National
White House protesters appear in court
Judge questions prosecution of LGBT demonstrators in ‘Don’t Ask’ case
A U.S. District Court judge told a federal prosecutor in court on Friday that the government appeared to be invoking an overly harsh charge against 13 LGBT activists who were arrested for handcuffing themselves to the White House fence last November to protest the āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tellā law.
In a status hearing at the U.S. courthouse in D.C., Judge Magistrate John M. Facciola said the governmentās decision to charge the protesters with a misdemeanor offense that carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail seemed out of keeping with other non-violent civil disobedience cases that involve the arrest of protesters.
Facciola noted that attorneys representing the 13 activists ā including former Army Lt. Dan Choi and former Army Staff Sgt. Miriam Ben-Shalom ā have called for a trial of each of the defendants unless the government agrees to a less serious charge. A trial for 13 people would cost the government a considerable amount of money and would take up court time that could better be used for other cases, the judge said.
āWe think the judge was telegraphing very clearly that he sees the case very similar to the way we see this case ā as a civil rights exercise, as a First Amendment exercise as people who non-violently expressed their opposition to a policy which has now been repealed,ā said defense attorney Mark Goldstone after the hearing.
Goldstone said Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George, the prosecutor in the case, has so far declined to consider a number of possible alternative charges proposed by the defense. Among them is a less serious disorderly conduct charge that falls under D.C. law rather than the current federal charge filed against the defendants: failure to obey a lawful order by U.S. Park Police.
Park Police, which patrol the space surrounding the White House, made the arrests in the case after the protesters handcuffed themselves to the fence in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
George cited various reasons why the government chose not to accept the suggested options offered by Goldstone and attorney Ann Wilcox, who is assisting Goldstone in the defense. Among other things, she said technical and legal restrictions would likely prevent the government form filing other charges.
Goldstone and Wilcox have proposed, among other things, a āpost and forfeitā option that allows the defendants to pay a fine and calls for the charge to be dropped. The two also proposed that the defendants be charged with another misdemeanor offense that allows the government to drop the charge if they successfully perform community service work.
According to the two attorneys, all these options have been used in numerous past cases involving non-violent civil disobedience arrests. Goldstone noted that Choi and another LGBT protester who were arrested for handcuffing themselves to the White House fence in an earlier protest last year were offered a post and forfeit option.
He said that while the judge would not likely issue a six-month sentence if the defendants pled guilty to the current charge, a guilty plea to such a charage would result in them having a permanent criminal record. A criminal record could result in at least two of the defendants, including Ben Shalom,Ā losing their jobs as teachers, he said.
āFor some unknown reason, they are taking a harder line in this case,āĀ Goldstone told reporters after the hearing.
Facciola directed George to continue to negotiate with the defense on a possible alternate charge or course of action. He scheduled a follow-up status hearing for May 17. If no agreement is reached by then he directed the parties to return to court on Sept. 19 for either the start of a trial or a plea to an agreed upon charge.
A spokesperson with the U.S. Attorneyās office said Monday that the office would have no comment on the case while is pending in court.
In addition to Choi and Ben-Shalom, the other defendants in the case include former Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen, former Cadet Mara Boyd, former Maine Corps Sgt. Justin Elzie, former Army Arabic linguist Ian Finkenbinder, Marine combat veteran Crpl. Evelyn Thomas and Army veteran Rob Smith.
Others include Robin McGehee, co-founder of GetEqual, the direct action LGBT group that organized the White House protest; Dan Fotou, GetEqualās eastern regional field director; Fr. Geoff Farrow, a Catholic priest who was suspended by Catholic authorities in California for defending the stateās same-sex marriage law against Proposition 8; Scott Wooledge, an LGBT rights advocate and blogger; and Michael Bedwell, a longtime LGBT activist and friend of Leonard Matlovich, the late LGBT activist and former Air Force sergeant who became the first known gay to publicly declare his sexual orientation in 1975 to challenge the militaryās ban on gay service members.
