National
Still more marriage questions for Carney
W.H. won’t say whether Obama wants marriage in Dem platform or help in state efforts
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney faced new questions on marriage Thursday in the first time the spokesperson publicly talked to reporters following President Obama’s announcement in support of same-sex marriage.
In a press gaggle abord Air Force One en route to Seattle, Carney declined to answer inquiries on whether Obama wants to see an inclusion of same-sex marriage in the Democratic Party platform, nor would he would say whether Obama will commit to helping with efforts to pass same-sex marriage in states.
Asked whether Obama will move toward having “pro-gay marriage language in the Democratic national platform,” Carney deferred to the Democratic National Committee.
“Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide,” Carney said. “That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform.”
Carney similarly dodged in response to a question on whether Obama will be “outspoken when these issues come up in states” deliberating same-sex marriage.
“I’m not going to speculate about what he may say or statements he might issue,” Carney said. “He has on occasion made his position known on actions by individual states, most recently in North Carolina, and I’m sure that continues to be the case. That will continue to be the case.”
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said in response to Carney’s answer on the Democratic platform that those crafting the document should listen the president’s endorsement of same-sex marriage on Wednesday.
“Freedom to Marry’s call for a freedom to marry plank in the Democratic Party — a call that has won huge support from former party chairs, the convention chair, leaders in Congress, 22 senators, and over 40,000 signers on our online petition — continues full force,” Wolfson said. “The Democratic Party should do what the president did so beautifully yesterday: stand for the freedom to marry.”
Wolfson similarly said the onus is on supporters or marriage equality to advance same-sex marriage throughout the nation in the wake of Obama’s endorsement.
“We know that the president’s strong voice and clear message yesterday will have an enormous and ongoing effect in helping people wrestling with this question rise to fairness,” Wolfson said. “It’s the job of all the rest of us to go out and have the conversations that he described so well as helping change his mind.”
John Aravosis, who’s gay and editor of AMERICAblog, said he’s OK with giving Obama a short break after his endorsement of same-sex marriage, but wants to see further action from the president.
“I’m happy to give the president twenty-four hours of honeymoon before I start demanding he do more on marriage, but I do think the community will expect him, and the party, to follow through on his support of same-sex marriage,” Aravosis said. “And that would mean adding marriage equality to the party platform and speaking out more aggressively against anti-gay measures in the states, including those concerning marriage.”
Carney also took questions on the web video ad the Obama campaign on Thursday hyping Obama’s newfound support of same-sex marriage and criticizing Romney for supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment and not even supporting civil unions.
A transcript of the exchange between reporters and Carney during the gaggle follows:
Q: Jay, today the Obama campaign put out a web video that’s attacking Romney on his stance on rights for same-sex couples. Given that the President just came around on this, on the issue of gay marriage yesterday, doesn’t that seem hypocritical and politically motivated more than anything?
Carney: Well, I would refer you to the campaign to talk about ads or videos that they put out. The president noted in his interview when it came up yesterday with Robin Roberts of ABC, that his opponent, Governor Romney, has a starkly different view of these issues, and a starkly different view of the policy issues, even prior to the president’s announcement yesterday that he had come to the conclusion that he personally supports same-sex marriage.
Gov. Romney is for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would enshrine discrimination into our founding legal document. The president thinks that’s wrong. So their positions were starkly different before yesterday.
Q: The campaign or the president —
Carney: If you want to ask the campaign about its tactics I think you ought to ask the campaign about its tactics. The president was very clear in his interview with Robin Roberts about what his personal beliefs are. The president’s record on these issues of supporting LGBT rights is long and impressive and clear, and he’ll continue to fight to expand and protect the rights of all American citizens.
Q: Can you tell us whom — after he gave his interview, to whom has the president spoken personally, both on the gay advocacy side, and also perhaps on the other side in terms of any religious leaders or people who might want to get an explanation from him about his stance?
Carney: I don’t have any conversations of the president to read out to you. The president had quite a busy day yesterday, and it continued to be busy after his interview.
Q: And do you suspect that at any point he would just point that out?
Carney: I wouldn’t — I couldn’t predict on that.
Q: Is the president excited to talk about this issue tonight now that he’s going to be doing a fundraiser in California among probably a lot of people who are very supportive of gay marriage? This is sort of the first chance he’ll have to talk about it since revealing his view.
Carney: I think the President has always been clear about his support for LGBT rights and the actions that he’s taken, including repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell”; the fact that he has long opposed the Defense of Marriage Act; the fact that he and the Attorney General, and therefore the administration, have deemed Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, and therefore the decision not to continue to defend it.
