National
NOM chief responds to ‘second-best option’ remarks
Brown affirms children do best with biological parents; won’t say if he shares adoption view
NOM President Brian Brown on Thursday responded to the view that adoption is the “second-best option” for children (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The president of the National Organization for Marriage on Thursday maintained children do better when raised by biological parents when asked to affirm whether he believes U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision to adopt children was the “second-best option” for them — a view articulated by his organization’s board chair.
“Well, the reality is that on any indicator we’ve been able to measure since the explosion and the break down of the family from the 60s to the present is that children do best with both their mother and father,” NOM President Brian Brown said. “Obviously, we need to encourage adoption, we need do everything we can to help single motherhood.”
Brown was asked the question by the Washington Blade during the question-and-answer session at a panel at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor.
While promoting the idea of children being raised by biological parents, he also said he encourages adoption.
Brown later drew a distinction between adopted children being raised by opposite-sex parents or a single parent and same-sex marriage.
“It’s entirely different when you put into the law the notion that either mothers or fathers are completely expendable,” Brown said. “And that, at it’s nature, is what same-sex marriage is all about: two moms or two dads are essentially the same as a mother and a father. That is not the case. Children have rights, too. Children have a right to have a chance to have both a mother and a father.”
The Blade’s question to Brown was whether he shares the views expressed by NOM Board Chair John Eastman in an Associated Press report that Roberts’ decision to adopt children was the “second-best option” for them as opposed to being raised by their biological parents.
After his initial response, the Blade asked Brown to clarify whether he shares the views articulated by Eastman with a “yes” or “no” answer. Brown replied, “I just answered you.”
After the question was asked, panel moderator Cleta Mitchell, a conservative activist who’s on the board of the American Conservative Union, which hosts CPAC, expressed displeasure, saying the panel was about the bullying of conservatives and not marriage.
Mitchell then asked whether the Blade has a practice of outing people who are gay and whether such practice should be considered bullying. This reported replied, “It depends on the circumstances.” Mitchell retorted, “I think that’s bullying.”
“Can we go to the next question?” Mitchell said later. “Let’s go the next question. I’m going to be the bully here.”
Mitchell was among the conservative activists who called for the gay conservative group GOProud to be expelled from CPAC.
It was banned in 2011 and hasn’t been allowed back since.
Eastman’s quote is particularly noteworthy because Roberts, who has adopted two children with his wife, is one of nine justices on the Supreme Court who will be deciding the issue of same-sex marriage as part of litigation challenging California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.
NOM, among other anti-gay groups, is urging the court to uphold the measures.
“You’re looking at what is the best course society-wide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases,” Eastman was quoted as saying. “That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts’ family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option.”
As noted in a statement by the Human Rights Campaign, Eastman’s comments are in opposition to testimony during the 2010 trial for the Prop 8 case from David Blakenhorn, who was an expert witness on the Prop 8 side.
Blakenhorn, who has since come out in favor of marriage equality, admitted that certain studies show children may do better when raised by adoptive parents or biological parents.
“The studies show that adoptive parents, because of the rigorous screening process that they undertake before becoming adoptive parents, actually on some outcomes outstrip the biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their children,” Blakenhorn said.
Michael Lamb, the head of the Social and Developmental Psychology Department at the University of Cambridge, also rejected in trial testimony that adoptive parents are less capable than biological parents.
“Those studies showed that children are just as likely to be well adjusted as children who are being raised by their biological parents,” Lamb said.
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.
Lesotho is an example of the power of communities
A cheeky convertible: Mercedes CLE 450
Wanda Alston Foundation launches culinary program for LGBTQ youth
PHOTOS: Black Pride Opening Reception
PHOTOS: Silver Pride
House passes reconciliation with gender-affirming care funding ban
PHOTOS: D.C. Trans Pride
Laverne Cox, Reneé Rapp, Deacon Maccubbin named WorldPride grand marshals
PHOTOS: Helen Hayes Awards
