National
RNC 2012: Ryan praises Romney as ‘defender of marriage’
Vice presidential hopeful bashes Obama, appeals to younger voters
Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Paul Ryan addresses the Republican National Convention (Blade photo by Michael Key)
TAMPA, Fla. — Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan devoted a key speech Wednesday evening to attacking the current administration while praising Mitt Romney and his record as a “defender of marriage.”
During his address before the Republican National Convention, Ryan brought up marriage while explaining Republican presidential nominee Romney’s dedication to his faith, saying, “Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best.”
Although Ryan never explicitly mentioned marriage rights for gay couples in his remarks, Romney’s opposition to marriage equality is well known. In addition to speaking out against same-sex marriage — as well as civil unions — over the course of the Republican primary season, Romney was recently revealed to have donated $10,000 to efforts to pass California’s Proposition 8 in 2008 through a political action committee.
The records of the two candidates on the Republican ticket aligned. Romney backs a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country; Ryan voted for such an amendment in 2004 and 2006. Similarly, Romney has criticized the Obama administration for no longer defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court while Ryan voted to reaffirm the anti-gay law on the House floor.
But the remarks on marriage were a small portion of a speech largely devoted to blaming President Obama for the economic problems facing the country and saying Romney’s experience as governor of Massachusetts and an entrepreneur at Bain Capital is the medicine needed to cure the nation of its ailments.
Responding to attacks from the Obama campaign depicting Romney as a ruthless venture capitalist who terminated positions and sent jobs overseas, Ryan said Romney helped start companies and restructure failing ones, adding, “By the way, being successful in business – that’s a good thing.”
“Mitt has not only succeeded, but succeeded where others could not,” Ryan said. “He turned around the Olympics at a time when a great institution was collapsing under the weight of bad management, overspending, and corruption – sounds familiar, doesn’t it?”
Ryan, a seven-term member of Congress who chairs the House Budget Committee, also appeared to defend his own record by saying his ticket would “protect and strengthen” Medicare while Obama’s policies — particularly the health care reform law — have threatened it. As a member of House Republican leadership, Ryan has proposed budget plans that would zero out funding for Medicare in favor of vouchers with private companies.
“Even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health care takeover, even with new taxes on nearly a million small businesses, the planners in Washington still didn’t have enough money,” Ryan said. “So, they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama. An obligation we have to our parents and grandparents is being sacrificed, all to pay for a new entitlement we didn’t even ask for. The greatest threat to Medicare is Obamacare, and we’re going to stop it.”
Ryan, 42 and the first person belonging to Generation X to run on a major party presidential ticket, also seemed to attempt to reach out to younger voters. Ryan said he was urged to play music proposed by Romney at campaign rallies, but replied, “I hope it’s not a deal-breaker Mitt, but my playlist starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin.”
This outreach to younger voters played out as part of the general theme of the economic malaise impacting those who may have voted for Obama.
“College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life,” Ryan said. “Everyone who feels stuck in the Obama economy is right to focus on the here and now. And I hope you understand this too, if you’re feeling left out or passed by: You have not failed, your leaders have failed you.”
Delegates at the Republican National Convention cheer on Paul Ryan (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Ryan was well-received by the audience. Those in attendance at the Republican convention shouted in excitement when he talked about the path Romney has pledged to take the country and weren’t shy about offering boos when Ryan talked about the purported dangers of health care reform.
Political observers generally agreed Ryan’s speech positioned him in the vice presidential nominee’s traditional role as “attack dog” for the candidate at the top of the ticket. Meanwhile, LGBT political organizations responded to Ryan’s speech in accordance with their own views.
Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, honed in on Ryan’s mention of Romney as a “defender of marriage” as a reason why the LGBT community should be wary of the Republican presidential ticket.
“Paul Ryan’s dog-whistle reference to Mitt Romney as a ‘defender of marriage’ is as cheap as it is transparent,” Davis said. “I can think of about 18,000 marriages Mitt Romney actively worked to destroy when he donated more than $10,000 to the Prop 8 campaign in California. Sadly, that was only the tip of the iceberg of lies and half-truths that riddled Ryan’s speech tonight.”
