National
Obama says Prop 8 brief may apply in other cases
President says administration was compelled to intervene in lawsuit
President Obama spoke about the Prop 8 brief on Friday. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
President Obama suggested that the Supreme Court could take the arguments presented in his brief against California’s Proposition 8 as reasoning to overturn bans on same-sex marriage in other states.
In response to questioning from the Chicago Tribune’s Christi Parsons, Obama said his administration has articulated a position that if any state — not just California — has a law withholding rights from same-sex couples, there should be a compelling reason for it in order to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
“Now, the court may decide that if it doesn’t apply in this case, it probably can’t apply in any case,” Obama said. “There’s no good reason for it. If I were on the court, that would probably be the view that I’d put forward. But I’m not a judge, I’m the president. So the basic principle, though, is let’s treat everybody fairly and let’s treat everybody equally. And I think that the brief that’s been presented accurately reflects our views.”
Obama also maintained in his remarks that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was addressing the issue of Prop 8 in his remarks because that is the question before the court.
“The Solicitor General in his institutional role going before the Supreme Court is obliged to answer the specific question before them.,” Obama said. “And the specific question presented before the court right now is whether Prop 8 and the California law is unconstitutional.”
Richard Socarides, a gay New York advocate who has called on Obama to participate in the Prop 8 lawsuit, said the brief itself coupled with Obama’s remarks demonstrate he’s in favor of marriage equality throughout the country.
“It’s clear from the brief and the president’s comments that he believes in equal marriage rights for every American no matter where you live,” Socarides said. “That’s our goal and his.”
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications at the Human Rights Campaign, said he doesn’t need to review Obama’s comments because the brief already presented an expansive view on marriage equality.
“I don’t need to interpret the president’s words,” Sainz said. “What matters is that the official position of the United States government is now that marriage discrimination is unconstitutional.”
The full transcript of the exchange follows:
CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Mr. President, your administration weighed in yesterday on the Proposition 8 case. A few months ago it looked like you might be averse to doing that, and I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about your deliberations and how your thinking evolved on that. Were there conversations that were important to you? Were there things that you read that influenced your thinking?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: As everybody here knows, last year, upon a long period of reflection, I concluded that we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage; that the basic principle that America is founded on — the idea that we’re all created equal — applies to everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, as well as race or gender or religion or ethnicity.
And I think that the same evolution that I’ve gone through is an evolution that the country as a whole has gone through. And I think it is a profoundly positive thing. So that when the Supreme Court essentially called the question by taking this case about California’s law, I didn’t feel like that was something that this administration could avoid. I felt it was important for us to articulate what I believe and what this administration stands for.
And although I do think that we’re seeing, on a state-by-state basis, progress being made — more and more states recognizing same-sex couples and giving them the opportunity to marry and maintain all the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples do — when the Supreme Court asks, do you think that the California law, which doesn’t provide any rationale for discriminating against same-sex couples other than just the notion that, well, they’re same-sex couples, if the Supreme Court asks me or my Attorney General or Solicitor General, do we think that meets constitutional muster, I felt it was important for us to answer that question honestly — and the answer is no.
TRIBUNE: And given the fact that you do hold that position about gay marriage, I wonder if you thought about just — once you made the decision to weigh in, why not just argue that marriage is a right that should be available to all people of this country?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, that’s an argument that I’ve made personally. The Solicitor General in his institutional role going before the Supreme Court is obliged to answer the specific question before them. And the specific question presented before the Court right now is whether Prop 8 and the California law is unconstitutional.
And what we’ve done is we’ve put forward a basic principle, which is — which applies to all equal protection cases. Whenever a particular group is being discriminated against, the Court asks the question, what’s the rationale for this — and it better be a good reason. And if you don’t have a good reason, we’re going to strike it down.
And what we’ve said is, is that same-sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny, that the Supreme Court needs to ask the state why it’s doing it. And if the state doesn’t have a good reason, it should be struck down. That’s the core principle as applied to this case.
Now, the Court may decide that if it doesn’t apply in this case, it probably can’t apply in any case. There’s no good reason for it. If I were on the Court, that would probably be the view that I’d put forward. But I’m not a judge, I’m the President. So the basic principle, though, is let’s treat everybody fairly and let’s treat everybody equally. And I think that the brief that’s been presented accurately reflects our views.
Watch the video here (courtesy Think Progress)
State Department
HIV/AIDS activists protest at State Department, demand full PEPFAR funding restoration
Black coffins placed in front of Harry S. Truman Building
Dozens of HIV/AIDS activists on Thursday gathered in front of the State Department and demanded the Trump-Vance administration fully restore President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief funding.
Housing Works CEO Charles King, Health GAP Executive Director Asia Russell, Human Rights Campaign Senior Public Policy Advocate Matthew Rose, and others placed 206 black Styrofoam coffins in front of the State Department before the protest began.
King said more than an estimated 100,000 people with HIV/AIDS will die this year if PEPFAR funding is not fully restored.
“If we continue to not provide the PEPFAR funding to people living in low-income countries who are living with HIV or at risk, we are going to see millions and millions of deaths as well as millions of new infections,” added King.
Then-President George W. Bush in 2003 signed legislation that created PEPFAR.
The Trump-Vance administration in January froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a waiver that allows the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS relief and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during the freeze.
The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down because of a lack of U.S. funding. Two South African organizations — OUT LGBT Well-being and Access Chapter 2 — that received PEPFAR funding through the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in recent weeks closed down HIV-prevention programs and other services to men who have sex with men.