District of Columbia
Fire by arson forced temporary shutdown of Glorious Health Club
Spa and art gallery catering to gay
men expects to reopen in August
In a little noticed development, D.C.ās Glorious Health Club, which bills itself as a spa, art gallery, and community center catering to gay men, was forced to close on May 19 after one or more unidentified suspects ignited a fire inside the club that D.C. fire department officials have ruled an act of arson.
Robert Siegel, the clubās owner, told the Washington Blade that he and investigators with the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department believe one or more yet unidentified suspects broke into the kitchen of the former warehouse building where the club is located at 2120 West Virginia Ave., N.E.
According to Siegel, investigators with the fire departmentās arson squad believe a flammable liquid was used to start the fire in the kitchen and in two other locations within the building.
āThree separate fires were started,ā Siegel said. āThey started one on a staircase and one on the upstairs storage area,ā he said in addition to the one in the kitchen. He said about 40 patrons were in the club at the time the fire started, and all were able to leave without injury.
Siegel said the fire caused $500,000 worth of damage to his building, with some of the damage caused ā understandably he said ā by fire fighters who had to rip open doors and break through the roof to gain access to the flames that engulfed parts of the interior of the building. He said he arranged for repair work to begin after the fire was extinguished.
āI expect weāll be reopening in about a month from now,ā he said. āAnd weāll be a bigger and better place.ā
Fortunately, Siegel said, most of the artwork and art exhibits located in the club were not damaged.
āIt was basically the kitchen, patio, and the roof,ā he said, adding that much of the solar panels he had on the roof were destroyed by the fire or by firefighters seeking to gain access to the building.
āAnd the fire was so hot it did structural damage to the roof,ā he said. āIt actually melted steel. Weāre talking about 50-foot steel beams that have to be replaced,ā he told the Blade. āThatās $100,000 right there.āĀ
Vito Maggiolo, a spokesperson for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, said the fire was āruled incendiary/arsonā and isĀ āunder active investigation.āĀ
It could not immediately be determined if one or more people responsible for the fire targeted the Glorious Health Club because itās a gay community establishment.
National
House Republicans propose steep cuts in federal AIDS budget
Advocacy groups say move would eliminate āEnding HIV Epidemicā initiative
The Republican-controlled U.S. House Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies approved a spending bill on June 26 that calls for cutting at least $419 million from federal AIDS programs that AIDS activists say would have a devastating impact on efforts to greatly reduce the number of new HIV infections by 2030.
The subcommitteeās proposed bill, which includes billions of dollars in cuts in a wide range of other federal health, education, and human services related programs, is scheduled to be considered by the full House Appropriations Committee on July 10. Officials with AIDS advocacy groups say they are hopeful that the full committee, like last year, will refuse to approve the proposed cuts in the AIDS budget.
The proposed GOP cuts would eliminate $214 million from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventionās HIV prevention programs, $190 million from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, and $15 million from the Department of Health and Human Services Secretaryās Minority HIV/AIDS Program.
Activists say the impact of those cuts would kill the federal governmentās Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, which among other things, calls for reducing the number of new HIV infections in the U.S. by 75 percent by 2025 and by 90 percent by 2030. The activists point out that ironically the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative was launched during the administration of President Donald Trump.
āInstead of providing new investments in ending HIV by increasing funding for testing, prevention programs, such as PrEP, and life-saving care and treatment, House Republicans are again choosing to go through a worthless exercise of cutting programs that the American people depend on and will never pass,ā said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute.
āWhile we vigorously fight these cuts, we look forward to working with the entire Congress in a bipartisan fashion on spending bills that can actually become law,ā Schmid said in a statement.
Schmid noted that the bill also includes provisions known as āpolicy ridersā that would take away rights and protections from women, such as access to birth control and abortion, and for minorities, including LGBTQ people.
According to a statement released by the office of Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who is the ranking minority member of the House Appropriations Committee, one of the policy riders would āblock the Biden administrationās policies to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.ā The statement says another policy rider would āprevent policies or programs intended to promote diversity, equality, or inclusion.ā
Most political observers believe the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate would also kill the GOP proposed policy riders and cuts in the AIDS budget if the full Republican-controlled House were to approve the budget bill passed by the appropriations subcommittee.
Rep, Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who serves as chair of the full House Appropriations Committee, released a statement on June 27 defending the subcommitteeās bill and its proposed spending cuts. āThe bill provides appropriate and fiscally responsible funding to ensure these departments can continue to perform their core missions while also acknowledging the fiscal realities facing our nation,ā he said.
āImportantly, the bill pushes back on the Biden administrationās out-of-touch progressive policy agenda, preventing this White House from finalizing or implementing controversial rules or executive orders,ā Cole said in his statement. āIt also preserves long standing bipartisan policy provisions protecting the right to life.ā
U.S. Supreme Court
Concern over marriage equality in US grows two decades after first Mass. same-sex weddings
Gay and lesbian couples began to marry in Bay State in 2004
Two decades after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, a new study reveals both significant progress and ongoing challenges for married LGBTQ couples in the U.S., with a growing sense of insecurity about the future of their rights.
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law surveyed 484 married same-sex couples from all 50 states and D.C. The study, released Monday, marks the 20th anniversary of legal same-sex marriage in the U.S.
Researchers found that 93 percent of respondents cited love as a primary reason for marrying, with 75 percent also mentioning legal protections. Over 83 percent reported positive changes in their sense of security, and 74.6 percent noted improved life satisfaction since marrying.
However, the study also highlighted persistent discrimination and growing concerns about the future. About 11 percent of couples who had a wedding reported facing prejudice during the planning process.
Alarmingly, nearly 80 percent of respondents expressed concern about the potential overturning of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This anxiety has been exacerbated by initiatives like Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint that some fear could roll back LGBTQ rights if implemented.
The possibility of a former President Donald Trump victory in the upcoming election has further intensified these concerns. Many respondents cited Trump’s previous U.S. Supreme Court appointments and his statements on LGBTQ issues as reasons for their apprehension. One participant stated, “The thought of another Trump presidency keeps me up at night. We’ve come so far, but it feels like our rights could be stripped away at any moment.”
The current political climate has 29 percent of respondents considering moving to another state, with 52.9 percent citing socio-political concerns as a primary reason. This reflects a growing sense of insecurity among LGBTQ couples about their rights and freedoms.
Brad Sears, founding executive director of the Williams Institute, noted, “The data clearly show that marriage equality has had a profound positive impact on same-sex couples and their families. However, it also reveals ongoing challenges and serious concerns about the future of these rights in light of current political trends and the upcoming election.”
Christy Mallory, legal director at the Williams Institute and lead author of the study, added, “This research provides crucial insights into the lived experiences of same-sex couples two decades after marriage equality began in the U.S. The high level of concern about potential loss of rights underscores the continued importance of legal protections and public support for LGBTQ+ equality.”
The study found that 30 percent of surveyed couples have children, with 58.1 percent of those parents reporting that marriage provided more stability for their families. However, many of these families now worry about the security of their legal status in the face of potential policy changes and shifting political landscapes.
As the nation reflects on two decades of marriage equality, the study underscores both the transformative power of legal recognition and the ongoing need for vigilance in protecting LGBTQ+ rights. The findings highlight the complex reality faced by same-sex couples in America today: Celebrating hard-won progress while grappling with uncertainty about the future, particularly in light of upcoming political events and potential shifts in leadership.
-
Canada2 days ago
Toronto Pride parade cancelled after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt it
-
Baltimore4 days ago
Despite record crowds, Baltimore Prideās LGBTQ critics say organizers dropped the ball
-
Sports4 days ago
Haters troll official Olympics Instagram for celebrating gay athlete and boyfriend
-
Congress5 days ago
Members of Congress introduce resolution to condemn Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act