Politics
Religious exemption inspires heated debate at ENDA panel
Wolfson challenges current language in LGBT anti-discrimation bill
Freedom to Marry’s Evan Wolfson (left) and Freedom to Work’s Tico Almeida had heated exchange on ENDA’s religious exemption (Blade file photos by Michael Key).
NEW YORK — The appropriate scope of the religious exemption in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act continues to stir debate as a prominent marriage equality advocate on Thursday made a surprise endorsement of narrowing the broad provision in the bill.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said he shares the “grave concerns” expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union over the religious exemption — which he said would “carve coverage by certain kinds of entities for LGBT people” — during a panel as part of Freedom to Work’s premier “Situation Room” in New York City.
“I do have grave concerns about the specific language in the specific bill,” Wolfson said. “That’s one of the points of difference I have with Freedom to Work on this current bill.”
Currently, ENDA has a religious exemption that provides leeway for religious organizations, like churches or religious schools, to discriminate against LGBT employees. That same leeway isn’t found under Title VII, which prohibits religious organizations from discriminating on the basis of race, gender or national origin.
Wolfson and Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work and proponent of the religious exemption, were the lone speakers on the second panel of the day. Wolfson’s main purpose on the panel was to talk about the lessons the campaign to pass ENDA can learn from the marriage equality fight.
Almeida initially responded by saying the religious exemption has value in allaying concerns from Republican lawmakers who are undecided on ENDA.
“I would say that in a bunch of Republican meetings we spend a majority of the time talking about the religious exemption and exactly how it will apply, what the case law is,” Almeida said.
Almeida co-wrote the current version of the religious exemption when working as a staffer for Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). It was passed as an amendment on the U.S. House floor in 2007 to a gay-only version of ENDA by a vote of 402-25.
But Almeida qualified his support for the religious exemption by saying he believes religious organizations shouldn’t be able to receive federal funds if they discriminate against LGBT people. But, Almeida continued, the mechanism to prohibit this discrimination isn’t ENDA; rather, it should be a workplace non-discrimination executive order signed by President Obama.
“I think there’s complete uniformity that we are all pushing for a federal policy that if you take and profit from federal dollars, you must follow American values, you must pledge not to discriminate against LGBT folks — and if you get caught, there should be consequences,” Almeida said.
But Wolfson quickly retorted as the panel developed into a heated debate between him and Almeida that seemed to become almost hostile as the session closed.
“We have a body of laws across the country that include sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited discriminatory classifications alongside race, sex and others — and they have all followed generally a certain kind of exemption — as had Title VII and the Civil Rights Act, and so on,” Wolfson said. “The problem with this current draft of ENDA is that exemption goes far beyond what that body of experience has taught us is the right balance.”
Wolfson added the argument in favor of ENDA to undecided lawmakers should be to look at existing law throughout the states as opposed to enshrining “new and unnecessary and dangerous exemptions from non-discrimination law.”
“By the way, calling them religious exemptions implies that there’s some religious problem to be solved,” Wolfson said. “There is no religious problem to be solved: what these are are licenses to discriminate.”
Almeida, a Catholic, responded by saying he thinks attitudes should change within the church by action from members of that particular faith.
“I don’t believe civil rights statute in the form of Title VII and ENDA should be used to force the Catholic Church to make a change to its policies,” Almeida said. “I think we will push them, and it may take decades, and it may take more than my lifetime, but we will push them in other ways.”
Almeida added he doesn’t understand the argument the religious exemption in ENDA is a new approach because he said he “literally copied and pasted it from Title VII.”
Besides, Almeida also said groups that oppose ENDA’s religious exemption missed an opportunity to propose an amendment when the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee voted on the bill in July. Also, he challenged them to make public the language they would prefer instead.
“I would love for those organizations to publicly communicate to the LGBT community and to Congress what is their proposal,” Almeida said. “They made a big fuss …, and they didn’t seek an amendment at markup. They didn’t ask any of our progressive champions, and there are very progressive champions on that committee, or if they asked, then they got rejected.”
Wolfson countered by saying Almeida’s proposal to change the Catholic Church from within is “completely irrelevant” to the conversation of putting a “license to discriminate” in a statute.
“Nobody is saying that the Catholic Church should be sued or told what to do as a matter of law when it comes to doctrine or the church, or ministers,” Wolfson said. “That’s misleading language that might confuse people in a way that you didn’t intend.”
Additionally, Wolfson said Almeida was mischaracterizing the religious exemption in ENDA by saying it’s lifted from Title VII. Almeida conceded that point on the panel.
“To say that something has some degree of religion in it, but now that it’s in the marketplace, it can now fire not just the priest, but the janitor, that’s an exemption that doesn’t exist in Title VII or any other parts of law,” Wolfson said.
Concluding his argument, Wolfson said the religious exemption issue must be resolved because it’s giving fuel to the anti-LGBT forces seeking to thwart ENDA passage.
“The religious exemption language thing is mostly a distraction, it’s a non-and-wrong solution to a non-problem, but becomes important if it get put into law,” Wolfson said.
Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the ACLU, told the Blade after the panel he commends Wolfson for endorsing a narrower religious exemption for ENDA, calling the news “a great development.”
“As a leader of the freedom to marry movement, he knows as well as anyone the importance of rejecting overly broad religious exemptions,” Thompson said.
Further, Thompson responded to Almeida’s claims that narrower language on religious institutions hasn’t been proposed by pointing to existing law.
“The alternative to ENDA’s unprecedented religious exemption has been and remains crystal clear,” Thompson said. “Just as our civil rights laws have never permitted blank checks to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, age, and disability, they must not now do so based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Discussion of the religious exemption also came up during the first panel of the day, which consisted of six speakers from a bipartisan group of LGBT organizations. Paul Schindler, editor-in-chief of Gay City News, asked the panel if they were comfortable with the language.
Gregory Angelo, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, started off the discussion by saying he was “comfortable” with the current wording because it’s hard enough selling the bill as it is.
“Without naming names, there are meetings that I have had with Republicans — both in the House and the Senate — where there’s some Republicans who don’t feel those religious protections go far enough,” Angelo said. “We’re pushing back against that. I think the protections as they exist now are strong, they’re solid.”
Melissa Sklarz, a transgender Democratic activist from Stonewall Democrats of New York City, seemed to support the exemption on a temporary basis as a way to win support for the bill, saying it won’t hold up in court and is just “a barrier to try to win allies” on the Republican side.
“It’s a good idea,” Sklarz said. “We watched them fight LGBT equality in ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and we’ve watched it in marriage. As they keep throwing things at ideas that prevent equality, they will not stand up. If this is going to win allies among the moderate and right-wing so we can get it to the floor, then great.”
Asked by Schindler whether under the current religious exemption he could be fired at a Catholic hospital or a Mormon book store, Almeida replied, “It depends.”
“It depends on the facts,” Almeida said. “Law has very few bright line tests, and neither the Title VII religious exemption, nor the ENDA religious exemption, list types of organizations. So, courts have created factors that are considered.”
Almeida said courts have established that for-profit businesses are eligible for the religious exemption under existing law. But he acknowledged that organizations like the Catholic Church and Catholic Charities will be able to continue to discriminate against LGBT people in hiring and firing decisions.
“By tying the ENDA religious exemption explicitly to the Title VII religious exemption, that gives us the most clarity, and as a byproduct, and for me it’s just a byproduct, it’s going to be the one to help us win,” Almeida said.
Politics
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
Election results a potential blueprint for 2026 campaigns
Activists and political observers say the major Democratic victories on the East Coast last week prove anti-transgender attacks are no longer effective.
Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York who defended transgender rights directly — Abigail Spanberger, Mikie Sherrill, and Zohran Mamdani — won decisively, while Republicans who invested millions in anti-trans fearmongering were rejected by voters.
This contrasts sharply with the messaging coming out of the White House.
The Trump-Vance administration has pursued a hardline anti-trans agenda since taking office, from attempting to ban trans military members from serving to enforcing bathroom and sports bans. But this winning strategy may not be as solid for their voters as it once seemed.
The Washington Blade attended a post-election meeting hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, where LGBTQ advocates and political leaders reflected on the results and discussed how to build on the momentum heading into 2026 — as the Trump-Vance administration doubles down on its anti-trans agenda.
Among those on the call was U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first openly trans person ever elected to Congress. Having run one of the nation’s most visible pro-trans campaigns, McBride said voters made their priorities clear.
“Voters made clear yesterday that they will reject campaigns built on hatred. They will reject campaigns that seek to divide us, and they will reject candidates that offer no solutions for the cost-of-living crisis this country is facing.”
McBride cited the Virginia governor’s race as a clear example of how a candidate can uplift trans people — specifically when their opponent is targeting kids — but also refocus the conversation on topics Americans truly care about: the economy, tariffs, mortgage rates, and the preservation of democracy.
“We saw millions of dollars in anti-trans attacks in Virginia, but we saw Governor-elect Spanberger respond. She defended her trans constituents, met voters with respect and grace, and ran a campaign that opened hearts and changed minds,” McBride said.
“That is the future of our politics. That is how we win — by combating misinformation, caricatures, fearmongering, and scapegoating.”
She added that the elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York offer a “blueprint” for how Democrats can effectively respond to GOP attacks and win “in the face of hatred.”
“When you dive into the data and you look in New Jersey, Virginia — you see the progress that pro-equality candidates have made in urban, suburban, and rural communities, among voters of every background and identity,” McBride said. “You see that we can compete everywhere … When we perform a politics that’s rooted in three concepts, we win.
“One is a politics of affordability — we prioritize the issues keeping voters up at night, the cost-of-living crisis. Two, we are curious, not judgmental — as candidates, we meet people where they are, hold true to our values, but extend grace so people can grow. And three, we root our politics in a sense of place.”
“All of these candidates were deeply committed to their districts, to their state, to their city,” she continued. “Voters responded because they were able to see a politics that transcended partisanship and ideology … about building community with one another, across our disagreements and our differences. When we as pro-equality candidates embody that type of politics — a politics of affordability, curiosity, and community — we win.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson echoed McBride’s sentiment — once again moving away from the bogeyman Republicans have made trans children out to be and refocusing on politics that matter to people’s everyday lives.
“Anti-trans extremists poured millions into fearmongering, hoping cruelty could substitute for leadership — and once again, it failed,” Robinson said. “Fear can’t fill a prescription. Division doesn’t lower rent or put food on the table. Voters saw through the distraction.”
Robinson then detailed how much money Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, the Republican who challenged Spanberger, spent on these ads — showing that even with money and a PAC standing behind her (like the Republican Governors Association’s Right Direction PAC, which gave her $9.5 million), success isn’t possible without a message that connects with constituents.
“In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger made history defeating Winsome Earle-Sears and more than $9 million of anti-trans attack ads. She didn’t flinch. She didn’t hide from her values. She led with them — and Virginians rewarded that courage.”
Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman went into further detail on how the Republican nominee for Virginia’s governor leaned into transphobia.
“Winsome Earle-Sears spent more than 60 percent of her paid media budget attacking transgender kids — an unprecedented amount — and it failed.”
Rahaman continued, saying the results send a message to the whole country, noting that only 3 percent of voters ranked trans issues as a top concern by the end of October.
“Virginia voters sent a resounding message that anti-trans fearmongering is not a winning strategy — not here in Virginia, and not anywhere else,” Rahaman said. “Candidates who met these attacks head-on with messages rooted in freedom, safety, and fairness saw overwhelming success. Attacking transgender youth is not a path to power. It is a moral dead end — and a political one too.”
Virginia state Del. Joshua Cole (D-Fredericksburg), who was also on the call, put it bluntly:
“Republicans have now become champions of campaigning on bullying kids — and we saw last night that that was a losing tactic.”
