Connect with us

National

Will Dems embrace marriage in platform?

Renewed debate over LGBT issues as parties prepare for 2012 conventions

Published

on

Michael Mitchell

Im sure that the Democratic Party platform will be very good if not great on LGBT issues,' said Michael Mitchell, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, Fla., and the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., are 13 months away, but many are already wondering how the two parties will address LGBT issues in their 2012 platforms.

“The platform from 2008 was a pretty good platform, as are most of the platforms of state Democratic parties around the country,” said Michael Mitchell, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats. “So the vast majority of them are very LGBT inclusive, the vast majority of them talk about everything from the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ all the way up to and including marriage in some places. Certainly they vary state to state, given how strong LGBT people are organized in the Democratic Party there.”

Mitchell continued, “So I have no doubt given the people who were involved in 2008 will continue to be involved now, the new crop of people we have coming in. The work that we’re doing at National Stonewall — or rather that we will be doing, as we haven’t started working in earnest on a platform — I’m sure that the platform will be very good if not great on LGBT issues.”

Mitchell sees opportunities to address new LGBT issues in the platform, as several of the 2008 planks have been achieved, including passage of a federal hate crimes law and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“Our issues have shifted since 2008, so obviously we had the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and that’s great … but there are other issues around that implementation that we have to start digging into,” Mitchell continued. “I think it’s certainly better than what the other party is up to.”

The 2008 Republican Party platform denounced same-sex marriage, as well as non-discrimination statutes barring bias on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in areas like employment, public accommodations and adoption.

Some moderate Republicans hope that the party will soften its anti-gay rhetoric next year, as public opinion on LGBT issues has shifted.

The DNC’s 2008 platform included a call to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” increase funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and care, pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act and assure that federal funds would not be used to “proselytize or discriminate” in “faith-based” programs. The language also explicitly promised to fight discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and alluded to support for non-discrimination laws in employment.

Most strikingly, the platform stated, “We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.”

But some LGBT Democrats are looking for more in 2012.

Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters and a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, wants to see the Democratic Party take a bold stance on issues dear to the LGBT community, including marriage equality.

“I feel it’s important for the Democratic Party to have a strong pro-LGBT platform,” he said. “The platform is very important. It reflects what we stand for. The 2008 platform is not going to be good enough for 2012.

“As we watch the Republican field develop, it seems the GOP platform will be a total disaster,” Socarides said, referring to the 2012 field of GOP presidential candidates.

Members of both parties, however, see 2012 as an opportunity to make headway.

“Log Cabin Republicans plan to actively participate in the process to revise the party’s platform,” said Christian Berle, deputy executive director of Log Cabin Republicans. “We recognize there will be a lot of work to be done to strengthen the importance of reaching out to LGBT Americans as a part of strengthening the party,”

Log Cabin’s chairman emeritus, Bob Kabel, sits on the Republican National Committee, Berle noted. Kabel — Log Cabin’s first national chairman — is the only openly gay member of the RNC, and the first openly gay chairman of a state-level Republican Committee, as the chairman of the District of Columbia Republican Committee.

“Log Cabin Republicans have long had delegates of ours to the conventions and will work with other organizations to help us recruit more openly gay candidates,” Berle said.

Mitchell hopes to bring leaders from across the LGBT community directly to the DNC to communicate goals and ideas to the decision makers.

“I would hope that we are the point organization for other LGBT organizations who are looking to get included in the platform and that we can help guide people to the right folks. That’s the role I really see us as playing.”

Though both parties have a long wait to decide their platforms, Michael Czin, a regional press secretary at the Democratic National Committee, said that as soon as the state parties are ready, the process will begin moving forward.

“The process to draft the 2012 platform hasn’t started yet, but next year there will be a robust and inclusive process within the Democratic Party to draft the 2012 platform,” Czin told the Blade. “The process, just like in previous years will be representative of the many voices that comprise the Democratic Party.”

