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
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
Directive adopted during meeting in Baltimore.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this week adopted a directive that bans Catholic hospitals from offering gender-affirming care to their patients.
Since ‘creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift,’ we have a duty ‘to protect our humanity,’ which means first of all, ‘accepting it and respecting it as it was created,’” reads the directive the USCCB adopted during their meeting that is taking place this week in Baltimore.
The Washington Blade obtained a copy of it on Thursday.
“In order to respect the nature of the human person as a unity of body and soul, Catholic health care services must not provide or permit medical interventions, whether surgical, hormonal, or genetic, that aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function,” reads the directive. “This includes, for example, some forms of genetic engineering whose purpose is not medical treatment, as well as interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics of a human body.)”
“In accord with the mission of Catholic health care, which includes serving those who are vulnerable, Catholic health care services and providers ‘must employ all appropriate resources to mitigate the suffering of those who experience gender incongruence or gender dysphoria’ and to provide for the full range of their health care needs, employing only those means that respect the fundamental order of the human body,” it adds.
The Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2024 condemned gender-affirming surgeries and “gender theory.” The USCCB directive comes against the backdrop of the Trump-Vance administration’s continued attacks against the trans community.
The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical interventions for minors.
Media reports earlier this month indicated the Trump-Vance administration will seek to prohibit Medicaid reimbursement for medical care to trans minors, and ban reimbursement through the Children’s Health Insurance Program for patients under 19. NPR also reported the White House is considering blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors.
“The directives adopted by the USCCB will harm, not benefit transgender persons,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based LGBTQ Catholic organization, in a statement. “In a church called to synodal listening and dialogue, it is embarrassing, even shameful, that the bishops failed to consult transgender people, who have found that gender-affirming medical care has enhanced their lives and their relationship with God.”
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bill that reopens the federal government.
Six Democrats — U.S. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Adam Gray (D-Calif.), Don Davis (D-N.C.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) — voted for the funding bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two Republicans — Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.) — opposed it.
The 43-day shutdown is over after eight Democratic senators gave in to Republicans’ push to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act. According to CNBC, the average ACA recipient could see premiums more than double in 2026, and about one in 10 enrollees could lose a premium tax credit altogether.
These eight senators — U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) — sided with Republicans to pass legislation reopening the government for a set number of days. They emphasized that their primary goal was to reopen the government, with discussions about ACA tax credits to continue afterward.
None of the senators who supported the deal are up for reelection.
King said on Sunday night that the Senate deal represents “a victory” because it gives Democrats “an opportunity” to extend ACA tax credits, now that Senate Republican leaders have agreed to hold a vote on the issue in December. (The House has not made any similar commitment.)
The government’s reopening also brought a win for Democrats’ other priorities: Arizona Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in after a record-breaking delay in swearing in, eventually becoming the 218th signer of a discharge petition to release the Epstein files.
This story is being updated as more information becomes available.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Serving America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
Advocates sue to reverse Trump ban while service members cope with new struggles
President Trump signed EO 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, directing the Department of Defense (DoD) to adopt policies that would prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.
The Trump-Vance administration’s policy shift redefines the qualifications for military service, asserting that transgender people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the DoD, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.
On Jan. 28, 2025, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) filed Talbott v. Trump, a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. Originally filed on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals seeking enlistment, the case has since grown to include 12 additional plaintiffs.
The Washington Blade spoke exclusively with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott, U.S. Army, a plaintiff in the case, and with Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law, who is leading the litigation.
For Talbott, serving in the military has been a lifelong aspiration, one he pursued despite the barriers posed by discriminatory policies.
“Being transgender posed quite the obstacle to me achieving that dream,” Talbott told the Blade. “Not because it [being trans] had any bearing on my ability to become a soldier and meet the requirements of a United States soldier, but simply because of the policy changes that we’ve been facing as transgender service members throughout the course of the past decade… My being transgender had nothing to do with anything that I was doing as a soldier.”
This drive was fueled by early life experiences, including the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which shaped his desire to protect his country.
“Even for an eight-year-old kid, [9/11] has a tremendous amount of impact… I remember thinking, you know, this is a terrible thing. Me, and when I grow up, I want to make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” he said. “I’ve still tried to gear my life in a way that I can be preparing myself to eventually help accomplish that mission of keeping America safe from anything like that ever happening again.”
The attacks inspired countless Americans to enlist; according to the New York City government, 181,510 joined active duty and 72,908 enlisted in the reserves in the year following 9/11. Although Talbott was too young to serve at the time, the events deeply influenced his educational and career path.
“For me, [9/11] just kind of helped shape my future and set me on the path that I’m currently on today,” he added. “It ignited my passion for the field, and it’s something that you know, I’ve carried with me into my adult life, into my professional life, and that I hope to have a career in the future.”
Talbott holds a master’s degree in criminology with a focus on counterterrorism and global security, and while completing his degree, he gained practical experience working with the Transportation Security Administration.
Despite the public scrutiny surrounding the lawsuit and the ongoing uncertainty of his military future, Talbott remains grounded in the values that define military service.
