Connect with us

National

Huntsman: DOMA ‘serves a useful purpose’

GOP hopeful says advocating for ‘fairness’ at home will encourage other countries

Published

on

Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said Thursday the Defense of Marriage Act “serves a useful purpose” in allowing states to decide the issue of marriage.

“It allows states to make their own decisions, to make their own way, and the Defense of Marriage Act, I think, is a safeguard for those states to make that decision,” Huntsman said.

Huntsman made the comments in response to a question from the Washington Blade during an event at the National Press Club in D.C., where he unveiled his “Restoring Trust” plan that he would pursue upon election to the White House.

Section 3 of DOMA prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Another component of the law, Section 2, allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages legalized in other jurisdictions, but legal observers have said that portion of the law is unnecessary because states have traditionally decided for themselves which marriages to recognize.

It isn’t the first time Huntsman has commented on the anti-gay law. The former Utah governor’s comments similarly called DOMA a “safeguard” when asked about same-sex marriage during an Aug. 22 appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight.

But Huntsman made comments advocating for “fairness” — without an explicit mention of LGBT people — in response to another Blade question on the new Obama administration strategy and speech this week by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton advocating for LGBT human rights overseas.

Asked whether he would pursue a similar strategy upon taking office, Huntsman said “getting our house in order” in treating each other in the United States with fairness will encourage other countries to do the same.

“When we do it right in this country, we exude values that the rest of the world seems to watch and emulate — values of individual dignity, liberty, democracy, human rights and open markets,” Huntsman said. “I think we ought to focus on getting our own house in order here in terms of how we treat one another, the respect we feel for one another, getting our economy back on track and fixing our core. If we can do that, I think the rest of the world will pay us a little more attention.”

Among the GOP contenders, Huntsman has been seen as strong on foreign issues because of his work as a foreign diplomat overseas, most recently as U.S. ambassador to China.

In the course of his answer, Huntsman reiterated his support for civil unions — acknowledging some in the GOP “might not always agree with that” — and said he believes in “equality under the law.”

Huntsman didn’t answer another component of the Blade question on Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s criticism of the Obama administration’s new foreign policy strategy as being an example of the president “being at war with people of faith.”

Huntsman has been a favorite presidential candidate among LGBT Republicans. His support for civil unions and his support for generalized equality has made him distinct among other candidates.

But this support hasn’t translated to support for Huntsman nationwide. According to Gallup, Huntsman has as of Thursday support from just 1 percent of Republican registered voters nationwide. His low standing in the polls means he’ll be excluded from one of the last Republican presidential debates set for Saturday in Sioux City, Iowa.

Political observers have said Huntsman is staking his presidential campaign on the New Hampshire Republican primary, where he enjoys somewhat stronger support, although he’s still in the single digits in the polls.

A CNN/Time poll published Thursday found that Huntsman has support from 8 percent of likely Republican voters, which puts him in fourth place behind former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas.).

A transcript of the exchange between the Blade and Huntsman follows:

Washington Blade: On Tuesday, the Obama administration made public a sweeping plan to confront anti-gay abuses overseas as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a high-profile speech in Geneva on the issue. Rick Perry criticized Obama for the move and said it’s an example of the administration being at war with people of faith in this country. Do you believe that advocating for LGBT people is consistent with principles of faith and would your administration take a similar stance against anti-gay abuses overseas?

Jon Huntsman: I believe in fairness. I think that should be a guiding principle of all Americans. I believe in civil unions — I know some might not always agree with that. I believe in equality under the law. I believe that, from this country, we can lead by example. I believe that we are a shining light the rest of the world looks to. I found that to be the case living overseas four times. And when we do it right in this country, we exude values that the rest of the world seems to watch and emulate — values of individual dignity, liberty, democracy, human rights and open markets. I think we ought to focus on getting our own house in order here in terms of how we treat one another, the respect we feel for one another, getting our economy back on track and fixing our core. If we can do that, I think the rest of the world will pay us a little more attention.

Blade: If I could just follow up on that really quickly, the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage — even in states where it’s already legalized. As a matter of states’ rights, do you think it should be repealed?

Huntsman: I think the Defense of Marriage Act serves a useful purpose. It allows states to make their own decisions, to make their own way, and the Defense of Marriage Act, I think, is a safeguard for those states to make that decision.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular