Connect with us

News

NOM weighs in on Alabama race, endorses Roy Moore

Candidate ousted from the bench for defying federal rulings for same-sex marriage

Published

on

Roy Moore, gay news, Washington Blade

Roy Moore, gay news, Washington Blade

The National Organization for Marriage has endorsed Roy Moore for U.S. Senate. (Photo public domain)

The National Organization for Marriage has endorsed Roy Moore in Alabama’s special election for U.S. Senate — a candidate that has taken the anti-LGBT views the group advances to an extreme level.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, announced Wednesday his organization has endorsed Moore in an email blast titled “Our choice for U.S. Senate in Alabama.”

“Roy Moore is a champion for marriage, life, and religious liberty,” Brown writes. “He knows that under the constitution the American people reign supreme, not judges or politicians. Judge Moore will work to restore marriage to our laws, and to protect the religious liberty rights of people to live out their beliefs about marriage at work and in their daily lives.”

A former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Moore has taken extreme views against same-sex marriage. Calling the decision “an immoral, unconstitutional and tyrannical opinion,” Moore instructed Alabama state judges to ignore federal rulings in favor of marriage equality.

Last year, Moore issued a directive saying despite the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage, probate judges should still deny marriage licenses to gay couples because the Alabama Supreme Court never withheld its 2015 ruling upholding the state law against gay nuptials.

For encouraging state officials to defy federal courts, the Alabama judicial court suspended Moore for the remainder of his term from the Alabama Supreme Court. The body determined Moore “failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.” (It wasn’t the first time Moore was suspended from the bench. It happened before in 2003 when he refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building despite orders from a federal court.)

Moore hasn’t shied away from his anti-gay views during his run for a U.S. Senate seat, which he pursued after dropping his appeal of the Alabama judicial court ruling ousting him from the bench.

In an interview with The Guardian, Moore cited same-sex marriage as a reason for why he thinks former President Reagan’s declaration about the Soviet Union being “the focus of evil in the modern world” might today be apply to the United States.

“You could say that about America, couldn’t you?” Moore was quoted as saying. “We promote a lot of bad things.”

When it was pointed out his views on LGBT rights were akin to those Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has enacted anti-LGBT policies in Russia, Moore replied, “Maybe Putin is right.”

Brown’s email blast in support of Moore comes with a video extolling the candidate for embracing the cause of the “religious freedom” — code for social conservatives to mean anti-LGBT discrimination — and resisting the Obergefell decision.

“The people of Alabama, and the entire country, deserve a U.S. senator who will fight against activist judges to restore the truth of marriage to our laws and to protect the religious liberty of people of faith and all others who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” Brown writes. “Roy Moore is just such a leader, and we wholeheartedly endorse his election to the Senate.”

The primary for the special election, held to replace the U.S. Senate seat vacated by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions upon his confirmation as attorney general, already took place Aug. 15. Moore won a plurality of 38 percent of the vote against his opponent, interim U.S. Sen. Luther Strange. The run off election between the two will take place Sept. 28.

A former Alabama attorney general, Strange also has a record of opposition to same-sex marriage and defended the state law against same-sex marriage in court. But Strange didn’t take the same extreme position as Moore or seeking to defy federal rulings in favor of same-sex marriage.

Just before the primary, President Trump endorsed Luther, who is also the preferred candidate of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It remains to be seen if Trump will change his mind as the run off approaches and Moore continues to remain popular in the polls.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Rehoboth Beach

BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth

Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear

Published

on

Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach will host a BLUF leather social on Friday, April 10 at 5 p.m. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel

Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.

Published

on

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.

A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.). 

Continue Reading

Puerto Rico

The ‘X’ returns to court

1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk via Bigstock)

Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.

That has now changed.

Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.

The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.

Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.

The issue lies in how the law is applied.

Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.

Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.

The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.

The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.

This case does not exist in isolation.

It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.

Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.

From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.

The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.

Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.

That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.

The debate is no longer theoretical.

It is now before the courts.

Continue Reading

Popular