Connect with us

National

Reporters grill Carney on marriage, Prop 8 ruling

No comment on court decision; no update on Obama’s marriage views

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney faced a flurry of questions Tuesday about President Obama’s evolving position on same-sex marriage and his reaction to the court decision that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

In response to the questioning, Carney said he didn’t have a comment on the decision, although he noted the president has “long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts that deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.”

A total of six news outlets asked Carney about marriage and the Proposition 8 decision: Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, NBC News, the Huffington Post, American Urban Radio and the Washington Blade.

Under questioning from the Blade, Carney dodged an inquiry about whether Obama — who came out against Prop 8 when it was on the ballot in 2008 and called it “unnecessary” — also believes the measure is unconstitutional.

“I’m not going to comment on litigation particularly as here where we are not party to it, but the president’s positions on these issues writ large are well known, and he’s long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny right and benefits to same-sex couples,” Carney said.

Pressed by the Blade further on whether Obama’s lack of support for marriage equality but opposition to “divisive and discriminatory” efforts such as Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage, represents an inconsistency, Carney said he didn’t have an update on the president’s position on same-sex marriage, but explained the distinction.

“I can tell you that divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits is something this president has long opposed,” Carney said. “And I think that’s an important point to make. These are proactive and deliberate efforts to deny benefits and to be discriminatory.”

Asked by NBC News whether the Ninth Circuit court decision will inform Obama’s evolution on marriage, Carney said the ruling had come out too recently for him to provide an answer.

“The decision was made within the hour before I came out here, so I haven’t had that conversation,” Carney said.

American Urban Radio pressed Carney further about when Obama’s evolution would come to an end and whether that would take place before June or the general election. Carney, however, said he doesn’t “have a timetable.”

“As the president discussed when he answered this question a while back, this is a process that involves his faith and the way he views these issues,” Carney said.

Asked whether he’s had conversations with members of the LGBT community on this issue, Carney said he isn’t aware of any talks.

“The president has a lot of conversations with a lot of people, and I can’t say one way or the other whether or not he’s had that discussion with anybody,” Carney said. “He may have, but I’m not aware of it.”

Meanwhile, GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney condemned the Prop 8 court ruling.

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage,” Romney’s statement said. “This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, said Romney was issuing a “kneejerk” reaction to the ruling.

“In a time when conservatives agree that the institution of marriage is in need of support, Republicans should celebrate gay and lesbian Americans embracing the ideals of marriage and creating families,” Cooper said. “Gov. Romney’s comments attacking the court for striking down Proposition 8 reflect an unfortunate kneejerk opposition to expanding liberty and a poorly calculated political effort to appeal to a shrinking base of primary voters opposed to marriage equality.”

A transcript of the exchange between reporters and Carney on the marriage issue follows:

Reuters: Does the White House have a reaction to the appeals court ruling on California’s gay marriage ban?

Jay Carney: I don’t have a comment on litigation in general, and this litigation, to which we are not a party. Beyond that, I can say that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts that deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.

Washington Blade: I just want to follow up on the Prop 8 ruling. Back in 2008, candidate Obama came out against Proposition 8 when it was on the ballot, calling it “unnecessary.” I’m just wondering if the president shares the belief that the measure is also unconstitutional.

Carney: Well, again, I’m not going to comment on litigation particularly as here where we are not party to it, but the president’s positions on these issues writ large are well known, and he’s long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. But I don’t have anything more for you on that.

Blade: I want to follow up really quickly on that, though. You said the president opposes “divisive and discriminatory” efforts against same-sex couples, but the effort here — the issue in question is marriage, so isn’t it inconsistent for the president to not support same-sex marriage and also to be against such measures?

Carney: Well, I don’t have any update for you on that particular issue in regards to the president’s views. I can tell you that divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits is something this president has long opposed. And I think that’s an important point to make. These are proactive and deliberate efforts to deny benefits and to be discriminatory.

Wall Street Journal: On Proposition 8, just in general, is it still the president’s view that same-sex marriage is an issue that should be decided by the states — each individual state?

Carney: However you might want to tease out an evolutionary position on this —

Journal: I’m just asking you what his position is. Has his position changed that states should make these decisions?

Carney: I have no announcement of any changes.