But look, the President’s focus, as I think he also said yesterday in his interview, has been and will continue to be on jobs and the economy. That’s been the — creating greater security for a middle class in this country that has been under stress for a long time, even predating the Great Recession, has been number-one priority. It was his number-one priority when he ran for office, for this office, and it has been his priority since he took the oath of office. And I think you will hear him focus on those issues just as he has — going forward, just as he has in the past.
Q: Will he move to repeal DOMA officially, and have pro-gay marriage language in the Democratic national platform?
Carney: Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide. That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform.
The president’s belief that DOMA ought to be repealed is well stated. I’m not aware of the status of the legislative efforts aimed at repeal, but the president certainly supports that and has for quite a long time. I would note that he opposed DOMA back in 1996 and has opposed it ever since.
Q: Why not repeal it?
Carney: He believes it should be repealed.
Q: But why doesn’t he push to repeal to it?
Carney: I said it every time I’ve been asked about the President’s record on the Defense of Marriage Act. I mean, it’s not a “why not” question, it’s a “yes, we know” answer.
Q: Jay, the President is saying that this is a — and the White House is saying this is a states’ issue now. But will the President be outspoken when these issues come up in states about whether they should pass or not?
Carney: I’m not going to speculate about what he may say or statements he might issue. He has on occasion made his position known on actions by individual states, most recently in North Carolina, and I’m sure that continues to be the case. That will continue to be the case.
But I can’t predict when that will take place or with regards to what state issue. The president believes it is a matter for the states. He personally believes that gay and lesbian Americans ought to be able to — who are in committed, loving relationships ought to be able to marry. But he also — and I think it’s important to note — is respectful of those who disagree. He, after all, traveled some distance to reach this personal decision, and he understands that the whole country has been considering this issue and struggling with it. And we’ve seen a remarkable evolution in the broader public with regards to LGBT rights in general, and specifically with regards to same-sex marriage.
Q: So if he respects people on the other side, why go after Romney?
Carney: You can respect somebody and strongly disagree. And he absolutely disagrees with efforts to — this is the distinction, Jim: He’s respectful of those who don’t agree with him on same-sex marriage. He vehemently disagrees with those who would act to deny Americans’ rights or act to take away rights that have been established in states. And that has been his position for quite a long time.
…
Q: Could you tell us — did he mention anything this morning at all about how he felt about the announcement yesterday or the impact it’s having so far?
Carney: I’m not going to read out internal discussions, but I think the President was glad to have the opportunity that he had yesterday to speak to the country about his views on this matter and about the journey he’s traveled on it — about the profound importance of equality, about the underlying principle that guided him as he came to this decision.
He cited the Golden Rule and the need to treat others as you would have them treat you. He spoke about sort of the three areas that affected him as he was dealing with this and thinking about it: conversations with friends and family and staff members, some of whom are in committed same-sex relationships. The effect that conversations he had with members of our armed services during the fight to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” And certainly his observation of and consideration of the various ways that states have been grappling with this issue, which he spoke about during his interview.
And I think those — all of those went into the process for him — a process that was a very personal one, as he discussed yesterday in his interview.
Q: When did the president came to that conclusion? I mean, we know he said to Robin Roberts in their interview that he had already decided to publicly take this position. So did he come to the conclusion weeks ago, months ago? When was that evolution complete?
Carney: I don’t have a specific date for you. Like I said, this was a very — this was not a policy debate within the White House or the administration. This was a personal decision about his personal views. I think it’s fair to say that within the last several months he had come to the decision that he talked about yesterday and had concluded that he wanted to convey his views on this to the American people sometime in the next several weeks or months. It wasn’t going to be this week, but because of the considerable focus on the issue this week, the President decided it might as well be this week.
Q: What effect did your — the grilling you got Monday at the briefing have on his sense of expediting this? Did he say anything to you about it?
Carney: I think — part of my job, and I think it reinforced the fact that this had become an issue that was getting a great deal of attention and focus, but certainly not about me.
National
Madonna roundup: Reviews, sales, and love for ‘Danceteria’
Pop legend’s new album ‘Confessions II’ earning raves
Madonna isn’t just back, she’s ubiquitous.
From a Times Square takeover to Graham Norton’s couch, the pop legend is busy promoting her new album, “Confessions II,” a sequel to 2005’s “Confessions on a Dance Floor,” that is earning rave reviews.
