National
Experts debate impact of Obama’s marriage support
Examining social, political and legal implications of announcement
President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality last week has been heralded as a milestone that inspired and exhilarated LGBT people throughout the country. Now, the practical implications of his words are being analyzed and debated by supporters.
LGBT advocates and political observers have different views on the social, political and legal ramifications of the announcement as they agreed that Obama becoming the first president to support marriage equality was historic in nature.
Richard Socarides, a gay New York attorney who advised former President Clinton on LGBT issues, said the cultural implications of Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage are substantial because it marks “a very positive” turning point on LGBT rights.
“I think having the president on record in favor of this goal is very important, and I think it will help shape the discussion that we’re having as a country about this, and I think it’ll help it in a very positive direction,” Socarides said.
Jeff Krehely of the Center for American Progress (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Jeff Krehely, vice president for LGBT programs at the Center for American Progress, said the social implications of Obama’s announcement are huge because the endorsement triggered conversations and additional support for marriage equality that otherwise wouldn’t have happened.
“That has a huge impact on the country on the issue, and the lives of gay people, too, who hear something that is very clear and very reassuring and very welcomed,” Krehely said.
Krehely noted Obama’s announcement inspired other noteworthy people — ranging from Democratic leaders like Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) to celebrities like Will Smith and Jay-Z — to voice their support for marriage equality.
“The president’s leadership matters, and we’re seeing that now in the number of people from a wide variety of backgrounds who are now also coming out with their support of marriage,” Krehely said. “I think more than anything, it has completely mainstreamed the issue.”
Questions remain about how Obama’s endorsement will impact states that are deciding the issue. In as many as four states this fall — Minnesota, Maine, Washington and Maryland — residents will vote on ballot initiatives related to same-sex marriage.
Krehely said Obama’s endorsement should have a positive impact.
“I think the president’s leadership on the issue has definitely mainstreamed it, and created a conversation in a lot of quarters that might not be having this conversation, and, I think, at the end of the day, that’s very good for the state fights and for DOMA repeal in Congress as well,” Krehely said.
During the interview in which he announced his support for same-sex marriage, Obama maintained the issue should be left to the states, saying, “I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.”
The Obama campaign has previously weighed in against anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives in states like North Carolina and Minnesota. That took place even before the announcement in favor of same-sex marriage because Obama’s previous position was that he was opposed to discriminatory efforts directed at gay couples.
Should the LGBT community expect more Obama involvement in state battles? Will the president’s support for marriage equality mean he’ll speak out for the pro-marriage equality side in Maine, Maryland and Washington State?
These questions aren’t restricted to ballot initiatives, but also future legislative fights on same-sex marriage. In a state like Illinois, which could advance same-sex marriage legislation next year, would the voice of a president who represented the state in the U.S. Senate be helpful?
Krehely said it should be up to state organizations running the campaigns to determine if they want Obama’s voice and reach out to the White House if they deem that helpful, but said it may not be beneficial in some circumstances if they don’t want the president to “parachute” into the fray.
“I think, smartly, the White House could be hugely helpful in those state fights, and they weighed in on a number of the ballot campaigns even before his announcement, so I’m assuming that their appetite for doing that kind of state level work remains, if it’s not growing stronger,” Krehely said.
Socarides said the president should focus on winning the election — as well as picking up Democratic seats in Congress.
“It’s going to fall to us and to organizations in those states to wage successful campaigns in each of those places,” Socarides said. “I suspect that what the president has already done will be helpful, and there may be things he can do along the way, but winning those battles is primarily going to be our responsibility.”
Last week, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney declined to say whether Obama would speak out on legislative and ballot fights over same-sex marriage when asked by a reporter during a press gaggle abroad Air Force One.
“I’m not going to speculate about what he may say or statements he might issue,” Carney said. “He has on occasion made his position known on actions by individual states, most recently in North Carolina, and I’m sure that continues to be the case. That will continue to be the case.”
Another lingering political question is whether Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage will benefit or jeopardize his chances for re-election when he goes up against presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage.
