National
RNC 2012: Romney pledges to ‘honor the institution of marriage’
GOP candidate accepts party’s nomination in convention speech
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney accepts his party’s nomination at the Republican National Convention (Blade photo by Michael Key)
TAMPA, Fla. — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney officially accepted his party’s nomination for president Thursday evening while pledging to “honor the institution of marriage” if elected.
During his speech before the Republican National Convention, Romney alluded to marriage in a brief portion of his speech that apparently was intended as a broader signal of support to social conservatives.
“As president, I will protect the sanctity of life,” Romney said. “I will honor the institution of marriage, and I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion.”
As with references to marriage in speeches earlier in the week from GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, Romney didn’t explicitly say that his vision for marriage excluded same-sex couples. But Romney’s opposition to marriage equality is well known, including his support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country.
Romney’s reference to marriage could also be a knock against President Obama, who has come out in favor of marriage equality, dropped defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court and advanced an array of pro-LGBT policies while in office.
But for the most part, Romney’s speech consisted of narrating personal accounts of his family and business career, laying out a basic vision for where he wants to take the country and criticizing Obama for his decision-making over the past three-and-a-half years.
Romney articulated a five-step plan that he said would create 12 million new jobs — although he offered few details for each of these steps in his proposal.
The plan involved 1) making America energy independent by 2020 through expanding oil, coal and gas and renewable domestic energy production; 2) giving parents the option of school choice and every child a chance in the education system; 3) forging new trade agreements and punishing countries that cheat in trade; 4) cutting the deficit to put the country on track to a balanced budget; and 5) encouraging small business growth by reducing taxes and regulations as well as repealing health care reform.
Romney also called out to voters who supported Obama in the 2008 election but had become disaffected with his presidency because of the stagnant economy, saying, “I wish President Obama had succeeded because I want America to succeed. But his promises gave way to disappointment and division.”
“Tonight I’d ask a simple question: If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn’t you feel that way now that he’s President Obama?” Romney said. “You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.”
In an apparent attempt to reach out to women voters, Romney noted that women are now more likely to start their own businesses and devoted a significant portion of his speech to talking about the important role his wife Ann Romney played in raising their family as well as the bid of his mother, Lenore Romney, to become a U.S. senator in 1970.
“I can still hear her saying in her beautiful voice, ‘Why should women have any less say than men, about the great decisions facing our nation?’ Romney said. “I wish she could have been here at the convention and heard leaders like Gov. Mary Fallin, Gov. Nikki Haley, Gov. Susana Martinez, Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.”
Republican National Convention attendees cheer Mitt Romney. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Delegates to the Republican convention and others on the floor were exuberant. Before taking the stage, Romney came out from the wings of the forum and shook hands with attendees standing near the aisle as if he were preparing for a State of the Union address while the audience chanted “Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!” Those in the audience held up signs saying, “Believe!” and “We Believe in America!”
David Rappel, a gay Republican delegate from Los Angeles, said Romney “did an amazing job” with his speech and predicted the candidate would eventually change his position on same-sex marriage.
“His speech was wonderful,” Rappel said. “The Republican Party will evolve just like Obama seemed to do. Nothing is done over night.”
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, also praised Romney for his speech while touting that his organization is the only national LGBT group to endorse the candidate.
“Tonight, [Romney] reminded us of exactly why this endorsement was such an easy one for our organization,” LaSalvia said. “Simply put, Mitt Romney has the experience and vision necessary to lead our country, especially in these difficult economic times.”
In contrast, Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, drew attention to Romney’s reference to marriage — in addition to anti-gay language in the Republican Party platform — as a reason why LGBT voters should be wary of his candidacy.
“Mitt Romney’s speech capped a bizarre and meandering GOP convention with shallow references to ‘defending’ or ‘honoring” marriage,” Davis said. “What they’re not saying in primetime is that this Romney-Ryan ticket comes with the most reactionary anti-LGBT platform in politics. Gay Republicans had to admit defeat in their attempts to moderate the GOP at this year’s convention; Democrats, however, have the most pro-LGBT platform and presidential candidate in history.”
But Romney’s wasn’t the only high-profile speech that was delivered on Thursday before the Republican National Convention. Other speakers included former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who talked about the need for choice in the education system and holding teachers accountable.
Sen. Marco Rubio (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had the distinction of introducing Romney to attendees at the convention while articulating his own vision for the country in remarks that didn’t shy from religion.
“We are special because we’ve been united not by a common race or ethnicity,” Rubio said. “We’re bound together by common values. That family is the most important institution in society. That almighty God is the source of all we have.”
One prepared video included footage of Romney with his children as they were growing up in addition to his family life. One portion lampooned his frugality at home as one of his sons showed how he covered up an oversized lightbulb in the kitchen with duct tape.
But what immediately followed were remarks by actor and director Clint Eastwood, who, in addition to being a surprise guest at the convention, spoke without the aid of a teleprompter. In an apparent ad-lib, Eastwood spoke to an imaginary Obama seated in a chair next to him while questioning and criticizing him. The exchange was widely panned and seen as the most bizarre moment of the evening.
Personal remarks came from Romney’s son, Craig Romney, as well as others who’d worked with him in setting up the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, running Bain Capital and administrating the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during his tenure as governor.
Craig Romney delivered a portion of his remarks in Spanish, and another video played touting Republican Latino public officials, including pro-LGBT Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) — an apparent outreach to Hispanic voters.
Former Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, who served with Romney while he was governor, said based on the experience of working with Romney, he “won’t just talk about family values, he will live them.”
As governor of Massachusetts, such adherence to family values included opposition to a court ruling in 2003 that made the Bay State the first in the country to legalize same-sex marriage. Romney called for a state constitutional amendment overturning the decision. Additionally, Romney abolished a commission for LGBT youth, prompting state lawmakers to create a replacement panel in its stead.
Whether Romney’s speech will encourage more voters to support him as Election Day grows closer remains to be seen, although polls currently show him in a close race with Obama.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll published Thursday suggests the convention has given Romney a slight lead. Polling at the start of the week had Obama leading Romney 46-42, but on Thursday it showed Romney ahead of Obama 44-42.
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
University students have a right to protest
Former CAMP Rehoboth official sentenced to nine months in prison
Christian Siriano to serve as grand marshal of Annapolis Pride Parade
Md. governor signs Freedom to Read Act
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