“Madonna’s back in peak form with a fresh and honest dance record that’s not only her best in 20 years, but a genuinely vital addition to her canon,” says Pitchfork.
“Facing grief and loss has made Madonna’s music deeper than it’s been in 20 years, but also more alive,” the Guardian proclaims.
“If everyone in the club is a work of art, as ‘Danceteria’ says, then to live loudly is to make an indelible mark,” according to Vulture.
The album features upbeat dance productions along with some melancholic views on death and loss. On the song “Betrayal,” she reflects on the recent death of her stepmother Joan, singing, “You’ll never take my mother’s place … you betrayed me, you enslaved me.”
On “L.E.S. Girl,” she revisits her early days living on the Lower East Side and struggling to pay the rent. “Bizarre” seems to reference her failed 1980s marriage to actor Sean Penn. “Test” is a duet with daughter Lola Leon, in which she sings, “I wish I knew / The pain I’ve caused / My butterfly / Was always being watched.”
But the emotional high point of the album comes on “Fragile,” which she wrote about the death of her brother Christopher. The two were close early in Madonna’s career and he designed sets for early tours, including “Blonde Ambition.” But they had a falling out after her marriage to Guy Ritchie and he wrote a scathing tell-all book about his sister that led to years of estrangement. The two reconciled after Christopher’s cancer diagnosis and shortly before he died in 2024 at age 63. She sings, “Late last night I was fast asleep/You came to me in a dream/You said, ‘Don’t forget about me/Don’t forget to be happy.’”
Death emerges again but in a much more upbeat context in “Danceteria,” an ode to the iconic New York nightclub that has emerged as a gay favorite single and seems destined to be the song of the summer in queer nightlife. She recounts her pre-fame days trying to convince a DJ to play her first single “Everybody” at the club and name checks Jean-Michel Basquiat, Keith Haring, best friend Debi Mazar, and DJ Mark Kamins on the track.
Streaming numbers and sales are strong for the new album with projected first week sales of 100,000 ensuring a No.1 debut in the U.S.
U.S. Federal Courts
Three overlooked court rulings limited White House anti-trans policies
Supreme Court narrowed trans rights, advocates saw victories in other decisions
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. continues to dominate headlines about transgender rights, three recent federal court cases produced significant rulings that limited or temporarily blocked Trump-Vance administration policies attacking trans Americans.
Talbott v. USA
Trump issued Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, 2025, banning trans people from serving in the military. The following day, GLAD Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the ban on behalf of six active-duty service members and two individuals seeking to enlist. The organizations argue the policy violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
The plaintiffs sought a nationwide preliminary injunction — a temporary block on enforcement of the executive order while the litigation continued. The district court granted that injunction and later rejected the Trump-Vance administration’s request to dissolve it, temporarily protecting trans service members from being discharged solely because of their gender identity.
That protection, however, was short-lived. In Shilling v. Trump, the Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s injunction, allowing the military to begin enforcing the trans service ban while litigation continued. The U.S. Air Force subsequently required trans service members facing involuntary separation proceedings to appear in uniforms and grooming standards corresponding to their sex assigned at birth and, in some cases, used their deadnames during those proceedings.
Despite that setback, the plaintiffs secured two significant legal victories during Pride month.
On June 1, a federal appeals court blocked the discharge of the trans service members involved in Talbott. Then, on June 30, a federal district court certified the case as a class action on behalf of all currently serving trans service members. That means future rulings in the case will apply not only to the original six plaintiffs but to all active-duty trans military personnel covered by the class.
The case remains ongoing, but class certification significantly strengthens the ability to protect trans service members as the litigation continues. Currently, there are 28 plaintiffs in total, including the two still attempting to enlist.
Z.A. v. Blanche
In Z.A. v. Blanche (formerly Z.A. v. Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an emergency order one day before a federal grand jury subpoena was set to be enforced on July 2. The order blocked the Department of Justice from obtaining confidential medical records belonging to California families whose children receive gender-affirming care.
The ruling relied in part on protections established under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the 1996 federal law governing the privacy and security of medical records.
The decision represented a significant check on the administration’s efforts to obtain sensitive patient information, protecting the privacy of trans patients and their families while the legal challenge proceeds.
Doe v. Blanche
Doe v. Blanche, which remains ongoing, challenges Trump’s executive order, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. Under policies implementing that order, many trans women in federal custody would be housed in men’s prisons.
A federal district court in D.C. granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a Bureau of Prisons policy that would require incarcerated trans women to be housed in men’s facilities regardless of individualized safety assessments or the risk of sexual assault.
