Connect with us

Politics

Murphy amendment certified for House consideration

Published

on

The House Rules Committee late Wednesday found in order an amendment to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing for a vote on the measure when lawmakers take up major defense budget legislation.

Lawmakers on the panel approved the amendment, introduced by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), by voice vote as part of a rule governing debate for the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.

The Rules Committee is charged with determining what rule governs the debate on legislation that comes to the House floor, including the length of time for discussion and whether certain amendments will be allowed.

The committee’s certification of Murphy’s amendment means the measure will be able to come to the floor when lawmakers take up the defense budget legislation, which is scheduled to happen either Thursday or Friday.

The rule allows for 10 minutes of debate on the Murphy amendment before House lawmakers take an up-or-down vote on the measure.

In testimony before the committee, Murphy urged lawmakers to find his amendment in order so that Congress could move forward with doing away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Murphy brought particular attention to the case of former Army Sergeant Darren Manzella, a gay soldier who served in Iraq war and was discharged in 2008 after he came out to his comrades and talked about his story on CBS’ 60 Minutes.

“I’m here today for Darren and for the 13,500 brave servicemen and women kicked out of the military simply because they are gay,” Murphy said. “The arguments in support of this policy are weak and outdated, and the time to repeal this policy is now.”

Murphy said the U.S. military is “stretched thin” and it makes no sense to “kick out people who want to serve — who are willing to serve and die for their country.”

Following Murphy’s remarks, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a gay lawmaker and member of the Rules Committee, choked back on tears as he expressed appreciation to Murphy for championing the issue to end what he called one of the last “bastions of discrimination.”

After he left the witness stand, Murphy embraced Polis briefly before leaving the committee room.

Murphy told the Blade he feels “very good” as the votes approach both the House floor and the Senate Armed Services Committee later this week.

“I think I’m confident of the votes in the House and also in the Senate Armed Services Committee,” Murphy said. “And I think it’s good for national security, and for the American taxpayer, not to waste our money.”

Polis told the Blade he was similarly hopeful about the passage of Murphy’s amendment, which he said would allow “the military to end the [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] policy, which is the stated intention of the commander-in-chief.”

“I’m optimistic that we’ll be passing it on the floor of the House [Thursday],” he said.

A Democratic leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the defense authorization bill could come up for consideration on Thursday, but may be pushed back for consideration of jobs legislation.

“Consideration of the defense authorization is still expected to start [Thursday], but it is possible that the [“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”] amendment from Rep. Murphy could be pushed into Friday,” the aide said.

The aide said the delay will “allow additional time for the whip effort” and supporters of repeal in the House “continue to be very optimistic on the amendment’s chances.”

While certifying Murphy’s amendment, the committee blocked consideration of a substitute amendment by a vote of 3-8 that would have revised the terms of reference for the Pentagon study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and require that it be delivered to Congress well as the military service chiefs. 

The amendment was offered by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), ranking Republican of the House Armed Services Committee.

In testimony before the committee, McKeon said his amendment would have mandated the Pentagon examine what impact repeal would have on the Defense of Marriage Act as well as readiness and unit cohesion.

In a possible preview of what will happen with the Murphy amendment when it reaches the House floor, lawmakers on the panel were split on the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Some members of the Rules Committee expressed support for moving legislatively to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at this time while others said they wanted to hold off until the Pentagon completes its review.

McKeon said in testimony he was among those wanting to wait until the Defense Department working group completes its work.

“We don’t know what effect this would have on recruitment, retention and morale,” he said. “Not making Mr. Murphy’s amendment in order would be keeping the faith with the two-and-a-half million men and women in uniform … in saying that their voices do count.”

McKeon said he received letters this week from the service chiefs of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps asking Congress to hold off on repeal until the Pentagon study is complete.

Earlier in the day, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an opponent of repeal, also made public four letters from the service chiefs asking Congress to refrain from taking action at this time.

In one of the letters to McCain, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said Congress should wait for the study to be complete “as a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the armed forces.”

“To do otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive and would reflect an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed, digested and understood,” Schwartz said.

But in a response to these letters, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili wrote in a letter made public later in the day that Congress should act on the pending legislation.

“While I fully agree that Congress should take no action that usurps the Pentagon’s evaluation process and recommendations, there is nothing in those letters that gives Congress any reason to delay enacting the legislative compromise that was proposed this week,” Shalikashvili said.

Also speaking out during the hearing in opposition to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal at this time was Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.).

Dreier, who supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when it was enacted in 1993, said he would be inclined to support repeal of the law but only after the Pentagon has time to complete its study.

“I wonder why it is that we need to have this vote at this moment,” he said. “We are just a few months away from getting a report that I suspect will allow for the opportunity to ensure that people aren’t thrown of the military who want to have a chance to serve their country.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) also didn’t speak favorably about a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” although his opposition wasn’t as strong as other opponents of repeal during the committee discussion.

Skelton recalled the April 30 letter in which Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would “strongly oppose” legislative action at this time. Skelton also emphasized the importance of the study as a way to inform how to move forward on the issue, saying it’s “not a rubber stamp.”

But Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), a strong supporter of repeal, was particularly passionate about Congress moving to address “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” immediately.

“What we’ve failed to mention is that 14,000 people in this 17-year period of time have been put out of the military,” he said. “Some of them were people that had specialties that are hard to replace.”

Hastings said he knows of at least 16 people who were discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that specialized in Arabic translation.

Also in support of Congress moving now to address the issue was Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who said a study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” wasn’t necessary for Congress to know that it should act against discrimination.

“To me, it just comes down to this simple view that I have, which is an important view, and that is prejudice and bigotry are wrong, whether it is in the workplace or in the armed forces,” he said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

LGBTQ Democrats say they’re ready to fight to win in 2026

DNC winter meetings took place last weekend in Los Angeles

Published

on

Then-Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Aug. 22, 2024. The former vice president spoke at the Democratic National Committee's annual winter meetings in Los Angeles. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Democratic National Committee held its annual winter meetings in Downtown Los Angeles over the weekend, and queer Democrats showed up with a clear message for the national organization: don’t abandon queer and transgender people.

Following last year’s disastrous presidential and congressional elections, many influential pundits and some powerful lawmakers called on Democrats to distance the party from unpopular positions on trans rights, in order to win swing districts by wooing more conservative voters.

But members of the DNC’s LGBTQ Caucus say that’s actually a losing strategy.

“There are still parts of our party saying we need to abandon trans people in order to win elections, which is just not provable, actually. It’s just some feelings from some old consultants in DC,” LGBTQ Caucus Chair Sean Meloy says.

Some national Democrats are already backtracking from suggestions that they walk back on trans rights. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom grabbed national attention in March when he suggested that it was “deeply unfair” for trans girls to play in women’s sports. But last week, he doubled down on support for trans rights, claiming to have signed more trans-rights legislation than any governor in the country, and entering into feuds on X with Elon Musk and Nicki Minaj over his support for trans kids.

Democrats are also clearly feeling the wind in their sails recently after major election victories in Virginia and New Jersey last month, as well as victories in dozens of local and state legislative elections across the country in 2025. 

“[Abigail] Spanberger in Virginia didn’t win by dodging the trans question. She won by attacking it, confronting it, and that’s how she got ahead,” says Vivian Smotherman, a trans activist and at-large member of the DNC’s LGBTQ Caucus.

“Trans people are not a problem. We are a resource,” Smotherman says. “For my community, surviving into adulthood is not a guarantee, it’s an accomplishment. You don’t walk through a survival gauntlet without learning things … I’m not begging the DNC to protect my community. I’m here to remind you that we are the warriors tempered by fire, and we are fully capable of helping this party win.”

At its own meeting on Friday, the LGBTQ Caucus announced several new initiatives to ensure that queer and trans issues stay top of mind for the DNC as it gears up for the midterm elections next year.

One plan is to formalize the DNC’s Trans Advisory Board as distinct from the LGBTQ Caucus, to help introduce candidates across the country to trans people and trans issues.

“One in three people in this country know a trans person. Two-thirds of Americans don’t think they do,” Smotherman says. “So the real problem is not being trans, it’s that you don’t know us. You cannot authentically support a trans person if you’ve never met one. 

“That’s why my first goal with this Trans Advisory Board is to host a monthly Meet a Trans Person webinar. Not as a spectacle, as a debate, but as a human connection, and I will be charging every state chair with asking every one of their candidates up and down the board if they know a trans person. And if that person doesn’t know a trans person, I’m gonna have that state chair put them on that webinar.”

The LGBTQ caucus is also opening up associate membership to allies who do not identify as LGBTQ, in order to broaden support and connections over queer issues.

It’s also preparing for the inevitable attacks Republicans will throw at queer candidates and supporters of LGBTQ issues. 

“These attacks are going to come. You have to budget money proactively. You have to be ready to fight,” Meloy says. “There are some local party chairs who don’t want to recruit LGBTQ candidates to run because these issues might come up, right? That’s an absolutely ludicrous statement, but there are still people who need support in how to be ready and how to respond to these things that inevitably come.” 

“The oldest joke is that Democrats don’t have a spine. And when they come after us, and we do not reply, we play right into that.” 

Meloy also alluded to anti-LGBTQ tropes that queer people are out to harm children, and said that Democrats should be prepared to make the case that it’s actually Republicans who are protecting child abusers – for example, by suppressing the Epstein files.

“They are weak on this issue. Take the fight, empower your parties to say, ‘These people have nothing to stand on,’” Meloy says.

Continue Reading

Congress

EXCLUSIVE: George Santos speaks out on prison, Trump pardon, and more

Not interested in political comeback: ‘I made so many poor choices’

Published

on

George Santos sits down with the Washington Blade for an exclusive interview. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

It has been just over two years since George Santos — the disgraced politician who once represented New York’s Third District — was expelled from Congress. Now, Santos is breaking his silence about his expulsion, imprisonment, subsequent pardon, what he believes he did wrong, and allegations regarding immigration fraud.

In 2022, Santos was elected to represent the Long Island communities of North Hempstead, Glen Cove, and Oyster Bay, one of the wealthiest congressional districts in the United States. This week, he sat in the lobby of the Hyatt Capitol Hill, just blocks from his former office in the Cannon House Office Building, to speak with the Washington Blade about how he became the center of one of the most outrageous political scandals in modern U.S. history. Despite the media scrutiny surrounding his lies, criminal convictions, and eventual pardon by President Donald Trump, Santos appeared relaxed during the interview, speaking freely about his experiences, admissions, and grievances.

Scope of Santos’s misconduct

Many journalists have struggled to verify George Santos’s personal history and professional resume. Numerous claims he made during his campaigns have been debunked or walked back, particularly regarding his personal and professional history since 2020.

Santos gained media attention for claiming Jewish heritage despite being raised Catholic and identifying as Catholic. He said his maternal grandfather grew up Jewish, converted to Catholicism before the Holocaust, and raised his children Catholic. Investigations, however, show his maternal grandparents were born in Brazil, not Ukraine or Belgium. Santos described himself variously as “Jew-ish,” “half Jewish,” a non-observant Jew, a “proud American Jew,” and a “Latino Jew.”

He also misrepresented his mother’s professional history, claiming she was “the first female executive at a major financial institution.” Records, including her 2003 visa application, show she had not been in the U.S. since 1999 and listed her occupation as a domestic worker.

Santos further fabricated his educational history, claiming a bachelor’s degree in finance and economics from Baruch College, where he said he graduated near the top of his class. Investigations revealed he never graduated. He also falsely claimed an MBA from New York University on official campaign documents — a misrepresentation that later became grounds for his expulsion. Santos later blamed the lies on a local Republican Party staffer.

His professional claims were also fraudulent. Santos called himself a “seasoned Wall Street financier and investor” and claimed to have worked for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. Both companies reported no record of his employment. When pressed, Santos admitted he had used a “poor choice of words,” eventually describing his experience as “limited partnerships.” He also falsely claimed to have lost four employees in the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando; no victims had any connection to companies listed in his biography.

Santos misrepresented his residences during his 2020 campaign. He listed an Elmhurst, Queens, address outside the district he sought to represent, later moving with his partner to a Whitestone rowhouse. He was registered to vote at the Whitestone address but did not live there.

When asked about his lies, Santos told the Blade he wishes he did everything differently.

“Everything, everything, everything,” Santos told the Blade. “I made so many poor choices that I think it would be redundant to not say everything.”

He did not fully take responsibility, describing the scandals as a mix of personal ambition and what he called a “sensational political assassination.”

“Ambition is a toxic trait, and unfortunately, I was consumed by that. I forewent everyone else’s [considerations]… I had no consideration for anything around me other than myself, and that’s awful,” he added.

In addition to personal history fabrications, Santos made numerous false claims the Department of Justice later treated as campaign finance fraud. He solicited donations through a fake political entity, diverted funds into an LLC he controlled, and disguised personal expenditures as legitimate political expenses, using donations for luxury purchases.

Santos denied wrongdoing, stating, “I didn’t steal people’s credit cards… I didn’t go shopping at Hermes and Onlyfans. It’s not true either.”

He defended some purchases as campaign-related, singling out House Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest.

“The only two luxury brands that you’ll see of purchases in my campaign were Ferragamo and Tiffany. [I got] Ferragamo for the [male members of the] Republican steering committee when I was lobbying for my seat committee and three Tiffany pens for the females … That’s where those are legal expenses. They’re very legal.”

The House Ethics Committee found “substantial evidence” of lawbreaking, stating Santos “fraudulently exploited every aspect of his House candidacy,” using campaign funds for luxury shopping, cosmetic procedures, travel, and rent.

“I had a choice to not straw donate to my campaign, and I chose to, yeah, that was a poor choice,” Santos admitted. “Of course, I’m guilty for that. Was I forthcoming in the GOP with the party? No, I was not. I was very dishonest with the GOP, and for that I regret, and I also regret that the GOP in New York created an environment that made somebody like me feel it was needed to do that. But I regret not being forthcoming and honest about it.”

Santos also collected pandemic unemployment payments of approximately $24,000 while employed.

He was charged with multiple federal offenses, including conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, wire fraud, making materially false statements to the FEC, falsifying records, aggravated identity theft, access device fraud, money laundering, and theft of public funds. Santos pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft and was sentenced to 87 months in prison in April 2025, ordered to pay hundreds of thousands in restitution and forfeiture. He was released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, N. J., following Trump’s pardon in October.

Immigration fraud allegations

George Santos (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

In addition to the professional and personal claims Santos has made that have been proven false, he also addressed allegations of immigration fraud raised by the Washington Blade. A source familiar with Santos’s history with U.S. immigration proceedings described several alarming allegations, most notably a reportedly fraudulent marriage to his former wife, Uadla Viera, to help her obtain U.S. immigration status. Santos has adamantly denied wrongdoing.

According to the source, who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity, Santos married Viera in a civil ceremony in Manhattan in 2012, despite neither living in the city. There are no known photos, announcements, or records of a wedding celebration, engagement, bridal party, shower, or honeymoon. This unusual lack of documentation stands out for Santos, whose life and actions are typically geared toward media attention.

While the source questioned the motive behind the marriage, Santos insisted it was legal and not done for any nefarious purpose.

“I married a person who was legally in this country, and all in all, what I did was kind of skip the line for her. And we were married, and there was no financial benefit [for me]. We were married. We had bills together. There’s no proof or evidence of a financial benefit other than jaded people again, anonymously, lying saying ‘He got paid. He offered me money.’ First of all, I don’t even have the wherewithal for that. Second of all, we went through a very rigorous — fucking rigorous — immigration litmus test, house interviews, multiple layers of interviews, a consummate marriage that was very obvious for anybody who was around us, and then I ended up cheating for now, obvious reasons.”

In 2013, the source said Santos dated Leandro Bis, a Brazilian tourist, while still married to Vieira. Santos denies this, framing the period as tumultuous and asserting that he was merely helping someone in need who now falsely alleges more. Bis told ABC News in a 2023 interview that Santos had “promised the world” to him while they dated.

“I’ve never dated a Leandro,” Santos told the Blade. “I can’t believe that six months of my life are common stories in the New York Times. This lunatic is going on TV and putting himself out there…I look so much better than him, and I’m much older than him. I mean life does numbers on people, because hate is a virus.”

The source further recounted Santos’s interactions with Greg Morey-Parker, a former roommate of Santos’s who told CNN that he was suspicious of Santos’s academic resume and stories of family wealth.

“Greg Morey-Parker is not a boyfriend– nowhere near a boyfriend,” Santos told the Blade. “He was actually a homeless Starbucks barista that I felt bad for. Let him crash in my living room. … He accused me of stealing his Burberry scarf. You’re homeless and you have a Burberry scarf? Bro, make up your fucking mind.”

