Connect with us

National

Romney wins big in New Hampshire

Takes lead in South Carolina polls

Published

on

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney earned his second victory in the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday by trouncing his competition in the New Hampshire primary.

Romney finished with 39.4 percent of the vote. Second place finisher, libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), had 22.8 percent. Media outlets declared Romney the winner shortly after polls closed in the evening, unlike in Iowa, where a winner wasn’t declared until the wee hours of the morning.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr., came in third with 16.8 percent of the vote.

Standing before his family during a victory speech at Southern New Hampshire University, Romney accused President Obama of having run out of ideas and excuses in his leadership of the country.

“We still believe in the hope, the promise, and the dream of America,” Romney said. “We still believe in the shining ‘City on the Hill.’ We know that the future of this country is better than that 8 or 9 percent unemployment. It’s better than $15 trillion in debt. It’s better than the misguided and broken promises of the last three years, and the failed leadership of one man. The president has run out of ideas; now he’s running out of excuses.”

Romney concluded by looking to the next contest in South Carolina, saying, “Tonight, we’re asking the good people of South Carolina to join the citizens of New Hampshire and make 2012 the year he runs out of time.”

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich finished fourth with 9.4 percent of the vote; former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum was close behind in fifth place with 9.3 percent.

Santorum encountered an unfavorable reaction from some New Hampshire residents at his town hall meetings for stating his opposition to same-sex marriage. In one town hall, he said children would be better off having parents in prison rather than having parents of the same gender. Prior to his final campaign appearance in New Hampshire, Santorum was denounced as a “bigot” by Occupy protesters.

Gingrich also came under media scrutiny for incorrectly stating during a debate that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and D.C. “forced” the Catholic Church to close charitable services in those places. The church had volunteered to close those services.

Gay Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger at his N.H. victory party (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay GOP candidate Fred Karger — considered a long shot in the race — had earned 294 votes in the New Hampshire primary late Tuesday as results were still being tabulated.

Reflecting on his showing, Karger told the Washington Blade, “I’ve done this on my own. I’ve gotten no help from any organization or big donors.”

Karger said he’s setting his sights now on the Michigan primary, which will take place on Feb. 28. Karger, who touts himself as the only presidential candidate who supports full equality for LGBT people, said he’ll be one of 11 Republicans on the ballot and thinks he could be in a position take part in a debate for that primary.

Romney’s win could be significant because no other non-incumbent Republican candidate since the modern primary system was established has won the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. According to recent polls, Romney is also polling in the lead in South Carolina, where the next primary will take place next week.

The decisive win for Romney in New Hampshire also stands in contrast to his extraordinarly narrow win in Iowa, where he claimed victory over Santorum by a margin of eight votes.

None of the candidates that Romney beat in the primary announced they would end their race on Tuesday. Despite his third place win, Huntsman vowed to continue his campaign to South Carolina, although polls have him in single digits in the more conservative state.

Gay conservatives lauded Romney for his victory and said the win helps cement Romney as the GOP nominee who’ll take on Obama in the general election.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said the “definitive victory” for Romney in New Hampshire — coupled with the candidate’s win in Iowa — shows he can “unite Republicans and is a clear threat to Barack Obama in November.”

On Romney’s positions on LGBT issues, Cooper recalled remarks in recent debates in which Romney said he supports “full rights” for gay Americans.

“While he continues to support a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality — a position Log Cabin strongly opposes — he is also on record saying that such an amendment has been tried, rejected and is unlikely to ever succeed,” Cooper said. “Romney has also taken a position that the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ has been settled, and he would not seek to reinstitute the ban on open service.”

Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, said Romney’s win demonstrates that his message of “economic renewal for America is resonating with Republican voters across the country.”

“Governor Romney’s win tonight is good news for all Americans – both gay and straight – struggling to make ends meet in this failed Obama economy and bad news for the president’s re-election prospects,” LaSalvia said.

LaSalvia endorsed Romney in an op-ed piece published last week in the Daily Caller, citing economic and tax policy as reasons to support the candidate. The endorsement was a personal one, and not on behalf on GOProud.

Cooper also praised Paul, saying his second-place showing “underscores New Hampshire’s commitment to the libertarian principles he has consistently championed,” and Huntsman for having “frequently talked about the need for Americans to do more for gay rights.”

But Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said political observers shouldn’t anoint Romney as the Republican presidential nominee.

“Romney’s prospects are looking up, but he hasn’t clinched the nomination by any means,” Davis said. “Keep in mind, this is only the second contest of many and more than 60 percent of the GOP vote went to someone other than Romney.”

Davis said Romney’s failure to win a majority of the vote demonstrates that the GOP is unable to get behind the candidate.

“Republicans just can’t get excited about him even if they ultimately accept him as their nominee, but can you blame them?” Davis said. “He’ll say anything to get elected. Just look at the way he’s pandered to LGBT voters and then disavowed having ever done so and you get a taste of his lack of conviction.”

Davis was referring to a 2002 Pride flier from Romney’s gubernatorial campaign promising equal rights that was disavowed by his presidential campaign after the candidate said during a debate Saturday he supports full rights for gay people.

The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage also praised Romney.

Brian Brown, NOM’s president, called Romney’s win “an impressive victory” and said the candidate’s opposition to same-sex marriage makes him an ideal candidate.

“We commend Mitt Romney on his impressive victory tonight in New Hampshire, adding to his delegate total following his victory in Iowa,” Brown said. “Mr. Romney has signed NOM’s pledge to take specific actions as president to defend traditional marriage. He has also called for the repeal of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire. Voters rewarded him and we congratulate Mr. Romney on his well-earned victory.”

Romney is among the Republican presidential candidates who’s signed NOM’s pledge to oppose same-sex marriage if elected president. Among other things, signing the document commits the candidate to back a Federal Marriage Amendment and to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

NOM makes no mention in its statement of Paul’s second place showing. The organization had undertaken a $50,000 ad campaign to alert voters to the candidate’s opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment and belief that government should get out of marriage. NOM had criticized Paul for his third place showing in Iowa after earlier polls showed him doing better there.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

HRC report: LGBTQ students face ‘far greater challenges’ in non-supportive states

Survey finds anti-LGBTQ school harassment, bullying highest in 17 states

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the national LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, has released a report showing LGBTQ public school students are more likely to face bullying, harassment, and “other barriers” in states that have less overall supportive LGBTQ laws and policies.

The report is based on the HRC Foundation’s National Educator Survey of School Climate and Bullying, which was released on Sept. 17.

“The report finds that harassment, bullying, and other barriers to LGBTQ+ inclusion are more prevalent in states with limiting policies, where educators report widespread restrictions on LGBTQ+ resources, visible expressions of support, and assistance for transgender students,” a statement released by HRC says.

“As just one example,” the statement adds, “while 59 percent of educators in states with limiting policies report restrictions on supporting their transgender students, just 6 percent to 8 percent of educators in states with supportive policies report the same, underscoring the impact of these policies on school climate, student well-being, and the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections for LGBTQ+ youth and inclusive classrooms.”

The report says the survey consisted of responses by 826 educators in 42 states who worked as teachers, principals, counselors, administrators, and others who worked in support services. All worked at schools with students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, most being public schools and a smaller number being charter schools, the report says.

It says the survey was conducted between April 15 and May 21, 2026, and included a survey questionnaire with about 55 questions covering a wide range of LGBTQ related school issues.

According to the report, its classification of LGBTQ supportive and non-LGBTQ supportive states is based on a detailed analysis of the LGBTQ related laws and policies of all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories conducted by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, which describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit thinktank.”  

The report includes a chart consisting of 51 boxes representing the 50 states and D.C., with 32 plus D.C. colored as blue and said to have overall LGBTQ supportive policies. The 17 boxes colored in red are said to have overall non-LGBTQ supportive policies and laws, Each of the boxes has the initial of a state or D.C. printed inside it.

In addition to D.C., the chart shows Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts as among the supportive states. Florida, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio are among the states shown to be non-LGBTQ supportive.  

The HRC statement includes these “key” findings from the survey:

  • In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 59 percent of educators report restrictions on supporting transgender students, compared to just 6-8 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
  • In states with restrictive policies, nearly 50 percent of educators reported restrictions on LGBTQ+ books or resources, compared to just 7 percent of educators in states with supportive policies.
  • Roughly 32 percent of educators in states with restrictive policies reported anti-LGBTQ+ harassment was a moderate or serious problem, compared with 11 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
  • In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 29 percent of educators were very worried about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, compared to 15 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
  • In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 36 percent of educators witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying, compared to 27 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
  • In states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 75 percent of educators reported no restrictions on LGBTQ+-supportive displays, highlighting a substantially more supportive school environment than in states with restrictive policies.
  • Educators in states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies also reported significant harassment of students based on appearance (57 percent), race or ethnicity (43 percent), sexual orientation (42 percent), and gender identity or expression (39 percent). (No direct comparison figure from supportive-policy states is provided in the data above.)

“Every young person deserves to feel safe and supportive at school, but this report makes clear that for too many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender youth, are being failed by policies designed to exclude them,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in the HRC statement.

“We know that when students feel seen, supported, and affirmed, they are more likely to thrive, but when schools become places of exclusion or hostility, young people pay the price through lower engagement, missed opportunities to learn, and poorer mental and physical health,” Robinson said.

The HRC statement notes that the survey findings come at a time when a growing number of states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ students and the school officials and teachers who support them. It says that for the first time, the survey found that “educators themselves are also experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, highlighting the growing impact of these policies on school staff as well as students.”

The full survey findings and report can be accessed here:

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons

SCOTUS could further restrict rights of trans inmates

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court with an LGBTQ Pride flag flying in front of it. (Washington Blade Photo by Michael Key)

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow its policy limiting gender-affirming treatment for federal inmates to take effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy, which had become policy nearly a decade ago for inmates who were transitioning.

The Trump administration argues in its application that its policy restricting transgender rights was properly adopted and that the judge overstepped, posing nationwide “security and prison-administrative concerns.”

If allowed, the policy would halt surgeries, hormones and social accommodations such as wigs while allowing mental health therapy to continue as the legality of the policy reversal is litigated.

The government also argues in the application that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”

American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for the inmates said the policy is “a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” and said withholding necessary gender-affirming healthcare constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The Blade has covered the ongoing developments surrounding changes to Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate policy that went into effect earlier in Trump’s term. The changes primarily focus on rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates.

Earlier this year, the Blade published a joint letter from multiple senators in response to the rollback of the policy. Multiple senators — including Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) — sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall III calling for them to reverse the policy change, saying it endangers inmates’ health and safety.

The senators described how the policy shift, along with President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is forcing policy changes they argued are rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.

Federal Bureau of Prisons responded to the Blade’s request for comment in May, declining to reconsider its transgender inmate policy.

The Blade reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons once again over the application to the Supreme Court, but did not hear back before publication.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Education Department rolls back protections for LGBTQ students under Title IX

The DoE policy rescinds Biden-era protections

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Department of Education rolled back a Biden-era Title IX interpretation on Monday that secured sex-based discrimination protections for students on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Title IX was established in 1972 as landmark civil rights law. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke about the revision of the policy, claiming the decision would explicitly help “women and girls.”

“Thanks to today’s action, the published Title IX regulations faithfully reflect court orders and congressional intent — reducing confusion for parents, students, and educational institutions. We will continue to relentlessly champion equal opportunity for all Americans and hold accountable any school or college that violates the rights, privacy, or athletic opportunities of our women and girls,” McMahon said via press release.

Prior to her work under the Trump-Vance administration, McMahon was a World Wrestling Federation/World Wrestling Entertainment executive before resigning to pursue a career in politics. She was appointed to the Connecticut State Board of Education by then-Gov. Jodi Rell in January 2009, but resigned from her role shortly afterward to run what ultimately became two failed campaigns for Connecticut’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010 and 2012.

