Connect with us

National

LGBT advocacy groups join the immigration debate

Activists in Maryland and Oregon have collaborated with immigrant rights groups

Published

on

Equality Maryland and CASA de Maryland unveil the Familia es Familia Maryland campaign on Aug. 28 (Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

Are there parallels between the LGBT and immigrants’ rights movements?

A new campaign that Equality Maryland and CASA de Maryland unveiled late last month that seeks to garner additional support for the state’s same-sex marriage law among Latinos and in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants among LGBT voters ahead of two referenda on the issues suggests that these issues share common threads. Carrie Evans, executive director of Equality Maryland, noted during the Aug. 28 press conference where she and other advocates formally unveiled the Familia es Familia Maryland initiative that her organization “must speak up for what is right and what is fair.”

“A majority of Latinos in Maryland support marriage equality for same-sex couples,” she told the Blade in a follow-up interview. A Hart Research Associates survey in July that shows 54 percent of Marylanders would vote for the same-sex marriage law in Novembers mirrors an April poll that the National Council of La Raza commissioned that indicates 54 percent of Latinos support nuptials for gays and lesbians. A Gonzales Research and Marketing survey in January noted that 48 percent of Maryland voters also support the state’s Dream Act. “Equality Maryland is working to ensure that a majority of LGBT communities of Maryland support Question 4.”

The long-standing partnership between Basic Rights Oregon and Causa, a statewide immigrant advocacy group, provided the blueprint upon which Equality Maryland and CASA de Maryland collaborated with the Latino GLBT History Project and other organizations to launch the Familia es Familia Maryland campaign. Jeana Frazzini, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, told the Blade that her organization’s work with Causa stems from campaigns against anti-gay, anti-immigrant and anti-choice ballot initiatives in the Beaver State.

“Pretty early on the communities were put in a position to rely on one another, to share lessons learned and provide mutual support,” she said.

Frazzini noted that what she described as strong relationships between staffers at the two organizations have subsequently grown into “broader commitments in our missions and in our programmatic work.” This includes her group’s participation in the campaign against two anti-immigrant ballot initiatives in Columbia County in 2008.

“For an LGBT rights organization like Basic Rights Oregon, we need to have an understanding of the impact of immigrant policies on our own community in order to create the space for LGBT immigrants to find support and to feel as though they have a place in the LGBT movement as well as in the immigrant rights movement seeking to highlight the impact of policies on their LGBT members,” said Frazzini.

Causa is among the organizations that continue to advise Basic Rights Oregon on how to pursue marriage rights for same-sex couples in the state. Francisco Lopez, the group’s executive director, told the Blade that nuptials for gays and lesbians has become one of Causa’s core organizational values.

“We support each other politically. We support each other in terms of mobilization. We support each other’s attempts for fundraising. So what we did is to include marriage equality as a value of our organization,” he said. “More than just basing our issues, We decided that we needed to move into what are some of those common values we have — the value of justice, hope, dignity, family and we know family is a family and that’s when we decided this is something that we value as important.”

 

National LGBT organizations weigh in on immigration-related issues

The Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Immigration Equality are among the national LGBT advocacy groups that have spoken out in support of the inclusion of a bill that would allow gays and lesbians to sponsor their foreign-born partners and children for immigration under a comprehensive immigration reform package. These groups have also spoken out against Arizona’s controversial Senate Bill 1070 designed to deter undocumented immigrants from entering the state from Mexico.

The Gill Foundation has also backed public education campaigns on these issues through the Four Freedoms Fund.

“While our opponents try to drive wedges between communities, the truth is that LGBT people are not a monolith. Rather, we are racial and ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, and people of faith. The issues that impact these communities also impact us as LGBT people – because they are us, too,” said HRC spokesperson Michael Cole-Schwartz. “HRC stands with the coalition on comprehensive immigration reform for example, because same-sex couples are still deeply disadvantaged by our nation’s immigrations laws, and because undocumented LGBT people are incredibly vulnerable, with neither legal status nor protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Darlene Nipper, deputy executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, echoed Cole-Schwartz. She pointed out that her organization not only spoke out against SB 1070, but similar measures in Alabama and Georgia. Nipper further stressed that the Task Force continues to advocate for an LGBT-inclusive comprehensive immigration reform bill on Capitol Hill.

“We have this position of being both clearly a national LGBT organization but also one that is concerned about issues of racial justice, economic justice,” she said. “For us, immigration issues are central to our values in the organization so it’s easy for us to chime in on those.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story

Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.

Published

on

President Donald Trump at the State of the Union in February 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.

While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.

“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.

“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”

His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.

White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.

Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”

He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.

The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.

Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.

His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.

Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.

Continue Reading

National

Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents

Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community

Published

on

The Trump administration has moved from identifying trans people as as threat to the family to claiming that trans people are a threat to the spiritual health of the nation. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”

The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.” 

This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.

As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.” 

Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation. 

By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents. 

With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”

This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”

And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions. 

While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933. 

In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare. 

Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people. 

The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.” 

As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.” 

In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law

Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure

Published

on

Pennsylvania Capitol Building (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.

House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.

The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.

“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”

Continue Reading

Popular