National
Obama edging closer to marriage endorsement: source
President reportedly wants to unveil another pro-LGBT initiative
"And let us not forget what their decisions — the impact those decisions will have on our lives for decades to come -– on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose," Michelle Obama said, indicating to many LGBT advocates that the administration's "evolution" on same-sex marriage may be in its final stage. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The odds are improving that President Obama will endorse marriage equality before the November election, according to an informed source.
The chances that Obama will make such an announcement before the election are looking better than in previous months as the issue receives growing media attention and voters in a handful of states face ballot initiatives this year.
An informed source, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said “active conversations” are taking place between the White House and the campaign about whether Obama should complete his evolution on marriage and that the chances of him making an announcement are about 50-50.
According to the source, the administration would like to unveil another major pro-LGBT initiative before the November election, and an endorsement of marriage equality could fit the bill. But concerns persist on how an endorsement of same-sex marriage would play in four or five battleground states.
“We’re talking about the Michigans, the Ohios, the Illinois of the world; the real battleground states in which voters are already conflicted and may factor this into their judgment,” the source said.
Moreover, the administration may only want to expend political capital on one measure. It could come down to a choice between an endorsement of marriage equality and something else, such as the executive order requiring federal contractors to have LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies.
“My feeling is you’ll get one, you won’t get both before Election Day,” the source said. “There is a great timidity in terms of their dealing with the gays, right? In many ways, they kind of consider our issues to be the third rail.”
Supporters of an Obama endorsement were encouraged on Monday when first lady Michelle Obama suggested during a fundraiser in New York that the president would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would support marriage equality.
“And let us not forget what their decisions — the impact those decisions will have on our lives for decades to come -– on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose,” Michelle Obama said.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney later disputed the notion that those remarks were related to marriage equality and said they were in reference to the president’s position against the Defense of Marriage Act.
“I think, as folks who regularly report on the first lady’s speeches, they’ll know that she has said this before and has for some time, and that is a reference to the president’s position on the Defense of Marriage Act,” Carney said. “The president and first lady firmly believe that gay and lesbian Americans and their families deserve legal protections and the ability to thrive, just like any family does.”
Carney has been asked repeatedly about President Obama’s stance on marriage equality since the president first said he could “evolve” on the issue in response to a question from AMERICAblog’s Joe Sudbay during an interview with progressive bloggers 17 months ago, but the White House hasn’t given any updates.
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, echoed Carney when asked about Obama’s evolving position on same-sex marriage for this article.
“I don’t have any updates for you on that point,” Inouye said. “The president has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples, including the ability to take care of their families. That’s why he supports the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and has determined that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and that his administration would no longer defend it in the courts.”
But some advocates are pushing Obama to come out for marriage equality before the election. From a political standpoint, they say Obama has much to gain by coming out for marriage because it would energize the Democratic Party’s progressive base. They say he has little to lose because those who would vote against Obama for supporting same-sex marriage would vote against him anyway.
John Aravosis, editor of AMERICAblog, said an endorsement from Obama of marriage equality would better distinguish him from the Republican presidential candidates, who oppose same-sex marriage.
“It never hurts them with progressives to remind them that Obama is better than Romney on a lot of our issues,” Aravosis said.
Aravosis added that if advocates are successful in their push for including an endorsement of same-sex marriage in the Democratic Party platform when the platform committee convenes in September, the result could create a thorny issue for the president just before Election Day.
“We wouldn’t be having the debate on the Democratic platform and marriage if the president was OK on marriage,” Aravosis said. “Does the president really need marriage to come up as an issue eight weeks before the election? Coming up as a divide between him and the community? I don’t think it helps.”
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said that coming out for marriage equality would benefit Obama and added that voters won’t be turned off by it because the act would build off his existing support for LGBT rights.
“He’s done many important things in support of gay people’s participating and protection in society, including advancing the marriage cause,” Wolfson said. “He has come out strongly and repeatedly against measures aimed at taking away the freedom to marry, or adding additional layers of discrimination as in state attack measures.”
Further, advocates say Obama is giving cover to Republicans who say their position on marriage is the same as the president’s even though they may hold wildly different views on related issues. Rick Santorum has made that point, even though he was an author of the Federal Marriage Amendment, as has New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie after he vetoed the marriage equality bill in his state.
Sarah Palin expressed the same sentiment via Twitter earlier in the campaign season when Republicans like Santorum were under attack for their position.
“What’s radical & intolerant about Santorum/Romney/Gingrich et al’s position on the definition of marriage?” she said. “It’s the same position as Obama’s.”
Obama is also facing calls to oppose state measures aimed at banning or overturning marriage equality. Voters in a handful of states are expected to face such measures, including in Minnesota, North Carolina,Washington State and Maryland. Meanwhile, voters in Maine will decide whether to legalize marriage at the ballot.
Last week, Cameron French, the North Carolina press secretary for Obama for America, issued a statement to the Raleigh-based News & Observer saying the president “does not support” the anti-gay marriage initiative that will come before voters on May 8 during the state’s primary.
“While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples,” French said. “That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do — it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples — and that’s why the president does not support it.”
The statement is the strongest that either the White House or the Obama campaign has issued on an anti-gay marriage state ballot initiative. Similar past statements never mentioned the state where a particular ballot initiative was taking place. The White House has repeatedly said the president opposes “divisive and discriminatory efforts” aimed at same-sex couples.
Wolfson said Obama’s lack of support for same-sex marriage allows the anti-gay side in these ballot fights to use the president to advocate for their side, even if the president has denounced the measure.
“Because there’s this one remaining failure to make the case clearly on his part, it allows the opposition to obscure and mislead and hurt us and hurt the president,” Wolfson said.
Nonetheless, some LGBT advocates working in these states say President Obama’s support isn’t necessarily what will decide the issue for voters.
Matt McTighe, director of public education for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Maine and executive board member of the Maine Freedom to Marry Coalition, said efforts in his state are more locally based.
“The more people who come to understand that allowing marriage licenses for all loving, committed couples can benefit all families, the better,” McTighe said. “But it’s not President Obama’s change of heart that will decide the issue here. It’s the voters of Maine.”
Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for Protect All NC Families, said he thinks the statement from the campaign was sufficient and doesn’t see a lot of value in Obama coming out for same-sex marriage.
“I think what the president said on Friday specifically on North Carolina was probably more helpful than coming out for same-sex marriage would be for us because this isn’t a same-sex marriage fight here,” Kennedy said. “Regardless of whether this amendment passes or fails, it’s not going to change the state of marriage in North Carolina.”
Kennedy said much of the debate in North Carolina is focused on domestic partnership benefits that will be lost if the amendment passes — including the seven localities that already offer partner benefits to employees.
But national advocates continue to press for an endorsement of marriage equality from the president in addition to seeking his help in defeating anti-gay marriage initiatives at the ballot.
Wolfson said it’s time for Obama to come out for marriage equality regardless of the political fallout that may ensue.
“Americans want their president to show moral leadership and stand up when the freedoms and rights of Americans are at stake,” Wolfson said.
California
LGBTQ community calls out Radio Korea over host’s homophobic comments
Station acknowledged controversy, but skirted accountability
On Monday, Nov. 3, Radio Korea aired its regular morning talk show program, where one of its hosts, Julie An, discussed her lack of support for the LGBTQ community, citing her religious beliefs. She also went on to comment that gay people spread HIV and AIDS, and that conversation therapy — which has been linked to PTSD, suicidality, and depression — is a viable practice. Clips of this have since been taken down.
Radio Korea offers Korean language programming to engage local Korean American and Korean immigrant community members. Its reach is broad, as Los Angeles is home to the largest Korean population in the U.S, with over 300,000 residents. As An’s words echoed through the station’s airwaves, queer Korean community members took to social media to voice their concern, hurt, and anger.
In a now-deleted Instagram post, attorney, activist, and former congressional candidate David Yung Ho Kim demanded accountability from the station. Writer and entertainer Nathan Ramos-Park made videos calling out Radio Korea and An, stating that her comments “embolden” people with misinformation, which has the ability to perpetuate “violence against queer people.”
Community health professional Gavin Kwon also worries about how comments like An’s increase stigma within the Korean immigrant community, which could lead to increased discrimination against queer people and their willingness to seek health care.
Kwon, who works at a local clinic in Koreatown, told the Los Angeles Blade that comments like An’s prescribe being gay or queer as a “moral failure,” and that this commonly-held belief within the Korean immigrant community, particularly in older generations, strengthens the reticence and avoidance clients hold onto when asked about their gender or sexual orientation.
“When you stigmatize a group, people don’t avoid the disease — they avoid care,” Kwon explained. “They avoid getting tested, avoid disclosing their status, and avoid talking openly with providers. Stigma pushes people into silence, and silence is the worst possible environment for managing any infectious disease.”
For weeks, Radio Korea did not offer a direct response to the public criticism. Its Instagram feed continued to be updated with shorts, featuring clips of its various hosts — including An.
On Friday, Radio Korea CEO Michael Kim released an official statement on the station’s YouTube page. In this video, Michael Kim stated that An’s comments “included factual inaccuracies” and that the station “does not endorse or share the personal opinions expressed by individual hosts.” Michael Kim also stated that Radio Korea “welcomes members of the LGBT community to share their perspectives” in order to deepen understanding through dialogue.
