National
Gingrich: Media has anti-Christian bias on marriage
At N.H. debate, GOP candidates tout opposition to gay nuptials
Republican presidential candidates stood firm in their opposition to same-sex marriage during a debate Saturday night as Newt Gingrich rebuked the media for what he said was asking the wrong question on the issue.
The former U.S. House speaker said he wanted to “raise a point about the news media bias” and accused the media of not asking about same-sex marriage in terms of what it means for religious groups.
“Should the Catholic Church be forced to closed its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done?” Gingrich said. “Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration in key delivery of services because of the bias of the bigotry of the administration?”
Gingrich added, “The bigotry question goes both ways and there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is a concern of the other side, and none of it gets covered by the media.” The audience erupted in applause following Gingrich’s response.
The debate at St. Anselm’s College in Manchester, N.H., took place just days before New Hampshire Republican voters go to the polls on Tuesday to decide on their preferred candidate to win the GOP nomination.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he agrees with Gingrich on his position, adding that the events in Massachusetts following the 2003 State Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage were “exactly as Speaker Gingrich indicated.”
“What happened was Catholic charities that placed almost half of all the adoptive children in our state was forced to step out of being able to provide adoptive services,” Romney said. “And the state tried to find other places to help children. We have to recognize that this decision about what we call marriage has consequences, goes far beyond a loving couple who want to form a loving relationship.”
But one LGBT advocate accused Gingrich and Romney of misstating the facts on the Catholic Church abandoning charitable services because the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, said via e-mail the church voluntarily withdrew services in Massachusetts and wasn’t forced to do so.
“I was running MassEquality during the Catholic Charities debacle in Massachusetts, and I have to say it is extremely distressing that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich just repeated the lie that the freedom to marry in Massachusetts had ANYTHING to do with Catholic Charities ceasing to perform adoptions,” Solomon said. “That unfortunate result was because the Catholic hierarchy in [Massachusetts] wanted an exemption from civil rights laws.”
Solomon added the local board of Catholic Charities voted unanimously to continue performing adoptions and to comply with civil rights laws, but was overruled by the Catholic hierarchy.
“Romney was governor at the time — he KNOWS it’s not true,” Solomon said.
Gingrich made the comments after a debate moderator, ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, posed a question submitted via email by “Phil” of Virginia asking what candidates want same-sex couples to do if they want legal protections for their families.
“Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed long-term relationships,” the question read. “What is your solution?”
Despite his opposition to marriage equality, Gingrich said he wants to “make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends occur.”
“For example, you’re in a hospital, if there are visitation hours should you be allowed to stay,” Gingrich said. “There ought to be ways to designate that. You want to have somebody in your will. There ought to ways to designate that.”
Still, Gingrich called it “a huge jump” going being understanding of same-sex couples “to saying we’re, therefore, going to institute of marriage as if it has no basis.”
“The sacrament of marriage was based on a man and a woman, has been for 3,000 years, is at the core of our civilization, and is something worth protecting and upholding,” Gingrich said. “And, I think, protecting and upholding that doesn’t mean you have to go out and make life miserable for others, but it does mean you make a distinction between a historic sacrament of enormous importance in our civilization and simply deciding it applies every way and is just a civil right.”
Romney expressed a similar sentiment in favor of relationship recognition while maintaing opposition to same-sex marriage, saying “there can be domestic partner benefits or a contractual relationship” between two people that can include hospital visitation rights.
“There’s every right in this country for people to form long-term committed relationship with one another,” Romney said. “That doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage.”
Romney added recognizing same-sex marriage is a “mistake,” not because he wants to discriminate against people, but because the country “will be better off if children are raised in a setting where there’s a male and a female.”
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr., was distinct among other candidates on state. The candidate stated his position in favor of civil unions, saying they’re “fair” and “there’s such a thing as equality under the law.” Still, he said he doesn’t support same-sex marriage.
“I don’t feel that my relationship is at threatened by civil unions,” Huntsman said. “On marriage, I’m a traditionalist. I think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman, but I believe that civil unions are fair and I believes it brings a level of dignity to relationships.”
Huntsman added “reciprocal beneficiary rights” should be part of civil unions and said states “should be able to talk about” the marriage issue.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry took the opportunity to reiterate his support for a Federal Marriage Amendment and his belief that the Obama administration is conducting a war against people of faith.
Among the policies changes to which Perry took exception was the Obama administration’s decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
“That is a war against religion, and it’s going to stop under a Perry administration,” the candidate said, receiving applause from the audience.
In response to a different question, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum revealed a distinction in his position on same-sex marriage, and that on adoption by same-sex couples.
Josh McElveen, a reporter for a local news affiliate WMUR, asked Santorum about adoption by same-sex parents, noting New Hampshire is one of the state where same-sex marriage is legal.
“Are you going to tell someone they belong as a ward of the state or in foster care rather than have two parents who want them?” McElveen asked.
Santorum responded that adoption by gay couples isn’t a federal issue and should be resolved by the states.
“I’m certainly not going to have a federal law that bans adoption for gay couples when there are only gay couples in certain states, so this is a state issue, not a federal issue,” Santorum said.
Contrary to Santorum’s assertion, the Williams Institute has found based on 2010 U.S. Census data that gay couples exist in every state in the country.
But Santorum said his position on adoption by same-sex marriage contrasts with his position on marriage.
“I believe the issue of marriage itself is a federal issue — that we can’t different laws with respect to marriage,” Santorum said. “We have to have one law. Marriage is, as Newt said, a foundational institution of our country, and we have to have a singular law with respect to that. We can’t have somebody married in one state, and not married in another.”
In response a follow-up question on what happens to existing same-sex couples if a Federal Marriage Amendment is passed, Santorum invoked his previously stated belief that such marriages would be invalid.
“If the Constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman, then marriage is between a man and a woman,” Santorum said. “And therefore, that’s what marriage is, and would be in this country, and those who are not men and women who are married would not be married. That’s what the Constitution would say.”
Wayne Besen, executive director of the pro-LGBT group Truth Wins Out, rebuked Santorum in a statement for advocating for the invalidation of existing same-sex marriages and predicted the position would end Santorum’s campaign.
“I think the radical idea of destroying families and invalidating their marriages is so preposterous that it will cost Rick Santorum any chance of ever becoming President of the United States,” Besen said. “Santorum is just too extreme and the cruel position he took on this issue will lead to the unraveling of his campaign.”
Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was the only candidate on stage who didn’t respond to the marriage issue. He’s said government should get out of the marriage business, but he personally believe marriage is between one man, one woman.
The presidential primary comes to New Hampshire as the state is likely to vote this month on repeal of the same-sex marriage, which was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch (D) in 2009. Perry and Romney have expressed support for repeal of the marriage law there. Each of the candidates who support a Federal Marriage Amendment — Romney, Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich — implicitly support repeal of the state law because the federal measure would end same-sex marriages there.
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’
A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
My chance encounter with a pope and why goodness still matters
Underdog glorious: a personal remembrance of Jill Sobule
Dr. Fauci receives Harvey Milk Award, reflects on legacy of love and public health
I’m a lesbian and LGBTQ books would have changed my life
Comings & Goings
American cardinal chosen as next pope
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved
Trump admin cancels more than $800 million in LGBTQ health grants
-
The Vatican3 days agoAmerican cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features3 days agoYour guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days agoSupreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia4 days agoWorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved