News
Conservative struggle over gay rights emerges at CPAC
Santorum says he doesn’t ‘want to talk about redefining marriage’
Ralph Reed speaking at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — To witness the conservative movement’s struggle with the widely held perception that nationwide marriage equality is imminent, you need not look further than the stage of the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference.
After remaining silent on the first day of the conference, voices against same-sex marriage emerged on Friday, although they were restricted to certain conservative activists as others expressed conflict over the issue and elected Republican officials ignored LGBT rights altogether in their speeches.
Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, was among the most vociferous in his opposition to same-sex marriage as he accused U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder of committing a “brazen act of lawlessness” by counseling state attorneys general not to defend marriage laws against litigation.
It should be noted that during his speech to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said he believes it’s OK for state attorneys general not to defend a ban on same-sex marriage if they believe they’re unconstitutional, but he never instructed them to take that course of action.
“From now on, we’re going to accept — in 2014, 2016 and beyond — nothing beyond unapologetic, unalloyed ‘conservative’ that defends the principles upon which this nation was founded, including the biblical principles of freedom of religion, the sanctity of life and the sacred institution of marriage,” Reed continued.
Also injecting anti-gay sentiment before the estimated 8,500 attendees at CPAC was Oliver North, a Fox News commentator known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration in the 1980s.
Ending his speech, North equated the conservative struggle to stop the advancement of marriage equality to abolitionists’ efforts in 19th century America to end slavery.
“Some say that we must ignore social issues, like the definition of marriage, the sanctity of life, religious freedoms,” North said. “I say those are not social issues, they are deeply moral and spiritual issues and should be part of America’s elections.”
Oliver North speaking at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
North also made a veiled criticism of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, saying the administration is treating U.S. troops like “laboratory rats” as part of a “social experiment.”
These conservative activists are pushing back against the advancement of marriage equality as numerous federal courts — most recently in Texas, Virginia, Kentucky, Utah and Oklahoma — have struck down state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage amid expectations the U.S. Supreme Court will deliver a final ruling on the issue in 2015.
The anticipated resolution of the marriage issue in the courts invoked the ire on stage of Eric Metaxas, a conservative pundit who insisted voters must decide the issue of marriage equality instead of judges.
“The idea of same-sex marriage, the idea of paying for contraceptions, we should let the voters decide,” Metexas said. “This is the United States of America. We don’t need the ‘Mandarins of Justice’ to make these decisions; we’re supposed to trust the voters to make those decisions, and let the voters decide.”
But those considered possible 2016 presidential candidates shied away from the issue of marriage equality.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) speaking at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Rick Santorum, known for his opposition to same-sex marriage and support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, expressed regret on stage that he became known for that viewpoint over the course of his 2012 presidential bid.
“I don’t want to talk about redefining marriage; I want to talk about reclaiming marriage as a good for society and celebrating how important it is for our economy,” Santorum said to applause.
Santorum continued to discuss the importance of the institution of marriage itself, saying businesses could advance it by offering marriage counseling as a benefit.
Amid the (often disputed) perception that Pope Francis is more lenient on gay rights, particularly after his recent suggestion he could support civil unions, Santorum, who’s Catholic, commended the pontiff for saying the Catholic Church should steer away from social issues.
“He’s going out there and not talking about what the Christian faith is against, he’s going out there and talking about what we’re for,” Santorum said. “He hasn’t changed a single policy. He won’t change a single policy. But what he’ll do is he’ll go out there and talk about the good news to a hurting world because he believes that that’s what the world needs.”
One event at CPAC that demonstrated the tension within the conservative movement on marriage equality, although the discussion wasn’t completely dedicated to the issue, was a panel titled, “Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives Ever Get Along?”
One question debated was protecting religious liberties of individuals as marriage equality advances. The issue for panelists wasn’t so much whether there should be marriage equality, but whether it should be imposed by judicial fiat.
Michael Medved, a conservative pundit and host of “The Michael Medved Show,” said the issue has come down to religious liberty and insisted social conservatives and libertarians should agree that states should be able to decide for themselves the marriage issue without interference from the federal government.
“The idea that New York and California may have legitimated, or recognized, decided that those states should sponsor gay marriage doesn’t mean that Texas should be compelled by overreaching courts, or anyone else, to sponsor and legitimate gay marriage,” Medved said.
Alexander McCorbin, executive director of Students for Liberty, represented the opposite end of the conservative spectrum and said on the panel that marriage equality is “the civil rights issue of the 21st century.”
“There’s state-sponsored discrimination against various associations between individuals,” McCorbin said. “We’re talking about the denial of basic rights and privileges of individuals in committed relationships — the only difference being their sexual orientation.”
But McCorbin was rebuked on stage by Medved, who said believing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage is inconsistent with libertarianism.
“You are saying that nine unelected judges should impose their will and their judgement on the sovereign states, all 50 sovereign states and the citizens therein, in terms of something as fundamental to society as the definition of family and the definition of marriage,” Medved said.
Making a point that was derided by gay bloggers and the watchdog group Media Matters, Medved also said the idea that any state had prohibited same-sex marriage is “a liberal lie” — possibly because same-sex weddings have been allowed, even though 33 states don’t recognize them as valid.
But Medved also signaled he nonetheless supports adoption by same-sex parents, which triggered applause in the audience (although one observer could be heard booing).
Matthew Spaulding, associate vice president of Allen P. Kirby Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies & Citizenship, insisted that religious liberties for objectors must be upheld and denied any link between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage.
“The fact of one’s color of one’s skin is a coincidence,” Spaulding said. “It has nothing to do with your character, right? The difference between a male and a female is something that is self-evident and obvious that we need to deal, and we can’t shut aside and turn it over to judges to tell us what to do.”
No one who is gay, nor any LGBT political group, had a voice on the panel despite its attention to the marriage issue. In an op-ed penned earlier this week in the Daily Caller, Log Cabin Republicans executive director Gregory Angelo asserted he had sought participation on a CPAC panel this year, but was rebuffed because the American Conservative Union, which runs the event, never responded to the request.
Members of the CPAC panel, ‘Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives Ever Get Along?’ discussed same-sex marriage. From left, Tom Minnery of CitizenLink, Matt Spaulding of the Allen P. Kirby Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies & Citizenship, Matt Welch of Reason Magazine, Michael Medved of the ‘Michael Medved Show’ and Alexander McCorbin of Students for Liberty. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Ignoring the issue of marriage, prominent Republicans speaking before the panel chose to tackle other issues, although they weren’t afraid to take Obama to task.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a known opponent of LGBT rights including allowing openly gay people in the Boy Scouts, turned his attention to deriding the advancement of welfare states under the Obama administration.
“The vision that wins out — either this big-government, protectionist nanny state version offered by liberal leaders or the limited-government, unsubsidized, freedom state offered by conservative leaders — will determine the future of our nation,” Perry said.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has a reputation as a libertarian, delivered a speech criticizing the exposed data collection by the National Security Agency as he urged adherence to the U.S. Constitution.
“There is a great battle going on, it’s for the heart and soul of America,” Paul said. “The Fourth Amendment is equally as important as the Second Amendment, and conservatives cannot forget this.”
Even 2008 Republican presidential candidate turned Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee, known for championing social issues, was silent on stage about the issue of marriage equality, although he spoke more generally about upholding religious liberties in the country.
This struggle over gay rights emerges at CPAC following the publication this week of a Washington Post-ABC News poll showing a record-high 59 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, while only one-in-three Americans oppose it.
That support is even higher among young voters, which make up the preponderance of attendees at CPAC. The poll found three-quarters of Americans younger than 30 support same-sex marriage.
