News
Elizabeth Warren voted to confirm Ben Carson?
‘I have no idea what she was thinking’

Donald Trump has selected Dr. Ben Carson as HUD secretary. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Some LGBT advocates are criticizing Senate Democrats for joining Republicans to vote unanimously in favor of Ben Carson as secretary of Housing and Urban Development, despite his characterization of LGBT rights as “extra rights” during his confirmation hearing and his history of anti-LGBT views.
The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs approved Carson on Tuesday unanimously by voice vote, which means the 11 Democrats on the committee agreed to his confirmation, including progressive champions like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
Deborah Shields, executive director of MassEquality, said she was perplexed over why Warren would vote in favor of Carson given the nominee’s record.
“We don’t usually get involved, per se, in national politics in that way, but I have to admit we’re very shocked given that she’s been such as advocate of economic justice and civil rights and his record belies that,” Shields said. “So, I have no idea what she was thinking. And yes, we do strongly object and given what a champion she’s been, it’s really quite shocking.”
During his confirmation hearing, Carson derided LGBT rights as “extra rights” when asked by Sen. Brown for assurance HUD would have a duty to promote equal access opportunities to LGBT people.
“If confirmed in this position, of course I would enforce all the laws of the land, and I believe that all Americans regardless of any of the things that you mentioned should be protected by the law,” Carson said. “What I mentioned in the past is the fact no one gets extra rights. Extra rights means you get to redefine everything for everybody else. That, to me, doesn’t seem to be very democratic.”
The remarks from Carson, who has called the LGBT community “a few people who perhaps are abnormal” and undeserving of equal protection under the law, are consistent with his political career of attacking LGBT rights.
During his presidential campaign, Carson opposed same-sex marriage and backed a constitutional amendment against the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality.
Most notably, Carson landed in hot water when, as a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins University, he compared LGBT advocates to pedophiles during an interview on Fox News. Outcry over the remarks led him to apologize “if anybody was offended” and cancel plans to give the commencement address for the medical school.
Carson’s views on LGBT rights raise questions about how he’d handle his role as HUD secretary. Among other things, he’d have authority to rescind a rule prohibiting government-funded housing from discriminating against LGBT people, or institute a religious exemption for that rule that could substantially limit its reach. Carson could undo the extension of that rule prohibiting homeless shelters from turning away transgender people based on their gender identity.
In a statement, Brown said Carson is “not the nominee I would have chosen to lead HUD” and has made “often troubling public statements over the last three years,” but voted for him because of commitments the nominee made.
“This includes Dr. Carson’s promises to address the scourge of lead hazards that threaten the health and futures of children in Ohio and nationwide; uphold the Fair Housing Act and the housing rights of LGBTQ individuals; and advocate for rental assistance, investment to end homelessness, and including housing in the president’s infrastructure plan,” Brown added. “I will do everything in my power to hold Dr. Carson accountable for making good on his promises.”
Explaining her vote on Facebook amid discontent among progressive grassroots activists, Warren said in a post beginning with “OK, let’s talk about Dr. Ben Carson” she voted for the nominee even though she disagrees with “many of the outrageous things” he said because he made commitments to manage HUD fairly to all Americans in written responses to her questions.
“Can we count on Dr. Carson to keep those promises?” Warren wrote. “I don’t know. People are right to be skeptical; I am. But a man who makes written promises gives us a toehold on accountability. If President Trump goes to his second choice, I don’t think we will get another HUD nominee who will even make these promises – much less follow through on them.”
In his response to written questions from Brown, Carson clarified his reference to LGBT rights as “extra rights” and rejects any notion he would remove LGBT protections during his tenure at HUD.
Asked whether he could think of any instances of protecting equal housing opportunities for LGBT people as “extra rights,” Carson replied, “I can not.” Asked if he thinks HUD institutes “extra rights” for LGBT people that should be withdrawn, Carson replied, “I do not.”
In addition to Warren and Brown, other Democrats who voted in favor of Carson were Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) as well as newly seated Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.).
Christian Fuscarino, executive director of the New Jersey-based Garden State Equality, said his organization objected to Menendez’s vote in favor of Carson.
“I think it’s important for all lawmakers to consider those most vulnerable who will be impacted by Carson’s lack of education in housing needs and issues,” Fuscarino said.
The office for Menendez didn’t immediately respond to the Washington Blade’s request to respond to Garden State Equality about his vote.
Patrick Paschall, executive director of the Maryland-based FreeState Justice, said Van Hollen’s vote for Carson in committee is “disappointing” based on Carson’s remarks against LGBT people.
“We have deep concerns about many of Trump’s nominees, including Dr. Ben Carson,” Paschall said. “He’s said some overtly anti-transgender things in the past that target the transgender community for discrimination and exclusion, and we’re certainly very concerned about his nomination to run a department he himself has said he’s not qualified to run and knows nothing about.”
Bridgett Frey, a Van Hollen spokesperson, pointed to her boss’ comments about concern over the nominee in response to the criticism.
“Sen. Van Hollen raised serious concerns at the Banking Committee confirmation hearing on Dr. Carson, and looks forward to the full floor debate on his nomination,” Frey said.
It’s unknown when Carson’s nomination could come up for a vote on the Senate floor, although it should happen soon now that the committee has approved the nomination. Under Senate rules, only a bare majority is required for confirmation.
The Human Rights Campaign in response to the committee vote said the position of the nation’s largest LGBT group, which has previously opposed Carson, remains unchanged.
For the record, our opposition to Ben Carson is unchanged. We remain deeply concerned and hope Senators will vote no on his confirmation.
— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) January 25, 2017
In response to a question about whether the Human Rights Campaign would include the vote on Carson in its congressional scorecard, a spokesperson for the organization said those scoring decisions are made at the end of the congressional session. The spokesperson declined to comment on individual senators like Brown and Warren voting for Carson in committee.
National
Supreme Court deals blow to trans student privacy protections
Under this ruling, parents are entitled to be informed about their children’s gender identity at school, regardless of state protections for student privacy.
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a California policy that allowed teachers to withhold information about a student’s gender identity from their parents.
The policy had permitted California students to explore their gender identity at school without that information automatically being disclosed to their parents. Now, educators in the state will be required to inform parents about developments related to a student’s gender identity, depending on how the case proceeds in lower courts.
The case involves two sets of parents — identified in court filings as John and Jane Poe and John and Jane Doe — both of which say their daughters began identifying as boys at school without their knowledge, citing religious objections to gender transitioning.
The Poes say they only learned about their daughter’s gender dysphoria after she attempted suicide in eighth grade and was hospitalized. After treatment for the attempt and after being returned to school the following year, teachers continued using a male name and pronouns despite the parents’ objections, citing California law. The Poes have since placed their daughter in therapy and psychiatric care.
Similarly, the Does say their daughter has intermittently identified as a boy since fifth grade, but while their daughter was in seventh grade, they confronted school administrators over concerns that staff were using a male name and pronouns without informing them. The principal told them state law barred disclosure without the child’s consent.
Both sets of parents filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the state policy that protects students’ gender identity and limits when schools can disclose that information to parents.
The justices voted along ideological lines, with the court’s six conservative members in the majority and the three liberal justices dissenting.
“We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim,” the court said in an unsigned order. “The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs. California’s policies violate those beliefs.”
In dissent, the three liberal justices argued that the case is still working its way through the lower courts and that there was no need for the high court to intervene at this stage. Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “If nothing else, this Court owes it to a sovereign State to avoid throwing over its policies in a slapdash way, if the Court can provide normal procedures. And throwing over a State’s policy is what the Court does today.”
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have gone further and granted broader relief to the parents and teachers challenging the policy.
The emergency appeal from a group of teachers and parents in California followed a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that allowed the state’s policy to remain in effect. The appeals court had paused an order from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez — who was nominated by George W. Bush — that sided with the parents and teachers and put the policy on hold.
The legal challenge was backed by the Thomas More Society, which relied heavily on a decision last year in which the court’s conservative majority sided with a group of religious parents seeking to opt their elementary school children out of engaging with LGBTQ-themed books in the classroom.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed disappointment with the ruling. “We remain committed to ensuring a safe, welcoming school environment for all students while respecting the crucial role parents play in students’ lives,” his office said in a statement.
