National
Is Obama’s marriage position the same as Rick Perry’s?
President’s record is good enough to run on: advocate
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney declined to directly address a question Tuesday about President Obama’s continued lack of support for marriage equality and a potential Republican presidential candidate taking on a virtually identical position.
Under questioning from the Washington Blade, Carney declined to directly answer when asked about concerns of misjudging support from the LGBT community heading into the 2012 election by holding off on support for marriage equality as Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has said marriage should be left to the states — echoing Obama’s recently articulated position on the issue.
“I think you know that this president’s record on LGBT issues is exceptional,” Carney said. “He’s very committed to it. He worked very hard for [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] repeal, and he continues to work hard on these issues. And it’s not an issue of political support; it’s what he believes is the right thing to do and he will continue to do that.”
According to the Associated Press, Perry said last week at a Republican fundraiser that he’s fine with New York’s recent approval of same-sex marriage because he believes in the 10th Amendment right of states to regulate marriage as he remains personally opposed to gay nuptials.
“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” he was quoted as saying. “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”
Perry, who’s widely expected to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president, backed a state constitutional amendment in Texas in 2004 that bans same-sex marriage as well as civil unions.
Later during the speech, Perry brandished his conservative leanings by taking pot shots at Obama and criticizing the president’s decision to pull 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by the summer of 2012. According to the AP, Perry said Obama should listen to his military commanders “and not his political advisers.”
Perry’s remarks on marriage are similar to the position Obama expressed recently on marriage during a news conference last month when he said the legalization of same-sex marriage was a “good thing.”
“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 added he believes “each community is going to be different, each state is going to be different to work through them.” But when later asked whether his views mean his personally supports same-sex marriage, Obama replied he wasn’t “going to make news on that.”
In 1996, Obama stated in a questionnaire response to what is now the Windy City Times that he supported legalization of same-sex marriage and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages. But the president’s position has changed since that time.
During the presidential campaign, Obama has said he believes marriage should remain between one man and one woman. Starting in October, the president has suggested that his views on marriage could evolve, but he has yet to endorse marriage equality.
Even though he has yet to endorse same-sex marriage, the president has taken steps during his administration to offer protections to same-sex couples. Obama has declared that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has endorsed the repeal of that law.
One LGBT advocate maintains that even though President Obama has yet to endorse same-sex marriage, his position on LGBT issues is clearly ahead of his competition.
Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters, said he thinks Obama believes his record on LGBT issues is sufficient for him to run in 2012 — a decision that Socarides said is correct.
“I think the president has decided that the record is good enough to run on, especially considering the competition, and I think he’s right,” Socarides said.
A brief transcript of the exchange between the Blade and Carney follows:
Washington Blade: Thanks, Jay. I want to go back to the issue of marriage. Last week Governor Rick Perry of Texas said he believes the issue should be left to the states, and the decision to legalize same-sex marriage in New York is fine with him, even though he personally is opposed to same-sex marriage. That’s virtually the same position as the President’s. Is there any concern that the President may be misjudging support from the LGBT community heading into the election if he’s offering the same position on marriage as a likely Republican presidential candidate?
Jay Carney: Look, Chris, I think you know that this President’s record on LGBT issues is exceptional. He’s very committed to it. He worked very hard for DADT repeal, and he continues to work hard on these issues. And it’s not an issue of political support; it’s what he believes is the right thing to do and he will continue to do that.
UPDATE: According to the Austin American-Statesman, Mark Miner, a Perry spokesperson, said the governor supports a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Such a measure would invalidate New York’s marriage law. Obama opposes amendments that seek to ban same-sex marriage.
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’
A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Tips for buying a house in Rehoboth Beach
Lucky Pollo stretches its wings at 14th and U
Joe Biden diagnosed with ‘aggressive form’ of prostate cancer
Mike Millan prepares to co-host Helen Hayes Awards
Tourists, locals express concerns about WorldPride security
Ashley Biden to speak at Blade’s Summer Kickoff Party in Rehoboth Beach
Peruvian activists react to Pope Leo XIV’s election
Down to shuck!
