National
BREAKING: N.C. voters approve anti-gay amendment
Sweeping measure adds marriage ban to state constitution
Raleigh, N.C. (photo by Mark Turner via wikimedia)
Voters in North Carolina on Tuesday approved a sweeping anti-gay amendment that made a ban on same-sex marriage part of the state constitution in addition to jeopardizing other rights for gay couples.
The Associated Press called the race in the favor of the anti-gay measure, known as Amendment One, shortly after 9 p.m. Polls closed at 7:30 p.m.
According to early results, 61 percent of voters in North Carolina voted in favor of the amendment while 39 percent voted against it. Amendment One found majority support in the vast majority of counties, although a few counties voted to reject the measure: Wake, Chatham, Durham, Orange, Watauga, Mecklenburg and Buncombe.
Same-sex marriage is already barred by statute in North Carolina. But the amendment not only makes that ban part of the state constitution, it prohibits civil unions, interferes with domestic partner benefits offered by municipalities and threatens contractual arrangements between same-sex partners. The amendment’s restrictions on domestic partner benefits will likely be contested in court.
The vote on the amendment took place on the same day as the North Carolina primary, but the measure drew more attention than the presidential race because Mitt Romney has already become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
National LGBT groups expressed disappointment with the passage of the amendment. The vote makes North Carolina the 30th state with a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, expressed disappointment, but characterized the vote as a temporary setback.
“The passage of Amendment One is a heartbreaking loss for families in North Carolina, but will not stop us in the march toward full equality,” Solmonese said. “As the country continues to move in the direction of marriage equality, our opponents have cynically interrupted the important conversations taking place which lead to increased understanding and acceptance.”
According to HRC, the organization spent just over $500,000 in the effort against Amendment One in three ways: HRC North Carolina PAC has funneled about $240,000 to the campaign; HRC itself gave about $60,000 in cash; and the group contributed about $200,000 in in-kind expenditures that was mostly staff time.
The Obama campaign also weighed in after the passage of the amendment with a statement from an official in North Carolina.
Cameron French, North Carolina press secretary for Obama for America, said the president is “disappointed” by the passage of Amendment One.
“The president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples,” French said. “He believes the North Carolina measure singles out and discriminates against committed gay and lesbian couples, which is why he did not support it. President Obama has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples and is disappointed in the passage of this amendment. On a federal level, he has ended the legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act and extended key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.”
Several other national LGBT groups made no direct contributions to the campaign. Freedom to Marry made no donations to the campaign as it directed $3 million in funds to battles in other states: Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Washington.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, emphasized his organization’s contributions to efforts to block the amendment from coming to the ballot.
“Freedom to Marry contributed to the effort to block the amendment in the legislature and offered messaging strategy and research to the campaign,” Wolfson said. “We also sent several alerts to our supporters urging them to donate directly to the campaign, even as we are deeply engaged in the lift to win ballot battles in three other states, are working to override the veto in New Jersey, and successfully led the fight to hold the freedom to marry in New Hampshire.”
Gill Action Fund also made no direct contributions, according to the most recent campaign disclosure records. The organization didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Prior to the vote, former President Bill Clinton recorded a robocall urging North Carolina residents to oppose Amendment One. According to the campaign against Amendment One, the Clinton robocall went out to 500,000 likely voters in North Carolina.
“If it passes, it won’t change North Carolina’s law on marriage,” Clinton says on the call. “What it will change is North Carolina’s ability to keep good businesses, attract new jobs, and attract and keep talented entrepreneurs. If it passes, your ability to keep those businesses, get those jobs, and get those talented entrepreneurs will be weakened. And losing even one job to Amendment One is too big of a risk.”
On the other side, evangelist Rev. Billy Graham came out in favor of the anti-gay measure and delivered a statement that was set to run in 14 North Carolina newspapers last weekend.
“At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage,” Graham says. “The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment.”
Graham continues, “Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern. I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected.”
The level of involvement of President Obama and the Democratic National Committee has drawn mixed reaction from LGBT activists.
The DNC didn’t make a donation to the campaign against Amendment One, even though the campaign asked for funds to combat the anti-gay measure and the DNC previously made a $25,000 contribution to the fight against California’s Proposition 8 in 2008.
The Obama campaign issued a statement earlier in the month saying the president opposes divisive and discriminatory measures and “does not support” Amendment One. According to the campaign against Amendment One, that statement was the goal that organizers had sought from Obama.
But many LGBT advocates asked Obama to denounce the measure himself publicly and were disappointed that he made no mention of the measure in a speech to college students on April 24 in Chapel Hill, N.C.
Pam Spaulding, a lesbian blogger for Pam’s House Blend, expressed disappointment in the president’s failure to speak out against Amendment One publicly in an email to the Washington Blade following the speech.
“This president hasn’t exactly been known to be bold about weighing in on the Amendment; after all, his statement against Amendment One came from a NC spokesperson, not from the man himself,” Spaulding said. “It was no surprise, given the administration’s predilection for succumbing to political homophobia, or fear that being outspoken in speeches or on camera regarding LGBT issues — even on a subject he has a clear position on, such as opposing discriminatory ballot initiatives like this — usually rules the day.”
