Connect with us

National

Arlen Specter hailed as pro-gay moderate

Voted for DOMA, but later came out against anti-gay law

Published

on

Arlen Specter, Washington Blade, gay news

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (Photo by Steve Dietz/Sharp Image via wikimedia commons)

LGBT groups hailed former U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter for his support for LGBT rights upon his passing on Sunday despite the long-term lawmaker’s controversial end in politics after he shifted party affiliation from Republican to Democratic.

On Sunday, major media outlets reported Specter had died of complications of non-Hodgkin’s lymphonia at the age of 82 in his home in Philadelphia. In 2005, Specter announced he was suffering from the disease, but continued serving as he underwent chemotherapy.

Specter for most of his career as a senator was a Republican and was known as a moderate voice within his party.

In 1996, Specter was among the Republicans who voted in favor of a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but also voted for the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. In 2004, Specter voted for a U.S. constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the country, but when this measure came before the Senate again in 2006, Specter — along with Sen. Judd Gregg — reversed his position and voted “no.”

As his re-election approached in 2010, Specter announced he could no longer be part of a party that he said was too conservative and switched his affiliation to Democrat. At the time, he also adopted a uniformly pro-LGBT voting record, not only voting for hate crimes protection legislation and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, but calling for DOMA repeal. In a piece in The Huffington Post, Specter called DOMA a “relic of a more tradition-bound time and culture.”

However, after changing parties, Specter ultimately lost the Democratic nomination in his bid for re-election to former Rep. Joe Sestak, who lost in the general election to current Sen. Pat Toomey.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement Specter’s support for hate crimes protections and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal “was critical” as was his decision to change his position on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

“While we disagreed with his support for some conservative judicial nominees which will leave a lasting negative impact on our community, he was willing to work across party lines to get things done,” Griffin said.

Griffin added he had the opportunity to host Specter in Los Angeles while working with him to raise funds for stem cell research “at a time when it was difficult for a Republican senator to speak out.”

LGBT political groups had kind words for Specter while refraining from commenting about his change in party affiliation toward the end of his career.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, commended Specter for his work and his partnership with his organization, but also recalled a personal experience with the late senator.

“Sen. Specter was a longtime ally of Log Cabin Republicans and a public servant committed to the rule of law,” Cooper said. “I remember traveling with him during the Bush administration and his keen interest in the U.S. support of civil society organizations abroad.”

Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said Specter was an important moderate voice as a Republican, but needed to become a Democrat to continue to serve as the voice of reason.

“As a Republican, Arlen Specter was a moderate and often stood with Democrats on LGBT issues,” Davis said. “In 2009, he realized he was the last of a dying breed of reasonable Republicans in the GOP and joined the Democratic Party.”

Malcolm Lazin, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Equality Forum, had kind words for the late senator.

“He was a poor Jewish boy from Kansas,” Lazin said. “Whatever he made in the world, really was as a result of his remarkable intelligence and work ethic.”

Over his course of his career as a federal prosecutor in Philadelphia in the 1970s, Lazin said he knew Specter on a personal level. The not-yet senator was an honorary campaign chair for Lazin and would advise him in meetings that took place about once a week.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy

Recent policy actions from the White House limit transgender rights in sports, immigration visas, and overarching federal policy.

Published

on

President Donald Trump stands in the Roosevelt Room in December 2025. (Washington Blade Photo by Joe Reberkenny)

In a proclamation issued by the Trump White House Thursday night, the president said he would, among other things, “restore public safety” and continue “upholding the rule of law,” while promoting policies that restrict the rights of transgender people.

“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,” the proclamation reads. “At the same time, we are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”

The statement comes amid a broader series of actions by the Trump administration targeting transgender people across multiple federal policy areas, including education, health care, and immigration. A nearly complete list of policies the current administration has put forward can be found on KFF.org.

One day before the proclamation was issued, the U.S. State Department announced changes to visa regulations that could impact transgender and gender-nonconforming people seeking entry into the United States.

The policy, published March 11 and scheduled to take effect April 10, introduces changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, commonly known as the “DV Program.” The rule is framed by the department as an effort to strengthen oversight and prevent fraud within the visa lottery system, which allocates a limited number of immigrant visas annually to applicants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.

However, the updated language also standardizes the use of the term “sex” in federal regulations in place of “gender,” a change that LGBTQ advocates say could create additional barriers for transgender and gender-diverse applicants.

The policy states: “The Department of State (‘Department’) is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (‘DV Program’) to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word ‘shall’ to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term ‘sex’ in lieu of ‘gender’; and replace the term ‘age’ in the DV Program regulations with the phrase ‘date of birth’ to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.”

