National
NYC Mayor Bloomberg: ‘The time has come’ for marriage equality
Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City weighs in on the debate over a same-sex marriage equality bill in the New York state senate in a speech urging lawmakers to pass the bill, today.
The Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, today delivered an address calling for the swift passage of the marriage equality bill that would allow same-sex couples marry in the state of New York.
The New York state senate defeated the 2009 bill after a very eventful legislative session saw shifts in party control of the Senate, changes in leadership, and more. In the end, the bill–which advocates had high hopes of passing earlier in the legislative session–was voted down 38-24. The defeat of that bill led to leadership shake-ups in that state’s LGBT advocacy community, and generated controversy and commentary across the country, with pundits in the gay media speculating ‘what went wrong,’ for months.
With a new Governor in place in the state, and some new faces in the Senate, LGBT advocates are expecting to fare much better this time around. The mayor of America’s largest city now lends his hand in attempting to sway what promises to be very capricious legislative debate.
The text of the speech, as released by the Governor’s office, follows.
MAYOR BLOOMBERG DELIVERS MAJOR ADDRESS ON URGENT NEED FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
The following are Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s remarks as prepared for delivery at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. Please check against delivery.
“I want to thank Rachel and our hosts here at The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art.
“I think it’s fair to say that no institute of higher learning has had a more profound impact on the course of American history than Cooper Union. By opening the doors of its Great Hall to Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and so many other pioneering leaders, and by hosting the founding of the NAACP, Cooper Union has helped push American freedom ever higher, and ever wider.
“Today, we gather in this innovative and striking new academic building – a symbol of how Cooper Union has always looked forward and always championed progress. We gather – in the tradition of those who came before us – to discuss a momentous question before our nation and our great State of New York: Should government permit men and women of the same sex to marry?
“It is a question that cuts to the core of who we are as a country – and as a city. It is a question that deserves to be answered here in New York – which was the birthplace of the gay rights movement, more than 40 years ago. And it is a question that requires us to step back from the platitudes and partisanship of the everyday political debate and consider the principles that must lead us forward.
“The principles that have guided our nation since its founding – freedom, liberty, equality – are the principles that have animated generations of Americans to expand opportunity to an ever wider circle of our citizenry. At our founding, African-Americans were held in bondage. Catholics in New York could not hold office. Those without property could not vote. Women could not vote or hold office. And homosexuality was, in some places, a crime punishable by death.
“One by one, over many long years, the legal prohibitions to freedom and equality were overcome: Some on the battlefield, some at the State House and some in the courthouse. Throughout our history, each and every generation has expanded upon the freedoms won by their parents and grandparents. Each and every generation has removed some barrier to full participation in the American dream. Each and every generation has helped our country take another step on the road to a more perfect union for all our citizens. That is the arc of American history. That is the march of freedom. That is the journey that we must never stop traveling. And that is the reason we are here today.
“The next great barrier standing before our generation is the prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples. The question is: Why now? And why New York? I believe both answers start at the Stonewall Inn. When the Village erupted in protest 42 years ago next month, New York – and every other state in the union, save one – still had laws on the books that made same-sex relationships a crime. A couple could go to prison for years, just for being intimate in the privacy of their own home. For men and women of that era, an era many of us remember well, being in a gay relationship meant living in fear:
“Fear of police harassment.
“Fear of public humiliation
“Fear of workplace discrimination.
“Fear of physical violence.
“Today, in some places, those fears still linger. But as a nation, we have come a long way since Stonewall. Today, two women in a committed relationship – who years ago would have hidden their relationship from family and friends – will instead take part in a wedding ceremony in front of their family and friends. Today, two men who are long-time partners – who years ago would never even have entertained the idea – will adopt a child and begin a family.
“Both events are possible because thousands of courageous individuals risked everything to come out and speak out. And because they did – because they organized and protested, because they poured their hearts out to friends and family and neighbors, because they stood up for their rights and marched for equality and ran for office – laws banning same-sex relationships have been struck down by the Supreme Court. More than 20 states have adopted laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. And beginning this year, patriotic men and women will be able to enlist in the U.S. military without having to hide their identity.
“We owe all of those pioneers a deep debt of gratitude. And although the work is far from over, there is no doubt that we have passed the tipping point.
“Today, a majority of Americans support marriage equality – and young people increasingly view marriage equality in much the same way as young people in the 1960s viewed civil rights. Eventually, as happened with civil rights for African-Americans, they will be a majority of voters. And they will pass laws that reflect their values and elect presidents who personify them.
“It is not a matter of if – but when.
