Connect with us

National

Anti-gay evangelical leaders back Santorum

Support reflects unease with Romney

Published

on

The anti-gay Family Research Council and a group of evangelical leaders are endorsing Republican Rick Santorum for president, reflecting the unease among some social conservatives with the prospect of Mitt Romney’s nomination.

On Saturday, Tony Perkins, FRC’s president, announced Santorum had won the backing of the nearly 170 conservative leaders who gathered in Brenham, Texas, to discuss the GOP primary race and top policy goals for a Republican administration.

“There is clearly a united group here that is committed to see … a true conservative elected to the White House,” Perkins said after the decision was made, according to Reuters.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has dubbed the Family Research Council a “hate group” in part because of its opposition to LGBT rights. Other anti-gay leaders who were present at the meeting — and backing Santorum — were Gary Bauer and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.

The former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania won the endorsement on the third round of balloting, Politico reported. Of the 114 votes cast, Santorum won 85. Former U.S. House Speaker  Newt Gingrich took the remainder.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry didn’t even make it past the first round of balloting — even though the meeting was held in his home state and he’s heavily courted evangelicals since the beginning of his campaign.

While campaigning before the New Hampshire primary, Santorum said the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy and said children would be better off with parents in prison rather than parents of the same gender. Santorum has also said he’d reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if elected president.

Meanwhile, Romney has said he supports “full rights” for gay people, although he opposes same-sex marriage. The former Massachusetts governor has said he’d leave open service for gays in the military as it is.

But both Santorum and Romney have signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage committing themselves to back a Federal Marriage Amendment, defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court and establish a presidential commission on “religious liberty.”

LGBT groups on the right and left had mixed reactions to evangelical leaders’ decision to endorse Santorum.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said he doesn’t think the endorsement will translate into much success for Santorum over the long term.

“For some voters, an endorsement from the FRC will help Rick Santorum but it will not translate into a long-term gain with the general electorate,” Cooper said. “If anything, the FRC endorsement will further isolate Rick Santorum from the general electorate.”

Log Cabin has been emphasizing that social issues won’t play out well for Republican presidential candidates in their campaigns and economic issues will help them win the White House.

Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said the endorsement reflects discontent with Romney, saying “the theocratic wing of the Republican Party has been driving the not-Romney bus since the beginning.”

Davis added Santorum “is the perfect candidate for notorious hate groups” because of what he described as the candidate’s extreme positions.

“He wants to ban contraceptives, forcibly divorce tens of thousands of legally married couples and believes every undocumented immigrant is a criminal,” Davis said. “I’m only surprised it took this long for them to decide.”

Despite the endorsement from evangelical leaders, Romney continues to enjoy support from Republicans nationwide following his narrow win in Iowa and significant victory in New Hampshire. The daily updated Gallup poll on Sunday found Romney had a 23-point lead among other candidates.

Whether the endorsement will build Santorum’s strength in South Carolina — a conservative state holding its primary on Saturday — remains to be seen.

The support for Santorum is akin to the support he received from Iowa anti-gay leader Bob Vander Plaats prior to the Iowa caucuses, where Santorum took second place and lost by only eight votes.

Romney leads others in the Republican pack in South Carolina by single digits, but Santorum and Gingrich have double-digit strength in the polls.

Sean Theriault, a gay political scientist at the University of Texas, Austin, said the evangelical leaders’ support for Santorum may help the candidate, but the field of Romney alternatives remains too crowded for any one to surge ahead of the frontrunner.

“If this were a two-person race, Romney might be in trouble, but the longer it takes the social conservatives and tea partiers to decide on which Romney alternative they like the most, the better it is for Romney,” Theriault said. “If they don’t decide soon, it’ll be too late, and Romney will be the nominee.”

 

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