The decision comes as the Trump administration has taken a hardline approach to transgender rights. During his State of the Union address last week, President Donald Trump referenced Sage Blair, who previously identified as transgender and later detransitioned, describing Blair’s experience transitioning in a public school. According to the president, school employees supported Blair’s chosen gender identity and did not initially inform Blair’s parents.

Last year, the court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors and has allowed enforcement of a policy barring transgender people from serving in the military to continue during Trump’s second term.
District of Columbia
D.C. Black Pride theme, performers announced at ‘Speakeasy’
Durand Bernarr to headline 2026 programming
The Center for Black Equity held its 2026 DC Black Pride Theme Reveal event at Union Stage on Monday. The evening, a “Speakeasy Happy Hour,” was hosted by Anthony Oakes and featured performances by Lolita Leopard and Keith Angelo. The Center for Black Equity organizes DC Black Pride.
Kenya Hutton, Center for Black Equity president and CEO, spoke following the performances by Leopard and Angelo. Hutton announced this year’s theme for DC Black Pride: “New Black Renaissance.”
Performers for 2026 DC Black Pride were announced to be Bang Garcon, Be Steadwell, Jay Columbus, Bennu Byrd, Rue Pratt and Akeem Woods.
Singer-songwriter Durand Bernarr was announced as the headliner for the 2026 festivities. Bernerr gave brief remarks through a video played on the screen at the stage.
DC Black Pride is scheduled for May 22-25. For more information on DC Black Pride, visit dcblackpride.org.
Virginia
Arlington LGBTQ bar Freddie’s celebrates 25th anniversary
Owner asks public to support D.C.-area gay bars
An overflowing crowd turned out Sunday night, March 1, for the 25th anniversary celebration of Freddie’s Beach Bar, the LGBTQ bar and restaurant located in the Crystal City section of Arlington, Va.
The celebration began as longtime patrons sitting at tables and at the bar ordered drinks, snacks, and full meals as several of Freddie’s well-known drag queens performed on a decorated stage.
Roland Watkins, an official with Equality NoVa, an LGBTQ advocacy organization based in the Northern Virginia areas of Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax County, next told the gathering about the history of Freddie’s Beach Bar and the role he said that owner Freddie Lutz has played in broadening the bar’s role into a community gathering place.
“Twenty-five years ago, opening a gay bar in Arlington was not a given,” Watkins told the crowd from the stage. “It took courage, convincing, and a deep belief that our community belongs openly, visibly, and proudly,” he said. “And that belief came from Freddie.”
Watkins and others familiar with Freddie’s noted that under Lutz’s leadership and support from his staff, Freddie’s provided support and a gathering place for LGBTQ organizations and a place where Virginia elected officials, and candidates running for public office, came to express their support for the LGBTQ community.
“Over the past 25 years, Freddie’s has become more than a bar,” Watkins said. “It has become a community maker.”
Lutz, who spoke next, said he was moved by the outpouring of support from long-time customers. “Thank you all so much for coming tonight and thank you all so much for your support over the past 25 years,” he said. “I can’t tell you how much that means to me and how much it’s kept me going.”
But Lutz then said Freddie’s, like many other D.C. area gay bars, continues to face economic hard times that he said began during the COVID pandemic. He noted that fewer customers are coming to Freddie’s in recent years, with a significant drop in patronage for his once lucrative weekend buffet brunches.
“So, I don’t want to be the daddy downer on my 25-year anniversary,” he said. “But this was actually the worst year we’ve ever had,” he added. “And I guess what I’m asking is please help us out. Not just me, but all the gay bars in the area.” He added, “I’m reaching out and I’m appealing to you not to forget the gay bars.”
Lutz received loud, prolonged applause, with many customers hugging him as he walked off the stage.
-
India5 days agoActivists push for better counting of transgender Indians in 2026 Census
-
Advice5 days agoDry January has isolated me from my friends
-
National5 days agoAfter layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
-
District of Columbia5 days agoCapital Pride reveals 2026 theme

