National
DNC open to funding fight against anti-gay amendments
N.C., Minnesota voters to decide on marriage bans

The chair of the Democratic National Committee said Tuesday she would “certainly consider” spending money to combat anti-gay constitutional amendments next year in Minnesota and North Carolina.
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz made the remarks about spending DNC funds to defeat marriage amendments in response to a question from the Washington Blade. She took questions from reporters following an Immigration Equality event she attended in D.C.
Wasserman Schultz, also U.S. House member representing a district in Florida, said state party groups are now focusing on defeating amendments banning same-sex marriage and the national Democratic Party would consider sending resources if asked to do so.
“I know that the party in each of those states will be combatting them,” Wasserman Schultz said. “And if they ask for our assistance, like any other state party request, we’ll certainly consider it.”
Wasserman Schultz added the Democratic Party has a lot to accomplish in the 2012 election and said the best way to defeat anti-gay initiatives at the polls will be “by turning out our Democratic voters who generally overwhelmingly oppose initiatives like that.”
Both Minnesota and North Carolina will vote on amending their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage in 2012. The North Carolina amendment will come before voters in May and the Minnesota measure will come before voters in November.
Activists have criticized the DNC for its lack of attention to anti-gay state measures in the past. In 2006, gay Democratic activist Paul Yandura stirred up controversy by distributing an open letter criticizing the party for not doing enough to defeat anti-gay measures in the states.
In 2009, John Aravosis, the gay editor of AMERICAblog, took aim at the DNC for asking Maine Democrats to assist with the New Jersey governor’s race while saying nothing about the marriage initiative on the ballot in the state at the time.
Whether Democrats will come to the polls to vote on the North Carolina amendment remains in question because it will be the only ballot question on which they can vote.
The issue will come before state voters in May at the same time as the Republican presidential primary, which is a modified closed primary. All North Carolinians can vote on the marriage amendment, but only registered Republicans and unaffiliated voters can vote in the primary.
In response to another question from the Blade, Wasserman Schultz wouldn’t venture to say whether the Democratic Party platform in 2012 would endorse same-sex marriage.
“I really don’t know,” Wasserman Schultz said. “We don’t dictate what’s included in our platform. The members of our platform committee will come up with that.”
Asked whether there would be any pro-LGBT changes in the platform, Wasserman Schultz said she couldn’t give specifics because the platform committee will make that decision, but she added, “I’m very confident and I believe strongly that we should have as inclusive as possible LGBT agenda as part of our platform.”
A transcript of the exchange between reporters and Wasserman Schultz follows:
Q: I’d like to ask you some questions about the Democratic Party platform for 2012. What kind of pro-LGBT changes are we going to see in the platform in 2012 compared to what we had in 2008?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: It’s a little bit early to tell. I feel confident that we will have an LGBT platform that will be part of our overall platform. We have a platform committee that gets put together to develop what will be in it for the convention. I can’t tell you specifically what’s likely to be in it because the members of the DNC and the participants who serve on the platform committee make that decision but I’m very confident and I believe strongly that we should have as inclusive as possible LGBT agenda as part of our platform.
Q: Do you think we’ll see an endorsement of same-sex marriage as part of that platform?
Wasserman Schultz: Like I said, I really don’t know. We don’t dictate what’s included in our platform. The members of our platform committee will come up with that.
Q: As a co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, are you at all confident that it’s going to pass before the election next year?
Wasserman Schultz: Well, we have Republicans who are opposed to comprehensive immigration reform, and even more opposed to including same-sex bi-national couples in any kind of immigration reform, so, no. With Republicans controlling the House of Representatives I’m not confident, sadly, that it will become law before the end of this Congress.
Q: U.S. House John Boehner tripled the cost cap for the defense fund for the Defense of Marriage Act any reaction to that?
Wasserman Schultz: It’s just colossally insensitive, but it’s also outrageous that the person who’s second in line to the president would actually spend time and resource defending a blatantly unconstitutional law. It’s morally wrong and it’s legally wrong, and it’s unconscionable because the speaker, like myself and all the other 435 members of the House swear to uphold the constitution. It’s just unfathomable to me that he would pursue that path.
Q: Congresswoman Lofgren sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security asking U.S. Customs & Immigration Services to stop putting —
Wasserman Schultz: To put the [green card] applications [for bi-national same-sex couples] in abeyance —
Q: Is there a reason who didn’t sign the letter?
Wassserman Schultz: I’m not even sure I was asked to sign on to the letter.
Q: Is it something that you would have signed or would support?
Wasserman Schultz: I support them being put in abeyance, but I don’t know that I was asked to go on the letter. Given that I’m the chair of the DNC, it’s a little odd for me to be asking the administration to do specific things. So, I personally support it, but because I’m also the political voice of the president, asking the president to do things publicly can get a little awkward.
Q: Two battles that the LGBT community are concerned about in 2012 are going to be anti-gay marriage amendments in Minnesota and North Carolina. Do you think we’ll see DNC resources going to combat those amendments in those states?
Wasserman Schultz: I know that the party in each of those states will be combatting them. And if they ask for our assistance, like any other state party request, we’ll certainly consider it. We have a lot to accomplish in the next election. The best way we can benefit those causes in defeating amendments like that is by turning out our Democratic voters who generally overwhelmingly oppose initiatives like that. So, we spend resources in a state getting our voters to the polls and maximizing that opportunity will help do that.
Q: Do you have any comment on Herman Cain’s assertion on “The View” this morning that homosexuality is a choice?
Wasserman Schultz: Did he do that?
Q: He said that on The View this morning.
Wasserman Schultz: Yes, I totally disagree with Herman Cain. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is something that occurs through birth. It’s hereditary, and it’s shockingly out of touch and insensitive for him to suggest outdated, ancient — and sends a terrible message to gay kids, to gay Americans that somehow they should be treated differently and that we don’t recognize that sexuality is simply a matter of the way you were born.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
-
U.S. Supreme Court1 day ago
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
-
Out & About2 days ago
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
-
Maryland5 days ago
Silver Spring holds annual Pride In The Plaza
-
Opinions5 days ago
Supreme Court decision on opt outs for LGBTQ books in classrooms will likely accelerate censorship