Rubio last month said 83 percent of USAID contracts have been cancelled. He noted the State Department will administer those that remain in place “more effectively.”
“PEPFAR represents the best of us, the dignity of our country, of our people, of our shared humanity,” said Rose.
Russell described Rubio as “ignorant and incompetent” and said “he should be fired.”
“What secretary of state in 90 days could dismantle what the brilliance of AIDS activism created side-by-side with George W. Bush? What kind of fool could do that? I’ll tell you who, the boss who sits in the Harry S. Truman Building, Marco Rubio,” said Russell.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Pentagon urged to reverse Naval Academy book ban
Hundreds of titles discussing race, gender, and sexuality pulled from library shelves
Lambda Legal and the Legal Defense Fund issued a letter on Tuesday urging U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to reverse course on a policy that led to the removal of 381 books from the Nimitz Library of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.
Pursuant to President Donald Trump’s executive order 14190, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” the institution screened 900 titles to identify works promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” removing those that concerned or touched upon “topics pertaining to the experiences of people of color, especially Black people, and/or LGBTQ people,” according to a press release from the civil rights organizations.
These included “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” by Maya Angelou, “Stone Fruit” by Lee Lai, “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas, “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong” by James W. Loewen, “Gender Queer: A Memoir” by Maia Kobabe, and “Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul” by Eddie S. Glaude, Jr.
The groups further noted that “the collection retained other books with messages and themes that privilege certain races and religions over others, including ‘The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan’ by Thomas Dixon, Jr., ‘Mein Kampf’ by Adolf Hitler, and ‘Heart of Darkness’ by Joseph Conrad.
In their letter, Lambda Legal and LDF argued the books must be returned to circulation to preserve the “constitutional rights” of cadets at the institution, warning of the “danger” that comes with “censoring materials based on viewpoints disfavored by the current administration.”
“Such censorship is especially dangerous in an educational setting, where critical inquiry, intellectual diversity, and exposure to a wide array of perspectives are necessary to educate future citizen-leaders,” Lambda Legal Chief Legal Officer Jennifer C. Pizer and LDF Director of Strategic Initiatives Jin Hee Lee said in the press release.
Federal Government
White House sues Maine for refusing to comply with trans athlete ban
Lawsuit follows months-long conflict over school sports in state
The Justice Department is suing the state of Maine for refusing to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender athletes from participating in school sports, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Wednesday.
DOJ’s lawsuit accuses the state of violating Title IX rules barring sex discrimination, arguing that girls and women are disadvantaged in sports and deprived of opportunities like scholarships when they must compete against natal males, an interpretation of the statute that reverses course from how the law was enforced under the Biden-Harris administration.
“We tried to get Maine to comply” before filing the complaint, Bondi said during a news conference. She added the department is asking the court to “have the titles return to the young women who rightfully won these sports” and may also retroactively pull federal funding to the state for refusing to comply with the ban in the past.
Earlier this year, the attorney general sent letters to Maine, California, and Minnesota warning the blue states that the department “does not tolerate state officials who ignore federal law.”
According to the Maine Principals’ Association, only two trans high school-aged girls are competing statewide this year. Conclusions from research on the athletic performance of trans athletes vis-a-vis their cisgender counterparts have been mixed.
Trump critics and LGBTQ advocates maintain that efforts to enforce the ban can facilitate invasive gender policing to settle questions about an individual athlete’s birth sex, which puts all girls and women at risk. Others believe determinations about eligibility should be made not by the federal government but by school districts, states, and athletics associations.
Bondi’s announcement marked the latest escalation of a months-long feud between Trump and Maine, which began in February when the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, declined to say she would enforce the ban.
Also on Wednesday, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the findings from her department’s Title IX investigation into Maine schools — which, likewise, concerned their inclusion of trans student-athletes in competitive sports — was referred to DOJ.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department pulled $1.5 million in grants for Maine’s Department of Corrections because a trans woman was placed in a women’s correctional facility in violation of a different anti-trans executive order, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture paused the disbursement of funds supporting education programs in the state over its failure to comply with Title IX rules.
A federal court last week ordered USDA to unfreeze the money in a ruling that prohibits the agency from “terminating, freezing, or otherwise interfering with the state’s access to federal funds based on alleged Title IX violations without following the process required by federal statute.”
EXCLUSIVE: Garcia demands answers on deportation of gay Venezuelan asylum seeker
HIV/AIDS activists protest at State Department, demand full PEPFAR funding restoration
Capital Pride wins $900,000 D.C. grant to support WorldPride
Transgender woman sues Chilean national police
US lists transgender Brazilian congresswoman’s gender as ‘male’ on visa
Final push to raise funds, fill D.C. hotels as WorldPride nears
Reenactment of 1965 gay rights protest at White House set for April 17
FreeState Justice: Transgender activist ‘hijacked’ Moore’s Transgender Day of Visibility event
Hungarian MPs amend constitution to ban public LGBTQ events
Navigating DMV real estate market during political unrest
-
District of Columbia3 days agoFinal push to raise funds, fill D.C. hotels as WorldPride nears
-
District of Columbia3 days agoReenactment of 1965 gay rights protest at White House set for April 17
-
Maryland3 days agoFreeState Justice: Transgender activist ‘hijacked’ Moore’s Transgender Day of Visibility event
-
Hungary3 days agoHungarian MPs amend constitution to ban public LGBTQ events