National
Anti-gay activists speak out against marriage equality
Speakers attack Obama over marriage endorsement
Anti-gay activists took to Capitol Hill on Thursday to speak out against LGBT rights as they condemned President Obama’s recent endorsement of marriage equality.
Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of the Hope Christian Church and among the leaders in the fight against the legalization of same-sex marriage in D.C. and Maryland, led a news conference, which was sponsored by the anti-gay Family Research Council.
Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage was a particular point of consternation for Jackson, who wondered aloud whether Obama intended to employ the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to “absolutely erase the image of biblical marriage from the face of the earth.”
“Voters need to know whether they have a friend or … an enemy to an institution that God has ordained,” Jackson said. “Some of us have taken his statements as a declaration of political war against the venerable institution of marriage.”
Jackson drew attention to a letter that he said social conservative leaders sent to President Obama expressing their disapproval of his support for same-sex marriage as well as his other work in LGBT advocacy.
“The undersigned pastors and Christian leaders write to raise serious concerns over your recent declaration of support for same-sex ‘marriage,'” the letter states. “This declaration follows a long trail of actions by your administration that subvert the law of the land as well as the good of society. From permitting open homosexuality behavior in Armed Forces, to opposing state marriage amendments, to refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, to giving taxpayer-funded marriage benefits to same-sex couples, you have undermined the spirit if not the letter of the DOMA law.”
A White House spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment on the letter.
Jackson assserted the president’s support for same-sex marriage was particularly troublesome for racial minority communities, whom he contended held the view that marriage is between one man and one woman.
“What was most concerning about the president’s comments was it seemed to be a slap in the face of black clergy,” Jackson said. “They seem to say I know that you hold these views, and that in the marriage amendment battle in the great State of California, 70 percent voted for marriage, while nearly 95 percent voted for President Obama. … Given those kinds of statistics, it seemed and felt to some of us who happened to be African-American; it felt like an insult, or a gauntlet was laid down.”
But numbers that Jackson cited from California in 2008 have been debunked by studies of the exit polls on which they are based, and a new poll suggests that a growing number of black Americans support same-sex marriage in the wake of President Obama’s announcement. A Washington Post/ABC News poll published on Wednesday found that 59 percent of African Americans now support same-sex marriage, with 65 percent approving of President Obama’s position.
Jackson threatened “political consequences” for Obama as a result of his announcement in support of same-sex marriage and said he’d continue to oppose same-sex marriage, eliciting applause from participants at the news conference.
As part of efforts to protest Obama’s support for same-sex marriage, Jackson called on churches to participate in a 40-day fast; asked church leaders to read a statement on Father’s Day affirming marriage as one man, one woman; and called on voters across racial groups and religious denominations to cast their votes based on moral conscience whether they identify as Democrat or Republican.
Tony Perkins, the Family Research Council’s president, also spoke at the news conference and argued that LGBT advocates have to win same-sex marriage through legislative or court action because they can’t achieve it through a vote of the populace.
“The president has said that he’s OK with states defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman,” Perkins said. “I guess that’s pretty good, since the 32 states that have voted, have voted in favor of traditional marriage. If you can do the math, that’s more than half the states.”
That may change in November when voters in as many as four states — Maine, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington — will decide at the polls the issue of same-sex marriage. In Maine, the support for same-sex marriage is promising. A poll from April found that support for same-sex marriage has reached 58 percent among the electorate.
Those who took part in the event appeared to largely consist of conservative religious leaders. Participants seemed to have been taking part in a lobby day and wore badges saying “Defense of Marriage.” The Family Research Council didn’t respond to a request for comment on more information on the event, but Perkins said the news conference took place after an annual pastors conference where nearly 600 people gathered from 46 states.
Other social conservatives who spoke at the news conference also had harsh words for Obama in the wake of his support for same-sex marriage.
Bishop Joseph Mattera, overseeing bishop of the New York-based Christ Covenant Coalition, accused Obama of subverting the family. Mattera said he’s been a senior pastor for 29 years and that his grandmother was the first ordained female Hispanic minister in New York City.
“It would be like saying it’s OK for us to counterfeit American dollars and have no consequences,” Mattera said. “When you counterfeit something, you cheapen the value of it, and by counterfeiting marriage with alternate definition of it, you actually weaken it. As a Hispanic leader, I want to say that my community needs strong marriages.”
Mattera said he thinks Obama endorsed same-sex marriage to drew attention away from the economy as the general election approaches. suggesting the economic conditions of the country don’t warrant Obama’s re-election.
Jim Garlow, chair of Renewing American Leadership, said Obama’s support for marriage equality undermines the definition of the union — even within the president’s own family.
“I would pose the question to the president: which one is unimportant — father or mother?” Garlow said. “By his redefinition, one will have to go. Is your wife so unimportant, sir, that she can be replaced by simply any other male? Or is there value in the fact that one man and one woman, a father and a mother, the person who contributes the egg and the sperm as they come together are best in the position to protect and nourish and care for that child?”
Garlow also took issue with Obama asserting that he and first lady Michelle Obama are “practicing Christians” and invoking his belief in Jesus.
“We didn’t ask for this argument,” Garlow said. “He moved to our arena and declared it in those words. That being the case, maybe a basic ‘101’ of Christianity. It would be wise for him to know that throughout historic, orthodox, authentic, biblical Christianity — and there’s no other kind of Christianity other than Biblical Christianity — marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman.”
Fernando Carbrera, a Democratic member of the New York City Council, also took issue with Obama’s support for same-sex marriage and said it troubled his constituents in his district that has heavy presence of racial minorities.
“I represent a district of about 160,000 people mainly made up of Latinos and African Americans, constituents that have said to me over and over again that they support traditional marriage,” Carbrera said. “I’m here to say to my president, to my Democratic president, ‘Do not take the Latino and African-American vote for granted.'”
Carbrera said marriage should remain one man, one woman because only that union enables the creation of children. Responding to arguments that some opposite-sex couples are unable to have children, Carbrera asserted, “But they have the potentiality for it.”
Anne Gimenez, a pastor for the Rock City Churches in Virginia Beach, Va., noted the various backgrounds of individuals who oppose same-sex marriage at the conference.
“We’re here from so many various backgrounds and differences,” Gimenez said. “But those differences don’t matter to us today because we stand here — we’re the church. And we’re united, and we’re united over this issue. And I call upon every believer, every Christian across the nation to take the biblical stand for marriage.”
Gimenez said her granddaughter was present at the news conference and wanted her to know that her grandmother took a stand “because it’s important for our families, and our children, and our great grandchildren.”
Speakers at the news conference also decried comments from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) during a news conference earlier this month when the Democratic leader said he’d be open to repealing the Defense of Marriage Act legislatively.
“If it gets on the floor, we’ll be happy to take a look at it,” Reid was quoted as saying in Politico. “It’s an important piece of legislation.”
LGBT advocates countered the statements from anti-gay activists at the news conference by saying their views amounted to an attack on the LGBT community and misrepresent the views of religious and minority groups.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, called their words “extremist, insulting, and just plain nasty comments” that stand in stark contrast to Obama’s description of his evolution in coming to support marriage rights for gay couples.
“Happily, the values embraced by the president — the Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated, fidelity to the bedrock American commitment to liberty and justice for all, respect for the love and commitment of real families — resonate much more deeply with most people than the divisive attacks, political red-meat, and reckless disregard for evidence, truth, and logic that we saw on display at the right-wing’s latest show,” Wolfson said.
Paul Guequierre, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said views expressed by the activists placed them “on the wrong side of history and are in the minority on the issue of marriage equality” and cited the recent polls showing growing support for marriage equality — even among religious groups and racial minorities.
“People of faith in this country support marriage equality and support among African Americans is on the rise,” Guequierre said. “The myth that religious people don’t support LGBT equality has been debunked.”
Asked by the Washington Blade at the news conference how the legalization of same-sex marriage affects opposite-sex marriage, Jackson replied, “It’s the change in the definition of an institution in this time of shifting morals and values, the changing of that definition is significant. Young people don’t have role models; they have no idea how to be an appropriate father or a mother, and really at the very heart of the church, and the very heart of a nation, a free democracy, strong families need to be there, so it’s about the definition.”
In a follow-up inquiry, the Blade asked whether it’s true that opposite-sex couples can still marry in places where same-sex marriage is legal. Jackson wouldn’t take the question during the conference, but responded to the Blade afterward.
“I don’t think anyone was implying that traditional marriage would be destroyed in terms of the opportunity for people to enter into it,” Jackson said. “What I’m talking about — the structure if you want to call it that — of traditional, biblical marriage is that the terms, the roles the way people conduct in day-to-day life right now is hanging by a thread.”
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a Tea Party favorite, was scheduled to speak alongside other anti-gay activists at the news conference, but didn’t make an appearance. His office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on why he was absent.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
-
Tennessee5 days agoTenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
-
Iran5 days agoLGBTQ groups condemn Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization
-
The White House4 days agoReport: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
-
District of Columbia5 days agoD.C. Council member honored by LGBTQ homeless youth group


