Connect with us

National

Minnesota votes down marriage amendment

Anti-gay effort defeated at ballot

Published

on

Minnesota, gay news, Washington Blade
Minnesota, gay news, Washington Blade

Results of a recent poll placed opposition to the Minnesota proposition to ban same-sex marriage ahead of support for the first time. (Public domain image)

For the second time in American history, voters have rejected a ballot measure proposing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Minnesota was joined by Maine, Maryland and Washington in putting a same-sex marriage question before voters this year on Election Day. However, unlike the other three states, which asked voters to approve of an extension of rights to same-sex couples, the Minnesota question asked voters to codify in the state constitution the current prohibition on same-sex marriage, which is more difficult to later undo.

According to the Minnesota secretary of state, only 47 percent of eligible voters had cast votes in support of the amendment at the time this was published, just below the majority needed.

The only other state to reject such an amendment was Arizona in 2006 with Proposition 107, which would have banned in the state constitution recognition of both marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples. However, in 2008, a less-restrictive constitutional amendment was approved by voters.

In Minnesota — unlike other states — the law dictates that for a constitutional amendment to pass, it must be supported beyond simply having more yes votes than no votes, according to the Star Tribune. For the amendment to pass, the number of yes votes must be equal to or greater than 51 percent of the total number of voters casting votes in that election. This means that if the amendment had received more yes votes than no votes, but the number of yes votes was fewer than 51 percent of the total number of people casting ballots this year, the amendment still fails. Since some voters opt not to vote on ballot measures, this scenario was one very possible outcome this election night.

A final Star Tribune poll prior to voting put opposition to the amendment at 47 percent, but support only 1 percent higher at 48.

According to the Associated Press, supporters of the amendment poured $5 million into the campaign producing television and radio ads, rallies and electioneering materials, however opponents of the amendment far outspent the backers, raising over $11 million.

Amendment 1, which read “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman,” was opposed by more than 30 businesses and organizations, including the state conferences of the Unitarian Universalist Church, the Minneapolis area synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Minnesota’s state Democratic party, General Mills, Thompson Reuters and a myriad of city councils, hospitals, colleges, unions and professional associations.

The amendment was also opposed by Gov. Mark Dayton and U.S. Sen. Al Franken, as well as President Barack Obama, and outspoken Vikings punter Chris Kluwe. The constitutional amendment was supported publicly by the Minnesota Catholic Conference and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Despite the $5 million ad blitz urging voters to support amending the constitution, David Wiczer, a straight doctoral candidate at the University of Minnesota, voted against the amendment because he believes it delays the inevitable.

“I voted no on that,” Wiczer told the Blade. “I believe that gay marriage ought to be legal, so enshrining a restriction in the constitution will set back progress on that greatly. It seemed to me as a way to erect a bulwark against a cause that’s eventually going to happen.”

With the exception of Arizona, before election night, every electorate that had voted on barring same-sex marriage had approved their constitutional amendment.

Alaska and Hawaii were the first states to bar same-sex nuptials in their constitutions in 1998. Nebraska and Nevada followed in 2000 and 2002 respectively, then in 2004, 13 states voted to add amendments to their constitutions: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Kansas and Texas followed in 2005, while Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin followed in 2006. Since then California, Florida and North Carolina have all also amended their state constitutions to bar same-sex marriages and — in some cases — civil unions and other forms of domestic contracts as well, bringing to 31 the number of states that do.

Before election night, six states and the District of Columbia have extended the full rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont.

Also before election night, nine states had barred same-sex marriage in law, but not through constitutional amendment: Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

DOJ seeks to dismiss some claims in gay FBI employee’s bias lawsuit

David Maltinsky was fired after displaying Pride flag at desk

Published

on

A gay FBI trainee was fired after displaying a Pride flag at his desk. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Attorneys for gay former FBI employee David Maltinsky, who was fired from his job as a non-agent employee at the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office in October 2025 after more than 16 years of service for displaying an LGBTQ Pride flag at his workstation, filed court papers on July 15 opposing a motion by government attorneys to dismiss some but not all of the provisions in his unlawful discrimination lawsuit seeking to overturn the firing.

Maltinsky’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in D.C. on Nov. 19, 2025, states that FBI Director Kash Patel acted illegally by violating Maltinsky’s First Amendment constitutional rights and the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ordering his firing on grounds that he “exercised poor judgement with an inappropriate display of political signage” by displaying the Pride flag.

The firing came at a time when Maltinsky successfully completed 16 weeks of the FBI’s 19-week training program at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Va. to become an FBI Special Agent, according to the lawsuit.

In addition to Patel, who took office as FBI director in February 2025 under the Trump administration, the lawsuit names as defendants the FBI itself, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI.

“Defendants discriminated against Maltinsky for engaging in protected speech, for his sexual orientation, and for opposing discrimination – a clear and brazen violation of federal law and the Constitution,” the lawsuit states in an amended complaint filed May 5, 2026.

The Department of Justice, which is representing the FBI in its response to the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request from the Washington Blade for comment on the lawsuit and why it is seeking dismissal of some but not all of the lawsuit’s multiple allegations, including its claim that the firing violated Maltinsky’s First Amendment rights.

In its “Partial” motion filed on June 15, 2026, to dismiss some provisions in the lawsuit, the Justice Department through Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate and Associate Branch Director Christopher Hall, stated that the lawsuit fails to provide sufficient evidence that Maltinsky was fired because he is gay.    

“The Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations that Director Patel or any other decisionmaker expressed hostility toward gay employees, relied on Plaintiff’s sexual orientation in making employment decisions, even knew Plaintiff’s sexual orientation or otherwise indicated that Plaintiff’s status as a gay man played any role in the challenged actions,” the motion states.

