National
Carney talks DOMA ruling, ExxonMobil vote
White House won’t issue EO in wake of failed shareholder resolution
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Thursday the administration won’t revisit the idea of issuing an executive order barring anti-gay job bias in the wake of the failed vote among ExxonMobil shareholders to adopt a non-discrimination policy for LGBT workers.
Under questioning from the Washington Blade, Carney said the White House would continue to pursue legislation — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — to institute non-discrimination protections for LGBT workers as opposed to issuing an executive order that changes policies at U.S. contractors like ExxonMobil.
“We don’t expect that an EO of that nature will be issued at this time,” Carney said. “We are working, as I’ve said in the past, with Congress. We support legislation that has been introduced, and we will continue to work to build support for it. We believe that the legislative avenue here is the right avenue to pursue at this time.”
Congress is unlikely to pass ENDA while Republicans remain in the control of the House. Last month, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told the Washington Blade in response to a question on ENDA that he hasn’t “thought much about it.”
Asked how the right avenue to pursue at this time can be legislation while Republicans are in control of the House, Carney replied, “Well, because it’s the right thing to do.”
On Wednesday, ExxonMobil stockholders voted down a resolution proposed by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli to include LGBT protections as part of the company’s Equal Employment Opportunity policy. According to the company, 20.6 percent of shareholders approved the resolution. Still, the board can adopt the policy without action from the shareholders.
An executive order requiring federal contractors to institute LGBT non-discrimination policies would affect ExxonMobil. The company has won more than $1 billion in federal contractors in the past decade. In the last fiscal year, the company claimed $158 million in federal contracts.
But in April, the administration announced it won’t issue the executive order at this time — a line that Carney maintained during the Thursday news conference.
Carney said the day after during an April news conference that the administration is committed to “directly engaging with and educating all sectors of the business community — from major corporations to contractors to small business — and raising public awareness about the human and financial costs of discrimination in the work force.”
Asked by the Blade whether he would follow up on these words and call on ExxonMobil to adopt an LGBT-inclusive policy on its own accord, Carney reaffirmed his earlier position, but wouldn’t go into details about conversations.
“Well, that is certainly our position, and what I said in April holds true today,” Carney said. “And those kinds of conversations, broadly speaking, continue to take place — have taken place and will continue to take place. I don’t have anything specifically for you on this case and this vote, which just took place. But broadly, yes, that’s our position.”
Asked to clarify whether any conversations have taken place between the White House and ExxonMobil, Carney said that communications have taken place, but he wouldn’t go into details about talks with specific business leaders.
“I can tell you broadly that those kinds of conversations have [been] had,” Carney said. “Our position and views on this are well known. That’s why the president supports ENDA, a legislative solution to this discrimination. And those conversations will continue. I just don’t have anything to report to you on specific conversations with specific companies or business leaders.”
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said Carney’s remarks on ExxonMobil are “ambiguous,” but said he chooses to interpret them to mean the White House wants the company to adopt the non-discrimination policy — in addition to offering domestic partner benefits, which the company doesn’t provide.
“The question, then, is will the White House put some action behind Jay Carney’s words?” Almeida said. “Will President Obama use his bully pulpit to publicly call on ExxonMobil to ban discrimination and offer equal benefits to LGBT employees? … I urge White House staff to do more, especially during the upcoming Pride Month, to promote LGBT Americans’ freedom to work without discrimination.”
Almeida renewed his call for the administration to issue the executive order barring LGBT job bias so that all federal contractors like ExxonMobil will have to adopt non-discrimination policies.
“I urge the White House staff to do more to move the ball forward so that LGBT Americans will have the freedom to work without discrimination at ExxonMobil and all other companies that profit from taxpayer-funded contracts,” Almeida said. “The president should fulfill his campaign promise from four years ago and sign the executive order right away.”
Questions also came up during the news conference about the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act earlier in the day. The Associated Press asked Carney whether he wants to see the Supreme Court take up the case.
Carney explained the Obama administration’s belief that DOMA is unconstitutional and noted it is no longer defending the law in court, but deferred further questions to the Justice Department.
“That’s the position the president has held for some time now, and it has been enforced by the Department of Justice,” Carney said. “With regards to this ruling, which the DOJ was an active participant in, I would refer you to the Justice Department. But there’s no question that this is in concert with the president’s views.”
Carney noted that Justice Department attorneys have participated in litigation.
“The Department of Justice participated in this very litigation in the First Circuit, consistent with the position that the president and the Attorney General have articulated, which is that they do not believe that Section 3 of DOMA is constitutional,” Carney said. “But I wouldn’t necessarily call that passive.”
In a follow-up question from the Blade on whether the administration wants to see a vote to repeal DOMA in the Democratic-controlled Seante, Carney said he’s not aware of any talks of that nature.
“I haven’t heard that discussed,” Carney said. “The president’s position is clear. The actions taken as a result of that position are clear. Participation of the Department of Justice in the specific litigation is clear. But I don’t have anything for you on that proposal, which I have not heard.”
A partial transcript of the exchange between reporters and Carney on ExxonMobil and DOMA follows:
Associated Press: The First Circuit ruled this morning on the Defense of Marriage Act. Can you comment on the ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional? Would you like to see the Supreme Court take this case? And if so, would this administration be actively arguing for the overturning of a law signed by a previous Democratic President?
Jay Carney: Well, Anne, as you know, the President has concluded that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. So has his attorney general. And for that reason, the administration will no longer defend equal protection challenges against it in the courts. That’s the position the President has held for some time now, and it has been enforced by the Department of Justice.
With regards to this ruling, which the DOJ was an active participant in, I would refer you to the Justice Department. But there’s no question that this is in concert with the President’s views.
Associated Press: But the question, though, is whether you would take your current somewhat passive position that you will not defend it and turn that around and actively argue for it — to overturn the law.
Carney: The Department of Justice participated in this very litigation in the First Circuit, consistent with the position that the president and the attorney general have articulated, which is that they do not believe that Section 3 of DOMA is constitutional. I can’t predict what the next steps will be in handling cases of this nature. I would refer you to the Department of Justice. But I wouldn’t necessarily call that passive. …
Washington Blade: Jay, I want to ask you about two topics. First of all, I want to follow up on the DOMA ruling from today. The president campaigned on the repeal of DOMA. He has endorsed legislation to meet that goal. He has stop defending the law in court. He has sent Justice Department attorneys to litigate against that law in court.
Carney: Well said. (Laughter.) Yes?
Blade: But does the administration see value in holding a vote in the Democratically controlled Senate on repealing the law as a symbolic stand against that statute?
Carney: Well, I haven’t heard that discussed. The president’s position is clear. The actions taken as a result of that position are clear. Participation of the Department of Justice in the specific litigation is clear. But I don’t have anything for you on that proposal, which I have not heard.
Blade: The other thing I want to ask you about is, there was a vote yesterday among Exxon Mobil shareholders to include LGBT non-discrimination protections for its more than 80,000 workers that work at the corporation. The shareholders voted down that proposal but it’s still possible for the board to accept it without the shareholders taking action.
Back in April, when you talked about the executive order not happening at this time, you said that the administration was committed to “directly engaging with and educating all sectors of the business community from major corporations to contractors to small businesses, and raising public awareness about the human and financial cost of discrimination in the workforce.”
Following up with these words, will the administration call on Exxon Mobil to adopt that non-discrimination policy?
Carney: Well, that is certainly our position, and what I said in April holds true today. And those kinds of conversations, broadly speaking, continue to take place — have taken place and will continue to take place. I don’t have anything specifically for you on this case and this vote, which just took place. But broadly, yes, that’s our position.
Blade: Has the administration communicated — any communications at all with Exxon Mobil?
Carney: Again, I can tell you broadly that those kinds of conversations have [been] had. Our position and views on this are well known. That’s why the President supports ENDA, a legislative solution to this discrimination. And those conversations will continue. I just don’t have anything to report to you on specific conversations with specific companies or business leaders.
Blade: In the past decade, Exxon Mobil has taken more than $1 billion in federal contracts. In the wake of this vote, will the administration revisit the idea of issuing that executive order, barring federal contractors from taking money if they don’t have non-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity?
Carney: Well, we don’t expect that an EO of that nature will be issued at this time. We are working, as I’ve said in the past, with Congress. We support legislation that has been introduced, and we will continue to work to build support for it. We believe that the legislative avenue here is the right avenue to pursue at this time.
Blade: How can the legislative avenue be right at this time when Republicans control Congress? How will that legislation get through the Republican-controlled Congress?
Carney: Well, because it’s the right thing to do.
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
‘My Favorite Sociopath’ debuts at Shepherdstown’s CATF
Under-the-radar Delaware beach towns smart buyers are targeting
In Trump’s divided America, Michael Weinstein’s AHF responds
