Connect with us

National

HRC endorses Obama for Election 2012

Announcement met with criticism from right and left leaning LGBT advocates

Published

on

Barack Obama (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Human Rights Campaign announced on Thursday that it has officially thrown its support behind President Obama in his bid for a second term at the White House.

In a statement, HRC President Joe Solmonese said his organization endorsed Obama because of what the president accomplished for the LGBT community during his nearly two-and-a-half years in office.

ā€œPresident Obama has improved the lives of LGBT Americans more than any president in history,ā€ Solmonese. ā€œIn 2008 we were promised change and profound change is what we got. More remains to be done and ensuring that President Obama is able to continue the forward momentum toward equality for another term is an absolute priority of the Human Rights Campaign.ā€

The achievements for the LGBT community that HRC highlighted in its endorsement statement are pressing for passage and signing legislation to repeal the ā€œDonā€™t Ask, Donā€™t Tellā€; pressing for passage and signing a hate crimes protections law; determining that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and refusing to defend the anti-gay law in court; and requiring hospitals across the country to permit hospital visitation rights to same-sex couples.

Alec Gerlach, spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, said the HRC endorsement demonstrates the support that Obama has offered the LGBT community.

ā€œThat the Human Rights Campaign offered such an early endorsement is a clear sign that the president has fought for LGBT rights across the country and in our nationā€™s military,” Gerlach said. “We will work closely within the LGBT community in the months to come to ensure that we are united in the cause to re-elect the president and to ensure equality for gay and transgendered Americans. The president believes that DOMA is discriminatory and unfair, and because the fight for equality affects us all he will not support it.ā€

HRC’s endorsement for Obama shouldn’t come as a surprise because the organization has been working closely with the White House in the implementation of pro-LGBT initiatives since the start of the administration. HRC endorsed Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign and has endorsed only Democratic presidential candidates in previous elections.

But the extent to which HRC will back Obama in 2012 election with financial support remains uncertain.

Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communications, said decisions on financial contributions or other support that his organization will make to Obama haven’t yet been made.

“Today is about the endorsement,” Sainz said. “If and when there are other reflections of our support ā€” those are determinations that will be made later.”

Criticism of the timing of HRC’s endorsement has already emerged among LGBT activists with both left-leaning and conservative ideology.

John Aravosis, the gay editor of AMERICAblog, said HRC should have waited until Obama took more action on behalf of the LGBT community ā€” such as announce support for marriage rights for gay couples ā€” before endorsing the president.

“Why not hold out for him to endorse marriage equality?” Aravosis said. “Or ask him to sign an executive order on [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] for federal contractors? The man hasn’t even finished repealing [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’], and forget about ENDA and DOMA, and HRC is already saying ‘Mission Accomplish’? You don’t just give the president something for nothing. You negotiate these kind [of] endorsements.”

Sainz said HRC will continue to press for more pro-LGBT actions from Obama even in the wake of making an endorsement.

“We continue to work towards all of those very important priorities,” Sainz said. “The alternative to not having President Obama in the White House is just not an acceptable option.”

Aravosis said he thinks HRC will purport to have received promises from the Obama administration in exchange for offering support, but should be challenging the president rather than standing behind him.

“While I’m sure HRC will claim they got lots of juicy promises in exchange for the endorsement, everyone else learned a long time ago that the president is unlikely to keep his promises unless you get in his face, and HRC will never get in his face,” Aravosis said. “So the promises are meaningless, and thus the president got HRC’s endorsement for nothing, and now won’t have to do anything for the next two years to truly earn that endorsement. I’m sure it nails down the presidentĀ for the next HRC dinner, but that really shouldn’t be the goal here.”

HRC didn’t respond on short notice to a request to comment on whether the organization secured any additional promises from Obama in exchange for the endorsement.

LGBT conservative groups also criticized HRC for making an endorsement before a Republican presidential nominee has been chosen ā€” or even before all the likely candidates on the Republican side have announced their intent to run for the White House.

Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, said the HRC is ending what he called its “charade of bi-partisanship” by endorsing Obama at this point in the election cycle.

