National
Obama campaign launches initiative to reach out to LGBT voters
Community urged not to ‘sit on the sidelines’

The Obama campaign on Wednesday officially kicked off a new initiative aimed at building LGBT support for the president as Pride season begins and the general election campaign heats up.
During a conference call, supporters of the president called on LGBT people to help Obama win re-election. On the call with reporters Wednesday detailing the project — dubbed “Obama Pride: LGBT Americans for Obama” — was Jamie Citron, LGBT vote director for the campaign, and Joe Solmonese, the outgoing president of the Human Rights Campaign and one of the 35 national co-chairs of the Obama campaign. Clo Ewing, director of constituency media for the campaign, moderated the call.
Each of them emphasized the work Obama has done on LGBT issues — in particular his endorsement of same-sex marriage two weeks ago — and the importance of Obama winning re-election.
Citron said the 2012 election was too important for the LGBT community to “sit on the sidelines” and emphasized the need for voter registration efforts to help Obama win re-election. On the day prior to the launch of Obama Pride, Citron said the campaign held LGBT-focused voter registration drives across the country.
“The president knows the importance of making sure our voices are heard in November and to that end, will continue to make voter registration and volunteer recruitment a top priority through Pride month and into the fall,” Citron said.
According to a statement, the initiative launches with trainings, phone banks and house parties in a number of states including Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada and Michigan — which are seen as battleground states in the general election. Citron announced the launch of a new website on the Obama campaign page devoted to the LGBT community.
Solmonese discussed the president’s LGBT achievements during his first term — including mandating hospital visitation rights for gay couples, hosting a bullying summit at the White House and repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — as he drew a distinction between Obama and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on their views of same-sex marriage.
“With a president’s historic statement on same-sex marriage, the choice we’re facing as a country and a community could not be clearer,” Solmonese said. “We can re-elect the leader who’s working with our community toward full equality under the law, or we can sit back and watch Mitt Romney take us back to where we started.”
Solmonese, who’s set to leave HRC when incoming President Chad Griffin takes over on June 11, said Romney’s position on marriage is “also historic” because the candidate is to the right of former President George W. Bush on the issue. While Bush said he supports civil unions, Romney has said he opposes them in addition to backing a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country.
A partial transcript of the Q&A between reporters and the Obama campaign members at the end of the call follows:
Q: Joe, question for you. What is the plan for the campaign to sort of address what issues specifically the president would advance in his second term? You went through a lot of these accomplishments, but what sort of effort will there be to lay out a plan for the second term?
Solmonese: One of things I’ve been inspired by president and the administration — and this goes back to the days that we met with them in the transition offices before we were in the White House. Quite frankly, it goes back to during the campaign in the general election.
One of the things that always came to me — and it came from the president — was that the agenda was really a collective conversation between the president and the administration, us as a community, and our allies on Capitol Hill in the House and the Senate. That collective agreement and that collective sense of where we were had everything to do with why we moved hate crimes first, we moved “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” second, and so that collective understanding of where we’re going is how we’re going to shape the agenda for the next administration.
We have landmark issues that we need to continue to address, continue to move on, like the repeal of [the Defense of Marriage Act], like the passage of a fully inclusive ENDA. And so, that’s the kind of ongoing conversation we’ll have.
I think one of the things that we all recognize — and I know that the president recognizes because we saw this during the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — is that the makeup of Congress is going to have a lot to do with that. That is why those fights and the fights to make sure to do everyone we can to take back an LGBT-friendly House of Representatives are going to have a lot to do with how that agenda gets shaped — and hold what we have in the Senate and hopefully add to those numbers.
Q: The conventional wisdom is that the president’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is going to be met with some sort of political attack in states like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia. Will this new LGBT Americans for Obama unit have a role to play in trying to combat those of attacks? If so, what specifically is in the works to ensure that the president’s support for same-sex marriage ends up not being [against him]?
Ewing: The goal of the Pride program is to organize LGBT members of the community across the country, organize about issues that they care about and organize as far as coming into the campaign, and also mobilizing folks for November.
As far as the attacks that you talked about. One of things that we’ll continue to do is talk about the president’s record, talk about his record of accomplishments, and stand on that. If you’re talking about marriage specifically, one of things that I can do is point you to a lot of recent polls that really show that the support for gay marriage and marriage equality is growing across the country.
That being said, what polls also show is that same-sex marriage is not the most important issue that will affect people’s votes come November. It’s not the first issue, it’s not the second issue and it’s not the third issue. That being said, what the LGBT program is going to do is make sure that they’re mobilizing voters.
Citron: I just want to jump in as well. I just want to point back to the president’s own words on the subject. I think what he said is incredibly powerful and it talks about what brings us together, not what pulls us apart. I think that’s the message that we’re going to be putting with this program. That doesn’t just mean the LGBT community, but broader, and I think that that’s something we’re very excited about.
Q: The President mandated in December that all agencies working abroad must report on what they’re doing to protect and advance LGBT rights in other countries within 180 days. That falls in June. Will this be part of Pride month messaging? …
Ewing: I’m going to have to send you to the White House on that one. I can tell you right now that it’s not a plan of ours to include in the next couple of weeks of outreach to the community, but not for any specific reason.
