Connect with us

National

Couples make history testifying against DOMA

Senate hears from spouses, activists about burdens of marriage ban; hearing first-ever in Congress on repeal of anti-gay law

Published

on

‘The time has come for the federal government to recognize that these married couples deserve the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples,’ said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A Senate hearing Wednesday on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act featured poignant testimony from couples in same-sex marriages, who described how the anti-gay law has harmed them.

The hearing, which took place before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the first ever before Congress on repeal of DOMA, the 1996 law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The hearing was intended to highlight the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation pending before Congress that would repeal DOMA.

Ron Wallen, an Indio. Calif., resident, who married his partner of 55 years in 2008, said he’s unable to make payments on his home following the death of his spouse, Tom Carrollo, four months ago. Had he been in an opposite-sex marriage, he would have been able to receive Social Security benefits to help pay for the cost of living.

“I am selling the last house I shared with my husband in a panic sale because I can’t afford the mortgage and expenses,” Wallen said. “I am spending my days and nights sorting through our possessions, packing boxes to move — even while I am still answering the condolence cards that come in the mail.”

Susan Murray, who lives in Ferrisburgh, Vt., with her spouse, Karen Murray, said she also faces financial inequities as a result of DOMA. Murray was the co-counsel in the lawsuit Baker v. Vermont, which established civil unions in Vermont in 2000.

One issue Murray cited was the additional tax that she and her spouse have to pay on employer-based insurance coverage provided to them through her spouse’s employer, Fletcher Allen Health Care.

“Because of DOMA, I am not considered Karen’s spouse, so the value of that health insurance coverage for me ($6,200 a year) is considered taxable income to Karen,” Murray said. “She therefore has to pay income tax, as well as FICA and Medicare tax, on that ‘phantom’ income — unlike her other married colleagues.”

Andrew Sorbo, a Cheshire, Conn., resident and retired history teacher, also testified about financial troubles he faced after his spouse, Colin Atterbury, died of pancreatic cancer in 2009. Among other things, Sorbo said he was denied the right to be included in his deceased spouse’s medical insurance plan through the federal government.

Andrew Sorbo (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

“When I retired as a teacher in 2005, I had no alternative except to pay for my insurance coverage in full through my former school district, at a much higher cost than if I could have been covered under Colin’s plan as a spouse,” Sorbo said. “Last year, my insurance payments consumed almost a third of my $24,000 teacher pension.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the committee, spoke out in his opening statement for passage of the Respect for Marriage Act and said it would allow same-sex couples married under state law to receive federal benefits.

“Nothing in this bill would obligate any person, religious organization, state, or locality to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex,” Leahy said. “What would change, and what must change, is the federal government’s treatment of state-sanctioned marriage. The time has come for the federal government to recognize that these married couples deserve the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), sponsor of the DOMA repeal legislation, maintained that the anti-gay law should be off the books because marriage, as well as other issues related to family such as adoption and divorce, have been under the jurisdiction of state law.

“Family law has traditionally been the preserve of state law,” Feinstein said. “The single exception is DOMA. Chief Justice [William] Rehnquist once wrote that family law ‘has been left to the states from time immemorial, and not without good reason.’ He was right.”

Passed by Congress in 1996, DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton. Both Clinton and the bill’s sponsor at the time, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr, have come out for repeal of the law.

DOMA has two components: one that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and another that allows states not to recognize such marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

As a result of the component of DOMA known as Section 3, married same-sex couples cannot participate in federal programs. For instance, they can’t file joint federal income taxes, receive spousal benefits under Social Security or obtain exemptions of the estate tax law upon the death of one of the spouses.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who represents a state where same-sex marriage will be available next week, emphasized the fiscal reasons for repealing DOMA and predicted that lifting the anti-gay law from the books “would, on balance, likely increase federal revenue.”

According to Schumer, in 2004 the Congressional Budget Office found that DOMA repeal at the time would have increased revenues by less than $400 million a year from 2005 through 2010, and by $500 million to $700 million annually from 2011 through 2014.

“I think that there are three fundamental principles at stake here,” Schumer continued. “Repealing DOMA makes good fiscal sense, it respects states’ rights to make their own determinations about marriage, and it treats all married people the same. It’s fair, it makes sense, and it’s time.”

The sole committee member to speak out against DOMA repeal during the hearing was Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the committee.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key

Grassley, who represents a state where same-sex marriage is legal, said he opposes the Respect for Marriage Act because he believes marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.

“The bill before us today is entitled the Respect for Marriage Act,” Grassley said. “George Orwell would have marveled at the time. A bill to restore marriage would restore marriage as it has been known — one man, one woman. That is the view of marriage that I support. This bill would undermine, not restore marriage by repealing it.”

Grassley and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) were the only Republican senators who made an appearance at the DOMA hearing. Grassley was the only GOP committee member who asked questions of the witnesses.

Witnesses who married someone of the same-sex testified about how DOMA negatively affected their relationship or their ability to receive benefits after the death of their spouse.

The hearing took place on the heels of an announcement from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday that President Obama supports the Respect for Marriage Act.

“I can tell you that the president has long called for legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people families, friends and neighbors,” Carney said. “He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act introduced by Sen. Feinstein and Congressman Nadler, which would take DOMA off the books once and for all. This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”

President Obama has previously said he supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but has yet to come out in support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which is the specific measure pending before Congress that would repeal the law.

During the hearing, Grassley erroneously said that Obama until Tuesday “was a supporter of DOMA.” During the 2008 campaign, Obama made full repeal of DOMA one of his campaign promises.

 

Experts testify before Senate

 

House members also testified on both sides of the Respect for Marriage Act. Two Democratic members — Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the sponsor of the bill, and John Lewis (D-Ga.) — favored DOMA repeal, while Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a lawmaker known for his anti-gay views, opposed it.

Nadler maintained that not just same-sex couples — but children being raised by LGBT parents — are among those who are affected by the discrimination of DOMA.

“No legitimate federal interest in the welfare of children is ever advanced by withholding protection for some children based on the desire to express mild disapproval of their parents,” Nadler said. “It defies common sense to claim that it’s necessary to harm or exclude the children of married same-sex couples in order to somehow protect the children of opposite-sex couples.”

Similarly, Lewis expressed disbelief that Congress has yet to act on something as fundamental as allowing Americans the right to marry the person they choose.

“I find it hard to believe that in the year 2011, there’s still the need to hold hearings and debate on whether or not to allow people to marry the one they love,” Lewis said.

Lewis said DOMA imposes similar discrimination that blacks endured in the South under segregation and recalled the discrimination he faced as a child growing up in Southern Alabama.

“As a child, I tasted the bitter fruits and racism and discrimination, and I did not like it,” Lewis said. “And in 1996, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, the taste of that old bitter fruit filled my mouth once again.”

King, countering those arguments, based his testimony against repeal of DOMA on the basis that marriage is intended for procreation and thus should be reserved for one man and one woman because the union can produce children.

“The other side argues that you can’t choose who you love and that the union between two men and two women is equal to that of one man and one woman,” King said. “These are the same arguments that are used to promote marriage between fathers and daughters, mothers and sons or even polygamous relationships.”

Expert witnesses on both sides of DOMA testified before lawmakers. LGBT advocates maintained DOMA should be repealed to lift the burden of discrimination against same-sex couples, while supporters of DOMA said the anti-gay law is necessary to keep marriage as between one man and one woman.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, was among the LGBT advocates who testified during the hearing. He addressed the financial burdens DOMA imposes on same-sex couples.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

“DOMA means that the many protections the federal government provides for the health and financial security of American families remain out of reach for same-sex couples and their children,” Solmonese said. “Same-sex spouses of federal employees and active members of the military are denied access to health insurance coverage and a host of other benefits. Even when private sector companies voluntarily provide spousal health benefits, they are taxed, making it financially burdensome if not impossible for gay and lesbian couples to make use of these fair-minded policies.”

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said DOMA “carves out a gay exception” in the way the U.S. government traditionally and currently treats married couples.

“DOMA divides those married at the state level into first-class marriages for those the federal government prefers and second-class marriages for those the federal government doesn’t like,” Wolfson said. “But in America, we don’t have second-class citizens, and we shouldn’t have second-class marriages either.”