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, said Ryan “delivered a stirring speech” demonstrating his knowledge that the greatest issue facing all voters — gay or straight — is the state of the economy.
“Whether you are gay or straight, you deserve an administration that will tackle this issue and an administration that has a plan to grow our economy and create jobs,” LaSalvia said.
Additionally, LaSalvia said he’s spoken with Ryan and believes the vice presidential candidate knows the challenges facing the gay community.
“I have sat in Paul Ryan’s congressional office and talked to him about the special challenges that face gay people and gay couples in this country and how his plans to reform Social Security, Medicare, health care and our tax code would actually help gay Americans,” LaSalvia said. “I can tell you first hand that Paul Ryan gets it when it comes to dealing with the challenges that face the gay community.”
Ryan voted in favor of a sexual orientation-only version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in Congress.
As with the speeches on Tuesday night, the remarks from other speakers onstage at the Republican convention largely avoided social issues or matters directly affecting the LGBT community, but instead focused on the economy, health care reform and taking Obama to task for his remarks that individuals “didn’t build” their businesses because they had help from others in society.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (Blade photo by Michael Key)
But that wasn’t the case across the board. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, now a TV personality on Fox News, criticized Obama for supporting marriage equality, saying it’s evidence he doesn’t adhere to his faith.
“Of the four people on the two tickets, the only self-professed evangelical is Barack Obama, and he supports changing the definition of marriage, believes that human life is disposable and expendable at any time in the womb or even beyond the womb, and tells people of faith that they must bow their knees to the god of government and violate their faith and conscience in order to comply with what he calls health care,” Huckabee said.
Another high-profile speech came Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and secretary of state under the Bush administration.
Rice never mentioned the Obama administration by name even as she said Romney and Ryan understand the importance of the United States having a leadership role in foreign affairs.
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice (Blade photo by Michael Key)
“But if we are not inspired to lead again, one of two things will happen – no one will lead and that will foster chaos — or others who do not share our values will fill the vacuum,” Rice said. “My fellow Americans, we do not have a choice. We cannot be reluctant to lead – and one cannot lead from behind.”
LaSalvia made a special note of Rice’s speech in his statement following the night’s speeches, saying she gave a “powerful and optimistic speech.”
“She spoke eloquently about the best our country has to offer – to each other, to the world,” LaSalvia said. “She gave a speech that reminded many of those in the convention hall of the great speeches of former President Ronald Reagan.”
Florida
DNC slams White House for slashing Fla. AIDS funding
State will have to cut medications for more than 16,000 people
The Trump-Vance administration and congressional Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill” could strip more than 10,000 Floridians of life-saving HIV medication.
The Florida Department of Health announced there would be large cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program in the Sunshine State. The program switched from covering those making up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, which was anyone making $62,600 or less, in 2025, to only covering those making up to 130 percent of the FPL, or $20,345 a year in 2026.
Cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, which provides medication to low-income people living with HIV/AIDS, will prevent a dramatic $120 million funding shortfall as a result of the Big Beautiful Bill according to the Florida Department of Health.
The International Association of Providers of AIDS Care and Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo warned that the situation could easily become a “crisis” without changing the current funding setup.
“It is a serious issue,” Ladapo told the Tampa Bay Times. “It’s a really, really serious issue.”
The Florida Department of Health currently has a “UPDATES TO ADAP” warning on the state’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program webpage, recommending Floridians who once relied on tax credits and subsidies to pay for their costly HIV/AIDS medication to find other avenues to get the crucial medications — including through linking addresses of Florida Association of Community Health Centers and listing Florida Non-Profit HIV/AIDS Organizations rather than have the government pay for it.
HIV disproportionately impacts low income people, people of color, and LGBTQ people
The Tampa Bay Times first published this story on Thursday, which began gaining attention in the Sunshine State, eventually leading the Democratic Party to, once again, condemn the Big Beautiful Bill pushed by congressional republicans.
“Cruelty is a feature and not a bug of the Trump administration. In the latest attack on the LGBTQ+ community, Donald Trump and Florida Republicans are ripping away life-saving HIV medication from over 10,000 Floridians because they refuse to extend enhanced ACA tax credits,” Democratic National Committee spokesperson Albert Fujii told the Washington Blade. “While Donald Trump and his allies continue to make clear that they don’t give a damn about millions of Americans and our community, Democrats will keep fighting to protect health care for LGBTQ+ Americans across the country.”
More than 4.7 million people in Florida receive health insurance through the federal marketplace, according to KKF, an independent source for health policy research and polling. That is the largest amount of people in any state to be receiving federal health care — despite it only being the third most populous state.
Florida also has one of the largest shares of people who use the AIDS Drug Assistance Program who are on the federal marketplace: about 31 percent as of 2023, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
“I can’t understand why there’s been no transparency,” David Poole also told the Times, who oversaw Florida’s AIDS program from 1993 to 2005. “There is something seriously wrong.”
The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors estimates that more than 16,000 people will lose coverage
U.S. Supreme Court
Competing rallies draw hundreds to Supreme Court
Activists, politicians gather during oral arguments over trans youth participation in sports
Hundreds of supporters and opponents of trans rights gathered outside of the United States Supreme Court during oral arguments for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. on Tuesday. Two competing rallies were held next to each other, with politicians and opposing movement leaders at each.
“Trans rights are human rights!” proclaimed U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to the crowd of LGBTQ rights supporters. “I am here today because trans kids deserve more than to be debated on cable news. They deserve joy. They deserve support. They deserve to grow up knowing that their country has their back.”
“And I am here today because we have been down this hateful road before,” Markey continued. “We have seen time and time again what happens when the courts are asked to uphold discrimination. History eventually corrects those mistakes, but only after the real harm is done to human beings.”
View on Threads
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke at the other podium set up a few feet away surrounded by signs, “Two Sexes. One Truth.” and “Reality Matters. Biology Matters.”
“In just four years, the Biden administration reversed decades of progress,” said McMahon. “twisting the law to urge that sex is not defined by objective biological reality, but by subjective notion of gender identity. We’ve seen the consequences of the Biden administration’s advocacy of transgender agendas.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, was introduced on the opposing podium during McMahon’s remarks.
“This court, whose building that we stand before this morning, did something quite remarkable six years ago.” Takano said. “It did the humanely decent thing, and legally correct thing. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court said that trans employees exist. It said that trans employees matter. It said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sex, and that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It recognizes that trans people have workplace rights and that their livelihoods cannot be denied to them, because of who they are as trans people.”
“Today, we ask this court to be consistent,” Takano continued. “If trans employees exist, surely trans teenagers exist. If trans teenagers exist, surely trans children exist. If trans employees have a right not to be discriminated against in the workplace, trans kids have a right to a free and equal education in school.”
Takano then turned and pointed his finger toward McMahon.
“Did you hear that, Secretary McMahon?” Takano addressed McMahon. “Trans kids have a right to a free and equal education! Restore the Office of Civil Rights! Did you hear me Secretary McMahon? You will not speak louder or speak over me or over these people.”
Both politicians continued their remarks from opposing podiums.
“I end with a message to trans youth who need to know that there are adults who reject the political weaponization of hate and bigotry,” Takano said. “To you, I say: you matter. You are not alone. Discrimination has no place in our schools. It has no place in our laws, and it has no place in America.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Justices considered whether laws unconstitutional under Title IX.
The Supreme Court heard two cases today that could change how the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX are enforced.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., ask the court to determine whether state laws blocking transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Once decided, the rulings could reshape how laws addressing sex discrimination are interpreted nationwide.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether Bostock v. Clayton County — the landmark case holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — applies in the context of athletics. He questioned whether transgender girls should be considered girls under the law, noting that they were assigned male at birth.
“I think the basic focus of the discussion up until now, which is, as I see it anyway, whether or not we should view your position as a challenge to the distinction between boys and girls on the basis of sex or whether or not you are perfectly comfortable with the distinction between boys and girls, you just want an exception to the biological definition of girls.”
“How we approach the situation of looking at it not as boys versus girls but whether or not there should be an exception with respect to the definition of girls,” Roberts added, suggesting the implications could extend beyond athletics. “That would — if we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed Roberts’ concerns, questioning how sex-based classifications function under Title IX and what would happen if Idaho’s ban were struck down.
