National
Obama’s immigration speech omits gays
LGBT advocates praise commitment to keeping families together
President Obama gave a speech on immigration reform Tuesday (Blade photo by Michael Key)
President Obama’s speech on Tuesday calling for a bipartisan approach to immigration reform lacked explicit mention of the plight of bi-national gay couples, but LGBT rights supporters are hoping his inclusion of family unification was a hint of his support.
In his address at the Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso, Texas, Obama emphasized passage of comprehensive immigration reform in Congress would have benefits for both the economic prosperity and border security of the country while making no explicit mention of the plight that many gay families face under current immigration laws.
On the fiscal benefits of immigration reform, Obama said enacting new legislation would enable immigrants who come to the United States to attend college to stay in the country to use their education to advance the economy.
“But our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States,” Obama said. “So instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs in America, we train them to create jobs for our competition. That makes no sense. In a global marketplace, we need all the talent we can get — not just to benefit those individuals, but because their contributions will benefit all Americans.”
Obama also said enacting comprehensive immigration reform would contribute to border security by allowing U.S. immigration officials to focus on immigrants who come to the United States for unscrupulous purposes.
“The most significant step we can take now to secure the borders is to fix the system as a whole — so that fewer people have incentive to enter illegally in search of work in the first place,” Obama said. “This would allow agents to focus on the worst threats on both of our borders — from drug traffickers to those who would come here to commit acts of violence or terror.”
But never during the speech did Obama directly address how under current immigration law gay Americans are unable to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. Foreign nationals in same-sex relationships with Americans could be subject to deportation and separation from their loved ones upon expiration of their temporary visas that allow them to remain in the country.
Even U.S. citizens in legally recognized same-sex marriages with foreign nationals cannot obtain marriage-based I-130 green cards for their spouses because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of the unions.
At one point in his address, Obama said immigration law should “respect families following the rules — reuniting them more quickly instead of splitting them apart.” The remark seemed directed toward immigrants who are permanent residents in the United States seeking to have their loved ones join them, and not aimed at problems faced by gay Americans and their foreign partners.
“While applicants wait for approval, for example, they’re often forbidden from visiting the United States,” Obama said. “Even husbands and wives may have to spend years apart. Parents can’t see their children. I don’t believe the United States of America should be in the business of separating families. That’s not right. That’s not who we are.”
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said the president’s speech was intended to emphasize the importance of immigration reform on his agenda and the lack of explicit mention of gay families shouldn’t be seen as an indication of the president’s position on the issue.
“The president delivered this speech because he wants a constructive and civil debate on the need to fix the broken immigration system so that it meets America’s economic and security needs for the 21st century,” Inouye said. “It is fundamental for America to win the future. His remarks are not meant to be a laundry list of all the issues that immigration reform should address.”
LGBT rights supporters working on immigration issues expressed gratitude to the president for giving the speech despite his lack of explicit mention of gay couples during the address.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said his organization wholeheartedly supports the notion expressed by Obama that immigration system should keep families together in the United States.
“We couldn’t agree more, and while the president didn’t use the ‘LGBT’ qualifier in his reference to families, we’re going to ensure the White House knows — clearly and unambiguously — that any immigration reform effort must be inclusive,” Ralls said.
Ralls added that his organization is pleased that Obama is stepping up efforts to reform the immigration system and is glad to hear him talk about an end to family separation.
“Now, we look forward to working with him, and other leaders, on a concrete plan that includes our families, too,” Ralls said. “It’s time for everyone to get into the business of reforming our laws in a way that unites, rather than separates, loved ones. That’s the right thing to do, and the goal we remain committed to.”
Lavi Soloway, co-founder of Stop the Deportations, also said he applauds the commitment to reform that President Obama expressed during his speech and for emphasizing that family unification is the bedrock of immigration law.
However, Soloway said Obama needs to take administrative action by exercising his prosecutorial authority to ensure that foreign nationals in legally recognized same-sex marriages with U.S. citizens can stay in the country without fear of deportation.
“To keep our country safe, we must focus our law enforcement resources on deporting those who have committed crimes and endanger our security,” Soloway said. “At the same time this administration must take great care that, in the zeal to achieve that goal, innocent families are not torn apart. The administration has not yet delivered fully on its goal to protect all families from deportation, where possible, by application of existing prosecutorial discretion guidelines.”
Soloway, who handles immigration cases as an attorney with Masliah & Soloway PC in New York, maintained that Obama can issue such a change because he has already determined that DOMA is unconstitutional because of the impact the anti-gay law has LGBT families, including same-sex bi-national couples.
“This administration can act now to ensure that no LGBT families are torn apart by instituting a moratorium on deportations of all spouses of lesbian and gay Americans until all married couples are treated equally under our immigration laws,” Soloway said.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