Arguing in favor of DOMA, anti-gay advocates maintained the importance of keeping marriage between one man and one woman.

Austin Nimrocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the purpose of family and relationships is to procreate and raise children.

“Accordingly, from the lexicographers who have defined marriage, to the eminent scholars in every relevant academic discipline who have explained marriage, to the legislatures and courts that have given legal recognition and effect to marriage, they all demonstrate that an animating purpose of marriage in every society is to increase the likelihood that procreative relationships benefit society,” Nimrocks said. “Marriage between a man and a woman is a long standing, world-wide idea that is a building block of society.”

Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, warned that DOMA repeal could require the federal government to recognize not only same-sex marriages — but also polygamous relationships.

“If the male-female nature of traditional marriage can be dismissed as an artifact and its inherent link to procreation denied, then surely the distinction between a marriage of two persons and a marriage of three or more is all the more arbitrary and irrational,” Whelan said. “It’s doubtful that any further sliding down the slippery slope would be necessary to get to polyamory: unlike the novelty of same-sex marriage, the polygamous version of polyamory has been widely practiced throughout history — and is therefore arguably up the slope from same-sex marriage.”

Whelan previously testified in April against same-sex marriage before the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing on “Defending Marriage.”

The assertion that DOMA would institute same-sex marriage is places where it didn’t exist before didn’t go without criticism from LGBT advocates after the hearing.

Rick Jacobs, chair and co-founder of the Courage Campaign, rebuked the assertion during that DOMA repeal would expand the places where gay couples can marry and maintained the Defense of Marriage Act would simply remove the federal government from the marriage issue.

“They don’t seem to understand what DOMA is,” Jacobs said. “They just keep missing the point that all DOMA is give the states the ability to decide what marriage is.”

Mary Bonauto, civil rights projects director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, also chided anti-gay advocates’ emphasis on marriage as between one man, one woman during the hearing as she said DOMA only affects those who are already married.

“I think it’s important to talk about marriage, but I wish there had been that much more delineation between what marriage is about one hand and what DOMA does, which is simply discriminate against people who are already married,” Bonauto said. “But there’s still, particularly in the opposition witnesses, this complete conflation between DOMA and marriage.”

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family, bore the brunt of the tough questioning from the committee undermining his credibility for his position that children reared by opposite-sex parents are better off than those raised by same-sex parents.

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

“It is a strong and dramatically consistent finding in the social science, psychological and medical literature that children do best when living with their own married mother and father,” Minnery said.

In his testimony, Minnery cites a December 2010 study from the Department of Health & Human Services which he said found “children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never life in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) challenged Minnery’s assertion, saying the HHS report “actually doesn’t say what you said it says.”

“It says that nuclear families — not opposite-sex married families — are associated with those positive outcomes,” Franken said. “Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that married same-sex couple that has or had adopted kids would fall under the definition of the nuclear family in the study that you cite?”

Minnery replied that he would believe the study means nuclear families are families with opposite-sex parents, but Franken denied this speculation, saying, “It doesn’t,” eliciting laugher from those attending the hearing.

“The study defines nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and each biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family,” Franken said. “And I, frankly, don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said following the hearing the testimony of those affected by DOMA compared to apparently misleading testimony of the anti-gay law’s proponents shows why “we’re winning on this issue.”

“The families who spoke — they talked from their human experience,” Carey said. “The other side talked from technical matters, from research that actually didn’t reveal the true, full research. We’re actually — children are doing quite well in our families, thank you very much.”

 

Time for a markup?

 

Now that the Respect for Marriage Act has had a hearing in the Senate, one option to move the legislation would be to hold a markup to bring the legislation to the floor. All 10 Democrats on the committee have signaled support for the legislation, so the bill already has sufficient support to move forward.

A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the committee has yet to set a date to report out the legislation to the Senate floor.

“This hearing began to build the record for repealing DOMA, and this is the beginning of the process,” the aide said. “Sen. Leahy will continue to work with Sen. Feinstein and other supporters, and hopes there will be support from both sides of the aisle for this repeal, but I have no announcements to make today concerning any kind of timeline.”

Jacobs said he wants to see more co-sponsors for the Respect for Marriage Act — and maintained he wants “all Democrats on board” — but said the time may be right for a markup on the bill.

“I think that we should move to that pretty quickly,” Jacobs said. “I’d like to see it. I know some people don’t, but I think we need to keep the momentum going.”

Following the hearing, Solmonese expressed caution about moving to a markup and deferred the decision to the Senate Judiciary Committee leadership.

“If we are genuinely committed to a clare path to victory, to ensuring that DOMA is repealed, then I would defer to the chairman in terms of the degree to which he thinks the time is appropriate for a markup — and how that relates to a full Senate vote and the prospects in the House,” Solmonese said. “As was the case with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ as was the case with any legislative victory that we have seen through to the end, we never want to evaluate it on the merits of one action.”

Bonauto, who’s leading several lawsuits against DOMA in the federal courts, said she isn’t sure if a committee vote on DOMA repeal — or a floor vote in the Senate without action in the House — would have any effect on how the courts would evaluate the constitutionality of the anti-gay law. She cautioned that a symbolic victory in the Senate may not have the desired impact on the courts.

“It’s hard to predict,” Bonauto said. “In the 1970’s, when the Congress had approved of the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it up for ratification to the states, the Supreme Court stayed its hand and didn’t declare that gender was a suspect classification because it thought the issue was moving through the political process. I think we’ve all learned through of the failure of ratification of the ERA that because something has been approved by the Congress of even is a constitutional amendment is set forth for ratification, it doesn’t predict future results.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

California

Gay San Diego mayor elected US Conference of Mayors president

Todd Gloria spoke with the Blade earlier this month in D.C.

Published

on

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Todd Gloria has had a whirlwind two decades as a public servant.

Beginning with his successful 2008 San Diego City Council election, followed up by his second successful campaign in 2012 — this time as president of the San Diego City Council — Gloria has been strapped to a rocket headed to public servant fame that would make Leslie Knope’s head spin, with no signs of slowing down.

Just one year into his tenure as president of the San Diego City Council, Bob Filner, the then-mayor of the city, resigned from his role following multiple allegations of sexual harassment. In that moment of political uncertainty, Gloria stepped up, becoming the interim mayor of San Diego, and the leader of one of the largest cities in the U.S. .

While his term as interim mayor — lasting from August 2013 to March 2014 — was not long, it was a sign to the people of San Diego — and to himself — that Gloria could do good things for San Diego. When the newly elected Mayor Kevin Faulconer was sworn in in March 2014, Gloria continued working hard to keep the city he grew up in in caring hands.

Gloria started to look past “America’s Finest City” and began looking toward Sacramento. It was there that some of the state’s most capable minds were attempting to tackle problems that the entire Golden State faced. In 2016, he ran for the California State Assembly’s 78th District seat, representing San Diego, where he won with an impressive margin and started championing the city’s climate action plan. Shortly after assuming office, he was chosen to become a member of the Democratic leadership — as assistant majority whip — where he helped pass his and the Democratic Party’s legislative goals in the most populous state in the nation.

It should be no surprise that, with a growing reputation as someone bent on making his city better for the more than 400,000 residents who live within the 78th District, Gloria won re-election in 2018 with more than 70 percent of the vote in both the primary and general elections. There, he was tapped once again to be an integral part of the Democratic Party’s legislative mission and was, in January 2018, made majority whip.

In 2019, Gloria announced he would no longer seek the 78th District seat when his term was up, but would return from Sacramento to San Diego — this time as mayor. He ran his campaign on issues that San Diegans faced: the housing crisis, affordability, public transportation, and climate change.

In November 2020, Gloria was elected mayor of the city he grew up in, where he broke barriers — his win also made him the first Native American and the first Filipino American to hold this position in a U.S. city with more than a million people, becoming San Diego’s first mayor of color. He was also the city’s first openly gay mayor.

The Washington Blade sat down with Gloria when he visited Washington earlier this month for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, where he was elected president of the organization. The presidency lasts for one year and alternates between political parties to ensure bipartisanship.

Gloria, has served as mayor of San Diego since 2020, will lead the nearly century-old bipartisan organization as a proud out gay man at a time when many LGBTQ Americans are concerned about the future of their rights and protections.

