National
Mainstream media press Obama on marriage
President again declines to endorse marriage equality

President Obama said on Wednesday the process that led to passage of the New York marriage law was “a good thing” when asked during a news conference, although he refrained from endorsing marriage equality.
“What I’ve seen happen over the last several years, and what happened in New York last week, I think is a good thing because what we saw was the people of New York having a debate talking through these issues,” Obama said. “It was contentious, it was emotional, but ultimately, they made a decision to recognize civil marriage, and I think that’s exactly how things should work.”
Obama also said he believes “each community is going to be different, each state is going to be different to work through them.”
Questions on marriage for Obama came from two reporters during the news conference: NBC’s Chuck Todd and the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler. Coupled with questions that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney took from Meckler and reporter Bill Press on Monday, these inquiries reflect a greater interest in Obama’s marriage position from the mainstream media.
NBC News asked Obama if he believes marriage is a civil right, but Obama didn’t respond and instead detailed the administration’s accomplishments for the LGBT community, including his decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
“Let me start by saying that this administration, under my direction, has consistently said we cannot discriminate as a country against people on the basis of sexual orientation,” Obama said. “And we have done more in the two-and-a-half years that I’ve been in here than the previous 43 presidents.”
Pressed on whether he’s uncomfortable with the idea of different states having different rules or whether anti-marriage laws smack of segregation, Obama talked instead about the growing acceptance of LGBT people.
“Chuck, I think what you’re saying is the profound recognition on the part of the American people that gays and lesbians and transgender persons are our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers — and they have to be treated like every other American, and I think that principle will win out,” Obama said.
Obama’s statement on the passage of the New York marriage law being “a good thing” received further attention during the news conference when the Journal asked if that remark meant he personally supports same-sex marriage, but Obama said that comment didn’t mark a change in his position.
“I’m not going to make news on that today,” Obama said. “Good try, though.”
Pressed further, Obama maintained he wouldn’t make news on the issue and replied, “Laura, I think this has been asked and answered. I’ll keep on giving you the same answer until I give you a different one. All right? And that won’t be today.”
Obama has faced increased scrutiny over his lack of support for same-sex marriage as reaches out to the LGBT community for help to win re-election in 2012. Last week, he held a LGBT fundraiser in New York City and later today a Pride reception is set to take place at the White House.
A brief transcript of the exchange between reporters and Obama on the marriage issue follows:
NBC News: Should marriage be a civil right?
President Obama: Let me start by saying that this administration, under my direction, has consistently said we cannot discriminate as a country against people on the basis of sexual orientation. And we have done more in the two-and-a-half years that I’ve been in here than the previous 43 presidents …
Ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” making sure that gay and lesbian partners can visit each other in hospitals, making sure that federal benefits can be provided to same-sex couples across the board, hate crimes — we have made sure that that is a central principle of this administration because I think that’s the central position of America.
Now, what we’ve also done is we’ve said that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional, and so, we’ve said we cannot defend the federal government poking its nose into what states are doing and putting the thumb on the scale against same-sex couples.
What I’ve seen happen over the last several years, and what happened in New York last week, I think is a good thing because what we saw was the people of New York having a debate talking through these issues. It was contentious, it was emotional, but ultimately, they made a decision to recognize civil marriage, and I think that’s exactly how things should work. …
So I think it is important for us to work through this issues because each community is going to be different, each state is going to be different to work through them. In the meantime, we filed briefs before the Supreme Court that say we think that any discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgenders is subject to heightened scrutiny and we don’t think DOMA is constitutional.
So, I think the combination of what states are doing, what the courts are doing and the actions that we’re taking administratively all are how the process works…
NBC News: Aren’t you at all uncomfortable about different rules in different states? Some people make the argument that that’s what we saw during segregation.
Obama: Chuck, I think what you’re saying is the profound recognition on the part of the American people that gays and lesbians and transgender persons are our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers — and they have to be treated like every other American, and I think that principle will win out. It’s not going to be perfectly smooth, and it turns out the president, and I’ve discovered since I’ve been in this office, can’t dictate precisely how the process works, but I think we’re moving … and I think that’s a good thing.
…
Wall Street Journal: …I wanted to follow up on one of your earlier answers on same-sex marriage. You said that it’s a positive step that some of these states including New York are moving towards that. Does that mean that you now personally do support same-sex marriage putting aside what individual states decide?
Obama: I’m not going to make news on that today. Good try, though.
Journal: I know you said you didn’t want to say anything more on same-sex marriage, but what said before really led me to believe that that’s what you personally believe. …
Obama: Laura, I think this has been asked and answered. I’ll keep on giving you the same answer until I give you a different one. All right? And that won’t be today.
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.
-
a&e features3 days ago
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
-
Maryland4 days ago
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
-
Congress4 days ago
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances