News
Brewer’s ‘turn away the gay’ veto not universally popular at CPAC
Some young conservatives say measure misunderstood
Ed Gillespie said he’s unaware of the bill vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Following a national outcry, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer recently vetoed a bill that would have enabled businesses to refuse services to gay people for religious reasons. But some attendees at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference didn’t share her opposition to the measure.
A handful of the estimated 8,500 attendees over the weekend at the annual gathering for conservatives who spoke the Washington Blade either professed to have no knowledge of the legislation, SB 1062, or thought the religious liberties expansion under the legislation was misunderstood.
Ed Gillespie, a Republican political analyst who’s seeking to unseat U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) in the upcoming mid-term election, was among those who said he had no knowledge of the bill when asked by the Blade whether Brewer should have vetoed it.
“I haven’t looked at that bill,” Gillespie said. “I’ve been very focused on the Senate race. I’m running for the United States Senate in Virginia, So, very focused on federal issues there, and I just don’t know enough about what was in that bill. I’m sorry.”
Despite opposition to the bill from Arizona businesses, both GOP U.S. senators from the state and even former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, some younger attendees at the conference who were familiar with the legislation said the bill was unfairly criticized and that outrage against the legislation was a product of the LGBT movement.
Matteo Moran, 20, a junior at Hillsdale College in Michigan, said he thinks Brewer “gave into” pressure of groups that said SB 1062 was an anti-gay bill, insisting the measure wasn’t directed at anybody.
“I think the reasoning behind her vetoing it was wrong,” Moran said. “I don’t think her veto was the wrong thing to do; I just think her rationale behind it was because it could be interpreted as being she gave into gay activist groups on that.”
Asked about gay non-discrimination laws, Moran said each business should “have a right to refuse service to anybody they deem is against whatever they believe.”
“Personally, I don’t think there should any discrimination laws, period,” Moran said. “I think people should have an equal choice, equal opportunity. That’s what I believe is everyone should have an equal opportunity to fight for the same jobs. Having legislation against or for one group or another is discriminatory in and of itself.”
Andrew Homer, 21, a graduate student at George Mason University, also said Brewer shouldn’t have vetoed the bill because he said it was only “a statement of religious right.”
“Just as people who are gay who own a business were turning away people who were against being gay, the same exact rights was what that bill was trying to instill,” Homer said. “You can try to turn away whomever you want to turn away, as long as it’s not discrimination on, you know, ‘I just don’t like you, go away.’ It’s their religious right.”
But Homer drew a distinction between discrimination against LGBT people that the legislation would have enabled and discrimination against categories of people protected under existing law.
“That’s not on a religious basis,” Homer said. “Gay people can claim that they have a religious basis, that they do not want to serve people who don’t support what they believe in. That’s fine. The same thing is for people who are not gay, who do not believe in gay rights, they should be allowed to have that exact same power.”
It’s true the legislation never explicitly mentions LGBT people, but most observers agreed its intent was clear — to enable businesses to refuse services to LGBT people, such as baking a cake or photographing a same-sex wedding.
These CPAC attendees are in the extreme minority in their views. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 81 percent of Americans reject the idea of allowing businesses to discriminate against or to refuse services to LGBT people.
But they’re in line with the views of former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who told The National Review during an interview at CPAC he “absolutely” would have voted for the legislation and opposition to the bill was the result of “hysteria” created by the media.
“You talk about a complete mischaracterization of a bill,” Santorum said. “Actually, you could make the case this bill actually limited religious liberties because it actually added a section to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that actually required you to have legitimate religious objection. Before, you just said, ‘Well, it’s against my religion, or I have a religious objection. Here they actually put a standard here.”
Prior to his interview with the Review, the Blade attempted to ask Santorum in the halls of the Gaylord Convention Hall if Brewer should have vetoed the bill. He declined to answer and left quickly before this reporter could finish asking the question.
Ross Hemminger, co-director of GOProud and among the guests at CPAC, told the Blade he doesn’t think those expressing views supporting the Arizona bill were representative of conference attendees, saying observers shouldn’t assume they’re all bigoted.
“It’s a little bit disingenuous to paint CPAC as bigoted because a handful of attendees you spoke to said they supported the Arizona bill and thought it was mischaracterized,” Hemminger said. “We had multiple conversations with multiple people there who didn’t like the bill and were glad that it was vetoed, people who, quite frankly, didn’t support gay marriage, but don’t believe in being bigoted toward gay people.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), known for his libertarian mindset, won the CPAC presidential straw poll by a whopping 31 percent, beating Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who finished in second place, by double digits.
George Doll, 20, a sophomore at the University of South Dakota, offered a nuanced position on the bill, saying he had misgivings about requiring businesses to do things, but ultimately said Brewer “should have vetoed” the bill.
“I think it’s wrong that they’re doing it,” Doll said. “I don’t think it’s right to refuse service to people based on any sort of creed or religion or sexuality, but I guess if you own the place, you can do what you want.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly attributed a comment to Matteo Moran about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The question asked was specifically about non-discrimination laws aimed at protecting gay people, not the 1964 Act. The Blade regrets the error.
Netherlands
Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade draws hundreds of thousands
Gay Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten among participants
Editor’s note: International News Editor Michael K. Lavers and Photo Editor Michael Key are on assignment in the Netherlands through Aug. 10.
AMSTERDAM — Hundreds of thousands of people lined Amsterdam’s canals on Saturday for the city’s annual Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade.
Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten, who is openly gay, is among those who participated in the parade that featured more than 80 boats. Participants held signs and posters that, among other things, read “proud to be intersex” and “lesbians love you and a free Palestine.”
The Washington Blade saw at least two attendees holding fans that read “fuck Trump.” One of the boats also compared President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin as “the kissing couple.”
(Washington Blade video by Michael K. Lavers)
(Washington Blade video by Michael K. Lavers)
The parade took place a week after a terrorist attack at Berlin’s Christopher Street Day left one person dead and more than two dozen others injured.
It passed the Homomonument, a memorial to gays and lesbians who have suffered persecution. The Homomonument has been transformed into a makeshift memorial to the victims of the July 25 terrorist attack in the German capital.
View on Threads
The Canal Parade took place during World Pride, which will end in Amsterdam on Aug. 9.
European Union
Poland’s top court rejects recognition of same-sex marriages from other EU countries
Ruling sets up potential clash with bloc
Poland’s top court this week rejected the recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed in other EU countries.
The EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg last November ruled in favor of a same-sex couple who challenged Poland’s refusal to recognize their German marriage. Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court in March reaffirmed the decision.
The couple, who lives in Poland, brought their case to Polish courts in 2019. The Supreme Administrative Court referred it to the EU Court of Justice.
The Polish government in May announced it will recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other EU countries. Polish President Karol Nawrocki on July 17 vetoed bills that would have extended rights to same-sex couples.
The Constitutional Tribunal ruling, which it issued on July 28, was unanimous and final. It also sets up a potential clash between it and the EU Court of Justice.
Taiwan
Taiwan’s government has failed to update process to change gender markers on ID documents
Interior Ministry’s 2008 directive remains in place
More than four years after Taiwan began formally studying legislation to overhaul its legal gender recognition system, and despite repeated recommendations from international human rights experts, the government has yet to introduce a bill that would replace decades-old administrative rules governing how transgender people can change the gender marker on official documents.
On May 15, an independent international review committee examining Taiwan’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights urged the government to enact legislation governing legal gender recognition. The committee said Taiwan’s continued reliance on an administrative order, despite a 2023 Supreme Administrative Court ruling that mandatory gender-affirming surgery violates constitutional rights, has created legal uncertainty for transgender people, administrative authorities and judges.
In Taiwan, legal gender recognition has long been governed by a 2008 Interior Ministry administrative directive rather than legislation.
Under the directive, applicants seeking to change the gender marker on their national identification documents are generally required to provide diagnoses of gender dysphoria from two psychiatrists and proof that they have undergone gender-affirming surgery. For trans men, this typically involves the removal of the breasts, uterus, and ovaries, while trans women generally must undergo the removal of the penis and testicles. Because these requirements are established through an administrative directive rather than a law enacted by the legislature, trans rights activists and human rights organizations have argued they violate human rights.
Although Taiwanese courts have increasingly allowed trans people to change the gender marker on their official documents without undergoing gender-affirming surgery, the Interior Ministry’s 2008 directive requiring surgery remains in force. As a result, Taiwan’s administrative rules and judicial decisions are no longer fully aligned.