Journal: Given that that is his latest position that states should make the decision, why would he not be supportive of California making the decision through the vote of Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage?

Carney: Well, because he opposes divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Again, I’m not commenting on specific litigation. I’m talking about his general opposition.

Journal: All sorts of states have banned same-sex marriage. Are all of those divisive and discriminatory as well?

Carney: I can’t at this moment stand here and analyze each one. I can just tell you the president’s long opposition to divisive and discriminatory efforts — you know his position. You know where it stands now with the issue of same-sex marriage, so I really don’t have much to add on it.

Journal: But there’s a fundamental inconsistency. Correct me if I’m wrong. If he says on one hand, it’s up to the state to decide, but those states who decide that they’re against it are divisive and discriminatory. So, I just wanted you correct me if I’m missing something.

Carney: Well, again I’m not offering a blanket. I’m talking about general efforts that are divisive and discriminatory. I’m not making an assessment on specific states or state laws.

Journal: How is this not just complete hypocrisy if he’s saying that it’s up to states to decide, but he won’t back a state that does make the decision?

Carney: Laura, I’m not going to comment on specific litigation or a specific state. I can say the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny right and benefits to same-sex couples, and his overall record on the issue of LGBT rights is well known and is one that he’s very proud of.

NBC News: I want to try just one more on Proposition 8. How does today’s ruling on Proposition 8 inform the president’s view on same-sex marriage, which he said is evolving?

Carney: I just don’t have anything to add about that. The decision was made within the hour before I came out here, so I haven’t had that conversation.

NBC News: Without getting into the decision

Carney: I don’t know. You’re asking me how his view is changed by this decision. I don’t know.

Huffington Post: I’m just curious how the president can be proactively against divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny people civil rights and not proactively be for the concept of marriage equality?

Carney: Sam, I totally appreciate the question. But I’m not here to announce a new position.

Huffington Post: I want just to illuminate the current position a little bit better.

Carney: Again, I would refer you to the comments the president had made on this issue. I don’t have any changes to provide to you.

American Urban Radio: When will we have a firm decision on this evolution? You have strong groups, groups that have strong thoughts and convictions on this, LGBT groups, you have religious groups, you have civil rights groups and so many others. Will we see a decision by June or before the general election on his evolution and his mindset on this?

Carney: I just don’t have a timetable to provide to you, April. I appreciate the question. As the president discussed when he answered this question a while back, this is a process that involves his faith and the way he views these issues. And as he said, and I won’t go beyond that, his views are evolving. But I don’t have an end point to announce to you or a date certain to tell you that he’ll have to say about that issue.

American Urban Radio: He has strong support from the LGBT community. Is he in consultation with many members of the community about this evolving mindset? When is the last time

Carney: The president has a lot of conversations with a lot of people, and I can’t say one way or the other whether or not he’s had that discussion with anybody. He may have, but I’m not aware of it.

Watch the video of the Blade’s questioning with Carney here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFsxzw3-GfA

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Pride flag raised at Stonewall after National Park Service took it down

‘Our flag represents dignity and human rights’

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Ernesto Valle)

A Pride flag was raised at the site of the Stonewall National Monument days after a National Park Service directive banned flying the flag at the birthplace of the LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S.

The flag-raising was led by Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal and supported by other elected officials.

“The community should rejoice. We have prevailed,” Hoylman-Sigal said shortly after the flag was hoisted. “Our flag represents dignity and human rights.”

The flag now sits in Christopher Street Park, feet away from the Stonewall Inn, where in 1969 a police raid of the gay bar sparked outrage and led to a rising of LGBTQ people pushing back on NYPD brutality and unjust treatment.

Elected officials brought a new flagpole with them, using plastic zip ties to attach it to the existing pole.

In 2016, President Barack Obama declared the site a national monument.

One day before the planned re-raising of the Pride flag, the National Park Service installed only an American flag on the flagpole, which days prior had flown a rainbow flag bearing the NPS logo.

The directive removing the flag was put forward by Trump-appointed National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron.

This comes one day after more than 20 LGBTQ organizations from across the country co-signed a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and General Services Administrator Ed Forst, demanding the flag be restored to the monument.