Q: Some poll numbers now showing particularly in Florida, the same-sex marriage announcement might be problematic for the president. What’s your take? Should he have waited? …
Solmonese: The president did that because it’s the right thing to do. He understood that, as anything he does, that there’s going to be a reaction to it in various part of the country. You have to look at how people feel about the issue, but also that intensity question of polling, where it falls on the spectrum of things that people care about.
While that may be true in Florida, I have been heartened to see polling numbers in various states around African-American voters. And quite frankly, the way in which, I think, other things have unfolded on the heels of the president’s announcement — particularly the NAACP, for instance — coming out in support of marriage equality, and what that has meant to folks around the country. This election, like all elections, from this point to November is going to be a roller-coaster. On given day, in some of these battleground states, we’re going to see a lot of movement, but the president did what he thought the right thing to do was and we’ll move forward from there.
Q: There is a small but vocal group of black Christians who are very vocal about their dismay with the president’s decision. What would you to say to them? …
Ewing: I would say a couple different things. No. 1, I would say, as the president said, this is his personal view that it’s wrong to prevent couples are who in loving committed relationships and want to marry from doing so. The president said, too, that he did a lot of soul-searching on this issue, and he talked to his wife about it, he talked to his children about it. He heard from a lot of people, friends who were in long-term relationships, service men and women who had he gotten to know during the fight for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” [repeal]. This is a decision that he thought about and really had to evolve on. It’s a personal decision of his, and that’s where he’s at on it.
Also, as for the community that you mentioned, there are also a lot of clergy who are in support of that and who have talked about their support of it. … I know that Joe mentioned organization like the NAACP who have come out in support of same-sex marriage and marriage equality. I would say more than anything that as the president said, it’s his personal view here, and he felt it was important for him to share it.
Solmonese: I would add one thing to that. There are two similar but distinctly different conversations going on here, particularly in states like Maryland. They’re building support and mobilizing African-American voters to support this president in the fall. I have to believe that regardless of the president’s position on marriage equality, they will support this president in an incredibly strong way. And then there is the work that we have to do as a community, and as advocates, to win and build support for marriage equality — a fight that we find ourselves in in the State of Maryland.
Those are two different orders of business, and I think we approach them that way. Again, what I’m heartened by is in states like Maryland, regardless of the fact that some have taken issue with the president’s position on marriage equality, they continue to support the president in strong numbers and — I think this has to do with the president’s statement as well as a series of things that have happened in the aftermath — we see continued growth among African-American voters in support of marriage equality.
I think the difference we took on in the fight in Proposition 8 back in 2008 and the work we did in the District of Columbia more recently is that as a community we have done the front end work of building relationships, of finding common humanity around these issues, respecting differences, particularly religious differences. Again, trying to find that common ground.
Ewing: The last thing I want to point out. … This is about civil marriage and civil laws. We are respectful of religious liberties. We are respectful that churches and other faith institutions are going to be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are and what they recognize. As a civil law, the president does support marriage equality.
Q: This sounds like it’s an effort to turn out the gay vote. I’m wondering is there going to be any element of this to try and convince that segment of the gay vote that tends to vote Republican to try to get them to cross over and vote for Obama this time?
Citron: Certainly, an element of this will be about turning out the LGBT vote, but even more so than that, it’s about engaging the LGBT community to get our effort off the ground. One of the most powerful tools that this campaign has is our ground time, and our core volunteer teams that we’re building across the country. What we want to do is make sure that the LGBT community, where they live is a core part of that program, and a core part of the team that’s going to move us forward toward victory in November.
So, this is not just about turnout but about really making sure that the LGBT community — this is a part of our effort on the ground, as they are a part of the effort. We want our effort to look like the country itself.
You bring up a good point and we will talk a lot about the president’s record and the work he’s done for the LGBT community, and I think we’ll talk a lot too about Mitt Romney, what he’s promised to do as president, and also his record as governor. I think that will make a very stark contrast between the two. And I think that will be something that will resonate with LGBT people across the board regardless of their political affiliation.
Solmonese: I say this from the HRC point of view. That will be a big focus because I think that if you remember back in 2008, Sen. McCain did not support the Federal Marriage Amendment, there was some kind of contusion about a whole range of issues … But Gov. Romney has very clearly committed to do the work of passing the Federal Marriage Amendment, and to me, if he were ever elected president — I’m never really completely clear on his convictions, but I know that he is very much open to what people around him and would be obligate to the people whom he felt put him there.
The core of all that is his commitment to work to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is very much a part of HRC rating these candidates. The Federal Marriage Amendment is the ultimately deal breaking for us; it is enshrining discrimination into the United States Constitution. It is absolutely sort of the last line in terms of really discrimination against this community. And, I think, for that reason, it’s incredibly important that we make sure that every member of this community, Republicans in particular, understand that distinction and understand just what that would mean because I feel like out there with our opponents, the fear and the progress that we are making with regard to our success in marriage equality is genuine and it is palpable. So the fight to get that done, I think, is absolutely real if he were to become the president.
On the same day that the new LGBT initiative was launched, the campaign made public a video narrated by actress Jane Lynch about Obama’s support for the LGBT community.
Watch the video here:
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.