Connect with us

National

Mixed reaction to Obama’s SOTU address

LGBT policy initiatives absent from speech

Published

on

President Obama called on Americans to work toward a brighter future during a State of the Union address on Tuesday that hit on issues ranging from the economy, foreign policy and the environment — but lacked any substantial mention of LGBT-related policy issues.

In his speech before a joint session of Congress, Obama urged cooperation as he laid out a series of policy initiatives aimed at bolstering the nation’s standing both at home and abroad.

“As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful and the state of our Union will always be strong,” Obama said.

On the economic front, Obama outlined a blueprint built on four pillars: manufacturing, energy, skills for workers and a renewal of values.

Among the initiatives he identified were doubling tax deductions for high-tech companies that make products in the United States; creating a Trade Enforcement Unit charged with investigating unfair practices in countries like China; and proposing a Veterans Job Corps to encourage communities to hire veterans as cops and firefighters.

Obama also said he’d continue his pledge to work toward deficit reduction and make sacrifices in programs like Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for making sure millionaires pay at least 30 percent in taxes.

“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want,” Obama said. “But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”

Foreign policy was also a major component of the speech. Obama touted the death of Osama bin Laden under his watch and the end to the U.S. military presence in Iraq. The president also said he “will take no options off the table” in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, although he prefers a peaceful resolution to the issue.

Coming off his decision to nix the Keystone Pipeline that would have carried oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast, Obama acknowledged environmental groups by calling for alternative energy development.

“I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here,” Obama said. “We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century.  That’s long enough.”

But any reference to LGBT policy issues were absent from the speech. Obama only mentioned “gay” as part of a list of categories of people who could serve in uniform — a reference to  “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight,” Obama said.

A mention of LGBT issues wasn’t expected in the speech, although state advocates said an endorsement of marriage equality in the address could help with efforts to pass such legislation in Washington State and Maryland.

The president also faced calls to declare his intent to issue an executive order barring federal dollars from going to companies that lack LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies.

John Aravosis, who’s gay and editor of AMERICAblog, said Obama could have gone further in his speech to address LGBT issues.

“I didn’t really expect him to come out for marriage equality or even announce his support for an executive order on ENDA,” Aravosis said. “But at the very least he could have, should have, mentioned ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and recognized the two lesbians invited to sit with the first lady. It was far more understated than I think it should have been.”

The lesbians that Aravosis referenced were two guests that attended the speech in the first lady’s box with Michelle Obama after receiving invitations from the White House. The president made no mention of them in his address.

Lorelei Kilker, a 31-year-old analytical chemist from Brighton, Colo., was among a class of women benefiting from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s investigation of alleged sex discrimination at her former employer, the Western Sugar Cooperative. In October, those who were involved in the case received an award of $550,000, which was achieved through a cooperative process between the employer and EEOC.

The other invitee was Air Force Col. Ginger Wallace, who’s 43 and lives in McLean, Va. She’s currently training to deploy to Afghanistan in the spring through the Afghanistan-Pakistan Hands program. The Blade reported in December on Wallace’s partner Kathy Knopf participating in Wallace’s “pinning-on” promotion ceremony.

Also in the address, Obama called for comprehensive immigration reform legislation and passage of the DREAM ACT, which would give young, undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship if they pursue military service or a college education.

“If election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country,” Obama said. “Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.”

Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, commended the president for reissuing his call for immigration reform, but said that vision should be inclusive of binational LGBT families.

“The president laid out an eloquent vision this evening of an America where everyone plays by the same rules, and shares the same opportunities and chances,” Ralls said. “The tens of thousands of LGBT binational couples who live every day with the threat of separation, or are already separated or in exile, want nothing more than that.”

Under current law, straight Americans can sponsor their foreign spouses for residency in the United States. That option isn’t available to gay Americans seeking marriage-based green cards for foreign same-sex partners. Legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act would rectify this situation.

“It also time for the president to endorse, and call for the passage of, the Uniting American Families Act,” Ralls said. “The administration has taken important steps forward in recent months, including exercising discretion to keep some couples together. We’re prepared, and ready, to work with the White House to make that progress permanent, and pass UAFA, whether alone or as part of a comprehensive bill.”

LGBT groups on the right and left responded to the State of the Union speech in accordance with their political views.

Chris Barron, chief strategist of the gay conservative group GOProud, said gay and straight Americans alike know that policies like those Obama advocates for in his speech have been a disaster for the country.

“Barack Obama used tonight’s State of the Union to stoke the fires of class warfare,” Barron said. “It is clear that this president fundamentally doesn’t understand how jobs are created. Instead of taking responsibility for the failures of his presidency, he has instead decided to double down on his failed policies that will undermine our free market economic system that is responsible for making America the greatest country on the planet.”

Barron was at the National Press Club during the State of the Union address with former Republican presidential candidate and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain, who delivered the Tea Party response to the speech.

Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said Obama’s speech was “a bold and clear vision for the future” and distinct from what he called the “tired and disproven schemes” advocated by Republican presidential candidates.

“Equality is a value at the heart of our movement and tonight, the president described a blueprint for America that is undeniably pro-equality — everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed and everyone should pay their fair share,” Davis said. “From a sensible and fair tax policy to rebuilding America’s infrastructure, the president’s blueprint for a lasting economy is exactly what our country needs to put millions back to work and make the American Dream a reality for generations to come.”

Yet another national LGBT group urged Obama to continue work on his LGBT advocacy.

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said Obama should “urge his administration and Congress to work together to ensure that everybody — including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people — have an opportunity to offer their unfettered best to America.”

“This is a challenge right now, in a nation where the rich are getting richer and everyone else is struggling to tread water,” Carey said. “Many families are hurting, and LGBT families are just as vulnerable to economic hardship. The fact is, the state of the union for LGBT people remains largely one of inequality. In many parts of the country, we can still be fired from or denied employment for simply being who we are, and marriage inequality relegates our families to second-class status.”

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Gallup finds LGBTQ support among Americans is dropping

Marriage equality support lowest since 2016

Published

on

Progress rainbow flag and trans flag flying. (Washington Blade Photo by Michael Key)

Gallup, one of the leading organizations in public opinion polling, has found that LGBTQ support among Americans is dropping.

The poll, whose data was collected using Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, was conducted in May and was published on Wednesday. The data was collected through telephone interviews from a sample of more than 1,000 adults living in all 50 states and D.C. using random digit dialing. 

It highlights declining attitudes surrounding LGBTQ issues in multiple areas — from support for same-sex marriage to views on gender identity and the morality of one’s sexuality.

One of the most striking findings was that support for marriage equality fell six points from its 2022-2023 high.

The survey also found that 62 percent of Americans view gay and lesbian relations as morally acceptable, the lowest level since 2016 just after same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

One newer question on the poll found that the perceived morality of changing one’s gender has dropped eight points since 2021, indicating the American public is less supportive of transgender people.

New data from Gallup shows a decline in LGBTQ support. (Graph courtesy of Gallup)

The data attributes much of the decline to shifting Republican views alongside the party itself. Conservative leaders have pushed back against diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that were intended to foster greater acceptance of LGBTQ people and other historically disadvantaged groups.

President Donald Trump has been a guiding force behind waves of anti-LGBTQ sentiment, particularly when it comes to trans rights. The president has enacted multiple executive orders, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandates that gender be defined by one’s sex assigned at birth. He also signed Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which barred qualified trans applicants from joining the military and led to the removal of trans service members already serving in the armed forces.

Additionally, he signed Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which prohibits trans female athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams.

In February, Gallup found that an estimated 9 percent of Americans identified as part of the LGBTQ community in some form.

The organization also found that 23 percent of adults under age 30 identify as LGBTQ, compared with 10 percent of those ages 30 to 49 and 3 percent or less among those ages 50 and older.

Continue Reading

Congress

Ogles faces bipartisan backlash over anti-gay social media post

Tenn. congressman blamed the comment on staffer

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) (Photo public domain)

U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), who represents Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District, is facing backlash from LGBTQ advocates and fellow Republicans after a social media post declared that “homosexuality has no place in America.”

“Homosexuality has no place in America. Happy Nuclear Family Month,” the congressman wrote in a post on X that was later deleted.

According to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, an estimated 6.3 percent of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ.

Following widespread criticism, Ogles removed the post and blamed it on a staff member.

“The post was stupid, hurtful and a complete distraction from my America First focus. The employee has been reprimanded,” Ogles said in a statement.

The Washington Blade reached out to Ogles’s office for comment but did not receive a response by press time.

Among those condemning the message was U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who called it “absolutely idiotic” in a social media post.

“Homosexuality exists. In America,” Lawler wrote on X. “In fact, Andy, you have family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and constituents who are gay and lesbian. It doesn’t make them less than or somehow unworthy of being an American.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also criticized Ogles’s remarks.

“For all of recorded history, homosexuals have been a part of humanity,” Cruz told TMZ DC. “I think the behavior of consenting adults is their business.”

Chris Sanders, the executive director for the Tennessee Equality Project and Tennessee Equality Project Foundation provided a statement to the Blade about Ogles’s comment.

“The Tennessee Nuclear Family Month resolution has really backfired on conservatives by ensnaring Congressman Ogles in scandal. He used the resolution as a pretext to say that our community doesn’t belong in America, resulting in incredible backlash from across the partisan divide,” Sanders said. “It is a good opportunity for him to pause and reflect on whether it’s time for him to resign. Fighting one’s own constituents is not the purpose of serving in Congress.”

Human Rights Campaign Senior Press Secretary Jarred Keller provided a statement to the Blade regarding Ogles’s comments.

“LGBTQ+ people are woven into the fabric of America, and any politician who questions that is severely out of touch with reality. When so many people are worried about whether they can afford gas to get to work or groceries for their families, the last thing we need is right-wing Republicans targeting marginalized communities with hateful attacks,” Keller said. “Representative Ogles should spend less time attacking LGBTQ+ people and start addressing the issues that actually matter, because last I checked, our community isn’t the reason families are struggling to make ends meet.”

The controversy comes as Tennessee continues to advance legislation affecting LGBTQ residents. The state already has several laws on the books that LGBTQ advocates have criticized, including the Adult Entertainment Act, enacted in 2023, which restricts certain “adult cabaret performances.”

Lawmakers have also introduced additional measures this legislative session, including the “No Pride Flag or Month Act,” which would prohibit state employees, volunteers, and agents from displaying Pride flags or participating in Pride observances while acting in an official capacity.

Another proposal, the “Banning Bostock Act” would seek to limit the application of state anti-discrimination protections based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Tennessee lawmakers have also passed other measures restricting LGBTQ rights and access to gender-affirming health care.

Continue Reading

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

Popular