Backing marriage rights for gay couples may energize progressive and LGBT voters, but it remains to be seen how it will play out in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said he thinks the election will overwhelmingly be decided by the economy, but acknowledged some voters will factor same-sex marriage into their decision.
“Overall, I think the ‘red’ states got redder and the ‘blue’ states got bluer,” Sabato said. “Many Democrats are more committed to Obama as a result, and many Republican evangelical voters, who were unexcited about Romney before this, are now 100 percent committed to him — if only to oust Obama.”
In part because of the marriage issue, Sabato said some states that were once considered battlegrounds — Missouri, North Carolina and Indiana — are now quite likely in Romney’s column, but the decision might help Obama in the battleground states of New Hampshire and Colorado.
But Sabato said he’s basing his calculations on evangelical populations in those states and the money that Obama will likely raise from his announcement in favor of same-sex marriage will benefit him in the election.
“Perhaps Obama’s decision helps him raise many millions more, which are then used for TV ads to persuade swing state voters on the economy,” Sabato said. “The calculus is more complicated than it seems.”
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll published Tuesday, Obama’s support for marriage equality is helping him and hurting him in equal measure — much like the country’s nearly even split for and against same-sex marriage. Thirty-one percent of Americans have a higher opinion of Obama because of his support while 30 percent view him less favorably, according to the poll.
Richard Socarides (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Socarides said the president’s endorsement of same-sex marriage will on the whole be positive because it fits well within Obama’s campaign theme of moving the country “forward.”
“He is a forward looking leader who, although deliberative, is willing to stake out policy positions that are forward leaning,” Socarides said. “I think to do otherwise would have really not been helpful. I think that you cannot position yourself as a forward-thinking leader when you have an extremely muddled position on one of the most important policy issues of the day.”
The impact of Obama’s endorsement will also likely be felt in the legal arena. The Justice Department stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act against challenges in court last year, and Obama said last week that his support of same-sex marriage was his personal view without talking too much about legal implications.
Some legal observers believe Obama’s announcement in favor of same-sex marriage could lead the administration to intervene on behalf of federal marriage equality lawsuits — particularly if that litigation reaches the Supreme Court.
The most high-profile of these cases in support of same-sex marriage is the Perry v. Brown lawsuit challenging California’s Proposition 8 that is pending before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Socarides expressed confidence that the Obama administration would intervene in a marriage equality case that reaches the Supreme Court, saying if the president supports same-sex marriage, it stands to reason marriage rights for gay couples are constitutionally protected.
“I’m optimistic that despite the president’s statement that he thinks the issue will be played out on the state level for a while, given everything that’s come before this, especially the Justice Department’s position in the DOMA cases, that the government will come into these cases at some point and being willing to assert a federal constitutional right to marriage equality,” Socarides said.
By this time next year, Socarides predicted the federal government would be on record in court that it believes the U.S. Constitution guarantees marriage equality and that the government will file friend-of-the-court briefs in those cases.
Douglas NeJaime, who’s gay and a law professor at Loyola Law School, said the Obama administration weighing in on a Supreme Court case wouldn’t necessarily have much impact.
“One could imagine that if a same-sex marriage case like Perry makes it up to the Supreme Court that the administration could weigh in,” NeJaime said. “That would be important, but there’s no reason that that would necessarily happen, nor that it would be particularly influential.”
NeJaime also said Obama’s support for same-sex marriage “has a huge rhetoric” that could influence the arguments of attorneys in court.
“It disables the anti same-sex marriage lawyers to some extent because they’ve been able to use what the president has said as a way to bolster the reasonableness of their position, and now that seems less plausible,” NeJaime said.
National
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs
A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.
News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.
Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.
Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.
A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.
Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.
“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.”
Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.
Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.
“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,” Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.
Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.
In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.
“Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.
It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end.
“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.
“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes.
Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.
National
At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.
They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”
Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.
In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”
That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.
After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.
At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.
“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.
Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.
All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.
The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.
I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.
In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.
It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.
Puerto Rico
LGBTQ ‘human rights crisis is unfolding in Puerto Rico’
Activist spoke at Congressional Hispanic Caucus briefing in D.C. on July 15
An activist from Puerto Rico who spoke at a Congressional Hispanic Caucus briefing last week in D.C. said anti-LGBTQ laws and policies have left the LGBTQ community in the U.S. commonwealth even more vulnerable.
“A human rights crisis is unfolding in Puerto Rico — one that disproportionately affects LGBT+ people, particularly transgender and nonbinary Puerto Ricans,” said True Self Foundation Executive Director Miguel Vázquez-Rivera.
The True Self Foundation and LatinoJustice PRLDEF participated in the briefing that took place on July 15.
Vázquez-Rivera during the briefing highlighted several anti-LGBTQ laws and policies that have been implemented since Gov. Jenniffer González took office in January 2025. These include Law 63-2025, which prohibits gender-affirming healthcare for anyone under 21, and Law 26-2026, which prohibits the University of Puerto Rico and other “government facilities” from installing “mixed or gender-neutral multi-occupancy restrooms.”
“The legislation aims to strengthen public safety standards while ensuring that no individual is subjected to unlawful discrimination,” noted the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration on Feb. 25 in a press release after González signed it.
González, a Republican who is a member of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party, was Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner in the U.S. House of Representatives before she became governor. González supports President Donald Trump.
Vázquez-Rivera during the briefing highlighted anti-LGBTQ measures that have been introduced in the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly. These include House Bill 164, which would prohibit transgender athletes from school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity, and House Bill 131, which would allow faith-based adoption agencies to deny services to same-sex couples.
“The overwhelming scientific evidence is clear: children raised by same-sex parents do just as well as those raised by different-sex parents,” said Vázquez-Rivera. “What matters is not the gender or the sexual orientation of the parents; but the presence of love, stability, and support.”
Trump upon taking office for a second time on Jan. 20, 2025, signed his “Defending Women from Gender Identity Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” executive order. Among its provisions is the federal government’s recognition of two genders: male and female.
Vázquez-Rivera noted “other proposals” in Puerto Rico “would recognize only ‘biological sex’ in government documents, prohibit inclusive language throughout public institutions, continue challenging recognition of nonbinary identities, and reverse protections for LGBT+ students previously adopted by the University of Puerto Rico.”
“The challenges facing LGBT+ Puerto Ricans cannot be viewed as isolated debates about healthcare, sports, bathrooms, or language,” said Vázquez-Rivera. “They are part of a much larger picture.”
“Puerto Rico is already confronting poverty, disaster recovery, healthcare shortages, and economic instability,” he added. “When discrimination is added to these realities, existing inequities become even deeper. Mental health worsens. Families are displaced. Communities become more vulnerable.”
Vázquez-Rivera further stressed “these issues are interconnected, and our response must be as well.” He also urged the LGBTQ rights movement to do more to support — and fund — advocacy efforts in Puerto Rico.
“Ultimately, this is not about granting special rights,” said Vázquez-Rivera. “It is about ensuring that more than three million American citizens living in Puerto Rico have the same opportunity to live healthy, safe, and dignified lives as every other American.”
The Puerto Rican government has not responded to the Washington Blade’s request for comment.
Blade participates in Dutch university course on international LGBTQ rights law
US official protested at 2026 International AIDS Conference
Advocates for trans students urge Md. to fight White House threats
‘Heated Rivalry’ star takes it off in new ads for Under Armour
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Pentagon says hormones make trans troops unfit but gives them to men
At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one
Winsome Earle-Sears launches campaign against Va. marriage equality amendment
Calendar: July 24-30
1 dead, 29 injured in Berlin Pride attack
-
Opinions5 days agoPentagon says hormones make trans troops unfit but gives them to men
-
National5 days ago
At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one
-
Virginia5 days ago
Winsome Earle-Sears launches campaign against Va. marriage equality amendment
-
Calendar5 days ago
Calendar: July 24-30
