Connect with us

National

GOProud comes out for marriage equality

Group adopts resolution as it prepares for state and local work

Published

on

Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud, gay news, Washington Blade
Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud, Republican, conservative, Washington Blade, gay news

GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia says he group favors civil marriage for gay couples (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The gay conservative group GOProud announced on Friday that has come out in favor civil marriage rights for gay couples — inspiring mixed reaction among other LGBT advocates — as the organization pledges to undertake greater engagement in state and local affairs.

In an organizational statement, GOProud announced it adopted during a board meeting on Jan. 12 a resolution that lays out the group’s position on relationship recognition for same-sex marriage. Among the nuances of the position is continued concern over the legalization of marriage equality by judicial fiat.

“GOProud believes that stable, loving, committed relationships are the cornerstone of our society and should be protected and encouraged for all couples — including gay and lesbian couples,” the resolution states. “We believe that the decision about how to best do this is one that should be made at the state level and that these decisions are best made by the people directly or through their elected representatives — not by unelected judges.”

The organization insists that it’s taking a federalist approach to the issue — supporting civil marriage where possible and domestic partnerships where possible — but doesn’t believe in a “one-size-fits-all approach” for relationship recognition for gay couples.

GOProud further says it understands religious objections to same-sex marriage and doesn’t believe in requiring religious institutions to honor or consecrate a same-sex marriage.

“We are firmly committed to winning hearts and minds, which is why we understand that not everyone who doesn’t support marriage for gay couples is automatically a bigot or homophobe,” the resolution states. “We understand that there are people of deep faith who may have religious objections to marriage. We respect those differences and believe that no church or religious institution should ever be forced to solemnize a marriage that is against its teachings.”

Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, later clarified for the Washington Blade that the resolution means “we support civil marriage for gay couples” when asked whether the resolution was an endorsement of marriage equality. LaSalvia also said the resolution was adopted unanimously.

The organization hasn’t opposed marriage equality before, although it has often minimized its importance in comparison to conservative principles. Additionally, the group has expressed opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act on the basis that it violates states rights under the Tenth Amendment.

Asked whether concerns about judicial rulings in favor of same-sex marriage mean the organization is opposed to the lawsuits challenging DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court, LaSalvia emphasized that GOProud believes the “best” way to achieve marriage equality is through the people or elected representatives — but doesn’t outright oppose judicial rulings on the matter.

The news follows an announcement earlier in the week that GOProud would undertake greater efforts in affairs involving state and local governments as states like Rhode Island, Delaware and Illinois are set to take up marriage legislation. But LaSalvia said those plans aren’t yet fully developed.

“We will be forming state and local affiliates,” LaSalvia said. “Our engagement on these issues will obviously vary from state to state and depend on the circumstances.”

Other LGBT organizations had mixed reactions to GOProud’s new position on marriage — with many expressing support and one gay Democratic group expressing consternation. GOProud has often been derided by other LGBT advocates because of its support for conservative policy — including support for conservative political leaders — and for endorsing Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.

Gregory Angelo, interim executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, expressed satisfaction even though the two gay conservative groups sometimes come into conflict.

“Log Cabin Republicans welcomes GOProud to the ongoing effort to change the minds of conservatives and Republicans on the issue of marriage equality,” Angelo said “We’re thrilled they’ve added their voices to the growing chorus of Republicans and conservatives who support the rights of loving couples to build a life together through marriage.”

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, was happy GOProud is adding its voice to the marriage equality effort, saying the group may be able to reach others who don’t normally listen to LGBT advocates.

“It is good to see GOProud explicitly supporting the freedom to marry,” Wolfson said. “America is one country, and precious constitutional freedoms such as the freedom to marry, should be respected fully no matter what state families are living, working, or traveling in. Judges (including Justices of the Supreme Court), members of Congress, the president, state lawmakers and governors, and each of us in conversation with the reachable but not reached, all have important roles to play in ending the denial of marriage and ensuring that loving and committed couples share in the freedom to marry — with the same rules, same responsibilities, and same respect under the law — nationwide.”

But Jerame Davis, the volunteer executive director of the now dormant National Stonewall Democrats, said the new position reflects GOProud’s willingness to say anything to receive media attention.

“This is just more proof that GOProud is nothing more than a performance troupe of gay conservatives who want to play at politics, but have nothing serious to offer to the discussion,” Davis said. “Just three short months ago, they were lavishing praise on Mitt Romney and claiming marriage equality was just a distraction by liberals looking for votes. Now that they don’t need to suck up to an anti-equality bigot, they’ve seen that the only way they can keep getting attention is to change positions.”

