National
GOP candidate seeks LGBT help in ousting Pelosi
Dennis wins Log Cabin endorsement, faces uphill battle
The Republican candidate running against Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is looking for help from LGBT voters in his quest to unseat the House speaker.
John Dennis, in his first run for political office, is running against Pelosi to represent California’s 8th congressional district. He’s described on his website as “an accomplished businessman and entrepreneur” as well as “a pro-liberty San Franciscan.”
Dennis has earned the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans and last week spoke at the organization’s annual dinner in D.C. to cultivate support among gay Republicans.
During his remarks, the Republican candidate said one thing he was delighted to discover over the course of his campaign is that gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk supported Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in his 1964 bid for the presidency against then-President Lyndon Johnson.
“On the surface, it doesn’t make sense, but if you think about the pre-Stonewall era, it makes complete sense,” Dennis said. “The community had a tough time with government. Government was oppressing it and always on its back. But Barry’s libertarian streak actually connected with the community.”
Dennis emphasized the libertarian elements of the GOP and said those tenets mean the LGBT community “rightfully belongs in the Republican Party with our emphasis on individual liberty.”
Dennis said he’s running against an opponent who represents Democratic control of Washington and dissatisfaction with the federal government.
He said he’s noticed a lot of e-mails from Republican challengers saying their Democratic opponents vote either 94 percent of the time or 96 percent of the time with Pelosi.
“I can guarantee you one thing,” Dennis said. “My opponent votes 100 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi.”
Dennis spoke with the Blade about his support for LGBT issues following his speech at the Log Cabin dinner. Pelosi hasn’t scheduled a time to talk with the Blade during the 111th Congress despite repeated requests for an interview over the past year.
Among Dennis’ pro-LGBT positions is his support for repeal of laws seen as discriminatory against LGBT people. He said he backs repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as well as the Defense of Marriage Act.
“I don’t think marriage is a government issue,” he said. “It’s certainly not a federal government issue. So, those are issues that I’d be happy to support in the gay community.”
Dennis also said in 2008 he voted against Proposition 8 in California, which ended same-sex marriage in the state. He said his position against Prop 8 is consistent with his view that government should not be in “the marriage business.”
“It was very exclusionary, that law, and didn’t go to solve the problem,” Dennis said. “It just said, ‘OK, well, this is for us and then you guys do whatever you’re going to do.’ And I thought it was a little aggressive.”
Dennis added he thinks U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s recent ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional was “the right decision” and said he expressed his support for the ruling on his blog.
Still, Dennis hesitated when asked if he supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar job discrimination against LGBT people in most settings.
Dennis said his support on ENDA will depend on how the legislation “is presented” and said there’s a “flip-side” to the legislation.
“Do you end up forcing homophobes or anti-homosexual groups — do you end up protecting their right to be employed by homosexuals when there’s an obvious conflict there?” Dennis said. “So, it depends on how it’s worded. But, you know, I’m … against discrimination.”
Dennis emphasized his credentials as a Republican and said he wants to stop the “fiscal irresponsibility of Washington.”
“We need to get spending under control,” he said. “We need to balance our budgets. We need to start following the Constitution, and only spend on what the Constitution authorizes the Congress to spend on.”
Dennis said in the primary he ran as a “pro-civil liberties, anti-war, pro-legalization Republican” and won, so he doesn’t think he has “anything to prove to anyone” regarding his place in the Republican Party.
Log Cabin endorsed Dennis on Sept. 16 as part of a group 11 Republican candidates seeking House seats.
Other endorsements included Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), who voted for an amendment to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), a co-sponsor of numerous pro-LGBT bills.
R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin’s executive director, said Dennis’ support for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a major factor in the organization’s decision to endorse the Pelosi challenger.
“Bottom line is John Dennis is a pro-repeal Republican candidate,” Cooper said. “So he is on our radar screen and we are supporting him as well some other incumbents and candidates who would be a good force-multiplier in the party and help us get the party to be more inclusive toward gays and lesbians.”
