Connect with us

National

Aggressive Obama meets passive Romney in foreign policy debate

No mention of LGBT human rights abuses abroad

Published

on

President Obama (right) and Mitt Romney are set to square off on domestic issues at next week's debate in Denver (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Obama squared off in a foreign policy debate (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney sparred over foreign policy Monday evening in their final debate and, as in the previous debates, neither candidate made a direct reference to LGBT issues.

During the debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., Obama took an aggressive posture, challenging Romney for switching his positions on issues, while Romney appeared passive and agreed with Obama on several key points. Both candidates made explicit references to protecting the rights of women overseas. Romney brought up promoting “gender equity” in the Middle East when talking about U.S. strategy in the Arab world, and Obama said “protecting religious minorities and women” should be a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.

Other references to social issues were more general. At one point, Obama mocked Romney for his social policies without naming any position on social issues in particular, saying, “Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.”

Later, Romney said protecting “human rights” overseas was essential — but didn’t enumerate any groups for which the human rights should be protected.

Jeff Krehely, vice president of LGBT research at the Center for American Progress, said prior to the debate any discussion of LGBT issues would likely have exposed Romney’s ignorance of LGBT human rights abuses overseas.

“It’s pretty clear that Gov. Romney would be an abysmal president for LGBT Americans, since he’s made a political calculation to abandon any support for affirmative LGBT federal rights at home,” Krehely said. “But it would be good for voters to know whether he’s even aware that being gay is actually a punishable crime in many countries, and if he would continue to implement existing U.S. State Department policies that are helping to change that. If he’s not willing to do so, it’s a pretty clear indication of how far right he has drifted and just how badly he wants to be president.”

Turmoil in Syria, where an estimated 30,000 people have been killed under the Assad regime, was a contentious point during the debate. Romney faulted the Obama administration for not taking a leadership role in ousting the dictator, but Obama said the United States organized “Friends of Syria” and is mobilizing humanitarian support. When moderator Bob Scheiffer asked Romney what more he would do in the country, he didn’t commit to any different policy and said he doesn’t think military involvement is appropriate at this time.

Romney also faulted Obama for not placing enough emphasis on the U.S. partnership with Israel and said other countries in the Middle East noticed that Obama didn’t visit Israel when making a trip to the region during an early part of his administration. But Obama recalled that he visited Israel as a candidate and toured the Holocaust museum at Yad Vashem “to remind myself of the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable.”

The candidates also discussed the appropriate size for the U.S. military. Romney criticized Obama by saying our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1916 and the Air Force is older and smaller than any time since its founding in 1947. Obama responded by saying the military has evolved over time and “we also have fewer horses and bayonets.” The “horses and bayonets” line immediately became an Internet sensation.

Throughout the debate, Romney emphasized the threat of Iran becoming a nuclear power and often spoke about the need to protect U.S. interests abroad by building a strong economy at home. Notably, Romney beyond his opening statement avoided the recent controversy over terrorist attacks at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the deaths of four Americans — including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens — despite his earlier attacks on Obama on that issue.

The general consensus of the debate was Obama came out on top. Following the debate, a CBS News poll of debate viewers found that 53 percent believed Obama won compared to 23 percent who gave victory to Romney and 24 percent who said it was a tie.

Many observers said Romney appeared to agree with Obama on much of his foreign policy, including on the issue of drone strikes in Afghanistan when Romney said he supports that move “entirely.” The Washington Post’s Chris Cilliiza wrote Romney, “struggled to differentiate how his foreign policy would offer a break with what Obama has pursued over the past four years.”

Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said Obama “won tonight’s debate.”

“Mitt Romney is not ready for the world stage, he is not qualified to lead our country, and he has proven time and again he will say anything to get elected,” Davis said. “Americans should not be fooled by a slick sales pitch from an empty suit. President Obama has the stature, temperament, knowledge and vision to be the leader of the free world. Mitt Romney does not.”

Richard Grenell, who’s gay and briefly served as foreign policy spokesperson for the Romney campaign, said the debate revealed the Democratic messaging that Romney isn’t yet prepared to lead the country is false.

“It’s clear the Obama narrative that Gov. Romney is too extreme and naïve on foreign policy issues has imploded,” Grenell said. “They’ve wasted six months and millions of dollars on a message that fell apart tonight.  The Obama team has quickly pivoted to start a new narrative that Romney is agreeing with President Obama on foreign affairs. The Obama team is panicking because they sense that the president isn’t going to get re-elected.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Judge temporarily blocks executive orders targeting LGBTQ, HIV groups

Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in federal court

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A federal judge on Monday blocked the enforcement of three of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that would have threatened to defund nonprofit organizations providing health care and services for LGBTQ people and those living with HIV.

The preliminary injunction was awarded by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a case, San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal and eight other organizations.

Implementation of the executive orders — two aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion along with one targeting the transgender community — will be halted pending the outcome of the litigation challenging them.

“This is a critical win — not only for the nine organizations we represent, but for LGBTQ communities and people living with HIV across the country,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project director and senior counsel on the case. 

“The court blocked anti-equity and anti-LGBTQ executive orders that seek to erase transgender people from public life, dismantle DEI efforts, and silence nonprofits delivering life-saving services,” Abrigo said. “Today’s ruling acknowledges the immense harm these policies inflict on these organizations and the people they serve and stops Trump’s orders in their tracks.”

Tigar wrote, in his 52-page decision, “While the Executive requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the constitution.”

“And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous,” he said.

Without the preliminary injunction, the judge wrote, “Plaintiffs face the imminent loss of federal funding critical to their ability to provide lifesaving healthcare and support services to marginalized LGBTQ populations,” a loss that “not only threatens the survival of critical programs but also forces plaintiffs to choose between their constitutional rights and their continued existence.”

The organizations in the lawsuit are located in California (San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Los Angeles LGBT Center, GLBT Historical Society, and San Francisco Community Health Center), Arizona (Prisma Community Care), New York (The NYC LGBT Community Center), Pennsylvania (Bradbury-Sullivan Community Center), Maryland (Baltimore Safe Haven), and Wisconsin (FORGE).

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Activists rally for Andry Hernández Romero in front of Supreme Court

Gay asylum seeker ‘forcibly deported’ to El Salvador, described as political prisoner

Published

on

Immigrant Defenders Law Center President Lindsay Toczylowski, on right, speaks in support of her client, Andry Hernández Romero, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 6, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

More than 200 people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday and demanded the Trump-Vance administration return to the U.S. a gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who it “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador.

Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based organization that represents Andry Hernández Romero, is among those who spoke alongside U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Human Rights Campaign Campaigns and Communications Vice President Jonathan Lovitz. Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark, Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, and Tim Miller are among those who also participated in the rally.

“Andry is a son, a brother. He’s an actor, a makeup artist,” said Toczylowski. “He is a gay man who fled Venezuela because it was not safe for him to live there as his authentic self.”

(Video by Michael K. Lavers)

The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”

President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The Trump-Vance administration subsequently “forcibly removed” Hernández and hundreds of other Venezuelans to El Salvador.

Toczylowski said she believes Hernández remains at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT. Toczylowski also disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.

“Andry fled persecution in Venezuela and came to the U.S. to seek protection. He has no criminal history. He is not a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. Yet because of his crown tattoos, we believe at this moment that he sits in a torture prison, a gulag, in El Salvador,” said Toczylowski. “I say we believe because we have not had any proof of life for him since the day he was put on a U.S. government-funded plane and forcibly disappeared to El Salvador.”

“Andry is not alone,” she added.

Takano noted the federal government sent his parents, grandparents, and other Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II under the Alien Enemies Act. The gay California Democrat also described Hernández as “a political prisoner, denied basic rights under a law that should have stayed in the past.”

“He is not a case number,” said Takano. “He is a person.”

Hernández had been pursuing his asylum case while at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.

A hearing had been scheduled to take place on May 30, but an immigration judge the day before dismissed his case. Immigrant Defenders Law Center has said it will appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the Justice Department oversees.

“We will not stop fighting for Andry, and I know neither will you,” said Toczylowski.

Friday’s rally took place hours after Attorney General Pam Bondi said Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump-Vance administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador, had returned to the U.S. Abrego will face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee.

