Connect with us

National

Was Gingrich’s ‘humane’ immigration policy LGBT inclusive?

Candidate called on to endorse moratorium on DOMA deportations

Published

on

Newt Gingrich, Republican Party, gay news, Washington Blade

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

LGBT immigration advocates are pushing Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich to put his money where his mouth is on the “humane” immigration policy he espoused that would allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States.

Gingrich, the current GOP presidential front-runner, made the remarks Tuesday night near the end of the CNN Republican presidential debate on national security held in D.C.

The former U.S. House speaker said the GOP should embrace a policy allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the country if they’ve resided in the United States a long time.

“If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out,” Gingrich said.

The candidate later continued, “I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, ‘Let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.'”

MORE IN THE BLADE: WHITE HOUSE SHOULD PROTECT LGBT IMMIGRANTS

Gingrich — most likely unknowingly — hit on an issue that’s important to LGBT advocates because of the inequities in the immigration system affecting gay Americans seeking to stay together in the United States with same-sex partners who are foreign nationals.

Under current immigration code, gay Americans can’t sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States because same-sex marriage isn’t legal in many places and because the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal recognition of those unions. Consequently, foreign nationals who are in committed relationships with gay Americans may have to leave the United States or face deportation.

Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, called for Gingrich to follow up on his remarks by endorsing comprehensive immigration reform and family reunification legislation that has language for gay bi-national couples:

“The former Speaker’s comments on Tuesday highlight a growing truth: There are few Americans whose lives are not touched, in some way, by the millions of immigrants — both documented and undocumented — who call our country home. As Gingrich pointed out, the immigrant community includes our family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers.  Of the 400,000 individuals forcibly removed from the United States last year, most had no criminal record and many have loved ones who are American citizens. Of course, some of those were also lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender and were separated from spouses, partners and children. One of those is Jair Izquierdo, who was deported just weeks before Christmas last year and whose partner, Richard Dennis, continues to work for his safe return home.  Given his past record on issues important to LGBT families, I worry that Gingrich’s comments were not intended to include families like Richard and Jair, but I also hope I am wrong.”

“Gingrich’s remarks last night, and the recent guidelines for discretion issued by the Obama Administration, underscore the need to be explicit that, in the United States, we include every family member – gay or straight – when we talk about keeping families together. It is past time for both parties to come together and pass comprehensive, inclusive immigration reform. Gingrich’s vision of a compassionate immigration policy mirrors the principles put forth by Senator Robert Menendez in his reform bill, and by Congressman Mike Honda in the Reuniting Families Act.  We would welcome the former Speaker’s support in pressing for passage of both bills, which include all families and which would help bring couples like Richard and Jair back together again.”

MORE IN THE BLADE: BLUMENTHAL SEEKS TO AID LESBIAN BI-NATIONAL COUPLE

Lavi Soloway, founder of Stop the Deportations, said Gingrich should denounce DOMA, which enables the separation of bi-national gay couples, in addition to calling on President Obama to issue a moratorium on DOMA deportations:

“Gingrich clearly wanted the audience to believe that, if elected President, he would pursue immigration reform that keeps families together, rather than allow families to be torn apart. In a general sense, what Gingrich said reflects the bedrock  principle of U.S. immigration law: family unification. However, those words are cold comfort coming from Mr. Gingrich, who has stood solidly against LGBT families throughout his political career. If Newt Gingrich really believes that we should fashion an inclusive immigration policy that protects all families, he should immediately denounce the Defense of Marriage Act which currently excludes more than 40,000 lesbian and gay binational couples from our existing immigration system. He should urge the President to put a moratorium on “DOMA deportations.”

“But Mr. Gingrich will not do that because he not only helped lead passage of DOMA as Speaker of the House in 1996, he continues to actively oppose equality for LGBT families today. All candidates for public office, regardless of party, must address the humanitarian crisis faced by lesbian and gay binational couples because of DOMA and support concrete solutions for the protection of all families.”

 

Despite calls among LGBT advocates encouraging Gingrich to step up his pledge on a “humane” immigration policy, political observers are saying the candidate’s remarks on likely hurt him among GOP primary voters.

MORE IN THE BLADE: US BALKS AT ASYLUM FOR GAY SAUDI DIPLOMAT

In the debate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pounced on Gingrich and called the candidate’s idea a form of “amnesty” that would bring more undocumented immigrants into the United States.

Romney lated added past programs in the country “have said that if people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that’s going to only encourage more people to come here illegally.”

The Gingrich campaign couldn’t be reached to comment on the calls from LGBT advocates for an inclusive immigration policy.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

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.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

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.”

Continue Reading

Popular