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT organization, declined to comment on the GOProud statement.

The complete resolution follows:

GOPROUD ON MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION

Since our founding, GOProud has worked exclusively on federal issues. Because marriage has been a state issue since the founding of our country, we have had no official position on marriage or relationship recognition. We have supported, and continue to support, the repeal of DOMA, and we oppose any effort to federalize marriage though a constitutional amendment.

Now that GOProud’s Board of Directors has voted to begin work on the state and local level, we believe it is important to lay out our principles when it comes to marriage and relationship recognition.

GOProud believes that stable, loving, committed relationships are the cornerstone of our society and should be protected and encouraged for all couples – including gay and lesbian couples. We believe that the decision about how to best do this is one that should be made at the state level and that these decisions are best made by the people directly or through their elected representatives – not by unelected judges.

Where civil marriage is possible, we support civil marriage. Where civil unions are possible, we support civil unions. Where domestic partner benefits are possible, we support domestic partner benefits. As federalists, we do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach on almost any issue and that includes relationship recognition for gay couples.

We are firmly committed to winning hearts and minds, which is why we understand that not everyone who doesn’t support marriage for gay couples is automatically a bigot or homophobe. We understand that there are people of deep faith who may have religious objections to marriage. We respect those differences and believe that no church or religious institution should ever be force to solemnize a marriage that is against its teachings.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

California

LGBTQ community calls out Radio Korea over host’s homophobic comments

Station acknowledged controversy, but skirted accountability

Published

on

On Nov. 21st, Radio Korea CEO Michael Kim made an official video statement addressing the Nov. 3rd program. (Screen capture via Radio Korea/YouTube)

On Monday, Nov. 3, Radio Korea aired its regular morning talk show program, where one of its hosts, Julie An, discussed her lack of support for the LGBTQ community, citing her religious beliefs. She also went on to comment that gay people spread HIV and AIDS, and that conversation therapy — which has been linked to PTSD, suicidality, and depression — is a viable practice. Clips of this have since been taken down.

Radio Korea offers Korean language programming to engage local Korean American and Korean immigrant community members. Its reach is broad, as Los Angeles is home to the largest Korean population in the U.S, with over 300,000 residents. As An’s words echoed through the station’s airwaves, queer Korean community members took to social media to voice their concern, hurt, and anger.  

In a now-deleted Instagram post, attorney, activist, and former congressional candidate David Yung Ho Kim demanded accountability from the station. Writer and entertainer Nathan Ramos-Park made videos calling out Radio Korea and An, stating that her comments “embolden” people with misinformation, which has the ability to perpetuate “violence against queer people.”

Community health professional Gavin Kwon also worries about how comments like An’s increase stigma within the Korean immigrant community, which could lead to increased discrimination against queer people and their willingness to seek health care.  

Kwon, who works at a local clinic in Koreatown, told the Los Angeles Blade that comments like An’s prescribe being gay or queer as a “moral failure,” and that this commonly-held belief within the Korean immigrant community, particularly in older generations, strengthens the reticence and avoidance clients hold onto when asked about their gender or sexual orientation. 

“When you stigmatize a group, people don’t avoid the disease — they avoid care,” Kwon explained. “They avoid getting tested, avoid disclosing their status, and avoid talking openly with providers. Stigma pushes people into silence, and silence is the worst possible environment for managing any infectious disease.”

For weeks, Radio Korea did not offer a direct response to the public criticism. Its Instagram feed continued to be updated with shorts, featuring clips of its various hosts — including An. 

On Friday, Radio Korea CEO Michael Kim released an official statement on the station’s YouTube page. In this video, Michael Kim stated that An’s comments “included factual inaccuracies” and that the station “does not endorse or share the personal opinions expressed by individual hosts.” Michael Kim also stated that Radio Korea “welcomes members of the LGBT community to share their perspectives” in order to deepen understanding through dialogue. 

Afterwards, Michael Kim continued that though he acknowledges the “pain” felt by queer community members, he concluded: “I don’t think Radio Korea needs to apologize for what was said any more than Netflix should apologize for what Dave Chappelle says, or any more than Instagram or TikTok should apologize for what people say on their platforms.” 

Michael then offered a justification that An’s statements were “not part of a news report,” and that he was “disappointed” that David Yung Ho Kim, specifically, had been vocal about An’s comments. Michael Kim stated that he was the first person to interview David Yung Ho Kim in 2020 during his congressional campaign, and that he had provided the candidate a platform and opportunity to educate listeners about politics. 