ā€œLGBT people who are interested in putting policy before partisanship now know that HRC is little more than a puppet of the Democratic National Committee and an organization that has one goal ā€” to elect more Democrats,” LaSalvia said.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, also said HRC is offering its support too early by endorsing Obama with Election 2012 more than a year away.

“By prostrating themselves before Barack Obama eighteen months before the 2012 election, the Human Rights Campaign has effectively told the president that he doesnā€™t have to do anything more to earn gay and lesbian votes,” Cooper said. “Given his lackluster record in the fight for ā€˜Donā€™t Ask, Donā€™t Tellā€™ repeal, LGBT Americans were counting on HRC to hold the presidentā€™s feet to the fire on his other campaign promises, not to become a branch of his re-election campaign.”

Cooper further criticized HRC by saying the endorsement sends “the wrong message” to potential Republican presidential nominees who may want to reach out to the LGBT community.

“There are several possible candidates who deserve to be fairly judged on their own merits, and the dialogue on equality issues for the 2012 campaign has barely begun,” Cooper said. “This decision makes it clear that Joe Solmoneseā€™s greatest priority is an invitation to drinks at a Democratic White House, not securing votes for ENDA, DOMA repeal or tax equity. Such a pre-emptive endorsement is a mistake and will undermine equality efforts.”

In response to criticism for LGBT conservative groups, Sainz said HRC made the endorsement because Obama is far and away above any potential candidate the Republican Party may choose in the 2012 election.

“The records of other candidates seeking the presidency should be a wake-up call to all fair-minded Americans,” Sainz said. “As the fight for equality moves forward, President Obama is marching with us while the alternative would stop us in our tracks.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Second judge blocks Trump’s anti-trans military ban

Federal courts in D.C. and Washington State have now issued injunctions

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Thursday became the second court to issue a nationwide injunction blocking the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order barring transgender people from military service.

The order in Schilling v. Trump from Judge Benjamin Hale Settle comes after Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked implementation of the ban earlier this month in Talbott v. Trump.

Friday was the date by which the Pentagon was to begin identifying and separating transgender service members from the armed forces, per Trump’s executive action.

The lead attorneys in Talbott v. Trump, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, shared statements about the injunction in a press release by NCLR.

ā€œGiven the thousands of brave and decorated transgender servicemembers facing unthinkable harms as the result of this ban, we are heartened but not surprised by todayā€™s decision,ā€ Levi said. “President Trump’s executive order and Secretary [Pete] Hegseth’s implementation represent a policy that cannot be constitutionally justified. Thousands of transgender servicemembers currently serving have clearly demonstrated they meet all military standards, with many deployed to critical missions worldwide, proving their capabilities beyond question.”

Levi continued, “These dedicated servicemembers and their families have earned our nation’s gratitude and respect, and the government has a responsibility to honor the commitments it has made to them. This is about keeping faith with Americans who have risked everything to defend our freedoms.”

ā€œIn both Talbott and Shilling, it was abundantly clear to the court that it must act swiftly to protect our troops from an unconstitutional and indefensible ban that would disrupt the lives and dismantle the careers of thousands of transgender servicemembers and their families,” Minter said. “The harms associated with this ban are gut-wrenching.ā€

Minter continued, ā€œIn each of these cases, the government did not even attempt to claim that any evidence supported its position. There is no reason to discharge individuals who are serving capably and honorably.ā€

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge hears case that challenges Trump passport executive order

State Department no longer issues passports with ‘X’ gender markers

Published

on

A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.

Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, and Reid Solomon-Lane are the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the private law firm Covington & Burling LPP filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit names Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as defendants.

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an ā€œXā€ gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.

The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.

Trump signed the executive order that overturned it shortly after he took office. Rubio later directed State Department personnel to ā€œsuspend any application requesting an ā€˜Xā€™ sex marker and do not take any further action pending additional guidance from the department.ā€  

ā€œEven before Donald Trump was inaugurated, it was clear to me he wanted to control the lives and identities of transgender people like myself,ā€ said Orr, a transgender man who lives in West Virginia, in a press release the ACLU released before U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick heard the case. ā€œLike many others, I rushed to update my passport hoping I could get an accurate version. Now, the State Department has suspended my application and withheld all my documents from me, including my passport, my birth certificate, and even my marriage license.”

Li Nowlin-Sohl, a staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, described the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy as “openly discriminatory and animated by a transparent desire to drive transgender people out of public life altogether.”

Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.

WorldPride is scheduled to take place in D.C. from May 17-June 8. InterPride, the organization that coordinates WorldPride events, on March 12 issued its own travel advisory for trans and nonbinary people who want to travel to the U.S.

It is unclear when Kobick will issue her ruling. 

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Trump ‘culture war’ complicates HUD’s distribution of $3.6B in housing grants

Senate Dems call for new agreements

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The disbursement of more than $3.6 billion in federal grants to housing providers has been paused for weeks while the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development seeks to condition receipt of the funding on compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive actions targeting DEI and transgender and immigrant communities.

March 4 was the statutory deadline for the agency to distribute the funds, which come through the Continuum of Care Program in support of local governments and nonprofit organizations working to promote “a community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness.”

On March 13, a group of Senate Democrats led by U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Tina Smith (Minn.) wrote to HUD Secretary Scott Turner urging him to move quickly on distributing the grants and warning of the consequences that recipients are now facing and the harm they will encounter in the future if delays persist.

“To keep the lights on, providers are now being forced to draw on lines of credit at significant cost and risk to their organizations,” the senators said. “These projects enable homeless service providers to help veterans, families with children, youth, seniors, and vulnerable individuals access permanent and temporary housing, crisis counseling, and other supportive services.ā€

HUD subsequently disseminated grant agreements ā€” and Schiff published an example on his office’s website ā€” that included, among other provisions, language stipulating that the awardee (1) “shall not use grant funds to promote ‘gender ideology,’ as defined in E.O. 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” (2) certifies that it does not operate any programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws, and (3) agrees not to use “that funding in a manner that by design or effect facilitates the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration or abets so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

On March 14, the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals stayed a nationwide injunction enjoining three parts of Trump’s executive order on DEI, and the following day, HUD rescinded the CoC contracts and said to expect new agreements within a week as the agency was “working to revise its CoC grant agreements to be consistent with Federal law and compliant with applicable court orders.”

Schiff then led a second letter to Turner on March 19 with the Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mazie Hirono (D- Hawaii), and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.).

“We urge the department to immediately issue new CoC grant agreements consistent with longstanding practiceā€” free of the aforementioned conditionsā€” to ensure all individuals experiencing homelessness receive protection and support, regardless of gender identity, location, or other characteristics,” they said, requesting a response by March 31.

“The initial FY2024 grant agreements issued to CoC funding recipients contained new requirements that are deeply problematic, and likely unlawful, requirements,” the senators argued. “These mandates, such as barring shelters from serving transgender people, prohibiting DEI initiatives, and certifying that they do not support ‘sanctuary’ policies protecting noncitizens, conflict with federal civil rights, fair housing, and immigration laws, raising serious legal and constitutional concerns.”

The lawmakers noted “the harm caused by these delayed and unfulfilled CoC grant agreements will fall disproportionately on our most vulnerable populations, including women, families with children, youth, veterans, survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.” They added, “Women experiencing homelessness ā€” many of whom are fleeing domestic abuse ā€” already face significant barriers to safety and stability, and restricting access to critical housing services will only further endanger their lives and well-being.”

Citing research that nearly one in three transgender Americans has experiences homelessness in their lives, Schiff and his colleagues stressed that “Transgender and nonbinary people in the U.S. face significant barriers to securing safe housing, with many experiencing homelessness and high rates of mistreatment and violence in shelters.”

With respect to the language in the agreements about “sanctuary” policies, the senators wrote “The organizations receiving CoC funds exist to provide critical, non-discriminatory aid to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. These organizations do not set or enforce immigration policy ā€” they simply fulfill their legal duty to provide life-saving and life-changing care.”

Later on March 19, HUD began issuing new contracts that did not contain the provision concerning DEI but did include the same language about “gender ideology” and “sanctuary” policies.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular