National
Obama campaign launches initiative to reach out to LGBT voters
Community urged not to ‘sit on the sidelines’

The Obama campaign on Wednesday officially kicked off a new initiative aimed at building LGBT support for the president as Pride season begins and the general election campaign heats up.
During a conference call, supporters of the president called on LGBT people to help Obama win re-election. On the call with reporters Wednesday detailing the project — dubbed “Obama Pride: LGBT Americans for Obama” — was Jamie Citron, LGBT vote director for the campaign, and Joe Solmonese, the outgoing president of the Human Rights Campaign and one of the 35 national co-chairs of the Obama campaign. Clo Ewing, director of constituency media for the campaign, moderated the call.
Each of them emphasized the work Obama has done on LGBT issues — in particular his endorsement of same-sex marriage two weeks ago — and the importance of Obama winning re-election.
Citron said the 2012 election was too important for the LGBT community to “sit on the sidelines” and emphasized the need for voter registration efforts to help Obama win re-election. On the day prior to the launch of Obama Pride, Citron said the campaign held LGBT-focused voter registration drives across the country.
“The president knows the importance of making sure our voices are heard in November and to that end, will continue to make voter registration and volunteer recruitment a top priority through Pride month and into the fall,” Citron said.
According to a statement, the initiative launches with trainings, phone banks and house parties in a number of states including Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada and Michigan — which are seen as battleground states in the general election. Citron announced the launch of a new website on the Obama campaign page devoted to the LGBT community.
Solmonese discussed the president’s LGBT achievements during his first term — including mandating hospital visitation rights for gay couples, hosting a bullying summit at the White House and repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — as he drew a distinction between Obama and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on their views of same-sex marriage.
“With a president’s historic statement on same-sex marriage, the choice we’re facing as a country and a community could not be clearer,” Solmonese said. “We can re-elect the leader who’s working with our community toward full equality under the law, or we can sit back and watch Mitt Romney take us back to where we started.”
Solmonese, who’s set to leave HRC when incoming President Chad Griffin takes over on June 11, said Romney’s position on marriage is “also historic” because the candidate is to the right of former President George W. Bush on the issue. While Bush said he supports civil unions, Romney has said he opposes them in addition to backing a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country.
A partial transcript of the Q&A between reporters and the Obama campaign members at the end of the call follows:
Q: Joe, question for you. What is the plan for the campaign to sort of address what issues specifically the president would advance in his second term? You went through a lot of these accomplishments, but what sort of effort will there be to lay out a plan for the second term?
Solmonese: One of things I’ve been inspired by president and the administration — and this goes back to the days that we met with them in the transition offices before we were in the White House. Quite frankly, it goes back to during the campaign in the general election.
One of the things that always came to me — and it came from the president — was that the agenda was really a collective conversation between the president and the administration, us as a community, and our allies on Capitol Hill in the House and the Senate. That collective agreement and that collective sense of where we were had everything to do with why we moved hate crimes first, we moved “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” second, and so that collective understanding of where we’re going is how we’re going to shape the agenda for the next administration.
We have landmark issues that we need to continue to address, continue to move on, like the repeal of [the Defense of Marriage Act], like the passage of a fully inclusive ENDA. And so, that’s the kind of ongoing conversation we’ll have.
I think one of the things that we all recognize — and I know that the president recognizes because we saw this during the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — is that the makeup of Congress is going to have a lot to do with that. That is why those fights and the fights to make sure to do everyone we can to take back an LGBT-friendly House of Representatives are going to have a lot to do with how that agenda gets shaped — and hold what we have in the Senate and hopefully add to those numbers.
Q: The conventional wisdom is that the president’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is going to be met with some sort of political attack in states like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia. Will this new LGBT Americans for Obama unit have a role to play in trying to combat those of attacks? If so, what specifically is in the works to ensure that the president’s support for same-sex marriage ends up not being [against him]?
Ewing: The goal of the Pride program is to organize LGBT members of the community across the country, organize about issues that they care about and organize as far as coming into the campaign, and also mobilizing folks for November.
As far as the attacks that you talked about. One of things that we’ll continue to do is talk about the president’s record, talk about his record of accomplishments, and stand on that. If you’re talking about marriage specifically, one of things that I can do is point you to a lot of recent polls that really show that the support for gay marriage and marriage equality is growing across the country.
That being said, what polls also show is that same-sex marriage is not the most important issue that will affect people’s votes come November. It’s not the first issue, it’s not the second issue and it’s not the third issue. That being said, what the LGBT program is going to do is make sure that they’re mobilizing voters.
Citron: I just want to jump in as well. I just want to point back to the president’s own words on the subject. I think what he said is incredibly powerful and it talks about what brings us together, not what pulls us apart. I think that’s the message that we’re going to be putting with this program. That doesn’t just mean the LGBT community, but broader, and I think that that’s something we’re very excited about.
Q: The President mandated in December that all agencies working abroad must report on what they’re doing to protect and advance LGBT rights in other countries within 180 days. That falls in June. Will this be part of Pride month messaging? …
Ewing: I’m going to have to send you to the White House on that one. I can tell you right now that it’s not a plan of ours to include in the next couple of weeks of outreach to the community, but not for any specific reason.
Q: Some poll numbers now showing particularly in Florida, the same-sex marriage announcement might be problematic for the president. What’s your take? Should he have waited? …
Solmonese: The president did that because it’s the right thing to do. He understood that, as anything he does, that there’s going to be a reaction to it in various part of the country. You have to look at how people feel about the issue, but also that intensity question of polling, where it falls on the spectrum of things that people care about.
While that may be true in Florida, I have been heartened to see polling numbers in various states around African-American voters. And quite frankly, the way in which, I think, other things have unfolded on the heels of the president’s announcement — particularly the NAACP, for instance — coming out in support of marriage equality, and what that has meant to folks around the country. This election, like all elections, from this point to November is going to be a roller-coaster. On given day, in some of these battleground states, we’re going to see a lot of movement, but the president did what he thought the right thing to do was and we’ll move forward from there.
Q: There is a small but vocal group of black Christians who are very vocal about their dismay with the president’s decision. What would you to say to them? …
Ewing: I would say a couple different things. No. 1, I would say, as the president said, this is his personal view that it’s wrong to prevent couples are who in loving committed relationships and want to marry from doing so. The president said, too, that he did a lot of soul-searching on this issue, and he talked to his wife about it, he talked to his children about it. He heard from a lot of people, friends who were in long-term relationships, service men and women who had he gotten to know during the fight for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” [repeal]. This is a decision that he thought about and really had to evolve on. It’s a personal decision of his, and that’s where he’s at on it.
Also, as for the community that you mentioned, there are also a lot of clergy who are in support of that and who have talked about their support of it. … I know that Joe mentioned organization like the NAACP who have come out in support of same-sex marriage and marriage equality. I would say more than anything that as the president said, it’s his personal view here, and he felt it was important for him to share it.
Solmonese: I would add one thing to that. There are two similar but distinctly different conversations going on here, particularly in states like Maryland. They’re building support and mobilizing African-American voters to support this president in the fall. I have to believe that regardless of the president’s position on marriage equality, they will support this president in an incredibly strong way. And then there is the work that we have to do as a community, and as advocates, to win and build support for marriage equality — a fight that we find ourselves in in the State of Maryland.
Those are two different orders of business, and I think we approach them that way. Again, what I’m heartened by is in states like Maryland, regardless of the fact that some have taken issue with the president’s position on marriage equality, they continue to support the president in strong numbers and — I think this has to do with the president’s statement as well as a series of things that have happened in the aftermath — we see continued growth among African-American voters in support of marriage equality.
I think the difference we took on in the fight in Proposition 8 back in 2008 and the work we did in the District of Columbia more recently is that as a community we have done the front end work of building relationships, of finding common humanity around these issues, respecting differences, particularly religious differences. Again, trying to find that common ground.
Ewing: The last thing I want to point out. … This is about civil marriage and civil laws. We are respectful of religious liberties. We are respectful that churches and other faith institutions are going to be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are and what they recognize. As a civil law, the president does support marriage equality.
Q: This sounds like it’s an effort to turn out the gay vote. I’m wondering is there going to be any element of this to try and convince that segment of the gay vote that tends to vote Republican to try to get them to cross over and vote for Obama this time?
Citron: Certainly, an element of this will be about turning out the LGBT vote, but even more so than that, it’s about engaging the LGBT community to get our effort off the ground. One of the most powerful tools that this campaign has is our ground time, and our core volunteer teams that we’re building across the country. What we want to do is make sure that the LGBT community, where they live is a core part of that program, and a core part of the team that’s going to move us forward toward victory in November.
So, this is not just about turnout but about really making sure that the LGBT community — this is a part of our effort on the ground, as they are a part of the effort. We want our effort to look like the country itself.
You bring up a good point and we will talk a lot about the president’s record and the work he’s done for the LGBT community, and I think we’ll talk a lot too about Mitt Romney, what he’s promised to do as president, and also his record as governor. I think that will make a very stark contrast between the two. And I think that will be something that will resonate with LGBT people across the board regardless of their political affiliation.
Solmonese: I say this from the HRC point of view. That will be a big focus because I think that if you remember back in 2008, Sen. McCain did not support the Federal Marriage Amendment, there was some kind of contusion about a whole range of issues … But Gov. Romney has very clearly committed to do the work of passing the Federal Marriage Amendment, and to me, if he were ever elected president — I’m never really completely clear on his convictions, but I know that he is very much open to what people around him and would be obligate to the people whom he felt put him there.
The core of all that is his commitment to work to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is very much a part of HRC rating these candidates. The Federal Marriage Amendment is the ultimately deal breaking for us; it is enshrining discrimination into the United States Constitution. It is absolutely sort of the last line in terms of really discrimination against this community. And, I think, for that reason, it’s incredibly important that we make sure that every member of this community, Republicans in particular, understand that distinction and understand just what that would mean because I feel like out there with our opponents, the fear and the progress that we are making with regard to our success in marriage equality is genuine and it is palpable. So the fight to get that done, I think, is absolutely real if he were to become the president.
On the same day that the new LGBT initiative was launched, the campaign made public a video narrated by actress Jane Lynch about Obama’s support for the LGBT community.
Watch the video here:
Federal Government
Treasury Department has a gay secretary but LGBTQ staff are under siege
Agency reverses course on LGBTQ inclusion under out Secretary Scott Bessent

A former Treasury Department employee who led the agency’s LGBTQ employee resource group says the removal of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) from its discrimination complaint forms was merely a formalization of existing policy shifts that had already taken hold following the second inauguration of President Donald Trump and his appointment of Scott Bessent — who is gay — to lead the agency.
Christen Boas Hayes, who served on the policy team at Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) from 2020 until March of this year, told the Washington Blade during a phone interview last week that the agency had already stopped processing internal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints on the basis of anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
“So the way that the forms are changing is a procedural recognition of something that’s already happening,” said Hayes. “Internally, from speaking to two EEO staff members, the changes are already taking place from an EEO perspective on what kind of cases will be found to have the basis for a complaint.”
The move, they said, comes amid the deterioration of support structures for LGBTQ workers at the agency since the administration’s early rollout of anti-LGBTQ executive orders, which led to “a trickle down effect of how each agency implements those and on what timeline,” decisions “typically made by the assistant secretary of management’s office and then implemented by the appropriate offices.”
At the end of June, a group of U.S. House Democrats including several out LGBTQ members raised alarms after a Federal Register notice disclosed Treasury’s plans to revise its complaint procedures. Through the agency’s Office of Civil Rights and EEO, the agency would eliminate SOGI as protected categories on the forms used by employees to initiate claims of workplace discrimination.
But Hayes’s account reveals that the paperwork change followed months of internal practice, pursuant to a wave of layoffs targeting DEI personnel and a chilling effect on LGBTQ organizing, including through ERGs.
Hayes joined Treasury’s FinCEN in 2020 as the agency transitioned into the Biden-Harris administration, working primarily on cryptocurrency regulation and emerging technologies until they accepted a “deferred resignation” offer, which was extended to civil servants this year amid drastic staffing cuts.
“It was two things,” Hayes said. “One was the fact that the policy work that I was very excited about doing was going to change in nature significantly. The second part was that the environment for LGBTQ staff members was increasingly negative after the release of the executive orders,” especially for trans and nonbinary or gender diverse employees.
“At the same time,” Hayes added, “having been on the job for four years, I also knew this year was the year that I would leave Treasury. I was a good candidate for [deferred resignation], because I was already planning on leaving, but the pressures that emerged following the change in administration really pushed me to accelerate that timeline.”
Some ERGs die by formal edict, others by a thousand cuts
Hayes became involved with the Treasury LGBTQ ERG shortly after joining the agency in 2020, when they reached out to the group’s then-president — “who also recently took the deferred resignation.”
“She said that because of the pressure that ERGs had faced under the first Trump administration, the group was rebuilding, and I became the president of the group pretty quickly,” Hayes said. “Those pressures have increased in the second Trump administration.”