“Being so public about my involvement with this lawsuit grants me the very unique opportunity to continue to exemplify those values,” Talbott said. “I’m in a very privileged spot where I can speak relatively openly about this experience and what I’m doing. It’s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery.”
The ban has created significant uncertainty for transgender service members, who now face the possibility of separation solely because of their gender identity.
“With this ban… we are all [trans military members] on track to be separated from the military. So it’s such a great deal of uncertainty… I’m stuck waiting, not knowing what tomorrow might bring. I could receive a phone call any day stating that the separation process has been initiated.”
While the Department of Defense specifies that most service members will receive an honorable discharge, the policy allows for a lower characterization if a review deems it warranted. Compensation and benefits differ depending on whether service members opt for voluntary or involuntary separation. Voluntary separation comes with full separation pay and no obligation to repay bonuses, while involuntary separation carries lower pay, potential repayment of bonuses, and uncertain success in discharge review processes.
Healthcare coverage through TRICARE continues for 180 days post-discharge, but reduced benefits, including VA eligibility, remain a concern. Those with 18–20 years of service may qualify for early retirement, though even this is not guaranteed under the policy.
Talbott emphasized the personal and professional toll of the ban, reflecting on the fairness and capability of transgender service members.
“Quite frankly, the evidence that we have at hand points in the complete opposite direction… there are no documented cases that I’m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender… Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.”
“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 … military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
Talbott also highlighted the unique discipline, dedication, and value of diversity that transgender service members bring—especially in identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others think or say. That, he explained, was part of his journey of self-discovery and a key reason he wants to continue serving despite harsh words of disapproval from the men leading the executive branch.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through… 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 sees that as an asset rather than a liability. By having a more diverse, well-rounded group of people, the military can view challenges from perspectives that would otherwise be overlooked. That ability to look at things in a fresh way, he explained, can transform a good service member into a great one.
“I think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is… We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of… and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.”
Beyond operational effectiveness, Talbott emphasized the social impact of visibility and leadership within the ranks. Fellow soldiers often approached him for guidance, seeing him as a trusted resource because of his transgender status.
“I can think of several instances in which I have been approached by fellow soldiers… I feel like you are a person I can come to if I have a problem with X, Y or Z… some people take my transgender status and designate me as a safe person, so to speak.”
With the arrival of Veterans Day, the Blade asked what he wishes the public knew about the sacrifices of transgender service members. His answer was modest.
“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.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, also spoke with the Blade and outlined the legal and human consequences of the ban. This is not Levi’s first time challenging the executive branch on transgender rights; she led the legal fight against the first Trump administration’s military ban in both Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible.
“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 highlighted procedural abuses and punitive measures embedded in the policy compared to the 2017 ban.
“In the first round the military allowed transgender people to continue to serve… In this round the military policy purge seeks to purge every transgender person from military service, and it also proposes to do it in a very cruel and brutal way, which is to put people through a process… traditionally reserved for kicking people out of the military who engaged in misconduct.”
Levi cited multiple examples of discrimination, including the revocation of authorized retirements and administrative barriers to hearings.
She also explained that the administration’s cost argument is flawed, as removing and replacing transgender 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.”
On legal grounds, Levi noted the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause.
“The Equal Protection Clause prevents laws that are intended to harm a group of people… The doctrine is rooted in animus, which means a bare desire to harm a group is not even a legitimate governmental justification.”
When asked what she wishes people knew about Talbott and other targeted transgender military members, Levi emphasized their extraordinary service.
“The plaintiffs that I represent are extraordinary… They have 260 years of committed service to this country… I have confidence that ultimately, this baseless ban should not be able to legally survive.”
Other organizations have weighed in on Talbott v. Trump and similar lawsuits targeting transgender service members.
Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson criticized the ban’s impact on military readiness and highlighted the counterintuitive nature of removing some of the country’s most qualified service members.
“Transgender servicemembers serve their country valiantly, with the same commitment, the same adherence to military standards and the same love of country as any of their counterparts,” Robinson said. “This ban by the Trump administration, which has already stripped transgender servicemembers of their jobs, is cruel, unpatriotic, and compromises the unity and quality of our armed forces.”
Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Sasha Buchert echoed the legal and moral imperative to reverse the policy.
“Every day this discriminatory ban remains in effect, qualified patriots face the threat of being kicked out of the military,” she said. “The evidence is overwhelming that this policy is driven by animus rather than military necessity… We are confident the court will see through this discriminatory ban and restore the injunction that should never have been lifted.”
New book highlights long history of LGBTQ oppression
In solid ‘Nuremberg,’ the Nazis are still the bad guys
PHOTOS: Whitman-Walker Gala
Activist hosts Diwali celebration in D.C.
Harford school board appeals state’s book ban decision to circuit court
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
Turks and Caicos government ordered to recognize gay couple’s marriage
Serving America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
Democratic Socialism won’t win the whole country
Trump targets LGBTQ workers in new loan forgiveness restrictions
-
Politics2 days agoPro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
-
Turks and Caicos Islands4 days ago
Turks and Caicos government ordered to recognize gay couple’s marriage
-
U.S. Military/Pentagon4 days ago
Serving America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
-
Opinions2 days ago
Democratic Socialism won’t win the whole country
