National
GOProud comes out for marriage equality
Group adopts resolution as it prepares for state and local work
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.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Murdered Israeli embassy officials were supporters of D.C.’s LGBTQ synagogue
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