The platform is forged by the Platform Committee, a diverse group that consists of party delegates from all over the country, representing many constituency groups within the party.

Mitchell said that Stonewall would be able to wield some influence over the process of crafting the platform, especially if prominent LGBT Democrats are involved at high levels during its creation.

“[Stonewall Democrats] have close relationships with the folks who I expect will end up being players,” Mitchell said. “The folks who were all involved the last time around. … We have a lot of those relationships already existing, and I’m sure we’ll be building relationships to figure out the best way to make the platform as LGBT inclusive as possible for both the LGBT community and our families.”

Berle sees a trend of Republican candidates taking less hard-right stances on LGBT issues.

“I think the candidacy of Gov. Jon Huntsman opens a great number of doors for LGBT Republicans to get behind a candidate,” Berle told the Blade. “He has the same position on marriage equality that the president does with his support for civil unions, that is striking a tenor with a wide array of gay and lesbian Americans, not only Republicans but Democrats and independents as well. You have an openly gay candidate in Fred Karger and you have Gov. Gary Johnson and Rep. Ron Paul, whose libertarian positions line up with the views of many LGBT Americans.”

But not everyone sees platform language as relevant to the race, as candidates don’t always tow the party line.

“Party platforms are interesting creatures these days,” said Dana Beyer, executive director of Gender Rights Maryland. “There’s a real dichotomy in my mind. I can’t remember the last time I cared, as a voter, what the platform actually said. Maybe the early 70’s, but it was so long ago I don’t recall.”

She continued, “However, as an activist, and a Democratic candidate, I’m very aware that the platform speaks volumes about the party’s values and priorities. And while it is still a long haul from the enunciation of those values in a platform to their integration into the life of the party’s members, and particularly its leaders, you must start somewhere, and that somewhere is the party platform.”

Chris Barron, board chair of GOProud, played down the importance of platform language.

“Political party platforms are not worth the paper that they’re printed on,” said Barron. “No one in the country reads them, nor should anyone in the country read them. They have absolutely no impact whatsoever. What I care about? I care about the policies that the nominee of each party is going to put forward. That’s what [GOProud will] be focused on.”

Log Cabin’s Berle agrees the presidential nominee holds more sway than the platform committee in the end.

“In terms of the platform — and the convention itself — it will be driven largely through whoever is the Republican nominee, so there are a varying number of candidates who would have different positions in regard to redressing those issues,” Berle said.

Berle speculated that if one of the candidates who has committed to supporting a federal marriage amendment wins the nomination, it will remain part of the platform. However, there are other areas where LGBT Republicans can gain ground, he said.

“It would be a consistent effort of ours to address and debate and hopefully remove the language in support of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy as a part of the platform, particularly because ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in August of 2012 will not exist as a policy,” Berle said. “And it will not exist as a policy because of the support of Republican United States Senators such as Susan Collins and Scott Brown.”

Berle noted that there could be opportunities at the convention level that would expand rights for LGBT Americans, such as support for tax parity legislation that removes the penalty on companies and individuals that cover domestic partners through their health care policies.

When speculating about whether or not the Republican Party would finally nominate a candidate that would speak against anti-LGBT voices in the party, GOProud’s Barron said the party already had in John McCain.

“John McCain went to the floor of the Senate and spoke out eloquently against the Federal Marriage Amendment back when that voice actually mattered,” Barron said. “When there were centrist Democrats who were hiding from this issue, John McCain went to the floor and talked about how it is antithetical to everything that the Republican Party was founded on.”

McCain, however, frustrated his pro-LGBT friends in the Republican Party in 2010 when he became the most outspoken voice fighting the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the Senate. The repeal eventually passed, despite the senator’s protests and filibuster threat.

“I’m confident that we’re going to have a nominee that gay conservatives can work with,” Barron said. “It’s very early in the process, but at the end of the day we’re going to have somebody that gay conservatives can support.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

DOJ seeks to dismiss some claims in gay FBI employee’s bias lawsuit

David Maltinsky was fired after displaying Pride flag at desk

Published

on

A gay FBI trainee was fired after displaying a Pride flag at his desk. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Attorneys for gay former FBI employee David Maltinsky, who was fired from his job as a non-agent employee at the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office in October 2025 after more than 16 years of service for displaying an LGBTQ Pride flag at his workstation, filed court papers on July 15 opposing a motion by government attorneys to dismiss some but not all of the provisions in his unlawful discrimination lawsuit seeking to overturn the firing.

Maltinsky’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in D.C. on Nov. 19, 2025, states that FBI Director Kash Patel acted illegally by violating Maltinsky’s First Amendment constitutional rights and the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ordering his firing on grounds that he “exercised poor judgement with an inappropriate display of political signage” by displaying the Pride flag.

The firing came at a time when Maltinsky successfully completed 16 weeks of the FBI’s 19-week training program at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Va. to become an FBI Special Agent, according to the lawsuit.

In addition to Patel, who took office as FBI director in February 2025 under the Trump administration, the lawsuit names as defendants the FBI itself, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI.

“Defendants discriminated against Maltinsky for engaging in protected speech, for his sexual orientation, and for opposing discrimination – a clear and brazen violation of federal law and the Constitution,” the lawsuit states in an amended complaint filed May 5, 2026.

The Department of Justice, which is representing the FBI in its response to the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request from the Washington Blade for comment on the lawsuit and why it is seeking dismissal of some but not all of the lawsuit’s multiple allegations, including its claim that the firing violated Maltinsky’s First Amendment rights.

In its “Partial” motion filed on June 15, 2026, to dismiss some provisions in the lawsuit, the Justice Department through Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate and Associate Branch Director Christopher Hall, stated that the lawsuit fails to provide sufficient evidence that Maltinsky was fired because he is gay.    

“The Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations that Director Patel or any other decisionmaker expressed hostility toward gay employees, relied on Plaintiff’s sexual orientation in making employment decisions, even knew Plaintiff’s sexual orientation or otherwise indicated that Plaintiff’s status as a gay man played any role in the challenged actions,” the motion states.

Based on that, among other things, the motion says the lawsuit’s claim that the firing violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be dismissed. A 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that the 1964 law bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity along with its other categories including race, religion, and gender.  

In its arguments that the decision to fire Maltinsky was illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, the lawsuit’s amended complaint points out that FBI officials at the Los Angeles Field Office where Maltinsky worked presented the Pride flag to him and gave him full permission to display it at his workstation.  

“The FBI encouraged and honored Maltinsky’s work by awarding him the 2020 Director’s Award For Excellence-Outstanding Service in Diversity and Inclusion,” the lawsuit says. “In 2022, the Attorney General for the Department of Justice awarded Maltinsky the Attorney General’s Award for Equal Employment Opportunity, DOJ’s highest award for performance in support of the Equal Employment Program,” it says.

“In special recognition of Maltinsky’s efforts to improve the FBI, in June 2021 LAFO [Los Angeles Field Office] leadership entrusted to Maltinsky two Pride flags that had been flown from the flagpole located in front of the LAFO,” the lawsuit complaint continues. “Maltinsky displayed one of those flags at his workstation.”

Although the lawsuit doesn’t say so directly, all of that happened during the administration of President Joe Biden and previous FBI Director Christopher Wray, who held the director’s position from August 2017 to January 2025, when Donald Trump took office as president.

Nathaniel Zelinsky, one of the attorneys representing Maltinsky regarding the lawsuit, told the Blade that because the Justice Department did not contest the lawsuit’s First Amendment provisions, the case will move forward to the discovery stage, in which he and fellow attorneys can seek and obtain government documents, and most likely go to trial. He said that regardless of whether the judge approves the dismissal of the lawsuit provisions the government has asked for, the other provisions and the case as a whole  will continue.