Advocates say the shift toward using “sex” rather than “gender” in federal immigration rules reflects a broader push by the administration to roll back recognition of transgender identities in federal policy.

According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, an estimated 15,000 to 50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants currently live in the United States, with many entering the country to seek refuge from persecution and hostile governments in their home countries.

Continue Reading

Florida

Fla. House passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill

Measure could open door to overturning local LGBTQ rights protections

Published

on

(Photo by Catella via Bigstock)

The Florida House of Representatives on March 10 voted 77-37 to approve an “Anti-Diversity in Local Government” bill that opponents have called an extreme and sweeping measure that, among other things, could overturn local LGBTQ rights protections.

The House vote came six days after the Florida Senate voted 25-11 to pass the same bill, opening the way to send it to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who supports the bill and has said he would sign it into law.

Equality Florida, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization that opposed the legislation, issued a statement saying the bill “would ban, repeal, and defund any local government programming, policy, or activity that provides ‘preferential treatment or special benefits’ or is designed or implemented with respect to race, color, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

The statement added that the bill would also threaten city and county officials with removal from office “for activities vaguely labeled as DEI,” with only limited exceptions.

“Written in broad and ambiguous language, the bill is the most extreme of its kind in the country, creating confusion and fear for local governments that recognize LGBTQ residents and other communities that contribute to strength and vibrancy of Florida cities,” the group said in a separate statement released on March 10.

The Miami Herald reports that state Sen. Clay Yarborough (R-Jacksonville), the lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said he added language to the bill that would allow the city of Orlando to continue to support the Pulse nightclub memorial, a site honoring 49 mostly LGBTQ people killed in the 2016 mass shooting at the LGBTQ nightclub.

But the Equality Florida statement expresses concern that the bill can be used to target LGBTQ programs and protections.

“Debate over the bill made expressly clear that LGBTQ people were a central target of the legislation,” the group’s statement says. “The public record, the bill sponsors’ own statements, and hours of legislative debate revealed the animus driving the effort to pressure local governments into pulling back from recognizing or resourcing programs targeting LGBTQ residents and other historically marginalized communities,” the statement says.

But the statement also notes that following outspoken requests by local officials, sponsors of the bill agreed to several amendments “ensuring local governments can continue to permit Pride festivals, even while navigating new restrictions on supporting or promoting them.”     

The statement adds, “Florida’s LGBTQ community knows all too well how to fight back against unjust laws. Just as we did, following the passage of Florida’s notorious ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ law, we will fight every step of the way to limit the impact of this legislation, including in the courts.”

Continue Reading

The White House

Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions

Measure described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’

Published

on

President Donald Trump speaks at the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump said he will refuse to sign any legislation into law unless Congress passes the “SAVE Act,” pressuring lawmakers to move forward with the controversial voting bill.

In posts on Truth Social and other social media platforms, the 47th president emphasized the importance of Republican lawmakers pushing the legislation through while also using the opportunity to denounce gender-affirming care.

“I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION — GO FOR THE GOLD,” Trump posted. “MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY — ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!!”

The proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. Trump has also called for the legislation to include a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent.

“This is a huge priority for the president. He added on some priorities to the SAVE America Act in recent days, namely, no transgender transition surgeries for minors. We are not gonna tolerate the mutilation of young children in this country. No men in women’s sports,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “The president putting all of these priorities together speaks to how common sense they are.”

The comments mark the first time the White House has publicly confirmed that Trump is pushing to attach anti-trans policies to the SAVE Act.

The bill would also require the removal of undocumented immigrants from existing voter rolls and allow election officials who fail to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement to be sued.

It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Current safeguards include requirements such as providing a Social Security number when registering to vote, cross-checking voter rolls with federal data and, in some states, requiring identification at the polls.

Trump began pushing for the legislation during his State of the Union address last month, where he singled out Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) by name while criticizing the lack of movement on the bill.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has denounced the legislation as “Jim Crow 2.0” and said it has little chance of advancing through the Senate, calling it “dead on arrival.”

In remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer said “the SAVE Act includes such extreme voter registration requirements that, if enacted, could disenfranchise 21 million American citizens.”

Trump has repeatedly used political messaging around trans youth and gender-affirming care as part of broader cultural and policy debates during his presidency — most recently during his State of the Union address, where he cited the case of Sage Blair, a Virginia teenager whose school allegedly encouraged her to transition without her parents’ consent.

LGBTQ advocates — including those familiar with Blair’s story — say the situation was far more complex than described and argue that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions could place trans people, particularly youth, at greater risk.

Continue Reading

Popular