“And the question for every New York State lawmaker is: Do you want to be remembered as a leader on civil rights? Or an obstructionist? On matters of freedom and equality, history has not remembered obstructionists kindly.
“Not on abolition.
“Not on women’s suffrage.
“Not on workers’ rights.
“Not on civil rights.
“And it will be no different on marriage rights.
“So the question really is: So, why now? Because this is our time to stand up for equality. This is our time to conquer the next frontier of freedom. This is our time to be as bold and brave as the pioneers who came before us. And this is our time to lead the American journey forward.
“It’s fitting that the gay rights movement began in our City, because New Yorkers have always been at the forefront of movements to expand American freedoms – and guarantee American liberties. Long before our founding fathers wisely decided to separate church from state, leading citizens of our City petitioned their colonial rulers for religious freedom. Long before Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, many New Yorkers – including the founder of this college, Peter Cooper – crusaded against slavery. Long before the nation adopted the 19th Amendment, New Yorkers helped lead the movement for women’s suffrage. And long before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New Yorkers played a pivotal role in advancing a color-blind society.
“So why should New York now lead on marriage equality? Because we have always led the charge for freedom – and we have always led by example. No place in the world is more committed to freedom of expression – religious, artistic, political, social, personal – than New York City. And no place in the world is more welcoming of all people, no matter what their ethnicity or orientation.
“That has always been what sets us apart. In our city, there is no shame in being true to yourself. There is only pride. We take you as you are – and we let you be who you wish to be. That is the essence of New York City!
“That is what makes us a safe haven for people of every background and orientation… and a magnet for talented and creative people. It’s the reason why we are the economic engine for the country and the greatest city in the world.
“But it’s up to us to keep it that way. As other states recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry, we cannot stand by and watch. To do so would be to betray our civic values and history – and it would harm our competitive edge in the global economy. This is an issue of democratic principles – but make no mistake, it carries economic consequences.
“We are the freest city in the freest country in the world – but freedom is not frozen in time. And if we are to remain the freest city, with the most dynamic and innovative economy, we must lead on this issue – just as we have on so many other matters of fundamental civil rights.
“In talking to State legislators who do not yet support marriage equality, I can sense that many of them are searching their souls for answers – and they are torn. Like all of us, they have friends and family and colleagues who are gay and lesbian. They know gay and lesbian couples who are deeply in love with each other – many of whom are loving and devoted parents, too. They know those couples yearn to be seen and treated as equal to all other couples. And they often hear from their own families – especially their children – that this is a civil rights issue. I hope they listen to their kids carefully and make them proud with their foresight and courage.
“Now, I understand the desire by some to seek guidance from their religious teachings. But this is not a religious issue. It is a civil issue. And that is why, under the bill proposed in Albany, no church or synagogue or mosque would be required to perform or sanction a same-sex wedding – as is the case in every state that has legalized marriage equality.
“Some faith communities would perform them; others would not. That is their right. I have enormous respect for religious leaders on both sides of the issue, but government has no business taking sides in these debates – none!
“As private individuals, we may be part of a faith community that forbids divorce or birth control or alcohol. But as public citizens, we do not impose those prohibitions on society. We may place our personal faith in the Torah, or the New Testament, or the Koran, or anything else. But as a civil society, we place our public faith in the U.S. Constitution: the principles and protections that define it, and the values that have guided its evolution. And as elected officials, our responsibility is not to any one creed or congregation, but to all citizens.
“It is my hope that members of the State Senate majority will recognize that supporting marriage equality is not only consistent with our civic principles – it is consistent with conservative principles. Conservatives believe that government should not intrude into people’s personal lives – and it’s just none of government’s business who you love!
“Conservatives also believe that government should not stand in the way of free markets and private associations – including contracts between consenting parties. And that’s exactly what marriage is: a contract, a legal bond, between two adults who vow to support one another, in sickness and in health.
“There is no State interest in denying one class of couples a right to that contract. Just the opposite, in fact. Marriage has always been a force for stability in families and communities – because it fosters responsibility. That’s why conservatives promote marriage – and that’s why marriage equality would be healthy for society, healthy for couples and healthy for children.
“Right now, sadly, children of same-sex couples often ask their parents: ‘Why haven’t you gotten married like all our friends’ parents?’ That’s a heartbreaking question to answer.
“And it’s an early expression of the profound principle that sets our country apart: that all people are created equal, with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is the American dream – but for gay and lesbian couples, it is still only that: A dream.
“The plain reality is, if we are to recognize same-sex and opposite sex couples as equals, that equality must extend to obtaining civil marriage licenses. Now, some people ask: Why not just grant gay couples civil unions?