In 2014, Santos met Pedro Vilarva, 18, on Tinder and dated him for a year while still married to Viera. According to the source, the trio socialized frequently: Santos and Vilarva with other gay men, Viera with heterosexuals. That same year, Santos filed a family-based immigration petition for Viera, who was granted conditional permanent residency. Santos publicly celebrated his engagement to Vilarva in a Facebook post at La Bonne Soupe, a Manhattan restaurant, though the relationship eventually ended. That Facebook post has since been deleted.

Santos maintains he was honest with both immigration authorities and his spouse.

“I was honest with immigration authorities, 100% above board. I was honest with my spouse, as far as my relationship with him and with my ex-wife, so much I’m the one who told her, I’m sorry we can’t do this anymore. I’m seeing Pedro. And she knew Pedro, it was a shit show. Okay? I’m gonna leave it at that, out of respect to both her and Pedro … I cheated on my first wife, and that was a whole story on its own.”

Later in 2014, Santos met Morey-Parker, who told the Daily Beast that Santos advised him to marry an immigrant woman from Brazil to make money. Santos denied that claim to the Blade.

“That is Gregory again making more shit up and there’s no proof or evidence or anything that you can point to,” Santos said.

Viera became a permanent resident in 2017, according to previous media reports, and in 2018 gave birth to a daughter. Santos did not claim paternity or seek custody. Santos and Viera were granted an uncontested divorce in 2019. Viera became a U.S. citizen in 2022 and purchased a $750,000 home in New Jersey, according to the Blade’s source and to the official deed of the property.

Santos did not mention that he had been married or divorced during his congressional campaigns until an internal vulnerability study commissioned by the campaign identified it as a potential issue for voters.

Santos downplayed all of this, saying it was a running joke among his staff. “I would be a joke. I would allude to it [and say] ‘Ladies, look, I love you guys, but there’s a reason that I don’t date women anymore, and I’m divorced from my first wife.’ It was like a running joke, making light of it and self-deprecating humor, which is my favorite kind of humor.”

He claimed that the New York Times story was the reason he became more sensitive with posts related to his ex-wife.

“The reason it’s not [visible] today is because I pulled it all off because of privacy issues. It was all archived for my Instagram, but if you had access to my Instagram prior to the New York Times story, you would see I never deleted my pictures with her…They were all over my Instagram, going to the beach, like everything. It’s like our entire life was documented together.”

On Trump, politics, and public office

Santos was tight lipped when the Blade questioned him about his conversations with President Trump.

“You never, ever share a lick of a word you exchange with the sitting president of the United States, no matter who that person is… I’ve seen it backfire for people who did it with Biden, with Trump, with Obama. I’m not about to make that mistake. Yeah, my conversations with the president are private.”

He did say that he was humbled by Trump’s pardon but regrets ever entering politics.

“I had such a good life, and to have to be at the place I am today is indicative of, you know, politics is really for the elites…I’m so uninterested in politics these days…I want to get involved in policy change, but not politicking.”

He said he is not interested in a position in the Trump administration.

“I would respectfully decline [any government job], I would say thank you from the bottom of my heart, and say ‘I’m probably not best suited for a job in government.’ I want nothing to do with the government or public office.”

Trans and LGBTQ issues

George Santos (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Santos also spoke on his experience as both a member of the LGBTQ community and a Republican legislator. Most notably, he doesn’t think there is any barrier for gay people to join the Republican Party, citing his ascent into Republican leadership as an example.

He defended his record as a gay Republican, noting the continued election and reelection of LGBTQ members of Congress and emphasizing that he disproved stereotypes about Republicans.

“There’s no bigotry in the Republican Party. It’s a matter of how you present yourself…I’m not saying there’s no anti-gay sentiment, I’m pretty sure there is, but I never experienced it.”

He continued, explaining how far-right figures gaining prominence within Republican circles sets off some tension.

“I know it exists… I mean Nick Fuentes exists, right? His followers go on my social media, and either call me a Jew or a homo all day long. But I’m proud of it. I’m proud that I was the first who didn’t conceal the fact that he’s gay, and still got elected by a constituency of Republicans in a landslide victory.”

It is important to note that Santos is the first openly LGBTQ non-incumbent Republican to be elected to Congress, not the first openly LGBTQ Republican to win an office. Santos won his seat with 53% of his district’s vote while his opponent, Robert Zimmerman, got 46%.

Santos spoke on his experience as a gay man, echoing other LGB Republicans who have distanced themselves from transgender rights.