One of the previous ERG board members had left the agency after encountering what Hayes described as “explicitly transphobic” treatment from supervisors during his gender transition. “His supervisors denied him a promotion,” and, “importantly, he did not have faith in the EEO complaint process” to see the issues with discrimination resolved, Hayes said. “And so he decided to just leave, which was, of course, such a loss for Treasury and our Employee Resource Group and all of our employees at Treasury.”
The umbrella LGBTQ ERG that Hayes led included hundreds of members across the agency, they said, and was complemented by smaller ERGs at sub-agencies like the IRS and FinCEN — several of which, Hayes said, were explicitly told to cease operations under the new administration.
Hayes did not receive any formal directive to shutter Treasury’s ERG, but described an “implicit” messaging campaign meant to shut down the group’s activities without issuing anything in writing.
“The suggestion was to stop emailing about anything related to the employee resource group, to have meetings outside of work hours, to meet off of Treasury’s campus, and things like that,” they said. “So obviously that contributes to essentially not existing functionally. Because whereas we could have previously emailed our members comfortably to announce a happy hour or a training or something like that, now they have to text each other personally to gather, which essentially makes it a defunct group.”
Internal directories scrubbed, gender-neutral restrooms removed
Hayes said the dismantling of DEI staff began almost immediately after the executive orders. Employees whose position descriptions included the terms “diversity, equity, and inclusion” were “on the chopping block,” they said. “That may differ from more statutorily mandated positions in the OMWI office or the EEO office.”
With those staff gone, so went the infrastructure that enabled ERG programming and community-building. “The people that made our employee resource group events possible were DEI staff that were fired. And so, it created an immediate chilling effect on our employee resource group, and it also, of course, put fear into a lot of our members’ hearts over whether or not we would be able to continue gathering as a community or supporting employees in a more practical way going forward. And it was just, really — it was really sad.”
Hayes described efforts to erase the ERGs from internal communication channels and databases. “They also took our information off internal websites so nobody could find us as lawyers went through the agency’s internal systems to scrub DEI language and programs,” they said.
Within a week, Hayes said, the administration had removed gender-neutral restrooms from Main Treasury, removed third-gender markers from internal databases and forms, and made it more difficult for employees with nonbinary IDs to access government buildings.
“[They] made it challenging for people with X gender markers on identification documents to access Treasury or the White House by not recognizing their gender marker on the TWAVES and WAVES forms.”
LGBTQ staff lack support and work amid a climate of isolation
The changes have left many LGBTQ staff feeling vulnerable — not only because of diminished workplace inclusion, but due to concerns about job security amid the administration’s reductions in force (RIFs).
“Plenty of people are feeling very stressed, not only about retaining their jobs because of the layoffs and pending questions around RIFs, but then also wondering if they will be included in RIF lists because they’re being penalized somehow for being out at work,” Hayes said. “People wonder if their name will be given, not because they’re in a tranche of billets being laid off, but because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
In the absence of functional ERGs, Hayes said, LGBTQ employees have been cut off from even informal networks of support.
“Employees [are] feeling like it’s harder to find members of their own community because there’s no email anymore to ask when the next event is or to ask about navigating healthcare or other questions,” they said. “If there is no ERG to go to to ask for support for their specific issue, that contributes to isolation, which contributes to a worse work environment.”
Hayes said they had not interacted directly with Secretary Bessent, but they and others observed a shift from the previous administration. “It is stark to see that our first ‘out’ secretary did not host a Pride event this year,” they said. “For the last three years we’ve flown the rainbow Pride flag above Treasury during Pride. And it was such a celebration among staff and Secretary Yellen and the executive secretary’s office were super supportive.”
“Employees notice changes like that,” they added. “Things like the fact that the Secretary’s official bio says ‘spouse’ instead of ‘husband.’ It makes employees wonder if they too should be fearful of being their full selves at work.”
The Blade contacted the Treasury Department with a request for comment outlining Hayes’s allegations, including the removal of inclusive infrastructure, the discouragement of ERG activity, the pre-formalization of EEO policy changes, and the targeting of DEI personnel. As of publication, the agency has not responded.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
-
Virginia2 days ago
Defying trends, new LGBTQ center opens in rural Winchester, Va.
-
South Africa5 days ago
Lesbian feminist becomes South African MP
-
Travel3 days ago
Manchester is vibrant tapestry of culture, history, and Pride
-
Opinions3 days ago
USAID’s demise: America’s global betrayal of trust with LGBTQ people