Following the speeches on Friday, Log Cabin’s Angelo said there’s only one way for the debate to end if the conservative movement wants to thrive.
“The conservative movement can keep its head in the sand at its own peril — with the potential to lose more votes — or it can acknowledge us as here to stay, and grow the base, especially among millennial voters,” Angelo said. “That’s where we’re at in this movement. We want conservatives to win, but they need to acknowledge us as part of that winning coalition.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) speaking at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
National
Barney Frank on trans rights, 2028, and the need to ‘reform the left’
Gay former congressman starts home hospice care while completing new book
Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who served in the House from 1981 until his retirement in 2013 and who became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay in 1987, has resurfaced in the news over the past two weeks after announcing he has entered home hospice care and plans to publish a new book on, among other things, how Democrats can and should regain control of Congress.
According to media reports and an interview Frank conducted this week with the Washington Blade, his book, entitled “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy,” calls on the Democratic Party’s progressive left leaning members to be more strategic in pushing for laws and policies initially considered “politically unacceptable” to most U.S. voters and the American people.
Frank told the Blade he believes the LGBTQ rights movement has succeeded in advancing most of its agenda seeking protections against discrimination by initially pushing less controversial advances such as the end to the ban on gays in the military and non-discrimination in employment before taking on the more controversial issue of same-sex marriage.
While acknowledging that Congress has yet to pass a national law banning discrimination against LGBTQ people in employment, housing, and public accommodations as 22 states and D.C. have already done, he points to the two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, one legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, and the other declaring sexual orientation and gender identity are protected categories for which employment discrimination is prohibited under existing federal law in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.
Frank notes that while some in the LGBTQ community are fearful that LGBTQ rights are under attack and may be pulled back under the Trump administration, he believes Republicans in Congress at this time will not attempt to repeal any existing LGBTQ protections, especially those regarding marriage rights and employment protections secured by the Supreme Court rulings.
He says transgender rights are the remaining LGBTQ issue that have yet to be adopted rationally, and he fully supports ongoing efforts to advance trans rights. But like his criticism of the progressive left among Democrats, Frank says the efforts to advance trans rights could be jeopardized by the highly controversial issue of “male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports.”
He added, “That’s the most controversial, the most difficult. It affects the fewest number of people.” While he says trans rights supporters should continue to advocate for that, “they should not make it a litmus test and say well if you’re not for that you’re not a supporter of the rights of transgender people. There are places where people are supportive, and we want to encourage that.”
Frank, 86, told Politico he has entered home hospice care as he deals with ongoing congestive heart failure. He said he is remaining in his home in Ogunquit, Maine, where he has lived with his husband, Jim Ready, since retiring from Congress in 2013.
“I’ve been doing some writing. I wrote this book,” Frank told the Blade. “I’ve relaxed. Meanwhile, my health has been failing. Jim has been a saint in taking care of me,” he said. “And so, I take it easy.”
Frank spoke to the Washington Blade in a phone interview from his home on May 4.
Washington Blade: We’re hearing some interesting reports about the book you’ve been writing. Can you say when it will be published?
Barney Frank: Sept. 15 is the publication date.
Blade: Some of the reports about the book in the media have said you want the far left within the Democratic Party to be more cautious.
Frank: No, I’ll give you this. The job is to defeat populism to keep democracy. Clearly you have to know what caused it. I believe that the essential cause in the surge of populism was economic inequality and the failure of mainstream liberals to address inequality. And beginning in the ‘80s economic growth became less and less fair in its institutions. And that led to all this anger.
So, the mainstream left finally figured that out after [Bernie] Sanders and Trump in ’16. So, we then – because I was working to make that change – got the Democrats to pay attention to economic inequality. And Joe Biden’s program did. The problem is at that point, people on the left who had correctly been critical of the failure to address equality said, OK, that’s not the only problem you guys are missing. There are all these other problems.
