, and love. “You’re good,” he told Michael—a benediction, a farewell, maybe even a thank-you.
And now, as the world celebrates the prolific writer and cultural icon Edmund White, it feels just as important to remember the man and the person who knew him best. Not just the story but the characters who stayed to see it through to the end.