Based on that, among other things, the motion says the lawsuit’s claim that the firing violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be dismissed. A 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that the 1964 law bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity along with its other categories including race, religion, and gender.  

In its arguments that the decision to fire Maltinsky was illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, the lawsuit’s amended complaint points out that FBI officials at the Los Angeles Field Office where Maltinsky worked presented the Pride flag to him and gave him full permission to display it at his workstation.  

“The FBI encouraged and honored Maltinsky’s work by awarding him the 2020 Director’s Award For Excellence-Outstanding Service in Diversity and Inclusion,” the lawsuit says. “In 2022, the Attorney General for the Department of Justice awarded Maltinsky the Attorney General’s Award for Equal Employment Opportunity, DOJ’s highest award for performance in support of the Equal Employment Program,” it says.

“In special recognition of Maltinsky’s efforts to improve the FBI, in June 2021 LAFO [Los Angeles Field Office] leadership entrusted to Maltinsky two Pride flags that had been flown from the flagpole located in front of the LAFO,” the lawsuit complaint continues. “Maltinsky displayed one of those flags at his workstation.”

Although the lawsuit doesn’t say so directly, all of that happened during the administration of President Joe Biden and previous FBI Director Christopher Wray, who held the director’s position from August 2017 to January 2025, when Donald Trump took office as president.

Nathaniel Zelinsky, one of the attorneys representing Maltinsky regarding the lawsuit, told the Blade that because the Justice Department did not contest the lawsuit’s First Amendment provisions, the case will move forward to the discovery stage, in which he and fellow attorneys can seek and obtain government documents, and most likely go to trial. He said that regardless of whether the judge approves the dismissal of the lawsuit provisions the government has asked for, the other provisions and the case as a whole  will continue.

“And those First Amendment claims are extremely serious,” he said. “The government, by its admission, fired David Maltinsky because they did not like the speech he displayed when he put up the Pride flag that was gifted to him by the FBI,” Zelinsky said. “The federal government cannot discriminate against its workers based on their speech.”      

Continue Reading

North Carolina

Authorities investigate officer-involved shooting outside Asheville gay bar

Incident took place near Shakey’s on Wednesday

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

An officer-involved shooting outside of a gay dive bar, Shakey’s, in downtown Asheville, N.C., left one man dead Wednesday.

The bar released a statement the following morning regarding the incident, stating that bar staff had asked a patron to leave earlier in the night citing concerning behavior. The bar said that later the man was spotted with a gun in the parking lot.

The bar proceeded to call 911, locked the doors to the establishment, and followed dispatcher instructions on how to keep patrons of the bar safe while officers arrived. These protocols included getting patrons away from the windows and staying low to the ground.

According to Shakey’s, shots were fired outside of the business. When the Asheville Police Department officers arrived, they fired back. The individual died from their injuries, according to the police.

“Because of everyone’s quick actions, cooperation, and concern for one another, every customer and every employee inside Shakey’s made it home safely. We are incredibly thankful,” Shakey’s said on their Instagram page. They thanked Asheville police, emergency dispatchers, EMS, and all first responders who were on scene.

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Chad Flowers, stated that the suspect involved in the shooting was Arturo Castillo Palomar.

The Washington Blade reached out to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation for a comment regarding the possibility of the event being considered a hate crime. They said the issue is currently under investigation and that the findings would be turned over to the district attorney for review.

Continue Reading

Pentagon

Hegseth announces testosterone initiative as trans troop ban continues

SPARTA Pride criticized Pentagon policy

Published

on

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. military will begin testing and treating service members with hormone therapy despite banning similar medical care for transgender service members.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that troops ages 30 and older will be subject to annual testosterone screenings, while younger service members will have the option to voluntarily opt in. Some troops may then be recommended for hormone therapy, he explained in a video posted to social media.

“Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters age 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment,” Hegseth said in a video posted to X, captioned “The High-T Department of War.”

This push to test testosterone levels, as the hormone is commonly referred to as “T,” runs counter to current medical guidelines. Physicians are generally advised to discuss testosterone therapy only with men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.

Testosterone is a vital sex hormone that all humans naturally produce. It helps regulate muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. In men, it is primarily produced in the testicles, while in women it is produced in the ovaries and adrenal glands.

Natural testosterone levels in men decline with age and have long been associated with issues such as erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes, and weight gain. However, experts continue to debate whether these conditions should routinely be treated with testosterone therapy.

Hegseth’s announcement aligns with other actions taken by the Trump-Vance administration — including efforts by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — to make testosterone therapy more accessible for men, particularly those assigned male at birth.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration proposed easing prescribing restrictions on testosterone gels, pills, patches, and injections following a December advisory panel that recommended reducing regulatory hurdles to expand access to testosterone therapy.

Currently, FDA labeling specifies that these medications are approved only for men with hypogonadism, a medical condition that causes abnormally low testosterone levels.

The announcement came as a shock to many LGBTQ advocates because Hegseth and the Defense Department have cited the use of hormone therapy by trans service members as justification for their dismissal under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.

The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation proceeds. As a result, many trans service members have had their gender-affirming medical care halted, even as similar hormone therapy is now being expanded for cisgender service members. Under the executive order, the military currently disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings for trans personnel.

SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans, and their allies, issued a statement to the Washington Blade following Hegseth’s announcement.

“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”

The legal fight over trans military service remains ongoing.

On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so, while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.

The Blade reached out to the Pentagon to ask why cisgender service members could receive hormone therapy while trans service members could not, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Continue Reading

Popular