National
Aggressive Obama meets passive Romney in foreign policy debate
No mention of LGBT human rights abuses abroad
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Obama squared off in a foreign policy debate (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney sparred over foreign policy Monday evening in their final debate and, as in the previous debates, neither candidate made a direct reference to LGBT issues.
During the debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., Obama took an aggressive posture, challenging Romney for switching his positions on issues, while Romney appeared passive and agreed with Obama on several key points. Both candidates made explicit references to protecting the rights of women overseas. Romney brought up promoting “gender equity” in the Middle East when talking about U.S. strategy in the Arab world, and Obama said “protecting religious minorities and women” should be a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
Other references to social issues were more general. At one point, Obama mocked Romney for his social policies without naming any position on social issues in particular, saying, “Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.”
Later, Romney said protecting “human rights” overseas was essential — but didn’t enumerate any groups for which the human rights should be protected.
Jeff Krehely, vice president of LGBT research at the Center for American Progress, said prior to the debate any discussion of LGBT issues would likely have exposed Romney’s ignorance of LGBT human rights abuses overseas.
“It’s pretty clear that Gov. Romney would be an abysmal president for LGBT Americans, since he’s made a political calculation to abandon any support for affirmative LGBT federal rights at home,” Krehely said. “But it would be good for voters to know whether he’s even aware that being gay is actually a punishable crime in many countries, and if he would continue to implement existing U.S. State Department policies that are helping to change that. If he’s not willing to do so, it’s a pretty clear indication of how far right he has drifted and just how badly he wants to be president.”
Turmoil in Syria, where an estimated 30,000 people have been killed under the Assad regime, was a contentious point during the debate. Romney faulted the Obama administration for not taking a leadership role in ousting the dictator, but Obama said the United States organized “Friends of Syria” and is mobilizing humanitarian support. When moderator Bob Scheiffer asked Romney what more he would do in the country, he didn’t commit to any different policy and said he doesn’t think military involvement is appropriate at this time.
Romney also faulted Obama for not placing enough emphasis on the U.S. partnership with Israel and said other countries in the Middle East noticed that Obama didn’t visit Israel when making a trip to the region during an early part of his administration. But Obama recalled that he visited Israel as a candidate and toured the Holocaust museum at Yad Vashem “to remind myself of the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable.”
The candidates also discussed the appropriate size for the U.S. military. Romney criticized Obama by saying our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1916 and the Air Force is older and smaller than any time since its founding in 1947. Obama responded by saying the military has evolved over time and “we also have fewer horses and bayonets.” The “horses and bayonets” line immediately became an Internet sensation.
Throughout the debate, Romney emphasized the threat of Iran becoming a nuclear power and often spoke about the need to protect U.S. interests abroad by building a strong economy at home. Notably, Romney beyond his opening statement avoided the recent controversy over terrorist attacks at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the deaths of four Americans — including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens — despite his earlier attacks on Obama on that issue.
The general consensus of the debate was Obama came out on top. Following the debate, a CBS News poll of debate viewers found that 53 percent believed Obama won compared to 23 percent who gave victory to Romney and 24 percent who said it was a tie.
Many observers said Romney appeared to agree with Obama on much of his foreign policy, including on the issue of drone strikes in Afghanistan when Romney said he supports that move “entirely.” The Washington Post’s Chris Cilliiza wrote Romney, “struggled to differentiate how his foreign policy would offer a break with what Obama has pursued over the past four years.”
Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said Obama “won tonight’s debate.”
“Mitt Romney is not ready for the world stage, he is not qualified to lead our country, and he has proven time and again he will say anything to get elected,” Davis said. “Americans should not be fooled by a slick sales pitch from an empty suit. President Obama has the stature, temperament, knowledge and vision to be the leader of the free world. Mitt Romney does not.”
Richard Grenell, who’s gay and briefly served as foreign policy spokesperson for the Romney campaign, said the debate revealed the Democratic messaging that Romney isn’t yet prepared to lead the country is false.
“It’s clear the Obama narrative that Gov. Romney is too extreme and naïve on foreign policy issues has imploded,” Grenell said. “They’ve wasted six months and millions of dollars on a message that fell apart tonight. The Obama team has quickly pivoted to start a new narrative that Romney is agreeing with President Obama on foreign affairs. The Obama team is panicking because they sense that the president isn’t going to get re-elected.”
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.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
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.
Blade Summer Kickoff Party returns to Rehoboth
Andy Cohen coming to D.C.
Want to dance for a good cause?
Calendar: May 3-9
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
Pride season has begun
