National
Reporters hammer Carney on marriage, Biden’s remarks
W.H. spox has no updates, says Duncan was speaking his own views
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
White House Press Secretary faced a litany of questions Monday on same-sex marriage following favorable remarks on the issue that Vice President Joe Biden gave earlier in the week.
The preponderance of the daily news briefing consisted of inquiries attempting to square President Obama’s ongoing evolution with the remarks on same-sex marriage from Biden, who said Sunday he’s “absolutely comfortable” with married gay couples having the same rights as straight couples.
Carney referred to clarification immediately issued Sunday from the vice president’s office saying Biden’s views were in the line with the president — despite his remarks earlier in the day on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“I have no update on the president’s personal views,” Carney said. “What the vice president said yesterday was to make the same point that the president has made previously. Committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protection enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights.”
Carney said Biden’s comments stirred “a little bit of an overreaction” and said clarification went out from the vice president’s office because reporters sent inquiries and media outlets had the No. 2 in the administration had endorsed same-sex marriage.
As he’s done in the past, Carney said he has no updates on Obama’s marriage evolution; listed the president’s LGBT accomplishments, including repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; and reiterated the Obama opposes discriminatory efforts against gay couples.
While Biden remarks made up the lion’s share of the questions. Carney also faced questions on Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s endorsement of same-sex marriage earlier in the day on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Carney said the Cabinet official was offering his personal views on the matter.
“Secretary Duncan was asked a question on his personal views on an issue, and he offered them,” Carney said. “Obviously, this is an issue that many people have a view on, and we respect the right of all people to have a personal opinion.”
Under questioning from the Washington Blade, Carney dodged when asked whether he remembers the vice president speaking so favorably as he did in Sunday on the issue of same-sex marriage. Before becoming White House press secretary, Carney was Biden’s communications director for the first two years of the Obama administration.
“I think I will simply point you to what the vice president said yesterday, and the vice president supports this president’s policies in support for LGBT rights,” Carney said.
Carney gave a similar dodge when pressed when asked whether Biden’s remarks represent a sign of progress for the administration on the marriage evolution.
“I would just point you to what the vice president said,” Carney said.
On Sunday, Biden said he’s “absolutely comfortable” with the idea of married gay couples having the “same exact rights” as straight couples, which was reported by many media outlets and bloggers as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Biden’s office has said his comments weren’t anything new and the vice president is evolving on the issue like President Obama.
The president himself has yet to articulate support for same-sex marriage. In October 2010, Obama said in response to a question from AMERICAblog’s Joe Sudbay that he could evolve to support marriage equality, but hasn’t yet made any announcement.
During the news briefing, ABC News’ Jake Tapper pointed to comments that Obama has made — most recently in Rolling Stone Magazine — saying he doesn’t want to “make news” on his position on same-sex marriage. Tapper said the comment suggests Obama actually supports marriage equality, but doesn’t want to express that view.
In response, Carney said Tapper was making his own characterization of the president’s views on marriage.
“I think when people have asked him that and he has no update to give them or no change in his views to put forward that he’s simply saying that, I have nothing new for you on that; his position is what it was,” Carney said.
Carney said Obama’s record is “considerable and unparalleled” and proceeded to mention some LGBT accomplishments, but Tapper said he doesn’t “want to hear the same talking points 15 times in a row.” Carney responded the president’s accomplishments are serious work.
“We’re talking — talking points to you; serious, substantial rights to others, OK?” Carney said. “Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a serious matter. The efforts that this administration has taken on behalf of LGBT citizens are a serious matter.”
In the end, Tapper accused of the administration of being “cynical” by withholding Obama’s support for same-sex marriage presumably until after Election Day.
“And if that is the likely future of the president and this position, given that you don’t have any news to drop on it, or probably his mind has been made up, why not just come out and say it and let voters decide?” Tapper said. “It seems — it seems cynical to hide this until after the election.”
Other noteworthy inquiries why the president opposes bans on same-sex marriage, but doesn’t support same-sex itself. Another reporter from NPR asked whether marriage is a civil liberty, prompting Carney to defer the question to a “civil libertarian.”