A “fact sheet” provided by the Department of Education also called the inclusive sexual assault and gender identity protections expanded under the Biden-Harris unlawful, saying, “This change is necessary to provide clarity in the Code of Federal Regulations so that institutions, administrations, students, and families can see the rules that are actually in force and to help eliminate public confusion about the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to stretch Title IX’s legal protections to cover ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.’”

This is not the first time this policy has faced judicial hurdles. While Biden was still in office, the plan was struck down in multiple courts in Republican states.

Opponents of the move say it will harm transgender athletes and weaken protections for sexual assault victims.

“Sexual harassment and assault continue to be pervasive in schools and, to the fullest extent possible, we should be working to enforce the laws that protect student survivors of sexual violence. Yet, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Trump administration have decided to ignore what survivors need, instead weaponizing Title IX to attack trans students,” said Shiwali Patel, senior director of education justice at the National Women’s Law Center.

This is a return to a first Trump term policy after Biden issued an executive order to attempt to curb discrimination for all — especially those with different sexual orientations and gender identities — that had been given a pass during Trump’s first term. Much of Title IX’s policy has a narrow vision of what sex protections look like that often and enthusiastically leave gender-diverse and non-heterosexual people out.

In March 2021, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14021, “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,” to attempt to undo some of the flagrantly anti-LGBTQ policy the Trump-Pence administration had set forth relating to Title IX protections for LGBTQ students and sexual assault survivors.

The secretary focused this “win” for the administration as one more step toward restricting transgender students from competing in women’s sports, but the 2020 rule, completed under former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, didn’t explicitly ban trans students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity. It did limit the types of sexual harassment and assault complaints that schools had to investigate and required live hearings so male students could respond to accusations.

McMahon didn’t discuss those aspects in her statement or in requests for comment. The 2020 rule drew praise from conservatives and intense opposition from advocates who said it downplayed sexual abuse and left victims unprotected.

In a statement, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Education Committee, said, “Returning to the 2020 regulations restores longstanding protections for women and girls that the Biden-Harris administration attempted to dismantle and realigns Title IX policy with court precedents.”

LGBTQ activists have called this decision a direct attack on LGBTQ safety — particularly for trans students who continue to face a barrage of legislative, executive, and judicial attacks in recent years from the Trump-Vance administration.

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the world, released a statement following the DoE’s announcement.

“Title IX is, quite simply, about protecting students and ensuring that they are safe from abuse, harassment, and discrimination while they pursue their education. But Donald Trump and his cronies aren’t interested in any of that,” Robinson said. “Donald Trump’s Department of Education has completely lost sight of that mission. Instead of enforcing protections for students, they’re rescinding them. They don’t care if sexual harassment and assault go unaddressed. And they’re happy to strip funding away from school districts and states that are actually trying to keep students safe.

“We know who will be hurt: women, girls, and others who are vulnerable to sexual harassment, assault and abuse — including LGBTQ+ students. The fact that they’re dropping this rule into place abruptly, without a comment period, denying families, educators, loved ones, and the students themselves a say in how they should be treated, shows how little they care about the safety of our students.

“This is a monstrous injustice, and it drives home how essential it is that we take action at the polls this November to start bringing some accountability to an administration that has turned its back on the very students Title IX was written to protect,” she added.

The Washington Blade reached out to the DoE for comment and questions on whether Title IX protections still included LGBTQ students, and received this email response from Education Spokesman Sabin Sidney:

“Your questions indicate you are clearly missing the entire point of this Final Rule. The Biden Administration illegally rewrote Title IX to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identification’ in the definition of sex-based discrimination. The Trump Administration is rescinding this rule—only after every federal court that heard legal challenges rejected it as unlawful.

“Since January 2025, the Department has been enforcing Title IX consistent with the President’s Executive Order grounded in biological truth that there are only two sexes. The Trump Administration is restoring the original promise of Title IX and providing clarity to students, parents, and educational institutions. We will vigorously defend equal opportunity consistent with the law’s intended purpose.”

Continue Reading

Popular