“That is a fair and honest question. But the answer is simple and unavoidable: Long ago, the Supreme Court declared that ‘separate but equal’ opportunities are inherently unequal. It took the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 60 years after Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld disparate treatment of non-whites, to come to that conclusion.
“But justice finally prevailed. It took the Supreme Court another 13 years to strike down laws barring inter-racial marriage and another 36 years after that to strike down laws criminalizing same-sex relationships. The march for equality and tolerance in America has sometimes been slow, but it has never stopped.
“Since our nation’s earliest days, when the first Congress adopted the Bill of Rights, the Constitution’s protections of liberty have grown broader and stronger, and the law of the land has grown increasingly neutral on matters of race, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation.
“That inexorable progress is the genius of our constitutional system. In fact, we have had major social change without violence because the revolution we seek is contained within our founding documents. We have no king to overthrow – only our own ideals to live up to.
“In the weeks ahead, I will continue doing everything I can to convince our state legislators to take the long view and consider their place in history – and consider the kind of world they want to leave their children.
“Governor Cuomo and Governor Paterson both deserve great credit for advancing this issue in Albany, and I strongly believe that just as New Yorkers are discussing and debating it openly – so should both houses of the State Legislature.
“That’s democracy. And the essence of democracy is a public debate and a public vote. New Yorkers have a right to know where their elected officials stand – and make no mistake about it, avoiding a vote is the same as a no vote on this historic issue – and New Yorkers deserve better.
“We deserve a vote not next year, or after the 2012 elections, but in this legislative session.
“There’s a reason I’m so passionate about this issue – and so determined to push for change. I see the pain the status quo causes – and I cannot defend it. When I meet a New Yorker who is gay, when I speak with friends and members of my staff who are gay, or when I look into the eyes of my niece, Rachel, I cannot tell them that their government is correct in denying them the right to marry. I cannot tell them that marriage is not for them. I cannot tell them that a civil union is good enough.
“In our democracy, near equality is no equality. Government either treats everyone the same, or it doesn’t. And right now, it doesn’t.
“Tonight, two New Yorkers who are in a committed relationship will come home, cook dinner, help their kids with their homework and turn in for the night. They want desperately to be married – not for the piece of paper they will get. Not for the ceremony or the reception or the wedding cake. But for the recognition that the lifelong commitment they have made to each other is not less than anyone else’s and not second-class in any way. And they want it not just for themselves – but for their children. They want their children to know that their family is as healthy and legitimate as all other families.
“That desire for equal standing in society is extraordinarily powerful and it has led to extraordinary advances in American freedom.
“It has never been defeated.
“It cannot be defeated.
“And on marriage equality, it will not be defeated.
“There is no retreating to a past that has disappeared. There is no holding back a wave that has crested. And there is no denying a freedom that belongs to us all.
“The time has come for us to fulfill the dreams that exploded onto Sheridan Square 42 years ago: to allow thousands of men and women to become full members of the American family, and to take the next step on the inspired journey our founding fathers first began.
“Together, we can work across the aisle to pass a bill allowing all New Yorkers to walk down the aisle and lead our state and country toward a more perfect union. Thank you.”
The White House
Trans workers take White House to court over bathroom policy
Federal lawsuit filed Thursday
Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union, two organizations focused on protecting Americans’ constitutional rights, filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday in federal court challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s bathroom ban policies.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of LeAnne Withrow, a civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard, challenges the administration’s policy prohibiting transgender and intersex federal employees from using restrooms aligned with their gender. The policy claims that allowing trans people in bathrooms would “deprive [women assigned female at birth] of their dignity, safety, and well-being.”
The lawsuit responds to the executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. It alleges that the order and its implementation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Title VII protects trans workers from discrimination based on sex.
Since its issuance, the executive order has faced widespread backlash from constitutional rights and LGBTQ advocacy groups for discriminating against trans and intersex people.
The lawsuit asserts that Withrow, along with numerous other trans and intersex federal employees, is forced to choose between performing her duties and being allowed to use the restroom safely.
“There is no credible evidence that allowing transgender people access to restrooms aligning with their gender identity jeopardizes the safety or privacy of non-transgender users,” the lawsuit states, directly challenging claims of safety risks.
Withrow detailed the daily impact of the policy in her statement included in the lawsuit.
“I want to help soldiers, families, veterans — and then I want to go home at the end of the day. At some point in between, I will probably need to use the bathroom,” she said.