“After all these years, the support Radio Korea has given him,” said Kim, “the support I personally gave him, even the support from other Radio Korea members who donated or even volunteered for him — he dishonestly tried to portray Radio Korea as being an anti-gay organization.”

Michael Kim went on to criticize David Yung Ho Kim’s purported “hurry to condemn others,” and also questioned if David has disowned his father, who he states is a pastor. “What kind of person is David Kim, and is this the kind of person we want in Congress?” Michael Kim asked viewers, noting that Koreatown is “only about three miles from Hollywood, and some people just like to perform.” 

At the end of the video, Michael Kim stated that his duty is to guard the legacy of the station. “My responsibility is to protect what was built before me and ensure that Radio Korea continues serving this community long after today’s momentary controversies disappear,” he said. 

For community members and advocates, this response was unsatisfactory. “The overall tone of the statement felt more defensive than accountable,” Kwon wrote to the Blade. “Instead of a sincere apology to the LGBTQ+ community that was harmed, the message shifts into personal grievances, political dynamics, and side explanations that don’t belong in an official response.”

Michael Kim’s portrayal of the criticism and calls to action by community members as a “momentary controversy” paints a clearer picture of the station’s stance — that the hurt felt and expressed by its queer community members is something that will simply pass until it is forgotten. An continues to be platformed at Radio Korea, and was posted on the station’s social media channels as recently as yesterday. The station has not outlined any other action since Michael Kim’s statement. 

Continue Reading

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Pentagon moves to break with Boy Scouts over LGBTQ and gender inclusion

Leaked memo shows Hegseth rejecting Scouting America’s shift toward broader inclusion

Published

on

Scouts for Equality march in the 2015 Capital Pride Parade. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Pentagon is preparing to sever its longstanding partnership with the Boy Scouts of America, now known as Scouting America.

In a draft memo to Congress obtained by NPR, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticizes the organization for being “genderless” and for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“The organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt no longer supports the future of American boys,” Hegseth wrote, according to Defense Department sources.

Girls have been eligible to join Cub Scouts (grades K–5) since 2018, and since 2019 they have been able to join Scouts BSA troops and earn the organization’s highest rank of Eagle Scout.

A statement on the Scouting America website says the shift toward including girls stemmed from “an expanding demand to join the Boy Scouts” and a commitment to inclusivity. “Throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries, it has undergone significant changes to become more inclusive of the adult staff and volunteers that drive its programming as well as of scouts and their families,” the organization says.

Part of that broader push included lifting its ban on openly gay members in 2014 and on openly gay adult leaders in 2015.

Once the Pentagon finalizes the break, the U.S. military will no longer provide medical and logistical support to the National Jamboree, the massive annual gathering of scouts in West Virginia that typically draws about 20,000 participants. The memo also states that the military will no longer allow scout troops to meet on U.S. or overseas installations, where many bases host active scout programs.

Hegseth’s memo outlines several justifications for the decision, arguing that Scouting America has strayed from its original mission to “cultivate masculine values” by fostering “gender confusion.” It also cites global conflicts and tightening defense budgets, claiming that deploying troops, doctors and vehicles to a 10-day youth event would “harm national security” by diverting resources from border operations and homeland defense.

“Scouting America has undergone a significant transformation,” the memo states. “It is no longer a meritocracy which holds its members accountable to meet high standards.”

The Pentagon declined NPR’s request for comment. A “War Department official” told the outlet that the memo was a “leaked document that we cannot authenticate and that may be pre-decisional.”

The leaked memo comes roughly one month after nearly every major journalism organization walked out of the Pentagon in protest of new rules requiring reporters to publish only “official” documents released by the department — effectively banning the use of leaked or unpublished materials.

President Donald Trump, who serves as the honorary head of Scouting America by virtue of his office, praised the Jamboree audience during his 2017 visit to West Virginia. “The United States has no better citizens than its Boy Scouts. No better,” he said, noting that 10 members of his Cabinet were former Scouts.

Hegseth was never a scout. He has said he grew up in a church-based youth group focused on memorizing Bible verses. As a Fox News host last year, he criticized the Scouts for changing their name and admitting girls.

“The Boy Scouts has been cratering itself for quite some time,” Hegseth said. “This is an institution the left didn’t control. They didn’t want to improve it. They wanted to destroy it or dilute it into something that stood for nothing.”