“Virginians came out en masse to say we believe in protecting our neighbors, protecting our friends — and standing up for everybody.”
That message rang true well beyond Virginia.
In New Jersey, Rep. Mikie Sherrill pushed back against GOP efforts to weaponize trans issues, telling voters, “When you really talk to people, they have empathy. They understand these are kids, these are families, and they deserve our support.”
And in New York, state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani released a pre-election ad honoring trans liberation icon Sylvia Rivera, declaring, “New York will not sit idly by while trans people are attacked.”
Former Vice President Dick Cheney died of complications from pneumonia and cardio and vascular disease, according to a family statement released Tuesday morning. He was 84.
Cheney served as vice president under President George W. Bush for eight years and previously as defense secretary under President George H.W. Bush. He also served as a House member from Wyoming and as White House chief of staff for President Gerald Ford.
“Dick Cheney was a great and good man who taught his children and grandchildren to love our country, and to live lives of courage, honor, love, kindness, and fly fishing,” his family said in a statement. “We are grateful beyond measure for all Dick Cheney did for our country. And we are blessed beyond measure to have loved and been loved by this noble giant of a man.”
Cheney had a complicated history on LGBTQ issues; he and wife Lynne had two daughters, Liz Cheney and Mary Cheney, who’s a lesbian. Mary Cheney was criticized by LGBTQ advocates for not joining the fight against President George W. Bush’s push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. She later resumed support for LGBTQ issues in 2009, including same-sex marriage, after her father left office in 2009. She married her partner since 1992, Heather Poe, in 2012.
In 2010, after leaving office, Cheney predicted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would “be changed” and expressed support for reconsideration of the law banning open military service.
In 2013, the Cheney family’s disagreements over marriage equality spilled into the public eye after Liz Cheney announced her opposition to same-sex couples legally marrying. Mary Cheney took to Facebook to rebuke her sister: “Liz – this isn’t just an issue on which we disagree – you’re just wrong – and on the wrong side of history.” Dick and Lynne Cheney were supporters of marriage equality by 2013. Liz Cheney eventually came around years later.
Cheney, a neo-con, was often criticized for his handling of the Iraq war. He was considered one of the most powerful and domineering vice presidents of the modern era. He disappeared from public life for years but re-emerged to help Liz Cheney in her House re-election bid after she clashed with President Trump. Dick Cheney assailed Trump in a campaign video and later Liz announced that her father would vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
New Hampshire
John E. Sununu to run for NH Senate seat
Gay Congressman Chris Pappas among other candidates
Former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu on Wednesday announced he is running for retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)’s seat in 2026.
“Washington, as anyone who observes can see, is a little dysfunctional right now,” Sununu told WMUR in an interview the New Hampshire television station aired on Wednesday. “There’s yelling, there’s inactivity. We’ve got a government shutdown. Friends, family, they always say, ‘Why would anyone want to work there?’ And the short answer is it’s important to New Hampshire. It’s important that we have someone who knows how to get things done.”
Sununu, 61, was in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1997-2003 and in the U.S. Senate from 2003-2009. Shaheen in 2008 defeated Sununu when he ran for re-election.
Sununu’s father is John Sununu, who was former President George H.W. Bush’s chief of staff. Sununu’s brother is former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu.
John E. Sununu will square off against former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in the Republican primary. Gay U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) is among the Democrats running for Shaheen’s seat.
“As a small business owner and public servant, I’m in this fight to put people first and do what’s right for New Hampshire,” said Pappas on Wednesday on X. “I’m working to lower costs and build a fair economy. Washington should work for you — not corporate interests.”
Miss Major Griffin-Gracy paved the way for today’s transgender rights revolution
Chilean presidential election outcome to determine future of LGBTQ rights in country
EXCLUSIVE: Garcia, Markey reintroduce bill to require US promotes LGBTQ rights abroad
Could lower rates, lagging condo sales lure buyers to the table?
Gay, straight men bond over finances, single fatherhood in Mosaic show
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
Democratic Socialism won’t win the whole country
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
Federal government reopens