“Does a — the justification for a classification as you have in Title IX, male/female sports, let’s take, for example, an individual male who is not a good athlete, say, a lousy tennis player, and does not make the women’s — and wants to try out for the women’s tennis team, and he said there is no way I’m better than the women’s tennis players. How is that different from what you’re being required to do here?”
Justice Samuel Alito addressed what many in the courtroom seemed reluctant to state directly: the legal definition of sex.
“Under Title IX, what does the term ‘sex’ mean?” Alito asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who was arguing in support of Idaho’s law. Mooppan maintained that sex should be defined at birth.
“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex and think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, questioning how that definition did not amount to sex discrimination against Lindsay Hecox under Idaho law. If Hecox’s sex is legally defined as male, Sotomayor argued, the exclusion still creates discrimination.
“It’s still an exception,” Sotomayor said. “It’s a subclass of people who are covered by the law and others are not.”
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the broader implications of the cases, asking whether a ruling for the states would impose a single definition of sex on the 23 states that currently have different laws and standards. The parties acknowledged that scientific research does not yet offer a clear consensus on sex.
“I think the one thing we definitely want to have is complete findings. So that’s why we really were urging to have a full record developed before there were a final judgment of scientific uncertainty,” said Kathleen Harnett, Hecox’s legal representative. “Maybe on a later record, that would come out differently — but I don’t think that—”
“Just play it out a little bit, if there were scientific uncertainty,” Kagan responded.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the impact such policies could have on cisgender girls, arguing that allowing transgender girls to compete could undermine Title IX’s original purpose.
“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league, there’s a — there’s a harm there,” Kavanaugh said. “I think we can’t sweep that aside.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Idaho’s law discriminated based on transgender status or sex.
“Since trans boys can play on boys’ teams, how would we say this discriminates on the basis of transgender status when its effect really only runs towards trans girls and not trans boys?”
Harnett responded, “I think that might be relevant to a, for example, animus point, right, that we’re not a complete exclusion of transgender people. There was an exclusion of transgender women.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the notion that explicitly excluding transgender people was not discrimination.
“I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say that this law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of transgender status. The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams… it treats transgender women different than — than cis-women, doesn’t it?”
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst urged the court to uphold his state’s ban, arguing that allowing participation based on gender identity — regardless of medical intervention — would deny opportunities to girls protected under federal law.
Hurst emphasized that biological “sex is what matters in sports,” not gender identity, citing scientific evidence that people assigned male at birth are predisposed to athletic advantages.
Joshua Block, representing B.P.J., was asked whether a ruling in their favor would redefine sex under federal law.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block said. “I think the purpose is to make sure sex isn’t being used to deny opportunities.”
Becky Pepper-Jackson, identified as plaintiff B.P.J., the 15-year-old also spoke out.
“I play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do — to make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,” said Pepper-Jackson. “And all I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me — the only transgender student athlete in the entire state — from playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves.”
Outside the court, advocates echoed those concerns as the justices deliberated.
“Becky simply wants to be with her teammates on the track and field team, to experience the camaraderie and many documented benefits of participating in team sports,” said Sasha Buchert, counsel and Nonbinary & Transgender Rights Project director at Lambda Legal. “It has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills — in leadership, teamwork, confidence, and health. On the other hand, denying a student the ability to participate is not only discriminatory but harmful to a student’s self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. That is the argument we made today and that we hope resonated with the justices of the Supreme Court.”
“This case is about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “School athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia’s law completely excluded Becky from her school’s entire athletic program even when there is no connection to alleged concerns about fairness or safety. As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boys’ team — in contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life — is really no choice at all. We are glad to stand with her and her family to defend her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in both cases by the end of June.
McBride, other US lawmakers travel to Denmark
Two gay candidates running in ‘firehouse’ Va. House of Delegates primary in Alexandria
Hot rod heaven: Chevy Corvette, Dodge Charger
Abigail Spanberger sworn in as Va. governor
Top buyer-friendly markets for the LGBTQ community
Va. Senate committee approves resolution to repeal marriage amendment
Rise of Chalamet continues in ‘Marty Supreme’
Zach Wahls stood up for us, now let’s stand with him
Comings & Goings