Continue Reading

National

A husband’s story: Michael Carroll reflects on life with Edmund White

Iconic author died this week; ‘no sunnier human in the world’

Published

on

Michael Carroll spoke to the Blade after the death his husband Edmund White this week. (Photo by Michael Carroll)

Unlike most gay men of my generation, I’ve only been to Fire Island twice. Even so, the memory of my first visit has never left me. The scenery was lovely, and the boys were sublime — but what stood out wasn’t the beach or the parties. It was a quiet afternoon spent sipping gin and tonics in a mid-century modern cottage tucked away from the sand and sun.

Despite Fire Island’s reputation for hedonism, our meeting was more accident than escapade. Michael Carroll — a Facebook friend I’d chatted with but never met — mentioned that he and his husband, Ed, would be there that weekend, too. We agreed to meet for a drink. On a whim, I checked his profile and froze. Ed was author Edmund White.

I packed a signed copy of Carroll’s “Little Reef” and a dog-eared hardback of “A Boy’s Own Story,” its spine nearly broken from rereads. I was excited to meet both men and talk about writing, even briefly.

Yesterday, I woke to the news that Ed had passed away. Ironically, my first thought was of Michael.

This week, tributes to Edmund White are everywhere — rightly celebrating his towering legacy as a novelist, essayist, and cultural icon. I’ve read all of his books, and I could never do justice to the scope of a career that defined and chronicled queer life for more than half a century. I’ll leave that to better-prepared journalists.

But in those many memorials, I’ve noticed something missing. When Michael Carroll is mentioned, it’s usually just a passing reference: “White’s partner of thirty years, twenty-five years his junior.” And yet, in the brief time I spent with this couple on Fire Island, it was clear to me that Michael was more than a footnote — he was Ed’s anchor, editor, companion, and champion. He was the one who knew his husband best.

They met in 1995 after Michael wrote Ed a fan letter to tell him he was coming to Paris. “He’d lost the great love of his life a year before,” Michael told me. “In one way, I filled a space. Understand, I worshiped this man and still do.”

When I asked whether there was a version of Ed only he knew, Michael answered without hesitation: “No sunnier human in the world, obvious to us and to people who’ve only just or never met him. No dark side. Psychology had helped erase that, I think, or buffed it smooth.”

Despite the age difference and divergent career arcs, their relationship was intellectually and emotionally symbiotic. “He made me want to be elegant and brainy; I didn’t quite reach that, so it led me to a slightly pastel minimalism,” Michael said. “He made me question my received ideas. He set me free to have sex with whoever I wanted. He vouchsafed my moods when they didn’t wobble off axis. Ultimately, I encouraged him to write more minimalistically, keep up the emotional complexity, and sleep with anyone he wanted to — partly because I wanted to do that too.”

Fully open, it was a committed relationship that defied conventional categories. Ed once described it as “probably like an 18th-century marriage in France.” Michael elaborated: “It means marriage with strong emotion — or at least a tolerance for one another — but no sex; sex with others. I think.”

That freedom, though, was always anchored in deep devotion and care — and a mutual understanding that went far beyond art, philosophy, or sex. “He believed in freedom and desire,” Michael said, “and the two’s relationship.”

When I asked what all the essays and articles hadn’t yet captured, Michael paused. “Maybe that his writing was tightly knotted, but that his true personality was vulnerable, and that he had the defense mechanisms of cheer and optimism to conceal that vulnerability. But it was in his eyes.”

The moment that captured who Ed was to him came at the end. “When he was dying, his second-to-last sentence (garbled then repeated) was, ‘Don’t forget to pay Merci,’ the cleaning lady coming the next day. We had had a rough day, and I was popping off like a coach or dad about getting angry at his weakness and pushing through it. He took it almost like a pack mule.” 

Edmund White’s work shaped generations — it gave us language for desire, shame, wit, and liberation. But what lingers just as powerfully is the extraordinary life Ed lived with a man who saw him not only as a literary giant but as a real person: sunny, complex, vulnerable, generous.

In the end, Ed’s final words to his husband weren’t about his books or his legacy. They were about care, decency, and love. “You’re good,” he told Michael—a benediction, a farewell, maybe even a thank-you.

And now, as the world celebrates the prolific writer and cultural icon Edmund White, it feels just as important to remember the man and the person who knew him best. Not just the story but the characters who stayed to see it through to the end.

Continue Reading

Popular