“And those First Amendment claims are extremely serious,” he said. “The government, by its admission, fired David Maltinsky because they did not like the speech he displayed when he put up the Pride flag that was gifted to him by the FBI,” Zelinsky said. “The federal government cannot discriminate against its workers based on their speech.”      

Continue Reading

North Carolina

Authorities investigate officer-involved shooting outside Asheville gay bar

Incident took place near Shakey’s on Wednesday

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

An officer-involved shooting outside of a gay dive bar, Shakey’s, in downtown Asheville, N.C., left one man dead Wednesday.

The bar released a statement the following morning regarding the incident, stating that bar staff had asked a patron to leave earlier in the night citing concerning behavior. The bar said that later the man was spotted with a gun in the parking lot.

The bar proceeded to call 911, locked the doors to the establishment, and followed dispatcher instructions on how to keep patrons of the bar safe while officers arrived. These protocols included getting patrons away from the windows and staying low to the ground.

According to Shakey’s, shots were fired outside of the business. When the Asheville Police Department officers arrived, they fired back. The individual died from their injuries, according to the police.

“Because of everyone’s quick actions, cooperation, and concern for one another, every customer and every employee inside Shakey’s made it home safely. We are incredibly thankful,” Shakey’s said on their Instagram page. They thanked Asheville police, emergency dispatchers, EMS, and all first responders who were on scene.

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Chad Flowers, stated that the suspect involved in the shooting was Arturo Castillo Palomar.

The Washington Blade reached out to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation for a comment regarding the possibility of the event being considered a hate crime. They said the issue is currently under investigation and that the findings would be turned over to the district attorney for review.

Continue Reading

Pentagon

Hegseth announces testosterone initiative as trans troop ban continues

SPARTA Pride criticized Pentagon policy

Published

on

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. military will begin testing and treating service members with hormone therapy despite banning similar medical care for transgender service members.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that troops ages 30 and older will be subject to annual testosterone screenings, while younger service members will have the option to voluntarily opt in. Some troops may then be recommended for hormone therapy, he explained in a video posted to social media.

“Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters age 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment,” Hegseth said in a video posted to X, captioned “The High-T Department of War.”

This push to test testosterone levels, as the hormone is commonly referred to as “T,” runs counter to current medical guidelines. Physicians are generally advised to discuss testosterone therapy only with men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.

Testosterone is a vital sex hormone that all humans naturally produce. It helps regulate muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. In men, it is primarily produced in the testicles, while in women it is produced in the ovaries and adrenal glands.

Natural testosterone levels in men decline with age and have long been associated with issues such as erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes, and weight gain. However, experts continue to debate whether these conditions should routinely be treated with testosterone therapy.

Hegseth’s announcement aligns with other actions taken by the Trump-Vance administration — including efforts by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — to make testosterone therapy more accessible for men, particularly those assigned male at birth.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration proposed easing prescribing restrictions on testosterone gels, pills, patches, and injections following a December advisory panel that recommended reducing regulatory hurdles to expand access to testosterone therapy.

Currently, FDA labeling specifies that these medications are approved only for men with hypogonadism, a medical condition that causes abnormally low testosterone levels.

The announcement came as a shock to many LGBTQ advocates because Hegseth and the Defense Department have cited the use of hormone therapy by trans service members as justification for their dismissal under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.

The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation proceeds. As a result, many trans service members have had their gender-affirming medical care halted, even as similar hormone therapy is now being expanded for cisgender service members. Under the executive order, the military currently disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings for trans personnel.

SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans, and their allies, issued a statement to the Washington Blade following Hegseth’s announcement.

“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”

The legal fight over trans military service remains ongoing.

On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so, while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.

The Blade reached out to the Pentagon to ask why cisgender service members could receive hormone therapy while trans service members could not, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Continue Reading

Popular