Connect with us

National

More scrutiny of Obama’s marriage views

President insists it’s a state issue

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

President Obama’s position on marriage equality came under renewed scrutiny Monday during a press briefing at the White House when press secretary Jay Carney was asked about California’s Proposition 8, which overturned marriage rights for same-sex couples in 2008.

A Wall Street Journal reporter asked if Obama’s belief that marriage should be left to the states means California voters should decide for themselves whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage.

“I’m not disagreeing with that interpretation,” Carney said. “But he has said quite clearly, as he did with the [Defense of Marriage Act] decision, and as he did on Thursday that he believes that it’s for the states to decide.”

On Thursday — one day before New York legalized same-sex marriage —Obama reiterated his view that marriage is a state issue during an LGBT fundraiser in New York City.

In June 2008, the Alice B. Toklas Club in San Francisco announced that it had received a letter from then-Democratic presidential candidate Obama reading, “And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”

Asked to clarify Carney’s comments on Monday, Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, replied, “The president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples and believes strongly in stopping efforts designed to take rights away. That is why he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment and Proposition 8.”

After voters approved Prop 8 and state litigation seeking to overturn the ban failed, the American Foundation for Equal Rights filed a federal lawsuit challenging the marriage ban. Last year, a U.S. district court in San Francisco determined that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit is on appeal, so the fate of Prop 8 remains unknown. Some advocates say Obama’s position on marriage could have an impact on how courts examine the issue.

Carney was cautious about saying more about the president’s position on the marriage ban and maintained that Obama “very strongly supports equal rights.”

“I’m not going to put words into his mouth applying to another state,” Carney said. “You can analyze that because I haven’t heard him say that. But obviously, the DOMA decision, what he said in New York is about his belief — our belief that this is a matter the states should decide.”

In February, Obama announced that he would no longer defend DOMA in court because he believes the statute is unconstitutional. At the fundraiser on Thursday, Obama indicated he believes DOMA is unconstitutional because it interferes with a state’s right to regulate marriage.

Later, during the briefing, the issue of same-sex marriage emerged again when reporter Bill Press asked how the president can square his belief that marriage should be left to the states while at the same time saying he believes same-sex couples deserves the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

“Well, look, I’m not going to — the president has made his position clear,” Carney replied. “It’s not very useful for us to have this debate. I think the president spoke about this on Thursday, he’s spoken about it — sorry — a number of times in the past.”

Pressed further on whether Obama has “missed an opportunity” to endorse same-sex marriage prior to New York’s decision to legalize gay nuptials, Carney replied, “Again, the president — the president’s record on issues involving and of concern to the LGBT community is exemplary and we are very proud of it. He continues to fight on behalf of that community for the rights, for equal rights, and his position on New York, he, himself, rather than his press secretary, spoke at length about just a few nights ago.”

Obama has held various positions on same-sex marriage. In 1996, when running to become an Illinois state senator, Obama in a questionnaire response to what is now the Windy City Times wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

But during his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman and backed civil unions for gay couples. Since October, Obama has suggested he could evolve on the marriage issue, but he has yet to endorse gay nuptials.

A partial transcript of the exchange between reporters and Carney during the White House news briefing follows:

Wall Street Journal: …Does that mean he also respects the outcome of democracy at work in California where voters decided to reject the idea of gay marriage?

Jay Carney: I think as you saw in the decision we announced … this administration would no longer be participants defending the Defense of Marriage Act because we don’t believe it’s constitutional. That is precisely because of his belief that this a matter that needs to be decided by the states. So without commenting on a particular other state, I think we’ve been making that clear with regard to the action in New York. …

I’m not going to put words into his mouth applying to another state. You can analyze that because I haven’t heard him say that. But obviously, the DOMA decision, what he said in New York is about his belief — our belief that this is a matter the states should decide.

Journal: And the central argument in the challenge to Proposition 8 by supporters of same-sex marriage rights is that this isn’t something that should be decided state-by-state, but there are federal rights involved —

Carney: The president very strongly supports equal rights and he’s made that clear as well, and he said it again in New York at the event that we’re discussing. …

I don’t really have a lot I can say about Proposition 8 with regards to what the president said last week. I’m not willing to go to what the president didn’t discuss. I can talk about we he did discuss.

Journal: But the proper reading of what he said — it sounds what you’re saying, and I want to be clear, is that, yes, this is up to the states, and if New York decides that they want to allow same-sex marriage, great, if California decides that they don’t want to, then that’s their decision as well.

Carney: Well, yeah, I can’t improve upon the words that the president delivered publicly — whatever night that was — Thursday night. I’m not disagreeing with that interpretation. But he has said quite clearly, as he did with the DOMA decision, and as he did on Thursday that he believes that it’s for the states to decide.

Bill Press: I want to come back to the same-sex marriage issue, if I can. If the opportunity to enjoy the same right as same-sex couples as straight couples is a basic civil right, how can you square that with saying we leave it up to the states?

Carney: Well, look, I’m not going to — the president has made his position clear. It’s not very useful for us to have this debate. I think the president spoke about this on Thursday, he’s spoke about it — sorry — a number of times in the past. So, you can take it to other places, but I think …

Press: But let me ask this, with New York being the largest state so far to recognize same-sex marriage, are you concerned that the president have missed his opportunity to lead on this issue?

Carney: Again, the president — the president’s record on issues involving and of concern to the LGBT community is exemplary and we are very proud of it. He continues to fight on behalf of that community for the rights, for equal rights, and his position on New York, he, himself, rather than his press secretary, spoke at length about just a few nights ago.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

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.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

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.

Continue Reading

Popular