Connect with us

National

Gingrich rebound troubles LGBT advocates

Former House speaker vaults to top of field: poll

Published

on

Newt Gingrich, Republican Party, gay news, Washington Blade

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A new candidate is rising in the polls among Republicans seeking the White House, but the presidential contender’s anti-gay views aren’t winning him friends in the LGBT community.

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich — who earned a reputation during his tenure in Congress as the bane of the Clinton administration — has claimed the title of new favorite son among Republicans, according to a new poll.

Public Policy Polling reports that Gingrich leads among Republican voters with 28 percentage points. Following him is former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain at 25 points and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 18 percent. Compared to a month ago, Gingrich has risen 13 points while Cain has dropped by 5 points and Romney has gone down by 4.

Cain enjoyed front-runner status a month ago, but has seen a precipitous drop in the polls after allegations emerged that he sexually harassed  in the 1990s at least two women while head of the National Restaurant Association, although the candidate has denied any wrongdoing. NBC News reported that at least one of these women received a cash settlement from the organization.

Whether Gingrich will remain at the top of the pack remains to be seen. Other candidates —including Cain, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — have been at the top of the polls, but have since fallen, while Romney’s numbers remain relatively stable.

Jerame Davis, interim executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said Gingrich’s ascendance shows “the Republican primary field is in disarray” and “the GOP base is desperately searching for a standard bearer with little success.”

“It is preposterous to think that Gingrich, a serial philanderer and the only Speaker of the House of Representatives ever reprimanded for ethics violations, would become a nominee for president of the United States for any political party — let alone be elected president,” Davis said.

Davis added the LGBT community “should be particularly concerned about the possibility of a Gingrich presidency” because the candidate “is openly hostile toward LGBT rights.”

Speaking at a campaign event in Iowa in September, Gingrich called marriage equality “a temporary aberration that will dissipate,” according to the Des Moines Register. In the 2010 election, Gingrich reportedly contributed $150,000 of money he raised for his political group to the campaign to oust three Iowa justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 2009.

Gingrich has been critical of judges ruling in favor of marriage. During his speech before the 2011 Values Voter Summit in D.C., Gingrich denounced retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for ruling against Proposition 8 in California, saying if judges “think that they are unchallengeable, they are inevitably corrupted.”

The former House speaker cited as an example of this corruption “one judge in California deciding he knows more than 8 million Californians about the definition of marriage.”

Vaughn’s ruling against California’s same-sex marriage ban in 2010 prompted Gingrich to call on Congress to send to the states a U.S. constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage throughout the country.

“Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy,” Gingrich said at the time.

Gingrich has also been critical of Obama’s decision to drop the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court. In February, Gingrich called on the U.S. House to retaliate against Obama after the administration declared the anti-gay law was unconstitutional and suggested the president could be impeached over the decision.

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath,” Gingrich said, “and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.”

Asked by Newsmax TV whether President Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, “Clearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.”

Gingrich holds these views even though he has a lesbian sister: Candace Gingrich. An activist with the Human Rights Campaign, she served in the 1990s as the spokesperson for the organization’s coming out project.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, maintained Gingrich has held “more nuanced” positions on LGBT issues than some may think and pointed to an interview the speaker did with the conservative American View.

“Regarding marriage, Gingrich helped author DOMA in the 1990s, but now lines up with many conservative voters in that he believes there should be some sort of relationship recognition,” Cooper said.

In the interview, Gingrich said he favors “some kind of legal rights” for LGBT people and backs hospital visitation rights, although he doesn’t know how he feels about civil unions. Cooper said Gingrich articulated similar comments on hospital rights to him personally.

“Regarding gay Americans, the former House speaker has also noted to fellow conservatives, ‘there are many good and kind and decent people who also may be homosexual’ and that ‘you live in a very narrow world if you’ve never met one,'” Cooper said. “Like many Americans, Newt Gingrich remains conflicted on these issues.”

But the biggest complaints about Gingrich from the LGBT community resulted from his role as House speaker in the late 1990s.

Elizabeth Birch, a Democratic consultant who was head of the Human Rights Campaign from 1995 to 2004, said Gingrich’s relationship with the LGBT community at that time left much to be desired.

“He was 100 percent uncooperative in moving any legislation, concepts or ideas that would advance LGBT equality during the years I was at the Human Rights Campaign,” Birch said.

Birch said HRC privately met with Gingrich and he was “courteous” in conservations, but she added “the truth is he’s one of those monolithic political blocks to advancement because he will always serve ideology over humanity.”

According to HRC, Gingrich — before he became speaker in 1995 — voted in favor of the putting in place the recently repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law and in favor of legislation to defund D.C.’s domestic partner registry.

But perhaps Gingrich’s signature anti-gay achievement was passage of DOMA, the statute that continues to prohibit federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Birch recalled that Gingrich by virtue of his position as speaker had a significant role in the passage of the anti-gay law, which was signed by Clinton in 1996.

“Just by virtue of his station at the time, he was instrumental in having that pass very quickly and efficiently,” Birch said.

Bob Barr, the former Republican U.S. House member who sponsored the bill, and Clinton, who signed the bill into law, now say DOMA should be repealed, but Gingrich still backs the statute.

“That’s who he is,” Birch said. “He was always, always adjusting his plans, his actions and his goals to the right of the party.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misstated the year in which Gingrich became speaker. The Washington Blade regrets the error.

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