The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler asked whether Obama wants the Democratic Party platform to conform to his views on marriage as LGBT advocates have been pushing for an inclusion of same-sex marriage in the document. Carney deferred the inquiry to the Democratic National Committee.
A transcript of the exchange between Carney and marriage questions follows:
Q: …This morning, the Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, put himself on record in favor of gay marriage. Yesterday, the vice president indicated something along the same lines. Does this box the President in ahead of the election? Have his views changed at all on this subject?
Jay Carney: Well, I have no update on the president’s personal views. What the vice president said yesterday was to make the same point that the president has made previously, that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to roll back those rights. That’s why this administration opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and supports legislation to repeal it. The administration also has stopped defending the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges.
Secretary Duncan was asked a question about his personal views on an issue and he offered them. And obviously this is an issue that many people have a view on and we respect the right of all people to have an opinion — a personal opinion.
Q: If asked at this point a similar question for his personal view, would the president give it?
Carney: I think the President is the right person to describe his own personal views. He, as you know, said that his views on this were evolving, and I don’t have an update for you on that.
…
Q: Jay, the president has raised millions of dollars from LGBT donors, many of whom say that they believe in a second term the President will come out in support of gay marriage. So doesn’t he owe them — or owe voters in general — his direct response and just stop dancing around the issue and telling voters will he or won’t he support gay marriage in a second term?
Carney: The president was asked this and said that his views on — his personal views on this were evolving. The president does have, as you noted, significant support in the LGBT community, and that’s because of his unparalleled record in support of LGBT rights. That includes the fight to repeal successfully “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It includes signing hate crimes legislation that includes LGBT persons. It includes ending a legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. It includes ensuring hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients and their loved ones, and I could go on. His record on the LGBT rights is simply unparalleled, and he will continue to fight for those rights going forward.
Q: Jay, on June 23, he told an LGBT audience, “Everybody deserves to be able to live and love as they see fit. I don’t have to tell the people in this room we’ve got a ways to go in the struggle.” What is he referring to if not gay marriage?
Carney: Well, I think you have heard him say and those in the administration like myself who speak for him that he strongly opposes efforts to restrict rights, to repeal rights for same-sex couples. He has made his opposition to those efforts in various states known and will continue to do so.
I think it’s a statement of obvious fact that full enjoyment of rights by LGBT citizens has not been achieved uniformly across the country. And that’s why he has taken a stand on — in opposition to efforts in some states to deny those rights and discriminate against LGBT citizens.
Q: So can you explain then clearly what — how Vice President Biden, who said, there is a consensus building toward gay marriage in this nation, and then came out yesterday saying that he is absolutely comfortable with men marrying men and women marrying women having equal rights, is not an endorsement of gay marriage?
Carney: Well, I think the Vice President expressed his personal views. He also said he was evolving on the issue.
Q: He did not say that, Jay.
Carney: He did.
Q: No. His spokesperson said that afterwards.
Carney: Let me just be clear, though. The vice president — what he said about the protection of rights of citizens is completely consistent with the president’s position on this issue, and his description of the way the country has moved on this issue I think is wholly accurate. I think we all have seen the data that describes an evolution of views across the country on these issues. So I don’t think there’s anything surprising about him saying that.
Q: You’re trying to have it both ways before an election.
Carney: No. Look, this President has been extremely aggressive in supporting LGBT rights. He fought against those who oppose the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and achieved that in this administration. There are those who want to bring “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” back. He very robustly fights against efforts to restrict or deny rights to LGBT citizens and discriminate against them, and he’ll continue to do so.
And again, you didn’t want to hear it, but there’s a long, long list of the actions that this administration has taken on behalf of LGBT citizens in this country. And that’s a record that the President is very proud of.
…
Q: Okay. And back to the same-sex marriage issue. I think one of the issues is that when asked about the president’s position, the president no longer said he is evolving on the issue. He says, I don’t have any news to make on that. That’s what Stephanie Cutter, a few minutes ago on cable said — I don’t have any news for you. The suggestion is that there is news there and you guys are just waiting for the proper time to drop it, likely after November.
Carney: I think that’s your characterization, Jake.
Q: I think that’s what it means —
Carney: I think the president said that he was evolving, and he had — I think when people have asked him that and he has no update to give them or no change in his views to put forward, that he’s simply saying that I have nothing new for you on that. His position is what it was. And that’s with regards to his personal views.
What I think needs to be remembered here is what he has done in office in support of LGBT rights. And that record is extensive and considerable and unparalleled. And he’ll continue to fight for those rights as long as he’s in office.
Q: Positing that the president has done more for LGBT individuals than any other President in history — so you don’t need to say that again — the question is —
Carney: But I will.
Q: Just for this question. When you get to Norah, whatever you want. But the question is, I think there are very few people who think that the president is not going to, after November, whether he’s reelected or not, come out in favor of same-sex marriage. I think there are very few people on the president’s campaign who doubt that; very few people who support the president, very few people who oppose the president who have any doubt that that is what is going to likely happen. And if that is the likely future of the president and this position, given that you don’t have any news to drop on it where probably his mind has been made up, why not just come out and say it and let voters decide? It seems cynical to hide this until after the election.
Carney: Jake, I think the president’s position is well known. He’s spoken to this. It’s gotten a great deal of coverage. I don’t have an update to provide you on the President’s position. It is what it was. I’m sorry you don’t want to hear about the president’s support for LGBT rights because it’s considerable.
Q: It’s not that I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want to hear the same talking points 15 times in a row.
Carney: I think the — talking points to you; serious substantial rights to others. Okay? “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t tTell” is a serious matter. The efforts that this administration has taken on behalf of LGBT citizens are serious matters.
Q: I’m not belittling that, Jay. We’re talking about same-sex marriage.
Carney: I think that’s the context of this discussion. I just don’t have anything more to give to you on the issue of the President’s views.
Q: Because he’s still evolving. Not because you don’t have news for me, it’s because he’s still evolving.
Carney: It is as it was, yes.
Norah.
Q: Why does the president oppose same-sex marriage?
Carney: I would just point you to what the president has said in the past, both during his campaign for President in 2008 and in answer to a question at the end of 2010. I really don’t have an update for you, Norah.
Q: Is the President comfortable with the fact of men marrying men and women marrying women?
Carney: The president is comfortable with same-sex couples, as the president — the vice president said, being entitled to the same rights and the civil rights and civil liberties as other Americans. And that’s why he has fought for those equal rights and why he’s opposed efforts to discriminate against LGBT citizens and to take away rights that have been established by law.
Q: Biden — the vice president appears to have evolved on the issue, but the president is still evolving — is that a fair characterization?
Carney: I will leave it to individuals to describe their own personal views. What I can explain to you is what the president’s positions are on issues, the actions he has taken at a policy level on behalf of LGBT Americans, and his commitment to continue to take actions on their behalf to protect and defend their rights.
Q: Let me ask you this. You have a number of Democratic governors throughout this country — Governor O’Malley, Governor Cuomo, Governor Malloy, to name a view, now the vice president, who all support same-sex marriage. Why doesn’t President Obama support same-sex marriage?
Carney: I just don’t have an update for you, Norah, on the president’s position on his personal views. I can tell you that he is a absolutely committed supporter of LGBT rights. His record bears that out. It is an unparalleled record of support for LGBT citizens and their rights, and he’s proud of it and he’ll run on it.
And I think that it’s important to remember when we talk about those accomplishments under this administration that they are far more than talking points; they are considerable, serious demonstrations of progress, important progress — progress that others would take away and reverse. This president is committed to not letting that happen.
Q: When you now say the vice president is evolving — he did not say that, as was pointed out, but he used some key words beyond what Norah just quoted. He also said that they are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. Does that mean he supports same-sex marriage?
Carney: I was pointing to this statement that the vice president’s office put out yesterday describing his statements, and I don’t have any elaboration on that. I can tell you that what he said is completely consistent in that paragraph with the President’s views that LGBT citizens should enjoy the same rights and that they should not be discriminated against. And efforts to take away those rights are something that this President strongly opposes.
Q: But how come when the president proposes something like the American Jobs Act — you could name anything — and he says — he travels around the country and says, you’re entitled to press members of Congress, tell them, are they for this or are they against it — why can’t you from this podium say whether or not the President supports or opposes same-sex marriage?
Carney: Well, I can tell you that the president has spoken about this, and that his views have not changed and I have no update to give you on them.
…
Q: Why did the administration feel like they had to put out a statement clarifying what the vice president said?
Carney: Well, I don’t know that the — the office of the vice president put out a statement. I think that there was a lot of interest generated by the comments and the office of the vice president put out a statement to make it clear what the vice president was saying.
But again, I think that there is a little bit of an overreaction here. The Vice President supports and made clear he supports the President’s policies when it comes to protecting the rights of LGBT citizens, and he also has his own personal views about the issue, as does the President, as do most people. So the President’s record on LGBT rights is extensive, and he is committed to working to move forward on that issue.
Q: Is it fair to say that publicly the president and the vice president disagree on gay marriage?
Carney: No, I don’t think that’s what the vice president said yesterday. But again, I don’t think that’s the point. The president and the vice president and everyone in this administration support the initiatives that this president has taken to protect and defend the rights of all Americans, including LGBT Americans.
Q: When it came to the issue of marriage before, there was a time when the president was somebody who believed in deferring it to the states. Does he still feel that way?
Carney: Well, the president believes that the states are deciding this issue, and he has made clear —
Q: — clearly a state issue, not a federal issue?
Carney: Well, I think that we certainly oppose efforts to take away rights at a federal level, which some politicians suppose — a constitutional amendment to deny rights to LGBT Americans across the country — we oppose that. The president opposes that. States have taken action on this issue, and the President believes that when the process works that it’s a positive thing. He also opposes efforts in states to repeal rights or deny rights to LGBT citizens that have already been established.
Q: So what would that put him — where would the president be then on the amendment in North Carolina that would ban gay marriage?
Carney: The president, through the campaign — but the same person opposes efforts to deny the rights of citizens in any state where those rights have been established.
Q: So he opposes — so help me out there. He opposes bans on gay marriage but he doesn’t yet support gay marriage?
Carney: The record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. That is a position he has taken that precedes his taking a position in North Carolina. It’s a position he’s taken in other states where this has been an issue. Yes, he is opposed to efforts in states to deny rights that have been provided to citizens.
Q: You understand why there is so much confusion because you’re saying he opposes bans on gay marriage but he’s not yet for gay marriage. I mean, that’s —
Carney: He believes that the states are — marriage is a state issue, and the states have the right to take action on it. What he opposes is efforts to repeal rights that have been granted to LGBT citizens. He thinks that’s discriminatory and wrong.
…
Q: There’s going to be an effort this summer to have support for gay marriage as part of the Democratic platform. Does the president believe it’s important that the platform reflects his views?
Carney: Well, on the issue of the platform, which hasn’t been developed yet, I would refer you to the DNC.
Q: My question was whether the president — this is a question for the president — whether the President thinks that the platform just kind of doesn’t matter, which some people say, or whether it really is a statement of his views whatever those may be?
Carney: I think it’s a statement of the party’s view and has long been that. But I don’t have — I haven’t had that discussion with him. But I think a platform is a statement of a party’s views. It is called a Democratic or Republican Party platform. But for questions about the development of that platform I’d refer you to the DNC.
Q: He is the head of his party.
Carney: Again, I don’t have a different answer for you, Laura. It’s a platform that hasn’t been developed. I would point you to the DNC for questions about it.
Q: Just to get clear on your criteria, you said that you oppose state efforts to take away rights. In North Carolina gays can’t marry now, so what is the reason to oppose North Carolina?
Carney: The referendum would, as I understand it, restrict and deny rights to LGBT Americans. And the president —
Q: That they currently have in North Carolina?
Carney: That’s my understanding, yes.
Q: Okay. My other question is, is marriage a civil liberty?
Carney: You have to ask civil libertarians or lawyers.
Q: Well, in the White House view, is marriage a civil liberty?
Carney: We believe that — the president believes strongly that LGBT Americans should enjoy the same legal rights, and he opposes efforts to deny rights to LGBT American and discriminate against them.
Q: Okay. Just another question. It’s pretty rare when somebody runs for office saying, in effect, I’m getting ready to change my mind. And you’ve really savaged Mitt Romney for changing his mind, and I’m wondering if you don’t run some risk of looking kind of too clever by half here.
Carney: Look, I don’t have an update for you on the president’s personal views. He described them in response to a question. This has gotten a great deal of coverage in the past. That’s the answer he has and I don’t have a new answer for you.
Q: But what would you say is the definition of “evolving”? You’ve said it so many times, it has to mean something specific.
Carney: The president said that his views on this are evolving. I think —
Q: Is he getting ready to change?
Carney: Not necessarily. I think he just said they were evolving. And that’s at a personal level. His views on LGBT rights are crystal-clear and this administration has taken actions that are unparalleled to support those rights. And he’ll continue to take those actions because he thinks that’s the right thing to do.
April.
Q: How could his views be crystal-clear if everybody in this room is needing to ask you questions?
Carney: Chris, I think everybody in this room is reacting in the way that folks often do to one story that takes off and then they run down the field and chase it. They’re reacting to comments on a Sunday show. Nothing has changed in the President’s firm commitment to LGBT rights and nothing’s changed and I have no new information —
Q: — position by the White House.
Carney: It’s the same position. It’s not the position of the White House. The President’s position is —
Q: Then why did you guys send out statements to clarify?
Carney: Because the vice president’s statements were being misinterpreted by some, so he — so there was an effort to clarify it by the office of the vice president.
Q: Jay, what do you think the word “evolving” means?
Carney: But that’s where the president is, okay.
Q: Is he unevolved?
Carney: April.
Q: That means changing.
Q: Okay, now I have the ball, let me run with it.
Carney: Policy positions haven’t changed, Jake. And I can remind you that his support for LGBT rights is unprecedented and compares favorably to anyone else out there in the political arena who’s advocating for these rights. And he’ll continue to support them.
April.
Q: All right, now I’m going to take the ball and run down the field with it real quick. And I want you to dissect the evolution.
Carney: No, I’m not going to, April. I’m sorry, I don’t have anything new for you.
Q: No, no, no, no. Okay, you’re not going to, but can you at least say yea or nay when I kind of try to — (laughter) — here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. Before we heard that it was — he was having a hard time marrying issues of his faith and rights. Is that the evolution? Is that where the evolution issue is a holdup?
Carney: The next time the president has a news conference, if you want to ask him that you’re certainly welcome to. I do not have an update for you on the president’s personal views.
Q: Jay, did the president know before yesterday, did the president know that the vice president was comfortable with men marrying men? Is this something they’ve discussed?
Carney: I don’t have a readout for you of conversations they’ve had on this issue.
Q: Is it something they’ve discussed?
Carney: Again, I don’t have a readout for you of private conversations that they’ve had.
…
Q: Thanks, Jay. Is it still accurate to say, then, that President Obama is opposed to gay marriage?
Carney: I would simply say that his views are evolving, which is what he said. And I don’t have an update for you on that issue.
Amy.
Q: Just to clarify, were you saying that the Vice President’s comments were his personal views? Were you looping it together with Arne Duncan’s views?
Carney: The Vice President spoke very clearly about the President’s policies, and they’re entirely consistent with the policies that this President has supported. He also — he talked about evolution in this country and other issues, and those were personal views. I will simply refer you to the statement that the office of the vice president put out.
…
Q: …As someone who’s worked with the vice president before, do you remember him ever speaking so favorably on the issue of same-sex marriage?
Carney: I think I will simply point you to what the vice president said yesterday. The vice president supports this president’s policies in support for LGBT rights.
Q: But is this a sign of progress?
Carney: I would just point you to what the vice president said.
…
Watch the White House briefing its entirety here (video courtesy White House YouTube page)
Federal Government
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
D.C. bar, LGBTQ+ Community Center to mark Lesbian Visibility Week
Trailblazing trans Brazilian lawmaker refuses to set foot in Trump’s America
Lebanese LGBTQ group responds to latest war
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