“It is our understanding that the policy provides limited exceptions for non-agency flags that provide historical context or play a role in historic reenactments. Simply put, we urge you to grant this flag an exception and raise it once again, immediately,” the letter read. “It also serves as an important reminder to the 30+ million LGBTQ+ Americans, who continue to face disproportionate threats to our lives and our liberty, that the sites and symbols that tell our stories are worth honoring … However, given recent removals of the site’s references to transgender and bisexual people — people who irrefutably played a pivotal role in this history — it is clear that this is not about the preservation of the historical record.”

The letter finished with a message of resilience the LGBTQ community is known for: “The history and the legacy of Stonewall must live on. Our community cannot simply be erased with the removal of a flag. We will continue to stand up and fight to ensure that LGBTQ+ history should not only be protected — it should be celebrated as a milestone in American resilience and progress.”

When asked about the directive, the NPS responded with this statement:

“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points. The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose. These include historical context or reenactments, current military branch flags, flags of federally recognized tribal nations affiliated with a park, flags at sites co-managed with other federal, state, or municipal partners, flags required for international park designations, and flags displayed under agreements with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Naturalization ceremonies.”

An Interior Department spokesperson on Thursday called the move to return the flag to the monument a “political stunt.”

“Today’s political pageantry shows how utterly incompetent and misaligned the New York City officials are with the problems their city is facing,” a department spokesperson said when reached for comment.

The clash comes amid broader efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to minimize LGBTQ history and political power. The White House has spent much of President Donald Trump’s second presidency restricting transgender rights — stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth, issuing an executive order stating the federal government will recognize only two sexes, male and female, and blocking Medicaid and Medicare from being used for gender-affirming care.

Continue Reading

State Department

FOIA lawsuit filed against State Department for PEPFAR records

Council for Global Equality, Physicians for Human Rights seeking data, documents

Published

on

HIV/AIDS activists place Black Styrofoam coffins in front of the State Department on April 17, 2025, to protest the Trump-Vance administration's foreign aid cuts that impacted PEPFAR-funded programs. The Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have filed a FOIA lawsuit that seeks the State Department's PEPFAR-related documents and data. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents.

The groups, which Democracy Forward represents, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday.

Then-President George W. Bush in 2003 signed legislation that created PEPFAR. UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima last March said PEPFAR has saved 26 million lives around the world.

The Trump-Vance administration in January 2025 froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during the freeze.

The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down because of gaps in U.S. funding. HIV/AIDS activists have also sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over reported plans it will not fully fund PEPFAR in the current fiscal year.

The lawsuit notes the Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have “filed several FOIA requests” with the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents. The groups filed their most recent request on Jan. 30.

“On Jan. 30, 2026, plaintiffs, through counsel, sent State a letter asking it to commit to prompt production of the requested records,” reads the lawsuit. “State responded that the request was being processed but did not commit to any timeline for production.”

“Plaintiffs have received no subsequent communication from State regarding this FOIA request,” it notes.

“Transparency and inclusion have been hallmarks of PEPFAR’s success in the last decade,” said Beirne Roose-Snyder, a senior policy fellow at the Council for Global Equality, in a press release that announced the lawsuit. “This unprecedented withholding of data, and concurrent ideological misdirection of foreign assistance to exclude LGBTQI+ people and others who need inclusive programming, has potentially devastating and asymmetrical impacts on already marginalized communities.”

“This data is vital to understanding who’s getting access to care and who’s being left behind,” added Roose-Snyder.

“We filed this lawsuit to seek transparency: the administration’s PEPFAR data blackout withholds information the public, health providers, and affected communities need to track the HIV epidemic and prevent avoidable illness and death, obscuring the true human cost of these policy decisions,” said Physicians for Human Rights Research, Legal, and Advocacy Director Payal Shah.

The State Department has yet to respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the lawsuit.

Continue Reading

New York

N.Y. lawmaker vows ‘Pride flag will fly again’ at Stonewall Monument

After a Jan. 21 policy shift, Pride flags were banned at national parks, prompting backlash from Bottcher and LGBTQ advocates.

Published

on

The now gone Pride flag formerly flying at Stonewall National Monument in 2016. (Photo courtesy of the National Parks Service)

Hours after news broke that the National Park Service would no longer allow Pride flags to fly at the Stonewall National Monument — the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement in the United States — the Washington Blade spoke with New York State Sen. Erik Bottcher, who represents the area surrounding the Stonewall Inn and the national monument.