Afterwards, Michael Kim continued that though he acknowledges the “pain” felt by queer community members, he concluded: “I don’t think Radio Korea needs to apologize for what was said any more than Netflix should apologize for what Dave Chappelle says, or any more than Instagram or TikTok should apologize for what people say on their platforms.”
Michael then offered a justification that An’s statements were “not part of a news report,” and that he was “disappointed” that David Yung Ho Kim, specifically, had been vocal about An’s comments. Michael Kim stated that he was the first person to interview David Yung Ho Kim in 2020 during his congressional campaign, and that he had provided the candidate a platform and opportunity to educate listeners about politics.
“After all these years, the support Radio Korea has given him,” said Kim, “the support I personally gave him, even the support from other Radio Korea members who donated or even volunteered for him — he dishonestly tried to portray Radio Korea as being an anti-gay organization.”
Michael Kim went on to criticize David Yung Ho Kim’s purported “hurry to condemn others,” and also questioned if David has disowned his father, who he states is a pastor. “What kind of person is David Kim, and is this the kind of person we want in Congress?” Michael Kim asked viewers, noting that Koreatown is “only about three miles from Hollywood, and some people just like to perform.”
At the end of the video, Michael Kim stated that his duty is to guard the legacy of the station. “My responsibility is to protect what was built before me and ensure that Radio Korea continues serving this community long after today’s momentary controversies disappear,” he said.
For community members and advocates, this response was unsatisfactory. “The overall tone of the statement felt more defensive than accountable,” Kwon wrote to the Blade. “Instead of a sincere apology to the LGBTQ+ community that was harmed, the message shifts into personal grievances, political dynamics, and side explanations that don’t belong in an official response.”
Michael Kim’s portrayal of the criticism and calls to action by community members as a “momentary controversy” paints a clearer picture of the station’s stance — that the hurt felt and expressed by its queer community members is something that will simply pass until it is forgotten. An continues to be platformed at Radio Korea, and was posted on the station’s social media channels as recently as yesterday. The station has not outlined any other action since Michael Kim’s statement.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Pentagon moves to break with Boy Scouts over LGBTQ and gender inclusion
Leaked memo shows Hegseth rejecting Scouting America’s shift toward broader inclusion
The Pentagon is preparing to sever its longstanding partnership with the Boy Scouts of America, now known as Scouting America.
In a draft memo to Congress obtained by NPR, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticizes the organization for being “genderless” and for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“The organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt no longer supports the future of American boys,” Hegseth wrote, according to Defense Department sources.
Girls have been eligible to join Cub Scouts (grades K–5) since 2018, and since 2019 they have been able to join Scouts BSA troops and earn the organization’s highest rank of Eagle Scout.
A statement on the Scouting America website says the shift toward including girls stemmed from “an expanding demand to join the Boy Scouts” and a commitment to inclusivity. “Throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries, it has undergone significant changes to become more inclusive of the adult staff and volunteers that drive its programming as well as of scouts and their families,” the organization says.
Part of that broader push included lifting its ban on openly gay members in 2014 and on openly gay adult leaders in 2015.
Once the Pentagon finalizes the break, the U.S. military will no longer provide medical and logistical support to the National Jamboree, the massive annual gathering of scouts in West Virginia that typically draws about 20,000 participants. The memo also states that the military will no longer allow scout troops to meet on U.S. or overseas installations, where many bases host active scout programs.
Hegseth’s memo outlines several justifications for the decision, arguing that Scouting America has strayed from its original mission to “cultivate masculine values” by fostering “gender confusion.” It also cites global conflicts and tightening defense budgets, claiming that deploying troops, doctors and vehicles to a 10-day youth event would “harm national security” by diverting resources from border operations and homeland defense.
“Scouting America has undergone a significant transformation,” the memo states. “It is no longer a meritocracy which holds its members accountable to meet high standards.”
The Pentagon declined NPR’s request for comment. A “War Department official” told the outlet that the memo was a “leaked document that we cannot authenticate and that may be pre-decisional.”
The leaked memo comes roughly one month after nearly every major journalism organization walked out of the Pentagon in protest of new rules requiring reporters to publish only “official” documents released by the department — effectively banning the use of leaked or unpublished materials.
President Donald Trump, who serves as the honorary head of Scouting America by virtue of his office, praised the Jamboree audience during his 2017 visit to West Virginia. “The United States has no better citizens than its Boy Scouts. No better,” he said, noting that 10 members of his Cabinet were former Scouts.
Hegseth was never a scout. He has said he grew up in a church-based youth group focused on memorizing Bible verses. As a Fox News host last year, he criticized the Scouts for changing their name and admitting girls.
“The Boy Scouts has been cratering itself for quite some time,” Hegseth said. “This is an institution the left didn’t control. They didn’t want to improve it. They wanted to destroy it or dilute it into something that stood for nothing.”
