Connect with us

National

Gay judge criticized in conservative congressional scorecard

FRC, CitizenLink rank members of Congress on anti-gay votes

Published

on

U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald

Michael Fitzgerald (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Anti-gay groups are decrying the Senate confirmation of a gay federal judge as part of their annual congressional scorecard evaluating the commitment of House and Senate lawmakers to social conservative values.

The scorecard, a joint publication of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink, was made public late Sunday night.

For the Senate, the scorecard rates members on the basis of seven votes over the course of this year — including the confirmation of U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald, who was approved overwhelmingly in March by a 91-6 vote. The scorecard says, “FRC Action and CitizenLink Opposed this Confirmation.”

The scorecard doesn’t explicitly mention that Fitzgerald is gay, but says he “supported liberal activist organizations and worked to promote homosexual rights in the state of his judgeship.” The anti-gay groups cast in a negative light Fitzgerald’s work benefiting the LGBT community prior to his confirmation as a judge and accuse him of withholding information about his past in the questionnaire response he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Nominated on July 20, 2011, by President Barack Obama to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Mr. Fitzgerald has supported liberal activist organizations and worked to promote homosexual rights in the state of his judgeship. Mr. Fitzgerald supported activist organizations, such as the Harvard-Radcliffe Gay and Lesbian Caucus that opposed ROTC recruiting at Harvard at the same time now-Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was Dean at Harvard Law and refused to allow ROTC recruiters on campus. Mr. Fitzgerald also provided pro-bono work in the 1990 case, Buttino v. F.B.I., in which an FBI agent alleged he was wrongfully dismissed for his sexual preference only to be shown during the case to have lied during an FBI investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald also worked to oppose Proposition 8 in California and failed to mention many of his actions in a questionnaire to the Senate that would have revealed potential conflicts of interest.

Other LGBT-relevant votes by which the scorecard evaluates members of the Senate include passage in April of a bill with explicit LGBT-protections to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The anti-gay group says the Senate version of the legislation “would discriminate against religious grantees who aid abused women if the grantees are opposed to homosexual behavior as a matter of faith.”

Additionally, the scorecard includes the cloture vote that led to the confirmation of Mari Carmon Aponte as U.S. ambassador to El Salvador. She came under fire from social conservatives in part because of a pro-gay op-ed piece she wrote for an El Salvador newspaper during the month of Pride.

Five senators managed a perfect score of “100 percent” as a result of the scorecard: Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), James Inhofe, (R-Okla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications at the Human Rights Campaign, responded to the scorecard by invoking former President Reagan and saying the document reflects the Family Research Council’s continued hostility to the LGBT community.

“There they go again,” Sainz said. “Beyond death and taxes, the only other thing that you should count on is that FRC will falsely — and often hatefully – misinterpret issues important to LGBT equality. Their scorecard provides excellent examples of their bizarre animus against members of our community.”

Sainz took issue with the scorecard’s inclusion of the Fitzgerald confirmation vote, noting many Republican senators voted to confirm the judge.

“Despite the fact that Judge Fitzgerald was confirmed by a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate (to include Republican senators from Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas; not to mention Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Senators McCain and Ayotte), FRC still is hell-bent on the notion that Fitzgerald is out of the mainstream,” Sainz said. “With every passing day, it becomes clearer that it’s FRC that’s out of the mainstream and in fact, painfully representative of an era of discrimination and bigotry.”

Sainz added he expects HRC to issue its own scorecard in late October.

For the House, six votes are included in scorecard, including votes on measures that would restrict abortion rights and repeal health care reform as well as a measure reaffirming the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The measure was an amendment to Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations legislation offered by freshman Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) and approved by a vote of 245-171.

But scorecard misstates the practical effect of that amendment, saying the measure would stop the Justice Department from litigating against DOMA in court — a path the Obama administration has followed after declining to defend DOMA. Media reports had previously indicated that Huelskamp intended to offer an amendment to that effect, but the measure ended up saying no federal funds could be used to contravene DOMA, which would do nothing to prevent the Justice Department from presenting the view of the federal government in court that DOMA is unconstitutional.

The Huelskamp amendment isn’t the only one reaffirming DOMA that was offered on the House floor this year. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) submitted a similar amendment that passed on the House floor as part of a defense spending measure. It’s unclear why the scorecard doesn’t includes this vote as part of its evaluation of House lawmakers.

More than 100 members of the Republican-controlled House are credited with voting each time with views consistent with the Family Research Council and CitizenLink, including Reps. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.), Allen West (R-Fla.) and Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.).

FRC didn’t immediately respond to questions about the scorecard.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular