Connect with us

Politics

Obama talks DOMA, gay rights in Africa

POTUS says married gay couples should have fed’l benefits wherever they move

Published

on

Barack Obama, Election 2012, gay news, Washington Blade
Barack Obama, Election 2012, gay news, Washington Blade

President Obama on Thursday talked about DOMA and gay rights in Africa. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

During his high-profile trip Africa, President Obama said on Thursday he believes the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA should be implemented broadly to provide gay couples the federal benefits of marriage wherever they live in the country, although his administration is still examining the legal implications of the ruling.

Obama made the remarks during a joint news conference with Senegal President Macky Sall that took place in the presidential palace in Dakar. The reporter asked Obama to respond to the DOMA ruling and the state of gay rights in Senegal, where same-sex relations is still criminalized.

With respect to DOMA, Obama said the ruling was “not simply a victory for the LGBT community, it’s a victory for American democracy” and noted he had a phone call with New York widow and lawsuit plaintiff Edith Windsor after the decision was announced.

“I believe at the root of who we are as a people, who we are as Americans is the basic precept that we are all equal under the law,” Obama said. “We believe in basic fairness. And what I think yesterday’s ruling signifies is one more step towards ensuring that those basic principles apply to everybody.”

Amid calls from LGBT advocates for the Obama administration to interpret the decision as broadly as possible to ensure all federal benefits are available to married same-sex couples, Obama said his personal belief is that the maximum amount of benefits should flow.

“It’s my personal belief — but I’m speaking now as a President as opposed to as a lawyer — that if you’ve been married in Massachusetts and you move someplace else, you’re still married, and that under federal law you should be able to obtain the benefits of any lawfully married couple,” Obama said. “But I’m speaking as a President, not a lawyer.”

Obama said prior to the decision, he had already instructed White House counsel to work with lawyers across every federal agency “to start getting a sense” for the implications of administratively applying a rule that says federal benefits apply to all married couples — gay or straight. Anticipating the result, Obama gave assurances the implementation of whatever benefits are available would happen as quickly as possible.

“So we’re going to be evaluating all these issues and making sure that we work through them in a systematic and prompt way, because now that the Supreme Court has spoken it’s important that people who deserve these benefits know that they’re getting them quickly,” Obama said.

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said Obama’s words are a good start as HRC looks to the administration for a broad implementation of federal benefits for same-sex couples.

“It’s certainly very positive news,” Sainz said. “This president has been an ardent defender of LGBT people and this is indication of that. We’re looking forward to guidance from the Administration as to how all legally married gay couples will get the same federal benefits.”

In response to the question about the criminalization of homosexuality in Senegal, Obama said the issue didn’t come up in bilateral conversations as he spoke more broadly about his opposition to discrimination in any form.

“But when it comes to how the state treats people, how the law treats people, I believe that everybody has to be treated equally,” Obama said. “I don’t believe in discrimination of any sort. That’s my personal view. And I speak as somebody who obviously comes from a country in which there were times when people were not treated equally under the law, and we had to fight long and hard through a civil rights struggle to make sure that happens.”

Perhaps acknowledging the culture of Senegal, where 96 percent of the population practice Islam, Obama maintained he respects the customs and traditions in different countries.

“The issue of gays and lesbians, and how they’re treated, has come up and has been controversial in many parts of Africa,” Obama said. “So I want the African people just to hear what I believe, and that is that every country, every group of people, every religion have different customs, different traditions.  And when it comes to people’s personal views and their religious faith, et cetera, I think we have to respect the diversity of views that are there.”

In his response to the question, Sall struck a different tone, saying his country won’t decriminalize homosexuality as he maintained his country is very tolerant and doesn’t believe in discrimination.

“We don’t tell anybody that he will not be recruited because he is gay or he will not access a job because his sexual orientation is different,” Sall said. “But we are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality. I’ve already said it in the past, in our Cabinet meeting it is Senegal’s option, at least for the time being, while we have respect for the rights of homosexuals — but for the time being, we are still not ready to change the law.”

Andre Banks, executive director for the LGBT global equality group All Out, praised Obama for speaking out in favor of equality and amid growing concerns of anti-gay activity in Africa.

“Nigeria and Uganda are threatening to bring in even harsher anti-gay laws that will ruin more lives, and Cameroon is aggressively hunting down and prosecuting people because of who they are and who they love,” Banks said. “Other African nations like Senegal who claim they aren’t ready to end laws that make it a crime to gay need to hear Obama’s words and know the tide of love and equality is rising. Customs and cultures may differ, but there is never a legitimate reason for denying a person equality under the law because of who they are and who they love.”

Frank Mugisha, a gay Uganda activist who has worked against the “Kill the Gays” bill in the country, told the Washington Blade he welcomes Obama’s remarks and thinks they’re significant.

“Some are saying, ‘We don’t need pressure from outside,'” Mugisha said. “For me I think it is important that Obama mentions gay rights on his trip to Africa, if he had not I would be disappointed, Africa has been in the spot light in the recent years on abuse and violation of gay people and any world leader would want to mention that. I do not know why people are OK when world leaders talk about all the other issues in Africa and when they talk about homosexuality then it becomes a problem. Homosexuality like any other rights is a universal human right and any one can speak out against these violations any where any time.”

A partial transcript of the Q&A between the reporter and Obama and Sall follow:

REPORTER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  You called the DOMA ruling a victory for couples everywhere who are seeking equal treatment under the law.  But this leaves unanswered questions for couples in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage.  And now it’s largely up to you.  Will you direct the government to make sure that federal benefits are extended, like Social Security, to all couples, no matter where they live?  And will you comment generally on the historic nature of yesterday’s rulings?  Also, did you press President Sall to make sure that homosexuality is decriminalized in Senegal?

And, President Sall, may I ask you, sir — thank you, first of all, for your hospitality.  You just said you embrace democracy and freedom.  As this country’s new President, sir, will you work to decriminalize homosexuality in this country?

….

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, first of all, I think the Supreme Court ruling yesterday was not simply a victory for the LGBT community, it’s a victory for American democracy.  I believe at the root of who we are as a people, who we are as Americans is the basic precept that we are all equal under the law.  We believe in basic fairness.  And what I think yesterday’s ruling signifies is one more step towards ensuring that those basic principles apply to everybody.

When I spoke to Ms. Windsor — 83 years old — and I thought about the 40 years of her relationship and her partner, who is now passed, for her to live to see this day where that relationship was the vehicle whereby more people received their rights and are recognized as a testament to the love and commitment that they have made to each other, that was special.  And that’s just a microcosm of what it meant for families and their children all across America.  So it was a proud day I think for America.

Now, as you point out, there are a whole lot of implications that flow from it, because the Supreme Court did not make a blanket ruling that applies nationally, but rather lifted up the ability of states to recognize the dignity and respect of same-sex marriage, and that the federal government couldn’t negate the decision by those states.  We now have to comb through every federal statute.  And although we hadn’t pre-judged what the ruling had been, I had asked my White House Counsel to help work with lawyers across every agency in the federal government to start getting a sense of what statutes would be implicated and what it will mean for us to administratively apply the rule that federal benefits apply to all married couples.

What’s true though is that you still have a whole bunch of states that do not recognize it.  The Supreme Court continues to leave it up to the states to make these decisions.  And we are going to have to go back and do a legal analysis of what that means.  It’s my personal belief — but I’m speaking now as a President as opposed to as a lawyer — that if you’ve been married in Massachusetts and you move someplace else, you’re still married, and that under federal law you should be able to obtain the benefits of any lawfully married couple.  But I’m speaking as a President, not a lawyer.

So we’re going to be evaluating all these issues and making sure that we work through them in a systematic and prompt way, because now that the Supreme Court has spoken it’s important that people who deserve these benefits know that they’re getting them quickly.  And I know that, for example, Chuck Hagel already mentioned some work that the Department of Defense is doing on that front.  And I think we’re going to be seeing that in all the various agencies.

Now, this topic did not come up in the conversation that I had with President Sall in a bilateral meeting.  But let me just make a general statement.  The issue of gays and lesbians, and how they’re treated, has come up and has been controversial in many parts of Africa.  So I want the African people just to hear what I believe, and that is that every country, every group of people, every religion have different customs, different traditions.  And when it comes to people’s personal views and their religious faith, et cetera, I think we have to respect the diversity of views that are there.

But when it comes to how the state treats people, how the law treats people, I believe that everybody has to be treated equally.  I don’t believe in discrimination of any sort.  That’s my personal view.  And I speak as somebody who obviously comes from a country in which there were times when people were not treated equally under the law, and we had to fight long and hard through a civil rights struggle to make sure that happens.

So my basic view is that regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation, when it comes to how the law treats you, how the state treats you — the benefits, the rights and the responsibilities under the law — people should be treated equally.  And that’s a principle that I think applies universally, and the good news is it’s an easy principle to remember.

Every world religion has this basic notion that is embodied in the Golden Rule — treat people the way you want to be treated.  And I think that applies here as well.

PRESIDENT SALL:  (As interpreted.)  Now, on the issue of homosexuality, Mr. President, you did make a long development on this issue.  But you said something very important — general principles which all nations could share, and that is the respect for the human being and non-discrimination.  But these issues are all societal issues basically, and we cannot have a standard model which is applicable to all nations, all countries — you said it, we all have different cultures.  We have different religions.  We have different traditions.  And even in countries where this has been decriminalized and homosexual marriage is allowed, people don’t share the same views.

Senegal, as far as it is concerned, is a very tolerant country which does not discriminate in terms of inalienable rights of the human being.  We don’t tell anybody that he will not be recruited because he is gay or he will not access a job because his sexual orientation is different.  But we are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality.  I’ve already said it in the past, in our Cabinet meeting it is Senegal’s option, at least for the time being, while we have respect for the rights of homosexuals — but for the time being, we are still not ready to change the law.

But of course this does not mean that we are all homophobic.  But the society has to absolve these issues.  It has to take time to digest them, bringing pressure to bear upon them, on such issues.  It is just like the capital punishment.  In our country, we have abolished it for many years.  In other countries, it is still the order of the day, because the situation in the country requires it.  And we do respect the choice of each country.  But please be assured that Senegal is a country of freedom and homosexuals are not being prosecuted, persecuted.  But we must also show respect for the values and choices of the other Senegalese people.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage

Roughly 1.8 million LGBTQ Americans rely on Medicaid

Published

on

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The “Big, Beautiful Bill” heads to President Donald Trump’s desk following the vote by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday, which saw two nays from GOP members and unified opposition from the entire Democratic caucus.

To partially offset the cost of tax breaks that disproportionately favor the wealthy, the bill contains massive cuts to Medicaid and social safety net programs like food assistance for the poor while adding a projected $3.3 billion to the deficit.

Policy wise, the signature legislation of Trump’s second term rolls back clean energy tax credits passed under the Biden-Harris administration while beefing up funding for defense and border security.

Roughly 13 percent of LGBTQ adults in the U.S., about 1.8 million people, rely on Medicaid as their primary health insurer, compared to seven percent of non-LGBTQ adults, according to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute think tank on sexual orientation and gender identities.

In total, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts will cause more than 10 million Americans to lose their coverage under Medicaid and anywhere from three to five million to lose their care under Affordable Care Act marketplace plans.

A number of Republicans in the House and Senate opposed the bill reasoning that they might face political consequences for taking away access to healthcare for, particularly, low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid. Poorer voters flocked to Trump in last year’s presidential election, exit polls show.

A provision 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 the first trans member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and the first lesbian U.S. senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), shored up unified opposition to the proposal among Congressional Democrats.

Continue Reading

Congress

Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor

One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.”

Continue Reading

Congress

House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms

Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move

Published

on

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

Continue Reading

Popular