NBC News first reported in April that the Pentagon was considering ending the partnership, citing sources familiar with the discussions. In a statement to NBC at the time, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said, “Secretary Hegseth and his Public Affairs team thoroughly review partnerships and engagements to ensure they align with the President’s agenda and advance our mission.”

The Scouting America organization has has long played a role in military recruiting. According to numbers provided by Scouting America, many as 20 percent of cadets and midshipmen at the various service academies are Eagle Scouts. Enlistees who have earned the Eagle rank also receive advanced entry-level rank and higher pay — a practice that would end under the proposed changes.

Continue Reading

The White House

Trans workers take White House to court over bathroom policy

Federal lawsuit filed Thursday

Published

on

Protesters outside of House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) office in the Cannon House Office Building last year protesting a similar bathroom ban. (Washington Blade photo by Christopher Kane)

Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union, two organizations focused on protecting Americans’ constitutional rights, filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday in federal court challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s bathroom ban policies.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of LeAnne Withrow, a civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard, challenges the administration’s policy prohibiting transgender and intersex federal employees from using restrooms aligned with their gender. The policy claims that allowing trans people in bathrooms would “deprive [women assigned female at birth] of their dignity, safety, and well-being.”

The lawsuit responds to the executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. It alleges that the order and its implementation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Title VII protects trans workers from discrimination based on sex.

Since its issuance, the executive order has faced widespread backlash from constitutional rights and LGBTQ advocacy groups for discriminating against trans and intersex people.

The lawsuit asserts that Withrow, along with numerous other trans and intersex federal employees, is forced to choose between performing her duties and being allowed to use the restroom safely.

“There is no credible evidence that allowing transgender people access to restrooms aligning with their gender identity jeopardizes the safety or privacy of non-transgender users,” the lawsuit states, directly challenging claims of safety risks.

Withrow detailed the daily impact of the policy in her statement included in the lawsuit.

“I want to help soldiers, families, veterans — and then I want to go home at the end of the day. At some point in between, I will probably need to use the bathroom,” she said.

The filing notes that Withrow takes extreme measures to avoid using the restroom, which the Cleveland Clinic reports most people need to use anywhere from 1–15 times per day depending on hydration.

“Ms. Withrow almost never eats breakfast, rarely eats lunch, and drinks less than the equivalent of one 17 oz. bottle of water at work on most days.”

In addition to withholding food and water, the policy subjects her to ongoing stress and fear:

“Ms. Withrow would feel unsafe, humiliated, and degraded using a men’s restroom … Individuals seeing her enter the men’s restroom might try to prevent her from doing so or physically harm her,” the lawsuit states. “The actions of defendants have caused Ms. Withrow to suffer physical and emotional distress and have limited her ability to effectively perform her job.”

“No one should have to choose between their career in service and their own dignity,” Withrow added. “I bring respect and honor to the work I do to support military families, and I hope the court will restore dignity to transgender people like me who serve this country every day.”

Withrow is a lead Military and Family Readiness Specialist and civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard. Previously, she served as a staff sergeant and has received multiple commendations, including the Illinois National Guard Abraham Lincoln Medal of Freedom.

The lawsuit cites the American Medical Association, the largest national association of physicians, which has stated that policies excluding trans individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have harmful effects on health, safety, and well-being.

“Policies excluding transgender individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have detrimental effects on the health, safety and well-being of those individuals,” the lawsuit states on page 32.

Advocates have condemned the policy since its signing in January and continue to push back against the administration. Leaders from ACLU-D.C., ACLU of Illinois, and Democracy Forward all provided comments on the lawsuit and the ongoing fight for trans rights.

“We cannot let the Trump administration target transgender people in the federal government or in public life,” said ACLU-D.C. Senior Staff Attorney Michael Perloff. “An executive order micromanaging which bathroom civil servants use is discrimination, plain and simple, and must be stopped.”

“It is absurd that in her home state of Illinois, LeAnne can use any other restroom consistent with her gender — other than the ones controlled by the federal government,” said Michelle Garcia, deputy legal director at the ACLU of Illinois. “The Trump administration’s reckless policies are discriminatory and must be reversed.”

“This policy is hateful bigotry aimed at denying hardworking federal employees their basic dignity simply because they are transgender,” said Kaitlyn Golden, senior counsel at Democracy Forward. “It is only because of brave individuals like LeAnne that we can push back against this injustice. Democracy Forward is honored to work with our partners in this case and is eager to defeat this insidious effort to discriminate against transgender federal workers.”

Continue Reading

Popular