And they jumped from being right on the question of inequality and equality to believing in a lot more social changes, some of which were just unacceptable to the public. And the mistake they make is they don’t distinguish – there are a lot of issues I’ve been for in my life, but I had to assert that they were not currently politically survivable.
So, you do two things. Those that are politically survivable work to get them done. Others, you become an advocate. But you don’t make the most controversial part of your agenda litmus tests and drive away your allies. You will remember that on marriage that was an issue and in 2000 they insisted you will be for marriage.
So, my thesis is that while the mainstream understood its mistake on inequality, the most militant and ideological of our left misunderstand public opinion and they are pushing the public to — and they are insisting on acceptance of things that are not politically acceptable.
Blade: Having said what you said, how do you see that impacting gay rights or LGBTQ rights?
Frank: Well in the first place, gay rights – one of the things I want to address – is this fear that gay rights are going to be taken away – rights for LGB people. Nonsense. We’re not going to lose any of those rights. If they tried to undo marriage, for instance, the political reaction they would get would be abortion type sentiment. They are just not going to do that because it causes them too many political problems.
The problem is advances we hope to make in the area of transgender people. But there is no chance of losing – I can’t think of a single right that is in jeopardy. They are not going to reintroduce the ban in the military. They’re not going to tell people their marriages are cancelled. Again, the Republicans are not even trying to do that because they know there would be a terrible backlash.
With regard to LGBT there is one analogy. And that is the most controversial issue we faced over the years on what was the gay-bisexual agenda was same-sex marriage. And we left that until the end. And you remember we did the military. We did ENDA. We moved on to everything else, and it wasn’t until the very end that we went into marriage. [NOTE: ENDA did not ultimately pass.]
I think the analogy to that is male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports. That’s the most controversial, the most difficult. It affects the fewest number of people. And I believe had we deferred on marriage — people who believe that’s important should advocate for it. But they should not make it a litmus test and say well if you’re not for that you’re not a supporter of the rights of transgender people. There are places where people are supportive, and we want to encourage that.
Blade: You said you don’t think we will lose any rights, most of the laws related to nondiscrimination are from the states or municipal laws that were passed.
Frank: Tell me what you think will be lost. You and I always have this problem. I’ve always felt you were cynical and skeptical. Tell me what right we now have that’s in jeopardy.
Blade: One would be if the Supreme Court reverses its decision on same-sex marriage.
Frank: If they do, Congress would now step in on that, which would be the passage of Tammy Baldwin’s bill.
Blade: But what I was going to ask you next is in all the years you’ve been in office and as of now a federal LGBTQ rights bill has not been passed by Congress yet. Is there a chance of that happening?
Frank: I do not think it will happen because the members of Congress do not want to be in the position of voting to cancel people’s marriages. There are valid marriages throughout the country. And the notion that Congress will pass a bill invalidating those, no they won’t. They won’t do anything that’s as disruptive and that will cause a strong reaction. Have you seen a federal bill to do that? I haven’t.
Blade: No, and I am sorry if I’m not putting the question across correctly. I’m talking about the bill that bans discrimination based on employment, public accommodations and other areas for LGBTQ people that Congress has not yet passed. You co-sponsored that for many years.
Frank: I know that, and the Supreme Court did that one. No, I don’t think that – oh, all right, that’s a different question than marriage. If the Supreme Court reverses itself on that – I don’t see any sign that they’re going to, then I think you would see the federal bill passed.
[He is referring to the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that employment discrimination against gay, bi, and trans people was equivalent to sex discrimination, which is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.]
Blade: Are you talking about marriage?
Frank: For both for marriage and for non-[discrimination] – I don’t think a marriage bill would pass nationally. To distinguish, I don’t think a bill striking down marriages would pass. Too much violent reaction. As to employment discrimination, where they haven’t acted yet, if the Supreme Court changes that – I think that’s extremely unlikely – then I think Congress would step in.
Blade: Are you saying we may not need an LGBTQ non-discrimination act by Congress for the states that haven’t passed that?