The Bureau of Prisons policy also conflicts with the goals of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), enacted by Congress in 2003 to address sexual abuse in correctional facilities through standards, research, funding, and prevention measures. Federal data has consistently shown that trans people in custody experience sexual assault at dramatically higher rates than the general prison population.
Commentary
When a church fears the rainbow
Puerto Rico pastor objected to Pride symbols outside congregation
There are moments when an incident stops being merely a local story and begins to reveal something much deeper. What happened on June 28 outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico, belongs in that category.
I do not know who painted the rainbow colors on the asphalt and on a roadside guardrail. I do not know what motivated them, and it is not my place to justify their actions. If someone believes a law was broken, there are authorities and legal mechanisms to address that. That is not the point of this reflection.
The point is the words that followed.
Hours after those colors appeared, Pastor Jorge J. Santiago Reyes went live on social media. He said he felt threatened. He described what happened as a physical attack against his church. He appeared angry and disappointed. He called those who painted the rainbow “cowards” and “charlatans.” He expressed frustration with the support that, according to him, the municipal government of Comerío has shown toward the LGBTQ community, and with those who support posts related to that community. He repeated several times that the people responsible had “crossed the line.” He ended his message by saying, “These charlatans have to be stopped.”
As I listened to his words, I stopped thinking about the paint.
I began thinking about fear.
There is one phrase the pastor repeated again and again: “They crossed the line.” Yet he never explained what that line was. If he was referring to a possible violation of the law, that is for the authorities to determine. If he meant respect for property, there are also procedures to deal with that. But when that line remains undefined and the message begins to associate a rainbow with a threat, the question changes. It is no longer only about a guardrail or a road. It becomes a question about what boundary, in the pastor’s view, was actually crossed.
Paint can be erased.
A brush can cover the asphalt and return a guardrail to its original color.
What does not disappear so easily is the meaning of those colors.
And perhaps that is where the real conflict begins.
It is significant that this happened precisely on June 28, the day when the LGBTQ community remembers a history marked by exclusion, violence, and the struggle for dignity. What represents memory, hope, and the possibility of living without hiding for millions of people was presented by others as a threat.
I do not know why someone painted that rainbow. I do not need to know in order to ask whether those were the words society should expect from a pastor.
A religious leader may feel hurt, frustrated, or angry. What he cannot forget is the responsibility that comes with every public expression. His words do not end when a livestream ends. They move beyond the space of his church, reach people who may never share his faith, and help shape the way others see those who think differently. When a pastor calls other people “charlatans” and “cowards,” says they “have to be stopped,” and turns a rainbow into evidence of an attack, he is no longer speaking only from frustration. He begins to build a discourse that can feed rejection toward a community far larger than the people responsible for that act.
There was another moment in the livestream that caught my attention. The pastor reminded viewers how much he has served Comerío, how much he has accompanied his community, and how much he has worked for it. I have no reason to question that service. I am sure many people can testify to the good he has done.
That is precisely why it was difficult to hear.
Pastoral vocation is not about reminding a town of everything one has done for it when conflict appears. Service does not lose its value when it goes unrecognized; it loses something when it becomes an argument to claim a moral position from which to speak down to others. A person who serves does so because that is the nature of the calling, not because that service grants authority to discredit those who think differently.
As a pastor, that part of the message left me deeply uneasy. Not because I expect ministers of God to be perfect. We are not. But because our words carry weight, we are called to speak with greater responsibility. Some expressions build bridges. Others raise walls. Some words invite encounter. Others end up justifying rejection.
The paint will disappear. A brush will be enough to cover the asphalt and return the guardrail to its original color.
The words will not disappear as easily.
They will remain recorded in a video, shared again and again on social media, and remembered by those who heard them. They will remain long after the last trace of paint has been erased.
When this episode is remembered, it probably will not be because of the rainbow that appeared outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico.
It will be because of the words a pastor chose to use when speaking about it.
And that difference changes everything.
As Washington shifts right, Democratic Socialists gain ground
Susan Stewart could make history as Rehoboth’s first openly gay mayor
Silky Nutmeg Ganache talks sex and dating, gender, politics, weight loss journey
Madonna roundup: Reviews, sales, and love for ‘Danceteria’
Three overlooked court rulings limited White House anti-trans policies
‘Transcendent’ a tough but important read
Under-the-radar Delaware beach towns smart buyers are targeting
‘My Favorite Sociopath’ debuts at Shepherdstown’s CATF
In Trump’s divided America, Michael Weinstein’s AHF responds
