National
Santorum denounced as ‘bigot’ at N.H. rally
Anti-gay candidate compares his views on marriage to Obama’s
Occupy New Hampshire protesters outside a Santorum campaign event (Blade photo by Michael Key)
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Rick Santorum faced a noisy reception from protesters over his anti-gay views at a Monday campaign stop in New Hampshire.
The former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania was jeered Monday night just before a campaign rally at Jillian’s Billiards Club in Manchester, N.H., where he was about to begin his final campaign event in New Hampshire before the primary vote Tuesday.
As Santorum made his way from his campaign van to the club entrance, a group of about a dozen demonstrators associated with the Occupy movement began chanting “Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!”
Brett Chamberlin, a straight 20-year-old college student, led others in a chant, assailing Santorum for his opposition to gay rights and marriage equality. Chamberlin shouted, “He says gay marriage … is a slippery slope … but we say that regulation … is a slippery slope, too!”
The protesters held signs expressing discontent with the current state of campaign finance laws. The bottom of the sign showed a Democratic donkey with three dollar signs and text reading, “MONEY OUT OF POLITICS #OCCUPY.”
Chamberlin, who is from Durham, N.H., concluded his chant by crying, “Rick Santorum! We don’t like bigots in New Hampshire!”
The protesters continued their chant of “Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!” after Santorum entered the building and pounded the signs on the ground.
Speaking to reporters, Chamberlin, who has participated in both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy New Hampshire protests, said problems with the election system prompted him to demonstrate.
“I’m here tonight because we believe that our system really is run by who can raise and spend the most money, which means that they pander to corporate contributions and anonymous PACs instead of responding to the constituents that they allege to represent,” Chamberlin said.
Chamberlin continued that voters “shouldn’t have to settle for the lesser of two evils” when selecting presidential candidates and “the bane of democracy is settling for the person whom you find the least deplorable.”
Brett Chamberlin (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Asked by the Washington Blade whether Santorum’s opposition to same-sex marriage was also a source of discontent, Chamberlin replied, “I think that I was picking on that because it’s simply the issue about which Rick Santorum is the most deplorable.”
Chamberlin said Santorum “uses that slippery slope argument” in arguments against same-sex marriage by suggesting it will lead to the legalization of bestiality and polygamy. Last week, Santorum said during a town hall if marriage was an inalienable right, one “could imagine all the different types of marriages that would happen.”
But Chamberlin identified several reasons why the senator was mistaken in predicting marriage equality would lead to adverse consequences.
“First of all, that slippery slope argument doesn’t hold,” Chamberlin said. “We’ve legalize gay marriage here in New Hampshire and nothing really happened. Everything is the exact same, except more people have the civil right of marriage. No. 2, that slippery slope argument was used by people who were against interracial marriage. There’s a long history of it being used by people that want to fight against progressive change.”
Chamberlin, a student of politics and journalism at New York University, said the slippery slope argument cuts both ways.
“When he says that you can use the government to justify the overwhelming morality of America — which is not true because an overwhelming majority of people do support gay marriage — well then where does the government interruption stop?” Chamberlin said. “Can they come into your house or tell you you can’t cut your sideburns or wear mixed-fabric clothing, which are also commandants that appear side-by-side with the anti-gay comments in Leviticus. So, it’s not founded in logic; it’s not founded in a knowledge of history or a knowledge of American civics.”
Asked how well he thinks Santorum will fare in the New Hampshire primary in the wake of his anti-gay comments, Chamberlin declined to handicap the candidate’s chances, but speculated the senator may do better in later contests.
“I learned after years of following politics not to make predictions,” Chamberlin said. “I think that as long he does better than expected, that’s a win for him. … He’ll certainly do well in South Carolina, though. It’s a far more conservative state and he can really push anti-gay [views] that he’s had to keep a little bit suppressed here in New Hampshire, where we’ve legalized gay marriage.”
Santorum has a notoriously anti-LGBT record, which he’s made known over the course of his candidacy for president by expressing opposition to same-sex marriage and, most recently, saying a child would be better off having parents in prison as opposed to parents of the same gender.
The hostile reception he received before his evening rally comes on the heels of a response regarding his opposition to same-sex marriage during a morning event at Derry-Salem Elks Lodge in Salem, N.H.
Asked whether his opposition to gay rights makes him an electable candidate, Santorum invoked an unlikely person whom he says shares his views as a reason why he could be a viable contender.
“Everyone on the stage yesterday and the day before has pretty much has the same exact position I have on those issues,” Santorum said. “President Obama says he has the same position I have on gay marriage.”
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum eludes protesters (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Santorum has been enduring questions for days on his opposition to marriage equality in town halls and has been criticized in the libertarian-leaning state for expressing those views. He enjoyed third place status in New Hampshire polls coming off his virtual tie with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses, but despite his strong showing there, hasn’t seen much traction in the state.
Santorum suggested that criticism over his position on marriage is unfair because he’s the only candidate that’s facing heat over the issue.
“The only difference is between myself and any of them is that when somebody asks me a question I answer it,” Santorum said.
It’s true that Obama doesn’t support same-sex marriage — much to the consternation of many LGBT advocates. But Obama and Santorum diverge tremendously on LGBT rights and government-recognition of same-sex couples.
Obama opposes a Federal Marriage Amendment and voted against it as a U.S. senator, while Santorum has pledged to back it as president and credits himself with being an architect of the measure while in the Senate. Obama has declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and refused to defend it in court, but Santorum has criticized the president and has pledged to defend the anti-gay law. Santorum has compared relationships of people of the same sex to bestiality.
Clo Ewing, an Obama campaign spokesperson, articulated the differences between Obama and Santorum on LGBT issues in a statement to the Blade.
“President Obama has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same legal protections as straight couples,” Ewing said. “That’s why he has called for repeal of the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ and has taken steps to weaken this discriminatory law until the time it can be repealed legislatively.”
Ewing also noted that Santorum — as well as Romney — has signed a pledge from an anti-gay organization promising to oppose same-sex marriage if elected president.
“Meanwhile, both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum signed the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge, which defends DOMA and pushes for a federal marriage amendment,” Ewing said.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, also rebuked Santorum for suggesting his positions on LGBT issues are anything like Obama’s.
“Rick Santorum has made a career out of opposing LGBT equality so it’s laughable that he would even attempt a comparison to President Obama’s record of progress,” Cole-Schwartz said. “Rick Santorum wants to do anything he can to stop marriage equality — including supporting DOMA, promising to appoint anti-gay judges and even advocating for a constitutional amendment to ban rights for gay couples, all diametrically opposed to President Obama’s positions.”
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
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.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
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.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
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.
PHOTOS: Helen Hayes Awards
Laverne Cox, Reneé Rapp, Deacon Maccubbin named WorldPride grand marshals
House passes reconciliation with gender-affirming care funding ban
PHOTOS: D.C. Trans Pride
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
