National
Reporters grill Carney on marriage, Prop 8 ruling
No comment on court decision; no update on Obama’s marriage views
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
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.
Sinners and Saints bar vandalized in suspected anti-LGBTQ hate crime
The true cost of cutting DEI
Trans performer, juggler premiering one-woman show
Indian Supreme Court orders government to reconsider trans blood donor policy
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
-
a&e features2 days agoLooking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
-
Maryland4 days agoWes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
-
District of Columbia3 days agoD.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
-
Congress4 days agoMarjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances