Politics
Eyes on Schumer in push for gay-inclusive immigration bill
N.Y. senator won’t commit support; Hatch urges Leahy to withhold amendments
Sen. Chuck Schumer‘s vote on gay-inclusion in immigration reform is in question. (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has become the new focus for LGBT rights supporters seeking gay-inclusive immigration reform in the wake of comments he made suggesting he may not support amendments to include bi-national same-sex couples in the bill.
The senior senator from New York is seen as the only uncertain vote among the 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee for two amendments that would enable gay Americans to sponsor their partners for residency in the United States.
Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for the LGBT group Immigration Equality, said late Thursday that “it has become crystal clear” that the fate of these amendments — proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — now “rests entirely” with Schumer because his vote is needed to have majority support in committee.
“Sen. Schumer will determine if our families have the 10th vote they need,” Ralls said. “If he fails to offer that vote to Senator Leahy, and the chairman in turn cannot offer the amendment, it will be his fault, and his fault alone, that LGBT families are left behind.”
Earlier on Thursday, Schumer wouldn’t commit to supporting gay inclusion in immigration reform when speaking with reporters on Capitol Hill — even though he’s a co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act — on the basis that he thought their inclusion would derail the larger legislation. His office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment on his position on the Leahy amendments.
According to Buzzfeed, Schumer said, “I’m not going get into speculatives. I would very much like to see it in the bill. But we have to have a bill that has support to get [the language] passed. That’s the conundrum.”
A member of the “Gang of Eight” that produced the base immigration bill, Schumer appears to be wavering amid threats from Republican members of the gang — including Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — who threatened to kill reform if the amendments are included.
Ralls noted that Schumer voted in 1996 for the Defense of Marriage Act, and said a vote in favor of the amendments would make up for that anti-gay action.
“In 1996, Senator Schumer cast a vote in favor of DOMA,” Ralls said. “Now, he has the option of cleaning up the disastrous mess he helped make. He has so far chosen, instead, to deliver our opposition’s talking points for them.”
Leahy filed two amendments earlier this week that would incorporate same-sex couples as part of immigration reform. One is along the lines of the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the country, while the other would be restricted to bi-national same-sex couples who are married. The two amendments are among the more than 300 that are on the table.
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, was more confident Schumer would cast a vote in favor of gay-inclusion if the amendments were brought to a vote.
“If Chairman Leahy offers either amendment he filed, and given Sen. Schumer’s long record of supporting LGBT equality, we would expect the senator to support either of them,” Sainz said.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans in the committee seem united in suggesting that including the amendments as part of comprehensive immigration reform would be unacceptable.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Thursday during a brief interview with the Washington Blade on Capitol Hill their inclusion “would kill the bill.”
“You’ve got to have a bipartisan, heavy majority in the Senate to be able to get this bill, and that would make it very difficult,” Hatch said.
Asked whether he’d vote “no” on the amendments, Hatch replied he hopes Leahy doesn’t bring up the amendments.
“If we can change the bill effectively, so that it will work, I would like the bill to go through,” Hatch said. “I don’t want to stop it. I have amendments that would stop the bill, too, but I’m not going to bring them up.”
Gregory Angelo, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, dismissed Hatch’s argument that gay-inclusion would kill immigration reform, pointing to the successful passage of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization with LGBT provisions.
“The notion that something as simple as allowing married same-sex couples to sponsor their partner would kill the bill is preposterous,” Angelo said. “LGBT provisions didn’t stop VAWA from passing in the Senate — and the House — and it won’t kill the CIR bill, either.”
The committee began consideration of amendments to the immigration reform on Thursday. Consideration of additional amendments is set to continue Tuesday, Thursday, May 20 and every day that follows until there’s a final vote on the bill.
Besides Schumer, Immigration Equality says the rest of the Democrats on the panel are “yes” votes. Durbin, another Democrat on the committee and member of “Gang of Eight,” isn’t in the same boat as Schumer because the Illinois senator has articulated support for the amendments. Max Gleischman, a Durbin spokesperson, confirmed for the Blade that his boss supports the measures.
During an interview with CNN on Sunday, Durbin commented on the prospects of including bi-national gay couples as part of immigration reform.
“I happen to believe that it’s consistent with the position we should have marriage equality, and therefore, recognize marriages between people from the same gender,” Durbin said. “Now, this is a hot issue. It’s a contentious issue. If we can find a way through this to protect that basic right of an individual and still pass immigration reform, that’s what I want to achieve.”
For a time, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), one of the Democrats on the committee, was seen as questionable because she expressed concerns over granting affidavits to same-sex couples as written under UAFA. Her office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the amendments, but Ralls maintained his organization has received commitments that she’d vote for the Leahy amendment restricted to married bi-national same-sex couples.
Leahy also continues to promote the idea that protections for gay couples should be included as part of comprehensive immigration reform as more states continue to legalize same-sex marriage. He articulated his views in an interview with Politico published on Thursday.
“On this particular issue, you know, at some point we’re going to have to face it, and we have to decide when is the best time to face it,” Leahy said. “You can’t go into a state like mine or — it will be now 11 or 12 states and the District of Columbia — where same-sex marriage is legal, and say to this couple, ‘OK, we can help you with the immigration matter.’ Turn to another couple equally legally married and say, ‘Oh, we have to discriminate against you.’”
At the same time, debate is ensuing within the religious community about support for immigration reform if it includes language for bi-national couples.
According to the Associated Press, leaders from conservative religious groups who previously expressed support for immigration said during a conference call with reporters on Wednesday they would withdraw support if language for gay couples is included. Among the groups on the call were the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Association of Evangelicals
“We’re extremely hopeful that this bill will remain an immigration bill and not get tangled up with the issue of gay rights,” Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, was quoted as saying. “But if it did, if it did, the Southern Baptist Convention would not be able to support the bill.”
But a letter dated May, 6 2013 to Leahy from a coalition of other religious groups calls for the inclusion of gay couples in immigration reform. Among the 15 signers are leaders from the Lutheran Church, the Episcopal Church and the Unitarian Church.
“More than 2,500 faith leaders from all fifty states, including 57 bishops of the Episcopal, Methodist, and Lutheran churches are part of the Faith Coalition for the Uniting American Families Act,” the letter states. “No reform of that system can truly be called comprehensive unless it includes all immigrant families, including the families of same-sex spouses and partners.”
Congress
Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor
One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul
Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”
Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.
Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.
To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.
A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”
Congress
House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms
Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move
A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.
Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.
The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).
The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”
“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.
They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”
“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.
Congress
Senate parliamentarian orders removal of gender-affirming care ban from GOP reconciliation bill
GOP Senate Leader John Thune (S.D.) hoped to pass the bill by end-of-week
Restrictions on the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care will be stripped from the Republican-led Senate reconciliation bill, following a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian on Tuesday that struck down a number of health related provisions.
The legislation banned coverage for transgender medical care through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, language that was also included in the House version of the bill passed on May 22 with a vote of 215-214.
The parliamentarian’s decision also rejected Republican proposals for a Medicaid provider tax framework, which allows states to charge health care providers and use the funds to support their programs, along with broader cuts to Medicaid.
Amid calls to override Tuesday’s ruling from Republicans like U.S. Rep. Greg Steube (Fla.), GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) told reporters “That would not be a good outcome for getting a bill done.”
He also acknowledged that the timing and schedule might have to be adjusted. Senate Republicans had hoped to pass the reconciliation bill by the end of this week, though this was not a legal or procedural deadline.
Dubbed the “one big, beautiful bill” by President Donald Trump, the legislation would extend tax breaks from 2017 that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations. To cover the cost, which is estimated to exceed $4 trillion over 10 years, the bill would make drastic cuts to social welfare programs, particularly Medicaid.
Democrats are not in a position to negotiate across the aisle with Republicans holding majorities in both chambers of Congress, but for months they have been calling attention to the effort by their GOP colleagues to strip Americans of their health insurance to pay for the tax breaks.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 10.9 million people would lose their coverage, either through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Some Republicans like U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) are pushing back against the deep cuts to Medicaid, arguing they would be devastating for many of their constituents and also to hospitals, nursing homes, and community health care providers in rural areas.
In a statement emailed to the Washington Blade on Tuesday, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said, “Anti-trans extremists are attempting to use the full power of the government to hurt kids, and recent Supreme Court decisions in Skrmetti and Medina are enabling their quest.”
While today’s ruling by the Senate parliamentarian is a temporary win, I will keep pushing back on these shameful attempts to harm trans kids and their families for trying to live authentically,” said the senator, who also serves as ranking member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who is gay and chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, also shared a statement with the Washington Blade addressing the parliamentarian’s ruling:
“This ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian is a win for the transgender people who rely on Medicaid and CHIP to access the healthcare they need to live fuller, happier, and healthier lives—but the fight is not over yet,” the congressman said.
“Republican Senators must abide by her ruling and remove the ban from the final version of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill,” he said. “Yet, even with this provision removed, this bill is terrible for the American people, including trans Americans. Every Equality Caucus member voted against it in the House and we’re ready to do so again if the Senate sends it back to the House.”
The Human Rights Campaign issued a press release with a statement from the organization’s vice president for government affairs, David Stacy:
“The fact remains that this bill belongs in the trash. It continues to include devastating cuts to health care programs — including Medicaid — that would disproportionately harm the LGBTQ+ community, all so the already rich can receive huge tax cuts,” Stacy said.
“While it comes as a relief that the Senate parliamentarian concluded that one provision in the nightmarish reconciliation bill that would have denied essential, best practice health care to transgender adults does not belong, we aren’t done fighting,” he said. “With attacks on our community coming from many directions, including the Supreme Court, we will work to defeat this bill with everything we’ve got.”
Can we still celebrate Fourth of July this year?
Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor
GenOUT Chorus offers solace, strength to LGBTQ teens
Is it time for DC to have new congressional representation?
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
Spanberger touts equality, reproductive rights in Arlington
Two new books on dining out LGBTQ-style
‘Andy Warhol in Iran’ a charming look at intersection of art, politics
Pragmatic presidents invest in America
