Connect with us

Politics

Rick Santorum: One law should govern marriage

Former U.S. senator reiterates support for FMA

Published

on

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum expressed continued support for the Federal Marriage Amendment on Thursday as he said other issues should come before marriage during the 2012 presidential election.

Santorum, who’s widely expected to be considering a run for the Republican nomination to become president, made the remarks to the Washington Blade during the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C.

The former Pennsylvania senator reiterated his support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the context of saying one law should govern how marriage is handled in the United States.

“I was one of the authors of the Federal Marriage Amendment,” Santorum said. “I don’t think you can have varying laws on marriage. You run into, as we’re seeing, all sorts of problems about reciprocity between the states. This is an issue that there should be a law, the people should be able to decide it and hopefully that’s what will happen.”

During his tenure as a U.S. senator, Santorum voted in favor of the Federal Marriage in 2004 and 2006. In 1996, Santorum also voted “yes” on the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Santorum was ousted from his position as a U.S. senator in 2006 by current U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

As he reiterated his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, Santorum also said the economy and national security should precede marriage as a presidential issue in the 2012 election.

“The most important issue out there in the minds of the American public right now is the economy, and, increasingly, national security,” Santorum said. “And I think we have to address ourselves to those because those are the front-burner issues.”

But Santorum added social issues are important and should be a part of the Republican Party platform and public discussion “because they’re important to the country.”

“On economics, how can you have a strong economy if you don’t have strong families?” Santorum said. “If fathers don’t help raise their children and you have the effects of out-of-wedlock births and disintegration of the family — go into the neighborhoods where that is the most acute, and you’ll see a lot more government. You can’t have limited government without strong families and strong neighborhoods, and they so work together.”

Santorum also addressed the issue of marriage on Thursday during his CPAC speech when he admonished judges throughout the country for advancing marriage rights for gay couples.

“The judiciary cannot create life and it did not create marriage, and it has no right to redefine either one of them,” he said.

Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa legalized same-sex marriage as a result of judicial order. Last year, federal judges ruled that DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 were unconstitutional.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms

Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move

Published

on

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.

Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.

The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).

The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”

“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.

They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”

“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.

Continue Reading

Congress

Senate parliamentarian orders removal of gender-affirming care ban from GOP reconciliation bill

GOP Senate Leader John Thune (S.D.) hoped to pass the bill by end-of-week

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Restrictions on the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care will be stripped from the Republican-led Senate reconciliation bill, following a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian on Tuesday that struck down a number of health related provisions.

The legislation banned coverage for transgender medical care through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, language that was also included in the House version of the bill passed on May 22 with a vote of 215-214.

The parliamentarian’s decision also rejected Republican proposals for a Medicaid provider tax framework, which allows states to charge health care providers and use the funds to support their programs, along with broader cuts to Medicaid.

Amid calls to override Tuesday’s ruling from Republicans like U.S. Rep. Greg Steube (Fla.), GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) told reporters “That would not be a good outcome for getting a bill done.”

He also acknowledged that the timing and schedule might have to be adjusted. Senate Republicans had hoped to pass the reconciliation bill by the end of this week, though this was not a legal or procedural deadline.

Dubbed the “one big, beautiful bill” by President Donald Trump, the legislation would extend tax breaks from 2017 that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations. To cover the cost, which is estimated to exceed $4 trillion over 10 years, the bill would make drastic cuts to social welfare programs, particularly Medicaid.

Democrats are not in a position to negotiate across the aisle with Republicans holding majorities in both chambers of Congress, but for months they have been calling attention to the effort by their GOP colleagues to strip Americans of their health insurance to pay for the tax breaks.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 10.9 million people would lose their coverage, either through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Some Republicans like U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) are pushing back against the deep cuts to Medicaid, arguing they would be devastating for many of their constituents and also to hospitals, nursing homes, and community health care providers in rural areas.

In a statement emailed to the Washington Blade on Tuesday, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said, “Anti-trans extremists are attempting to use the full power of the government to hurt kids, and recent Supreme Court decisions in Skrmetti and Medina are enabling their quest.”

While today’s ruling by the Senate parliamentarian is a temporary win, I will keep pushing back on these shameful attempts to harm trans kids and their families for trying to live authentically,” said the senator, who also serves as ranking member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who is gay and chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, also shared a statement with the Washington Blade addressing the parliamentarian’s ruling:

“This ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian is a win for the transgender people who rely on Medicaid and CHIP to access the healthcare they need to live fuller, happier, and healthier lives—but the fight is not over yet,” the congressman said.

 “Republican Senators must abide by her ruling and remove the ban from the final version of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill,” he said. “Yet, even with this provision removed, this bill is terrible for the American people, including trans Americans. Every Equality Caucus member voted against it in the House and we’re ready to do so again if the Senate sends it back to the House.”

The Human Rights Campaign issued a press release with a statement from the organization’s vice president for government affairs, David Stacy:

“The fact remains that this bill belongs in the trash. It continues to include devastating cuts to health care programs — including Medicaid — that would disproportionately harm the LGBTQ+ community, all so the already rich can receive huge tax cuts,” Stacy said.

“While it comes as a relief that the Senate parliamentarian concluded that one provision in the nightmarish reconciliation bill that would have denied essential, best practice health care to transgender adults does not belong, we aren’t done fighting,” he said. “With attacks on our community coming from many directions, including the Supreme Court, we will work to defeat this bill with everything we’ve got.”


Continue Reading

Congress

Murkowski, Shaheen reintroduce Global Respect Act

Bill would sanction foreign nationals who commit anti-LGBTQ human rights abuses

Published

on

Then-U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman marches in the 2024 Budapest Pride parade that took place against the backdrop of the Hungarian government's continued anti-LGBTQ crackdown. The Global Respect Act would sanction foreign nationals who carry out human rights abuses against LGBTQ and intersex people. (Photo courtesy of Pressman's X account)

U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) on Wednesday once again introduced a bill that would sanction foreign nationals who carry out human rights abuses against LGBTQ and intersex people.

The two senators have previously introduced the Global Respect Act. Co-sponsors include U.S. Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

“Around the world, individuals who are part of the LGBTQ+ community are in danger for simply existing,” said Murkowski in a press release. “Hate and violence cannot and should not be tolerated. I’m hopeful that this legislation will establish actionable consequences for these inexcusable human rights violations, and create a safer world for all people — regardless of who they are or who they love.” 

Shaheen in the press release notes “the risk of personal harm for LGBTQI individuals for publicly identifying who they are or expressing who they love has tragically increased in recent years.”

“Human rights, as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human rights, recognizes that global freedom, justice, and peace depend on ‘the inherent dignity’ and ‘the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family,” said the New Hampshire Democrat. “LBGTQI human rights are universal human rights. We must ensure that we hold all violators of those rights accountable.” 

The promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad was a cornerstone of the Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy.

The current White House has suspended most foreign aid. The elimination of these funds has left the global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement reeling.

Continue Reading

Popular