During the interview, Bottcher, who is gay, spoke about the policy change and outlined steps he plans to take in the coming days to push for its reversal.

“This is another act of erasure,” Bottcher told the Blade. “It’s a cowardly attempt to rewrite history and to intimidate our community. This is Stonewall — it’s where we fought back, where we ignited a global movement for equality — and we refuse to go back. We’re not going to accept these acts of erasure.”

The Stonewall Inn became a flashpoint in 1969 after NYPD officers raided the bar, part of a longstanding pattern of police harassment of LGBTQ spaces. The raid sparked days of protest and resistance along Christopher Street, now widely recognized as the catalyst for the modern LGBTQ rights movement.

While the events are often referred to as the “Stonewall Riots,” many activists and historians prefer the term “Stonewall Uprising,” emphasizing that the resistance was a response to systemic oppression rather than senseless violence. LGBTQ patrons and community members fought back — shouting “Gay Power!” and “Liberate Christopher Street!” — as crowds grew and frustration with police abuse boiled over.

Since the uprising, LGBTQ people and allies have gathered annually in June to commemorate Stonewall and to celebrate Pride, honoring the movement that placed LGBTQ voices at the center of the fight for equality.

In June 2016, then President Barack Obama officially designated the space as the Stonewall National Monument, making it the United States’s first national monument designated for an LGBTQ historic site.

Now, nearly 10 years later, President Trump’s appointed NPS acting director Jessica Bowron changed policy on Jan. 21 regarding which flags are allowed to be flown in national parks. Many, including Bottcher, say this is part of a larger targeted and deliberate attempt by the administration to erase LGBTQ history.

“It’s clear they’re making a conscious decision to erase the symbols of our community from a monument to our community’s struggle,” he said. “This is a calculated and premeditated decision, and it could be — and should be — reversed.”

“Let’s be clear,” Bottcher added, “they wish we didn’t exist … But we’re not going anywhere. We refuse to go back into the shadows.”

When asked why it is critical to challenge the policy, Bottcher emphasized the importance of visibility in preserving LGBTQ history.

“This is why it’s so important that we not let this stand,” he said. “Visibility is critical. When people see us, learn about us, and get to know us, that’s how we break down prejudice and stereotypes. We cannot allow them to push us back into the shadows.”

Other LGBTQ leaders and elected officials were quick to condemn the removal of the Pride flag, which had flown since the site’s official designation as a national monument.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the decision “outrageous.”

“I am outraged by the removal of the Rainbow Pride Flag from Stonewall National Monument,” Mamdani said in a statement. “New York is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, and no act of erasure will ever change or silence that history.”

“Our city has a duty not just to honor this legacy, but to live up to it,” he added. “I will always fight for a New York City that invests in our LGBTQ+ community, defends their dignity, and protects every one of our neighbors — without exception.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also condemned the move.

“The removal of the Pride Rainbow Flag from the Stonewall National Monument is a deeply outrageous action that must be reversed immediately,” Schumer said in a statement to The Advocate. “Stonewall is a landmark because it is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, and symbols of that legacy belong there by both history and principle.”

Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the flag’s removal will not erase the movement it represents.

“They can take down a flag, but they can’t take down our history,” Renna said. “Stonewall is sacred ground rooted in resistance, liberation, and the legacy of trans and queer trailblazers who changed the course of history.”

Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Brandon Wolf echoed that sentiment.

“Bad news for the Trump administration: these colors don’t run,” Wolf said. “The Stonewall Inn and Visitors Center are privately owned, their flags are still flying high, and that community is just as queer today as it was yesterday.”

Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, said the removal was aimed squarely at LGBTQ visibility.

“The Pride flag was removed from Stonewall for one reason: to further erase queer and trans people from public life,” Hack said. “Stonewall marks the moment when queer and trans people fought back and demanded dignity. Our history is not theirs to erase.”

Bottcher closed with a promise to his constituents — and to the broader LGBTQ community — that the Pride flag’s removal would not be permanent.

“We will not be erased. We will not be silenced,” he said. “And the Pride flag will fly again at the birthplace of our movement.”

Continue Reading

Popular