“This is very controversial for me, but I don’t loop my issues in with the trans community issues. I’m a gay man. I’m gender conforming. I’m he/him/sir.”

He continued, saying all he can speak on is his experience as a gay man, which doesn’t inherently lend him to being a champion for transgender rights, unlike many other LGB elected officials have done.

“I’ve never walked in the shoes of a trans person, so I can’t speak for them.” Santos framed his stance on gender-affirming care carefully: “I believe those people deserve the right to treatment, and that’s fair. I don’t believe in a mass agenda of pushing children towards that. I think we need to have a sensible conversation of, let’s allow kids to get to a certain age, right? Let’s allow adults to make those decisions, not children…for permanent decisions like hormone blockers and puberty blockers…that should be with adults.”

This is despite general medical consensus that views gender-affirming care as medically necessary, appropriate, and potentially life-saving for trans youth. The American Medical Association, the largest medical association in the country, opposes state laws that interfere with or ban gender-affirming care, calling such actions harmful and contrary to medical evidence.

Prison experience

Santos also spoke explicitly about what he says are dehumanizing conditions at FCI Fairton, something that has given him a new passion following his release from the facility.

“It’s punitive and dehumanizing,” he said when describing the situation he was in.

“Black mold bubbling all over the ceiling. Rat infestations… Listeria and ringworm outbreaks. Expired food… Underwear with skid marks… either wear that or don’t wear underwear.”

He continued, emphasizing the dehumanizing treatment he says he received, and hoping it will lead to prison reform.

“Solitary confinement for 41 days. Three showers a week. One 15-minute phone call every 30 days. [The warden] an absolute vicious human being. … We need to rehabilitate people. Just make it humane.”

Santos hinted at a future in media and activism, particularly related to prison reform, signaling that while he has stepped away from public office, he may still seek to influence policy and public discourse.

Despite his dramatic fall from political grace, Santos remains unapologetically in the public eye. From allegations of fraud to his prison experience and ongoing controversies, he presents a portrait of a man both shaped by — and defiant of — the consequences of his actions. Whether the public views him as a cautionary tale, a redeemed figure, or something in between, Santos’s story continues to provoke debate about accountability, ambition, and the limits of political power in America.

Continue Reading

Congress

Markey reintroduces International Human Rights Act in Senate

Bill would require US to promote LGBTQ, intersex rights abroad

Published

on

The Progress Pride flag flies in front of the U.S. Embassy in Berlin on July 22, 2022. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) on Wednesday reintroduced a bill that would require the State Department to promote LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad.

A press release the Massachusetts Democrat released notes the International Human Rights Act would “direct the State Department to monitor and respond to violence against LGBTQ+ people worldwide, while creating a comprehensive plan to combat discrimination, criminalization, and hate-motivated attacks against LGBTQ+ communities.” The bill would also “formally establish a special envoy to coordinate LGBTQ+ policies across the State Department; a role that has been left vacant under the Trump administration.”

Gay California Congressman Robert Garcia introduced the International Human Rights Act in the U.S. House of Representatives last month.

Markey has previously introduced the bill in the U.S. Senate. He reintroduced it on International Human Rights Day, which commemorates the U.N. General Assembly’s ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10, 1948.

“Today, on International Human Rights Day, we must recommit the United States to the defense of human rights and the promotion of equality and justice around the world,” said Markey in the press release. “It is as important as ever that we stand up and protect LGBTQ+ individuals from the Trump administration’s cruel attempts to further marginalize this community.”

“I am proud to reintroduce the International Human Rights Defense Act and I am proud to continue to fight alongside LGBTQ+ individuals for a world that recognizes that LGBTQ+ rights are human rights,” he added.

Mark Bromley, co-chair of the Council for Global Equality, in the press release that Markey issued said the Trump-Vance administration “is fanning the flames of authoritarianism” at “a time when LGBTQI+ people around the world are facing backlash simply for who they are or whom they love.” Bromley specifically noted the State Department “has deleted reporting on the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons — despite bipartisan reporting dating back three decades — and sought to undercut universal human rights on the world stage.”

“The International Human Rights Defense Act is a clear rebuke of this attempt to erase our lives,” said Bromley. “We are grateful for the leadership of Sen. Markey and his unwavering commitment to equality around the world.”

Continue Reading

Popular