Frank: I would be in favor of that, yes. But again, I think you and I – you have always been pessimistic. There is a political time now that works in our favor. And as I said, on abortion, they burned themselves very badly on abortion. And yes, I’m still for a national anti-discrimination bill. But I do not think the right wing wants to be caught taking rights away that already exist. Because that’s a lot harder than denying them in the first place. And I don’t see any movement for that. You tell me what you are worried about. What bills are you worried about?
Blade: I was simply saying they haven’t yet passed a federal non-discrimination bill.
Frank: No, what’s going to change on the Supreme Court? I don’t see a pretty quick reversal on the Supreme Court. So, I think people are just – they have to have a cause. And they are inflating the likelihood that we are going to lose some rights when I see no evidence of it. And in fact, I see a lot of political reasons why those in Congress don’t want to do that.
I’ll tell you there are a lot of Republicans who would vote for same-sex marriage. For example, the leadership would say for Christ’s sake, don’t bring that up. They don’t want to take a position on it. And they got burned on abortion, badly.
Blade: To the extent that you are observing this, do you think the LGBTQ rights organizations are doing what they should be doing?
Frank: Well, I think some are stressing the negative too much. Because when people believe nothing good ever happens, they may get discouraged. I think they should be concentrating on the transgender issue. And I know the most controversial parts are protecting people’s rights to medical care, their rights selecting their own gender. And that’s what I would be working on.
And yeah, it would be nice to pass the national bill. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Well, if the Democrats get the House, the Senate, and the presidency, maybe it will happen. But I don’t see the urgency of that because I don’t see any movement to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision.
Blade: What message would you have for the LGBTQ community?
Frank: My message is one, we’re in good shape. And two, that what remains in the transgender issue – who is first? Which are those of your issues that are the most politically acceptable. And you work your way through and as you win on some of those the resistance on the tougher ones will diminish. And the other issue is we are – the problem is the stand to protect the rights of transgender people. But the rights for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, I do not think they are in jeopardy and I do not think a lot of resources should be spent on being what I think is a very small threat.
Blade: For those states and municipalities that do not have laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination, do you think attitudes are changing so there would be little or no discrimination?
Frank: Oh, no question. First of all, I think it’s very unlikely that any of the rights they have will be taken away. And secondly, if they had to take some positive steps to take away protections they would not do it. And I think that ship has sailed in our direction and isn’t going back. In the end, you cannot underestimate there’s a big political difference between denying people their rights in the first place and taking it away from them after they’ve enjoyed it.
Anything is theoretically possible, but I don’t see any evidence that’s likely to happen.
Blade: We’re coming up to the midterm elections this year, but is there anyone coming up in the next presidential election who you might be supporting?
Frank: Oh, I think at this point we’re going to have a fairly open Democratic process. And it’s very clear at this point the way American politics is going it will be a basically supportive Democrat against a basically opposed Republican. And I’ll be supporting the Democrat. And so, this Democrat would be the best one, the most electable. And which one, I haven’t decided that. I want to see how people will fare when they start running.
But I think it is inconceivable that the Democrats would nominate someone who is not fully supportive.
Blade: Some people might be asking what you have been doing since you retired from Congress.
Frank: I’ve been doing some writing. I wrote this book. I’ve relaxed. Meanwhile, my health has been failing. Jim [husband Jim Ready] has been a saint in taking care of me. And so, I take it easy. In terms of what I do, I have two rules, two pieces of advice for people who retire. One is that you should make up two lists. One is you should have a bucket list, a list of things you want to do before you’re through. But more important than the bucket list is a list that rhymes with bucket. That’s a very important list. And that’s one that I increasingly defer to.
Blade: And what is the one other than bucket?
Frank: It rhymes with bucket. What rhymes with bucket?
Blade: Oh, OK.
Frank: That’s the list I follow.
Florida
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
Republican Fla. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed anti-DEI bill
Following the passage of anti-DEI legislation in Florida, Key West will no longer receive any state funding for its future Pride events.
In a letter provided to the Key West Business Guild, the LGBTQ visitor and tourism center for the string of islands, a senior assistant county attorney for Monroe County officially said that the organization would no longer receive funding for its ongoing projects as a result of Senate Bill 1134 and House Bill 1001, starting in 2027.
The popular Key West Pride, gay men–leaning Tropical Heat weekend, and Womenfest will no longer receive any state money. This is something that Gay Key West Visitor Center Executive Director Rob Dougherty highlighted will shift how all the largest LGBTQ events in the Keys will be held after this year.
He said that the explanation is solely a result of SB 1134 and HB 1001, which limits the official actions of local governments by “prohibiting counties and municipalities, respectively, from funding or promoting or taking official action as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion …”
The legislation is being used to impose restrictions on funding events that exclude — whereas the events’ true purpose is to uplift already marginalized groups.
“Womenfest lost it [funding] because it’s a women’s-only event. Tropical Heat lost it because it’s a men’s-only event … that’s how this is being applied.”
This will not impact anything this year, Dougherty assured the Washington Blade; however, the future is not as certain.
“The law that (Republican Florida) Gov. DeSantis signed does not go into effect until Jan. 1, so for 2026 we’re okay,” Dougherty told the Blade. “But it impacts Key West Pride 2027, it impacts Tropical Heat 2027 and Womenfest — so we have lost all funding for those three events.”
He said that this will amount to a large chunk of the expected funding for the LGBTQ celebrations, which the Key West tourism board says is “internationally known as a gay mecca.”
“We’re due to lose about $200,000. Not all of that is direct, but the way that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) distributes their money, about $75,000 of it is for Key West Pride, and that helps to pay for things like marketing, swag, and other things that promote the event.”
He went on to explain that marketing to many major metropolitan areas with large LGBTQ populations may not see the same Key West advertisements and push as in years past — and that is the point.
“Our digital marketing, our print marketing, our SEO marketing — all of that is paid for through there, and it targets places with direct flights like Washington, D.C., New York, Philly, Atlanta, Dallas. So it’s definitely going to impact that.”
The money that will stop coming is not just to run events and celebrations, he explained. Money that goes back directly into the community is going to be hardest hit.
“An estimated 250,000 LGBTQ+ travelers make it to Key West on an annual basis, and on a very conservative basis, for every LGBTQ+ person there are two to four allies traveling with the same values.”
“The TDC also estimates that $1,500+ is spent per person per visit … so if you take those figures and multiply those all together, it comes up to about $1.2 billion … that is potentially going to be lost.”
He says that this will intrinsically change how Key West’s tourism — especially the large LGBTQ side of it — will run, especially since gay vacations need a foundation and expectation of safety and support to blossom.
“We travel based upon where we feel most welcome,” Dougherty said. “Key West has always been its own little place … the LGBTQ+ history of Key West and everything about Key West has always been a little bit weird for people, and that’s why they come here.”
The Guild was formed in 1978 to encourage summer tourism and support Key West’s gay community — becoming the nation’s first LGBTQ destination marketing organization. It has grown tremendously from its original membership to now include more than 475 enterprises representing virtually every facet of the island’s business community.
He also went on to say that this should be eye-opening for anywhere considered an LGBTQ destination, regardless of whether it is in a blue state or a red one.
“I think it can be a wake-up call across the country, because if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.”
Federal Government
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
Mass. college accused of violating Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.
Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.
The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.
The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.
This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.
Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.
“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”
“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”
This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.
Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.
Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.
PHOTOS: Miss Gay Western Maryland
Barney Frank on trans rights, 2028, and the need to ‘reform the left’
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
A reign defined by commitment and human impact
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
Lesbifriends Travel to host queer night out
The queer appeal of ‘The Devil Wears Prada’