In a landmark ruling in May 2024, the Taipei High Administrative Court ordered a household registration office to approve a trans man’s application to change the gender marker on his household registration without requiring gender-affirming surgery. The court held that the Interior Ministry’s 2008 administrative directive, which requires applicants to submit proof of surgery, cannot be treated as an absolute prerequisite for legal gender recognition. Instead, it found that the applicant had provided sufficient medical evidence of a stable and long-standing gender identity and that denying the application solely because he had not undergone surgery was unlawful.
The Executive Yuan began work on legislation in April 2020, when it decided to commission an academic study examining international legal gender recognition systems rather than immediately drafting a law.
The government subsequently commissioned Shih Hsin University to prepare a report reviewing foreign legal models and developing legislative recommendations, including a bill. Since 2022, the Executive Yuan has held a series of inter-agency meetings involving multiple ministries to consider the study’s recommendations and legislation governing legal gender recognition, though no bill has yet been enacted.
In September 2023, Taiwan’s Supreme Administrative Court set aside a lower court ruling that had upheld the Interior Ministry’s refusal to change a trans person’s legal gender without proof of surgery and ordered the case to be reheard.
The court held that the ministry’s 2008 administrative directive requiring surgery could not be treated as the controlling legal standard because it lacked a clear statutory basis and implicated constitutional protections, including bodily autonomy and personality rights. Rather than treating surgery as an automatic prerequisite, the court instructed the lower court to determine whether the applicant had established a stable gender identity based on the evidence presented.
“From our perspective, the primary goal should be lowering the barriers to legal gender recognition, particularly by abolishing the mandatory surgery requirement,” the Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association, a nonprofit LGBTQ advocacy and support organization founded in 1998, said in an email to the Washington Blade.
The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said several factors have stalled progress toward comprehensive legislation.
The organization told the Blade the complexity of the issue and the lack of constructive dialogue are among the primary obstacles. It said legal gender recognition requires extensive discussion, with views differing even within the trans community itself. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association added that opinions also vary widely within the legislature and across Taiwanese society, while effective channels for dialogue remain lacking.
The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association also attributed the lack of progress to what it described as a lack of political will and an over reliance on “social consensus.”
According to the organization, the executive branch lacks the political momentum to advance legal gender recognition reforms. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said the Interior Ministry and other relevant agencies have often adopted a passive approach in the face of opposition from conservative groups, delaying progress by arguing that there is no social consensus or that further discussion is needed.
The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association also said progress has been hindered by what it described as a backlash following the legalization of same-sex marriage. According to the organization, groups opposed to gender equality and trans rights, including some conservative religious and anti-trans organizations, shifted their focus to trans issues after marriage equality became law. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said these groups have promoted fear-based narratives, including concerns about safety in public restrooms, leading many politicians to view trans rights as a politically risky issue and reducing momentum for legislative action.
“The existing system makes changing one’s legal gender marker extremely difficult. Forced surgical removal of reproductive organs imposes a heavy financial burden since it must be paid out-of-pocket, and not every trans person can afford, desires, or is medically advised to undergo organ removal,” the Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said. “Additionally, requiring psychiatric evaluations is problematic because specialized medical resources are scarce and concentrated in major cities. These obstacles severely impact transgender individuals in their daily lives.”
The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said the continued reliance on an administrative directive rather than legislation has created systemic uncertainty for trans people. The organization said the absence of a statutory framework allows executive agencies to alter requirements without legislative oversight, leaving trans people uncertain whether future policies will become more restrictive or more permissive. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association added that while several trans people have secured favorable court rulings since 2023, those decisions apply only to the individual cases before the courts and do not guarantee similar outcomes for others. The group also said pursuing litigation requires significant time, financial resources, and emotional investment, making it an inaccessible path for many trans people seeking legal recognition.
The Executive Yuan and the Interior Ministry did not respond to the Blade’s requests for comment.
PHOTOS: Petal Release Party
Madonna headlines World Pride Music Festival in Amsterdam
Reggie White relishing first season as artistic director of Woolly Mammoth
PHOTOS: Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade
Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade draws hundreds of thousands
BLADE ENDORSEMENT: Susan Stewart for mayor of Rehoboth Beach
PHOTOS: Lambda Legal in the Pines
Calendar: July 31-August 6
Taiwan’s government has failed to update process to change gender markers on ID documents
