Connect with us

National

Obama talks DOMA, bullying at Latino roundtable

POTUS says courts best path to bring DOMA to an end

Published

on

Barack Obama (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

President Obama said the courts represent the best path for bringing the Defense of Marriage Act to end in response to a question on what he’s doing to help bi-national same-sex couples stay together in the United States.

Gabriel Lerner, senior news editor for AOL Latino and Huff-Post Latino Voices, brought the question up on Thursday while moderating a roundtable called “Open for Questions with President Obama” on issues important to the Latino community:

Lerner: Mr. President, on the Defense of Marriage Act, also called DOMA, this comes from Kevin in North Carolina. He says: I’m a gay American who fell in love with a foreigner.  As you know, due to DOMA, I’m not permitted to sponsor my foreign-born partner for residency. And as a result, we are stuck between a rock and an impossible situation. How do you intend to fix this? Waiting for DOMA to be repealed or struck down in the courts will potentially take years. What do binational couples do in the meantime?

Obama: Well, we made a decision that was a very significant decision, based on my assessment of the Constitution, that this administration would not defend DOMA in the federal courts. It’s not going to be years before this issue is settled. This is going to be settled fairly soon, because right now we have cases pending in the federal courts.

Administratively, we can’t ignore the law. DOMA is still on the books. What we have said is even as we enforce it, we don’t support it, we think it’s unconstitutional. The position that my administration has taken I think will have a significant influence on the court as it examines the constitutionality of this law. And once that law is struck down — and I don’t know what the ruling will be — then addressing these binational issues could flow from that decision, potentially.

I can’t comment on where the case is going to go. I can only say what I believe, and that is that DOMA doesn’t make sense; it’s unfair; I don’t think that it meets the demands of our Constitution. And in the meantime, if — I’ve already said that I’m also supportive of Congress repealing DOMA on it’s own and not waiting for the courts. The likelihood of us being able to get the votes in the House of Representatives for DOMA repeal are very low at this point so, truthfully, the recourse to the courts is probably going to be the best approach.

LGBT advocates working on immigration issues said in response to Obama’s comments that the president could do more to assist gay Americans in same-sex relationships with foreigners.

Lavi Soloway, founder of Stop the Deportations, said he doesn’t believe Obama’s answer was sufficient and the president should issue a moratorium to ensure foreign nationals in same-sex relationship aren’t deported because of DOMA:

“In his response, the President, a former constitutional law professor and son of a binational couple, said three times that DOMA is unconstitutional and affirmed his commitment to not to defend DOMA in court,” Soloway said. “Despite this, he believes that he must enforce this law against gay and lesbian Americans who are married to foreign nationals, until DOMA is repealed by Congress or struck down by the courts. The administration can and must do more to help binational couples now.”

Soloway continued, “First the administration must ensure that all binational couples are safe by issuing a moratorium on “DOMA deportations” and by issuing explicit written guidelines directing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion for same-sex binational couples.”

“Second, the administration must hold in abeyance decisions on all marriage-based green card applications filed by same-sex couples and stop denying those cases,” Soloway said. “This administration believes that it cannot approve such cases because of DOMA, but it does not follow that those cases must be denied. At the very least, we should wait until the fate of DOMA has been determined by Congress or the Supreme Court before decisions are rendered on any pending green card cases filed by lesbian and gay binational couples.”

Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, also called on the administration can place the green card applications on hold for gay Americans seeking to sponsor their foreign partners for residency while still following the law:

“We obviously agree with the president that DOMA is unconstitutional,” Ralls said. “But we also know there are many things the president can do even before DOMA is repealed to help bi-national couples. The most significant among those is holding green card application filed by those couples until the courts have resolved DOMA’s fate. That gives legal protection to couples, it does not violate DOMA and it’s clearly within the president’s authority to do so. That should be the action that he takes until the courts intervene to end DOMA completely.”

Also during the roundtable, Obama discussed what his administration has done to combat the bullying of students, although the question was based on the bullying of students for being Latino as opposed to being LGBT.

Jose Siade, Yahoo’s editor in chief for U.S. Hispanic and Latin America, brought the question to the President during the roundtable:

Siade: This question comes from Florida:  Since bullying is increasing in an alarming way in the U.S., what can be done to avoid further discrimination or bullying within various racial groups, particularly for Hispanic kids in school?

Obama: I think it’s a really important question.  We actually had the first-ever conference on bullying here in the White House — because for young people it’s hard enough growing up without also then being subject to constant harassment. And the kind of bullying that we’re seeing now, including using the Internet and new media, can be very oppressive on young people.

So what we’ve tried to do is to provide information and tools to parents, to schools, to communities to push back and fight against these kinds of trends. And a lot of the best work has actually been done by young people themselves who start anti-bullying campaigns in their schools, showing how you have to respect everyone, regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of sexual orientation. And when you get a school environment in which that’s not accepted by young people themselves, where they say we’re not going to tolerate that kind of bullying, that usually ends up making the biggest difference, because kids react to their peer group more than sometimes they do adults.

And what we need to do is make sure that we’re providing tools to schools and to young people to help combat against bullying, and it’s something that we’ll continue to work on with local communities and local school districts as well.

Lerner: So you’re going to have a conference on bullying in the White House?

Obama: We already did.  We had it — it was probably four or five months ago.  And we brought in non-profit groups, religious leadership, schools, students themselves.  And they have now organized conferences regionally, around the country, so that we can prevent this kind of bullying from taking place.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.

The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”

The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.

Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.

The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.

Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.

“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.

The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.

While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.

“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”

He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.

“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”

“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”

Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.

“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”

She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.

“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”

Continue Reading

National

Results from key Tuesday primary races

Published

on

Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener (Photo courtesy of Scott Wiener)

State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election. 

The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump. 

In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.

In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.

In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.  

The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple. 

Continue Reading

National

White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting

‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’

Published

on

The scene inside April’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner after shots rang out. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.

Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.

“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members. 

She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing. 

Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.  

This post will be updated as more details are announced.

Continue Reading

Popular