Cooper said Dennis has been an “active ally” of the Log Cabin Republicans of San Francisco and has recruited numerous chapter members into his campaign.
Despite his support for LGBT issues, Dennis is running against a lawmaker who for decades has been seen as a stalwart supporter of LGBT people.
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, emphasized the speaker’s record on pro-LGBT legislation.
“Speaker Pelosi has been a staunch advocate for the LGBT community in her more than 20 years in the Congress; helping lead the fight against HIV/AIDS, opposing efforts to enshrine discrimination in the United States Constitution and served as a leading voice against Proposition 8 in California,” Hammill said.
Hammill said Pelosi led efforts to pass hate crimes legislation as well as pass legislation in the House to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Hammill said the speaker “will keep pushing for action on ENDA.” Pelosi is being honored with an award from the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund this week in Washington for her work on LGBT issues.
“San Franciscans know Nancy Pelosi’s commitment to fostering equality and ending discrimination,” Hammill said.
But one group that has criticized Pelosi for not moving forward with a House vote on ENDA is washing its hands of the race.
Robin McGehee, co-founder of GetEQUAL, which has staged acts of civil disobedience throughout the country over Pelosi’s inaction this Congress over ENDA, said voters in the speaker’s district should “determine for themselves how well she is representing [them] and fighting for their equality.”
“Our equality knows no political party; we are not beholden to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party,” McGehee said. “Whoever wins the election can expect us to hold them accountable on their commitments to the LGBT community.”
Dennis faces an uphill fight to unseat Pelosi -— to say the least — in the Democratic stronghold of California’s 8th congressional district, which includes San Francisco. Members of the Green Party often fare better than Republicans in the district.
Pelosi has consistently won election in the area since she first sought a U.S. House seat in 1988. Pelosi often wins these races with more than 80 percent of the vote.
Dennis also has major deficit against Pelosi in terms of fundraising. The speaker has raised nearly $2 million this campaign cycle while Dennis has $650,000, according to the most recent Federal Election Campaign reports.
Pelosi has $214,000 in cash on hand while Dennis has $58,000. Pelosi also has no campaign debt while Dennis has $53,000.
Still, Dennis said he sees a path to victory because his internal polling numbers show that Pelosi’s support is growing soft among independents and Democrats.
“If we win all the votes of people who say they won’t vote for her, plus have a good turnout for the Republicans, we’ll actually have enough votes to defeat her,” Dennis said.
Cooper acknowledged that Dennis is facing an “uphill battle” and said he thinks the Republican candidate realizes the challenge.
Still, Cooper said he thinks Pelosi could be vulnerable because of the number of House Democrats who are distancing themselves from Pelosi in campaign ads.
“There are Democrats trying to maintain their seats who don’t want her to come into their district, they don’t want her support and they don’t want to look like they’re affiliated with her as speaker even though they’re running as a Democrat,” Cooper said.
During his speech, Dennis acknowledged that running in San Francisco is “challenging” for a Republican and said he has to do “special things” to build support.
A recent web ad from the Dennis campaign depicts Pelosi as the Wicked Witch of the West from “The Wizard of Oz” and criticizes her for leading the way in what the ad describes as rampant spending in Washington and burdensome taxation.
“It went viral,” Dennis said. “We were mentioned in a lot of shows. Jay Leno included us in his monologue. It’s been seen about 630,000 times. And I will say that there is a coven of witches in … New Jersey that vehemently oppose us over this.”
Dennis noted that he received the Log Cabin endorsement right after the publication of the ad, which he said shows, “I really am a friend of the Friends of Dorothy.”
Federal Government
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Evan Glass is leaning on his record. Is that enough for Montgomery County’s top job?
D.C. bar, LGBTQ+ Community Center to mark Lesbian Visibility Week
Trailblazing trans Brazilian lawmaker refuses to set foot in Trump’s America
Lebanese LGBTQ group responds to latest war
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Calendar: April 10-16
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
Comings & Goings
Minimal version of ‘Streetcar Named Desire’ heading to Dupont Underground