The filing notes that Withrow takes extreme measures to avoid using the restroom, which the Cleveland Clinic reports most people need to use anywhere from 1–15 times per day depending on hydration.
“Ms. Withrow almost never eats breakfast, rarely eats lunch, and drinks less than the equivalent of one 17 oz. bottle of water at work on most days.”
In addition to withholding food and water, the policy subjects her to ongoing stress and fear:
“Ms. Withrow would feel unsafe, humiliated, and degraded using a men’s restroom … Individuals seeing her enter the men’s restroom might try to prevent her from doing so or physically harm her,” the lawsuit states. “The actions of defendants have caused Ms. Withrow to suffer physical and emotional distress and have limited her ability to effectively perform her job.”
“No one should have to choose between their career in service and their own dignity,” Withrow added. “I bring respect and honor to the work I do to support military families, and I hope the court will restore dignity to transgender people like me who serve this country every day.”
Withrow is a lead Military and Family Readiness Specialist and civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard. Previously, she served as a staff sergeant and has received multiple commendations, including the Illinois National Guard Abraham Lincoln Medal of Freedom.
The lawsuit cites the American Medical Association, the largest national association of physicians, which has stated that policies excluding trans individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have harmful effects on health, safety, and well-being.
“Policies excluding transgender individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have detrimental effects on the health, safety and well-being of those individuals,” the lawsuit states on page 32.
Advocates have condemned the policy since its signing in January and continue to push back against the administration. Leaders from ACLU-D.C., ACLU of Illinois, and Democracy Forward all provided comments on the lawsuit and the ongoing fight for trans rights.
“We cannot let the Trump administration target transgender people in the federal government or in public life,” said ACLU-D.C. Senior Staff Attorney Michael Perloff. “An executive order micromanaging which bathroom civil servants use is discrimination, plain and simple, and must be stopped.”
“It is absurd that in her home state of Illinois, LeAnne can use any other restroom consistent with her gender — other than the ones controlled by the federal government,” said Michelle Garcia, deputy legal director at the ACLU of Illinois. “The Trump administration’s reckless policies are discriminatory and must be reversed.”
“This policy is hateful bigotry aimed at denying hardworking federal employees their basic dignity simply because they are transgender,” said Kaitlyn Golden, senior counsel at Democracy Forward. “It is only because of brave individuals like LeAnne that we can push back against this injustice. Democracy Forward is honored to work with our partners in this case and is eager to defeat this insidious effort to discriminate against transgender federal workers.”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Coast Guard’s redefinition of hate symbols raises safety concerns for service members
Revoked policy change sparked immediate condemnation
The U.S. Coast Guard has reversed course on a recent policy shift that removed swastikas — long used by hate-based groups to signify white supremacy and antisemitism — from its list of “hate symbols.” After widespread backlash, the symbols, initially reclassified as “potentially divisive,” have been restored to their previous designation as hate symbols.
Under the now-revised policy, which was originally published earlier this month, symbols including swastikas and nooses were labeled “potentially divisive,” a change officials said could still trigger an investigation and potential disciplinary action, including possible dishonorable discharge.
The Washington Post first reported the change on Thursday, outlining how the updated guidance departed from earlier Coast Guard policy.
According to the November 2025 U.S. Coast Guard policy document, page 36 (11–1 in print):
“Potentially divisive symbols and flags include, but are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, or other bias.”
This conflicted with the February 2023 U.S. Coast Guard policy document, page 21 (19 in print), which stated:
“The following is a non-exhaustive list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident: a noose, a swastika, supremacist symbols, Confederate symbols or flags, and anti-Semitic symbols. The display of these types of symbols constitutes a potential hate incident because hate-based groups have co-opted or adopted them as symbols of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, or other bias.”
The corrected classification now reads:
“Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited. These symbols and flags include, but are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, anti-semitism, or any other improper bias.”
The revised policy also explicitly prohibits the display of any divisive or hate symbols, stating they “shall be removed from all Coast Guard workplaces, facilities, and assets.”
In addition to the reclassification, the earlier policy change had instituted a significant procedural shift: while past policy placed no time limit on reporting potential hate incidents, the new guidance required reports of “potentially divisive” symbols to be filed within 45 days.
This shortened reporting window drew immediate criticism from within the service. One Coast Guard official, speaking to the Post, warned that the new structure could deter reporting, particularly among minority service members.
“If you are at sea, and your shipmate has a swastika in their rack, and you are a Black person or Jew, and you are going to be stuck at sea with them for the next 60 days, are you going to feel safe reporting that up your chain of command?” the official said.