“Well, a lot. I think the first thing that comes to mind is that this time that we’re all living in, the stakes feel particularly high, and I think number one, I’d want your readers to understand that this is a conference of bipartisan mayors from all across the country who supported me to lead the organization that’s nearly 100 years old,” he explained.

“I think at a time when we definitely wonder, as queer people, where we sit in our nation and in our society, that my fellow mayors of all different political stripes are willing to allow me to be their voice as leader of this organization. I hope it somehow validates the notion that we are still making progress, that particularly the political process is still possible.”

Gloria framed his election as evidence that progress remains possible, even amid growing political polarization. He noted that the U.S. Conference of Mayors was founded during the Great Depression, another period when local leaders stepped forward to address challenges they felt were not being adequately addressed at the federal level.

Throughout the interview, Gloria repeatedly emphasized the unique role cities can play in advancing LGBTQ equality. He pointed to the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ long history of supporting civil rights, HIV/AIDS advocacy, and LGBTQ inclusion, and his belief that mayors often find common ground on issues where Washington remains divided as a clear thesis to his presidency.

“It’s building on the history. It’s one of the reasons I’m very proud of this organization. Why I’ve been an active member for years now is that it has this storied history of speaking up and helping to advance change in this country. Everything from direct aid to cities in the Great Depression to civil rights in the 1960s to equality, HIV/AIDS advocacy during a time of great stigma and shame,” Gloria said. “This conference, again a bipartisan organization, has been willing to sort of be able to find a common ground that maybe isn’t always possible in Washington.”

Gloria also highlighted San Diego’s own LGBTQ political history, noting that the city has maintained continuous LGBTQ representation on its City Council since the early 1990s. He credited generations of local activists for helping create a political environment where LGBTQ elected officials have been able to thrive.

With Pride Month unfolding amid continued battles over LGBTQ rights nationwide, Gloria argued that cities remain important centers of progress and power, even when state and federal politics become more hostile.

“We have quite a bit [of power] because we can often do things within our own communities, but also we can band together and lend our voices to try and either stop bad things from happening or help advance good things that we’d like to see come to pass.”

He added that cities provide opportunities to continue advancing equality — even when, at a national level, conditions seem unfavorable.

“Cities provide avenues to say ‘No, we can actually make progress, maybe not at the scale, maybe not as broad as we would like, but it can still happen.’”

While Gloria has championed LGBTQ rights throughout his political career, he said housing affordability has emerged as the defining civil rights challenge facing many communities, including LGBTQ residents.

“The biggest civil rights issue right now is housing,” Gloria said.

He argued that many LGBTQ people can now legally live and work openly in places like San Diego, but increasingly struggle to remain in those communities because of rising housing costs.

“You know, we are a very affirming city. We have a gay mayor. 1/3 of our city council is LGBT. We have all of the protections that you would hope a city would provide in a state that provides those same protections, but we’re horrifically expensive, and our housing costs are unattainable to so many people of all walks of life.”

As president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Gloria said he hopes to elevate housing affordability as a national issue and encourage local leaders to adopt policies that increase housing production and reduce costs.

On LGBTQ-specific initiatives, Gloria pointed to his work co-chairing the organization’s LGBTQ Alliance alongside Madison, Wis., Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway. Under their leadership, the alliance created a municipal toolkit designed to help mayors implement LGBTQ-inclusive policies, ranging from Pride Month proclamations to nondiscrimination protections and fair housing measures.

“We have a lot of allies and come to our meetings, we meet four times a year, and you want to be supportive of the community. This is what this looks like.”

Beyond policy, Gloria described the alliance as an important support network for LGBTQ elected officials navigating increasingly hostile political rhetoric.

“When the attacks on trans people, specifically trans children start happening, that was an issue that we discussed at length in the alliance.”

Despite his optimism, Gloria acknowledged that recent years under the current federal leadership have challenged assumptions many LGBTQ Americans once held about the inevitability of continued progress — and the idea that rights gained were forever.

“I think for someone who you know came up in the movement in the 90s and early 2000s you know, I’ve seen marriage equality, I’ve seen the progress with HIV and AIDS, you know, ability to work and live where you want, you know, all that stuff. It kind of felt like, for me, it felt like it was inevitable that we would keep ascending to greater and greater equality,” he said. “Obviously, recent years have made you not only stop some of that progress, but really question if we’re not going to start falling backwards.”

