National
Mixed reaction to Obama’s SOTU address
LGBT policy initiatives absent from speech
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.”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
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.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
