Politics
Did Obama ask Leahy to delay gay-inclusive immigration reform?
White House spokesperson says he’s ‘not aware’ of any conversation
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney wouldn’t deny on Wednesday a media report that the Obama administration asked Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to hold off on the introduction of amendments to include same-sex couples as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
Under questioning initiated by the Washington Blade on the accuracy of the report, Carney restated that Obama supports a provision to immigration reform along the lines of the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay Americans to sponsor their partners for residency in the United States.
“I think the president supports that amendment, and he also made clear that he knows he won’t get everything, necessarily, that he wants in the final comprehensive immigration bill that he hopes the Senate will pass and the House will pass and will arrive on his desk,” Carney said. “But he will push for those things that he believes ought to be in it.”
Carney added if the measure were to come up again — suggesting the possibility of a floor amendment to immigration reform — Obama “would hope” it would have bipartisan support.
When the Blade pointed out that response doesn’t address the issue of whether the White House asked Leahy to hold off on the amendments, Carney said he doesn’t have the content of conversations on immigration reform.
“I think you saw the manner in which it was discussed in the hearing by Senator Leahy, who introduced it, and other members of the committee who discussed it,” Carney said. “We are obviously engaged in conversations with the main players on this issue on a regular basis. And I don’t have the contents of all those conversations.”
When CBS News’ Major Garrett jumped in to ask if Carney would deny the report, Carney replied, “I’m not aware of that conversation.”
“What I can tell you is the president supports the amendment,” Carney said. “The president also believes, as he made clear in Costa Rica, that we need to accept that we may not get everything we want. It doesn’t mean we’re not going to fight for the things that we believe in, and this president will.”
During the Senate Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, numerous Democrats on the panel who are known for supporting LGBT rights — Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — said they couldn’t bring themselves to support the amendment out of fear of losing Republican support for the final bill.
Asked by the Blade if there was a reasonable expectation that Obama should have brought these senators on board in time for the vote, Carney deferred to the Senate.
“I think each senator expressed himself or herself and his or her own views, so I would refer you to them,” Carney said. “The president’s views are clear. He believes this amendment should be passed and has made his views clear on that. I can’t speak for other senators.”
Earlier during the briefing under questioning from Reuters’ Jeff Mason, Carney noted Obama’s support for the provisions when asked about possible areas of improvement the president would like see addressed when the bill comes to the Senate floor.
“I think he’s made clear that he supports that and would like to see Congress support that,” Carney said. “He’s also made clear that he doesn’t expect to get everything he wants in this bill. It doesn’t mean he won’t fight for everything he wants, but he understands that compromise means not getting every single thing that you want.”
A partial transcript of the exchange between reporters on Jay Carney on the issue follows:
Washington Blade: I want to go back to immigration reform. Senator Leahy yesterday withheld amendments that would have included gay couples as part of a larger package. Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that the White House had asked him to hold off on those measures. Did the White House, in fact, ask Senator Leahy to revoke those amendments?
Jay Carney: I think you heard the President address this issue — I think it was in an interview in Costa Rica. I think the President supports that amendment, and he also made clear that he knows he won’t get everything, necessarily, that he wants in the final comprehensive immigration bill that he hopes the Senate will pass and the House will pass and will arrive on his desk. But he will push for those things that he believes ought to be in it.
He thinks it’s important that we make sure that everyone who’s engaged in this process understands that they may not get everything they want, but I think he expressed very clearly his strong support for that amendment. He would hope that if it comes up again that there would be strong bipartisan support for it — and we’ll have to see. But his support I think he expressed very clearly.
Blade: It’s clear that the President supports that amendment, but that response doesn’t really get to the issue of whether the White House asked Senator Leahy to withhold the amendments.
Carney: I don’t have — I think you saw the manner in which it was discussed in the hearing by Senator Leahy, who introduced it, and other members of the committee who discussed it. We are obviously engaged in conversations with the main players on this issue on a regular basis. And I don’t have the contents of all those conversations. What I can tell you is that the President supports —
CBS News: But you don’t deny it?
Carney: I’m sorry.
CBS News: You don’t deny the report.
Carney: I’m not aware of that conversation. What I can tell you is the President supports the amendment. The President also believes, as he made clear in Costa Rica, that we need to accept that we may not get everything we want. It doesn’t mean we’re not going to fight for the things that we believe in, and this President will.
Blade: During the markup last night, it was one Democrat after the other — Senator Feinstein, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer — said they couldn’t bring themselves to support the measure. And these are senators from the President’s own party. Isn’t there a reasonable expectation that the President should have worked to bring them on board in time for that vote in accordance with his vision for immigration reform?
Carney: Well, I think each senator expressed himself or herself and his or her own views, so I would refer you to them. The president’s views are clear. He believes this amendment should be passed and has made his views clear on that. I can’t speak for other senators.
Watch the video here:
Congress
HRC president campaigns for Chris Pappas in NH
Gay congressman running to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson on Sunday campaigned for U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) in New Hampshire.
Robinson traveled to Manchester, the state’s largest city, nine days before the Sept. 8 primary that will determine who will vie for retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)’s seat.
We’re hitting the pavement across New Hampshire to fight for a freer, fairer future for everyone.
Glad to have Human Rights Campaign President @KelleyJRobinson join us for a canvass launch in Manchester today. pic.twitter.com/XWCEaQxy4o
— Chris Pappas (@ChrisPappasNH) August 30, 2026
Former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu, who represented New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate from 2003-2009, will face off against former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, who represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate from 2010-2013, in the Republican primary.
Karishma Manzur is among the Democrats challenging Pappas.
A poll the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released on Aug. 26 shows Sununu is ahead of Brown. The same survey shows Pappas ahead of Manzur and his other Democratic challengers.
The UNH Survey Center poll shows Sununu ahead of Pappas by a 45-43 percent margin if they were to face off in the general election. The margin of error is +/-2.1 percent.
Pappas would become the first openly gay man elected to the U.S. Senate if he were to win in November.
Congress
Chris Van Hollen says the Democratic Party needs change. Is he the one to lead it?
Senator is backing anti-establishment Democrats across the country
By LEE O. SANDERLIN | The Democratic Party is having something of an identity crisis — losing to President Donald Trump twice in three elections will do that.
Should the party embrace anti-establishment figures who espouse progressive policy ideas like Medicare for all and rhetoric about unrigging the economy for the 1 percent? Or should Democrats try to appeal to moderates who want to return to semi-normalcy in a time of political upheaval?
Although he’s been in Congress since 2002, with key leadership roles throughout his tenure, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, 67, counts himself firmly in the anti-establishment camp.
The rest of this article can be found on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Politics
Log Cabin Republicans remove transgender rights from mission
Decision made after ‘significant discussion’ with members, board
Log Cabin Republicans, an organization that formerly represented LGBTQ conservatives, has removed advocating for transgender and queer rights from its “renewed” national advocacy focus.
In an opinion piece written by Log Cabin Republicans President Ross Hemminger for the conservative media outlet Town Hall, he announced that trans rights would no longer be part of what the organization advocates for through conservative leadership and candidates.
In his piece, Hemminger wrote that after “significant discussion” with members and Log Cabin Republicans’ board of directors, the organization’s leadership voted to “refine Log Cabin Republicans’ national advocacy focus to concentrate specifically on issues of sexual orientation and conservative values,” a focus that does not include trans people.
“We have fought for the right to legally marry who we love, serve our country and our communities openly and proudly, and to enjoy the same inalienable rights afforded to all law-abiding Americans — and we succeeded,” Hemminger wrote. “However, the new era of gender identity politics is not the movement we supported and fought for. Gay men and women are losing public support across the country, and support for gay marriage and other once-widely accepted rights is eroding. Why? Because many voters today weren’t alive or cognizant of the politics of gay marriage winding its way through the courts and gaining ground in public opinion. Their view of the gay community is based on today’s radical transgender activists with their unnecessary and discomfiting focus on America’s youth.”
Hemminger then went on to argue that trans advocacy has shifted to focusing primarily on minors — a characterization that does not reflect the breadth of issues trans advocates address.
“They push schools to teach radical gender ideology; they want biological men in women’s sports regardless of the consequences; perhaps most offensively, they support gender reassignment treatments for minors, often without the knowledge or consent of the parents, knowing full well these treatments are mostly irreversible,” he wrote.
Hemminger and many right-wing political leaders have continued to assert this false reality as fact.
A Harvard-affiliated study found approximately 2.1 gender-affirming surgeries occur per 100,000 trans and gender-diverse minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, underscoring how uncommon these procedures are among minors. In addition to the option of surgery for those who think it’s right for them, there is an array of other medically sound options to treat gender dysphoria, which according to KFF, an independent source for health policy research and polling, includes “medical, surgical, mental health, and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people.”
Additionally trans advocacy is not as narrow as Hemminger makes it seem in his opinion piece.
There are a slew of issues the trans community faces — and fights for — on a daily basis that have nothing to do with healthcare. Those include obtaining government documents that accurately reflect one’s gender identity, multiple elements of family law that include the right to marry and adopt children as straight couples can, protections from violence, hate crime protections, the right to serve in the military, access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender, and the right to education.
Despite the overwhelming number of issues trans people — regardless of political affiliation — have to struggle with as a result of systemic gaps in protections that are supposed to be afforded to everyone under the law, they remain vulnerable to unequal treatment.
Despite this shift, Log Cabin Republicans has committed to standing with the Republican Party rather than LGBTQ people as a whole. The organization was initially founded as a loosely connected network of local California social clubs made up of LGBTQ conservatives in the late 1970s before eventually emerging as a national political organization in the early 1990s under its founding executive director, Rich Tafel.
As the organization continued to gain momentum, it endorsed a handful of Republicans who voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 law that federally recognized marriage equality for same-sex couples.
The Washington Blade reached out to Log Cabin Republicans for comment but did not hear back by the time of publication.
-
California4 days agoSan Francisco, long a queer safe haven, remains competitive for homebuyers
-
Netherlands5 days agoTrans, nonbinary Americans find refuge in the Netherlands
-
Calendar4 days agoCalendar: August 28-September 3
-
Movies4 days ago‘Teenage Sex and Death’ has never been more entertaining