NBC News first reported in April that the Pentagon was considering ending the partnership, citing sources familiar with the discussions. In a statement to NBC at the time, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said, “Secretary Hegseth and his Public Affairs team thoroughly review partnerships and engagements to ensure they align with the President’s agenda and advance our mission.”
The Scouting America organization has has long played a role in military recruiting. According to numbers provided by Scouting America, many as 20 percent of cadets and midshipmen at the various service academies are Eagle Scouts. Enlistees who have earned the Eagle rank also receive advanced entry-level rank and higher pay — a practice that would end under the proposed changes.
The White House
Trans workers take White House to court over bathroom policy
Federal lawsuit filed Thursday
Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union, two organizations focused on protecting Americans’ constitutional rights, filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday in federal court challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s bathroom ban policies.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of LeAnne Withrow, a civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard, challenges the administration’s policy prohibiting transgender and intersex federal employees from using restrooms aligned with their gender. The policy claims that allowing trans people in bathrooms would “deprive [women assigned female at birth] of their dignity, safety, and well-being.”
The lawsuit responds to the executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. It alleges that the order and its implementation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Title VII protects trans workers from discrimination based on sex.
Since its issuance, the executive order has faced widespread backlash from constitutional rights and LGBTQ advocacy groups for discriminating against trans and intersex people.
The lawsuit asserts that Withrow, along with numerous other trans and intersex federal employees, is forced to choose between performing her duties and being allowed to use the restroom safely.
“There is no credible evidence that allowing transgender people access to restrooms aligning with their gender identity jeopardizes the safety or privacy of non-transgender users,” the lawsuit states, directly challenging claims of safety risks.
Withrow detailed the daily impact of the policy in her statement included in the lawsuit.
“I want to help soldiers, families, veterans — and then I want to go home at the end of the day. At some point in between, I will probably need to use the bathroom,” she said.
The filing notes that Withrow takes extreme measures to avoid using the restroom, which the Cleveland Clinic reports most people need to use anywhere from 1–15 times per day depending on hydration.
“Ms. Withrow almost never eats breakfast, rarely eats lunch, and drinks less than the equivalent of one 17 oz. bottle of water at work on most days.”
In addition to withholding food and water, the policy subjects her to ongoing stress and fear:
“Ms. Withrow would feel unsafe, humiliated, and degraded using a men’s restroom … Individuals seeing her enter the men’s restroom might try to prevent her from doing so or physically harm her,” the lawsuit states. “The actions of defendants have caused Ms. Withrow to suffer physical and emotional distress and have limited her ability to effectively perform her job.”
“No one should have to choose between their career in service and their own dignity,” Withrow added. “I bring respect and honor to the work I do to support military families, and I hope the court will restore dignity to transgender people like me who serve this country every day.”
Withrow is a lead Military and Family Readiness Specialist and civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard. Previously, she served as a staff sergeant and has received multiple commendations, including the Illinois National Guard Abraham Lincoln Medal of Freedom.
The lawsuit cites the American Medical Association, the largest national association of physicians, which has stated that policies excluding trans individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have harmful effects on health, safety, and well-being.
“Policies excluding transgender individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have detrimental effects on the health, safety and well-being of those individuals,” the lawsuit states on page 32.
Advocates have condemned the policy since its signing in January and continue to push back against the administration. Leaders from ACLU-D.C., ACLU of Illinois, and Democracy Forward all provided comments on the lawsuit and the ongoing fight for trans rights.
“We cannot let the Trump administration target transgender people in the federal government or in public life,” said ACLU-D.C. Senior Staff Attorney Michael Perloff. “An executive order micromanaging which bathroom civil servants use is discrimination, plain and simple, and must be stopped.”
“It is absurd that in her home state of Illinois, LeAnne can use any other restroom consistent with her gender — other than the ones controlled by the federal government,” said Michelle Garcia, deputy legal director at the ACLU of Illinois. “The Trump administration’s reckless policies are discriminatory and must be reversed.”
“This policy is hateful bigotry aimed at denying hardworking federal employees their basic dignity simply because they are transgender,” said Kaitlyn Golden, senior counsel at Democracy Forward. “It is only because of brave individuals like LeAnne that we can push back against this injustice. Democracy Forward is honored to work with our partners in this case and is eager to defeat this insidious effort to discriminate against transgender federal workers.”
PHOTOS: Rush Preview Night
Tips for LGBTQ buyers, sellers during holidays
Holiday movie season off to a ‘Wicked’ good start
Perfection is a lie and vulnerability is the new strength
India’s Jharkhand state works to improve trans people’s access to health care
Bowser announces she will not seek fourth term as mayor
Happy Thanksgiving to all
D.C. theater scene has something for everyone this holiday season
D.C., Va., Md. to commemorate World AIDS Day