The Coast Guard reversed course following this backlash, reverting to a Biden-era classification and removing the “potentially divisive” language from the policy.
These rapid changes follow a directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who ordered a sweeping review of hazing, bullying, and harassment policies, arguing that longstanding guidelines were “overly broad” and were “jeopardizing combat readiness, mission accomplishment, and trust in the organization.”
After the Post’s reporting, senior Coast Guard leadership attempted to reassure service members that the updated language would not weaken the service’s stance on extremism. In a message to members — obtained by ABC News — Commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday and Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Phil Waldron addressed concerns directly.
“Let me be absolutely clear: the Coast Guard’s policy prohibiting hate and discrimination is absolute,” the message said. “These prohibited symbols represent repugnant ideologies that are in direct opposition to everything we stand for. We have zero tolerance for hate within our ranks.”
Still, the policy changes prompted swift political reaction.
U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the Trump-Vance administration to reverse the modifications before they took effect.
“At a time when antisemitism is rising in the United States and around the world, relaxing policies aimed at fighting hate crimes not only sends the wrong message to the men and women of our Coast Guard, but it puts their safety at risk,” Rosen said in a statement to the Post.
The controversy comes as federal agencies face growing scrutiny over how they regulate symbolic expression and disciplinary standards. Just days earlier, FBI Director Kash Patel issued a letter concerning the dismissal of David Maltinsky, a veteran FBI employee in training to become a special agent. Maltinsky was “summarily dismissed” after the “inappropriate display” of a Pride flag at the Los Angeles FBI field office — a flag he had flown with his supervisors’ approval.
Taken together, the incidents underscore escalating tensions across federal law enforcement and military branches over the policing of symbols, speech, and expression — at a time when debates around extremism, diversity, and LGBTQ visibility remain deeply polarized.
Federal Government
HHS ‘peer-reviewed’ report calls gender-affirming care for trans youth dangerous
Advocates denounce document as ‘sham science’
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Nov. 19 released what it called an updated “peer reviewed” version of an earlier report claiming scientific evidence shows that gender-affirming care or treatment for juveniles that attempts to change their gender is harmful and presents a danger to “vulnerable children.”
“The report, released through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, finds that the harms from sex-rejecting procedures — including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations — are significant, long term, and too often ignored or inadequately tracked,” according to a statement released by HHS announcing the release of the report.
“The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics peddled the lie that chemical and surgical sex-rejecting procedures could be good for children,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the HHS statement, “They betrayed their oath to first do no harm, and their so-called ‘gender affirming care’ has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people,” Kennedy says in the statement.
The national LGBTQ advocacy organizations Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD issued statements on the same day the HHS report was released, denouncing it as a sham based on fake science and politics.
HRC called the report “a politically motivated document filled with outright lies and misinformation.”
In its own statement released on the same day the HHS report was released, HRC said HHS’s so-called peer reviewed report is similar to an earlier HHS report released in May that had a “predetermined outcome dictated by grossly uninformed political actors that have deliberately mischaracterized health care for transgender youth despite the uniform, science backed conclusion of the American medical and mental health experts to the contrary.”
The HRC statement adds, “Trans people’s health care is delivered in age-appropriate, evidence-based ways, and decisions to provide care are made in consultation with doctors and parents, just like health care for all other people.”
In a separate statement, GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis called the HHS report a form of “discredited junk science.” She added the report makes claims that are “grossly misleading and in direct contrast to the recommendations of every leading health authority in the world … This report amounts to nothing more than forcing the same discredited idea of conversion therapy that ripped families apart and harmed gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people for decades.”
In its statement announcing the release of its report, HHS insists its own experts rather than those cited by its critics are the ones invoking true science.
“Before submitting its report for peer review, HHS commissioned the most comprehensive study to date of the scientific evidence and clinical practices surrounding the treatment of children and adolescents for ‘gender dysphoria,’” the statement continues. “The authors were drawn from disciplines and professional backgrounds spanning medicine, bioethics, psychology, and philosophy.”
In a concluding comment in the HHS statement, Assistant Secretary for Health Brian Christine says, “Our report is an urgent wake-up call to doctors and parents about the clear dangers of trying to turn girls into boys and vice versa.”
-
District of Columbia4 days agoD.C. LGBTQ bars ‘hanging in there’ amid tough economy
-
District of Columbia2 days agoNew LGBTQ bar Rush set to debut
-
National4 days ago213 House members ask Speaker Johnson to condemn anti-trans rhetoric
-
Chile5 days agoChilean presidential election outcome to determine future of LGBTQ rights in country