A campaign mailing dated May 7 makes no mention of Amendment One — even though it came out the day before the measure came before voters — as it called on followers to show support for Obama.
“The primary is a great opportunity to come out, meet other supporters in your area, and make your voice heard,” the mailing states. “And even though we already know that President Obama will be our nominee, it’s important that we let him know we’re standing with him, now and in November.”
New York
Judge blocks DOJ from obtaining transgender patients’ medical records
Advocacy groups sued White House
A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted a request from multiple transgender people for a temporary restraining order, blocking the disclosure of plaintiffs’ and class members’ medical information to the Justice Department.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla approved the Temporary Restraining Order and Provisional Class Certification, preventing any further information from being provided to the Trump-led DOJ.
The medical data was requested through subpoenas issued by the Trump-Vance administration’s DOJ to multiple hospitals in New York City — most notably NYU Langone — which halted its Transgender Youth Health Program in May following a federal push to stop providing trans minors with gender-affirming care.
In May 2026, NYU Langone Hospitals received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Fort Worth, Texas, demanding that the hospitals turn over the identities and sensitive health information of any patient who had received medical treatment for gender dysphoria while under the age of 18 at NYU Langone between January 2020 and May 2026.
Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit, “Coe, et al. v. Blanche, et al.,” against the Trump-Vance administration on behalf of three families with trans youth and two trans young adults who were minors when they began care, in June 2026.
The lawsuit requests a temporary restraining order blocking the DOJ from violating the patients’ constitutional privacy rights by obtaining identifying and sensitive health information as part of its investigation into unspecified health offenses. The DOJ issued subpoenas to NYU Langone and other similar healthcare institutions in New York City, including Mount Sinai, that provide or have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans minors. All plaintiffs have filed under pseudonyms to maintain their privacy and anonymity.
Multiple leaders of organizations that helped push for the restraining order provided quotes about the ongoing situation and what it means for the fight for trans children’s access to healthcare in the U.S.
“Today’s order from the court is a victory for the basic privacy of our clients and all families like theirs across New York City. It is no secret that this administration will use every lever in its power to attack transgender people and fulfill its misguided goal to ‘end’ gender-affirming medical care — care that is legal and protected in New York State. Using subpoenas to attain the identities and sensitive health information of transgender young people to effectuate such goals should send chills down the spine of every American. Our laws and our Constitution recognize that we all have a right to confidentiality about the most intimate and private information about ourselves,” said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel and health care strategist at Lambda Legal. “Whether a young person receives any type of medical care is a decision for that patient, their family, and their doctor, not for political appointees to decide, interfere with, or know. The government cannot abuse its powers to violate the constitutional rights of transgender young people and their families. It is an enormous relief for these families that the court has stopped them from doing so as this case proceeds.”
“We’re thankful the court has granted our emergency request to protect the privacy interests of transgender New Yorkers and their families,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “Patients and families trust their doctors with their most intimate, private information and should trust in turn that this information will be protected from impermissible and harassing demands for disclosure from the federal government or anyone else. For the past year, the Trump administration has not only decided that it knows better than these families and their doctors what their medical needs are, but has also sought to obtain troves of sensitive information about patients in New York. We will continue to fight on behalf of these families and the fundamental liberty of all transgender New Yorkers and those who come here to seek needed medical care.”
“New York’s laws recognize that transgender youth deserve fundamental privacy protections for their sensitive medical records and unobstructed access to the care they need,” said Bobby Hodgson, deputy legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “As the Trump administration tries to bully transgender youth, scare families, and intimidate healthcare providers into dropping their patients, we’re thankful the court found these tactics are likely unconstitutional and put a stop to them here in New York.”
Federal Government
Trump holds housing bill hostage to anti-trans SAVE Act
President’s SAVE Act failed in the Senate
President Donald Trump is refusing to sign a new bipartisan housing bill unless his SAVE Act is approved by the legislative branch.
The bill being prevented from being enacted into law is the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.” The legislation is an attempt by Congress to make buying a home in the U.S. Senate more affordable in response to various factors — including housing shortages and regulatory constraints — that have made homeownership increasingly difficult. The total number of homeowners has nearly stopped growing, with high interest rates and surging home prices pushing more Americans toward renting.
The housing bill was considered highly bipartisan, something that is rare in this Congress. The House voted to pass the bill 358-32 on Tuesday after the Senate approved the measure 85-5 a day earlier. The legislation was led by U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the Senate and U.S. Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and French Hill (R-Ark.) in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Some of the highlights of the legislation are aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing while making homeownership more accessible. The bill would streamline environmental reviews and direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide guidance to communities on reforming zoning and land-use policies that can create barriers to housing development.
The legislation would also expand the definition of “manufactured housing,” making it cheaper and easier to mass-produce homes built in factories before being transported to their sites. To encourage additional development, the bill would provide grants and loans for the construction of new housing, the rehabilitation of aging properties, and the conversion of vacant buildings into residential units. It would also increase certain banks’ Public Welfare Investment cap, allowing them to direct more capital toward low-income and affordable housing projects.
In an effort to help more Americans purchase homes, the legislation would create a program to expand access to small-dollar mortgages, which are often used to finance lower-cost homes, while also seeking to improve housing opportunities for veterans. The bill would further promote homeownership by limiting the number of single-family homes that large institutional investors can own and requiring them to disclose how many such properties they control, a measure intended to prioritize American families over corporate buyers.
The bill the president wants enacted — the SAVE Act — is a restrictive and anti-transgender piece of proposed legislation.
The bill would impose a number of new limitations on voter registration across the country by amending the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. The bill would also limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not possess — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
Trump pushed for the SAVE Act to include a provision that would ban gender-affirming medical care for trans minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
Trump also pressed Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to eliminate the filibuster so the Republican-controlled Congress could pass the SAVE Act, saying Republicans will never win another election without it.
It is expected that Congress will override the president’s veto and pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, as it requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate — a threshold the legislation currently exceeds.
It is not expected that the SAVE Act will pass the Senate in its current form. It passed the House, but every Democrat and four Republicans voted against it in the Senate.
New York
N.Y. governor’s race presents stark contrast on LGBTQ rights
Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul expected to face Republican Bruce Blakeman
As states across the country grapple with a rapidly changing federal landscape under President Donald Trump, governors have increasingly become the first line of defense — or enforcement — on issues ranging from healthcare and education to LGBTQ rights.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in New York, Trump’s home state, where the 2026 gubernatorial race is shaping up as a high-profile battle over the future of LGBTQ protections.
Incumbent Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul is seeking a second full term as New York’s 57th governor and the state’s first female governor. She enters the race with strong support from LGBTQ advocates and organizations, including an endorsement from the Stonewall Democrats of New York City. Earlier this year, Hochul was also endorsed by progressive leaders like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is running alongside New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams as her lieutenant governor candidate.
Throughout her tenure, Hochul has signed a series of measures aimed at strengthening protections for LGBTQ New Yorkers, particularly transgender residents.
Among the most notable is New York’s “Trans Safe Haven Act,” which protects out-of-state trans youth, their parents, and medical providers who travel to New York to access legally protected gender-affirming care. Hochul has also signed legislation requiring health insurance plans to cover HIV prevention medications, including PrEP and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), without out-of-pocket costs.
Additionally, Hochul signed a Long-Term Care Bill of Rights that prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ seniors and people living with HIV in long-term care facilities.
“As the birthplace of the LGBTQ+ rights movement, New York has long been at the forefront of advancing equality,” Hochul said in a statement during Pride month. “During Pride month, we celebrate New York’s vibrant LGBTQ+ community and acknowledge the importance of protecting the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ New Yorkers. This month and every month, we proudly stand with the LGBTQ+ community and remain committed to building a more inclusive and equitable future for all where everyone can live freely with dignity, safety, and respect.”
On the Republican side, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman has emerged as the party’s leading candidate. Blakeman is running with Madison County Sheriff Todd Hood as his lieutenant governor pick.
Blakeman, Nassau County’s 10th county executive, was first elected in 2021 after defeating Democratic incumbent Laura Curran. He previously served as a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a Nassau County legislator, and a Hempstead town councilman.
A longtime supporter of Trump, Blakeman appeared alongside the president during a 2024 event honoring slain NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller.
LGBTQ advocates have frequently criticized Blakeman for his positions on trans issues, particularly his opposition to trans women participating in women’s sports.
In February 2024, Blakeman signed an executive order barring women’s sports teams that include trans women from using Nassau County athletic facilities. The policy applies to youth, collegiate, and professional teams. Teams that include trans men were not affected. The order has since been halted by the New York State Appellate Division swiftly issued an injunction halting enforcement while the plaintiffs appeal the decision
Ahead of announcing the order, Blakeman repeatedly referred to trans women as “biological males” and argued they should compete on men’s or co-ed teams. LGBTQ rights groups condemned the policy, saying it discriminates against trans athletes and contributes to the marginalization of trans youth.
Trump endorsed Blakeman’s gubernatorial campaign in December 2025, shortly after U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) announced she would not seek the Republican nomination. The president made his endorsement via Truth Social that “Bruce is MAGA all the way, and has been with me from the very beginning.”
The Washington Blade contacted Blakeman’s campaign seeking comment on his LGBTQ policy priorities and views on issues including nondiscrimination protections, trans rights, and healthcare access. The campaign did not respond.
The race highlights two sharply different approaches to LGBTQ policy in a state widely regarded as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, home to the 1969 Stonewall uprising that helped launch the contemporary movement for LGBTQ equality.
Despite the ideological contrast, early polling suggests Hochul remains the clear favorite. Most public surveys show the incumbent holding a double-digit advantage over her potential Republican challengers, with some polls placing her lead at roughly 20 percentage points ahead of the November election.
The boy they refused to forget
Reflect on Pride season with these engaging books
Eswatini’s government ordered to allow LGBTQ group to legally register
Does Pride decor resemble Trump’s design aesthetic?