Still, Gloria urged LGBTQ Americans not to retreat from civic engagement or get quiet about the problems they face, given the constant barrage of attacks — both executive and cultural — that leaves some feeling as if the battle for equality is waning.

“This is not a time to back away. This is not a time to fold inward. We have to truly double down and continue forward doing the work. Leaning forward will mean that the progress may be less than what we want, but still progress will be made.”

Gloria also said he has noticed a change in the tone of political discourse directed at elected officials, including LGBTQ leaders. While he said hostile rhetoric has increased, he views his position as an opportunity to model resilience for younger LGBTQ people.

“You can either absorb it the way I did in middle school and feel kind of crummy and maybe a little bit sorry for myself, or you can realize that every time I’m called that, there’s a young person in a school who does not have the perspective I have, and they’re counting on me to figure out some way forward.”

As he begins his year leading the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Gloria said his priorities will focus on housing affordability, public safety, and economic issues affecting cities nationwide — issues he is familiar with. Success, he said, will ultimately be measured not by political messaging or narratives spun, but instead by tangible results.

Results that matter — even if they aren’t seen as glamorous. These are results that show the city is being effectively run for its citizens, he explained.

“The question is, did the garbage get picked up? Did the road get paved? Did the homeless person find housing?”

Addressing the relationship between cities and the Trump-Vance administration, Gloria said local leaders have had to navigate a political environment defined by unpredictability.

“The only thing that’s certain about this administration is the uncertainty,” he said, though he was clear that such uncertainty does not give the administration a pass to act unjustly. “My city has sued the Trump administration, I believe, eight times at this point, and we’ll continue to do that when it’s necessary or appropriate.”

Even so, Gloria maintained that mayors are uniquely positioned to cut through political rhetoric because residents judge them on day-to-day outcomes rather than partisan talking points.

“I think we are a bit more pragmatic, I think, a bit more focused on making sure that what we’re doing is improving people’s lives, not harming it.”

For Gloria, that practical focus — and the willingness of mayors from across the political spectrum to work together — offers reason for optimism despite the challenges ahead.

When asked what he thinks about the future of not only San Diego, but of the country given the increasingly hostile political climate, he provided a chance to peer into his mind: the mind of a public servant who is determined to make his place better than the day before, even if it does boil down to ensuring trash is collected and housing is affordable for all.

“Being an elected official is in itself an act of optimism. It’s a belief that you can help make things better, and it’s difficult to be in this line of work and be pessimistic.”

That goes hand-in-hand with making every city a better place for those who will enjoy the fruits of the labor sewn well after the mayors at this year’s conference have come and gone. That is why Gloria is doing what he is doing.

“I think for every kid, wherever they are, they’re wondering if they can be their full selves.It’s incumbent on us to do, because every one of these terrible headlines that we see may be frustrating to those of us that have seen some of that progress,” he said. “I think it could be devastating for these young people who have not known anything different, and we owe it to them to find better headlines to give them, both in the short and long term.”

Continue Reading

California

Calif. governor’s race spotlights Becerra’s LGBTQ advocacy

Former HHS secretary to face Republican Steve Hilton

Published

on

The transgender Pride flag flies over the California Capitol. (Photo courtesy of Equality California)

California voters selected its two front runners for the state’s open governor seat following the second election of Gavin Newsom.

Last week former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra became the Democratic nominee for governor, setting up a general election matchup against Republican nominee Steve Hilton, a former political adviser in the UK and Fox News commentator.

Becerra, the son of Mexican immigrants, has spent nearly three decades in public service. Over the course of his career, he has served as California attorney general, U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and a member of the California Assembly.

Hilton comes from a very different background.

Raised by Hungarian parents who fled communism and settled in the UK, Hilton entered politics after graduating from Oxford University. He worked within the Conservative Party — beginning during the era of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and later served as Director of Strategy for Prime Minister David Cameron. After relocating to California in 2012 with his wife, Hilton taught at Stanford University, became a U.S. citizen, and later established himself as a Fox News political commentator.

As the race enters the general election phase, policy questions surrounding healthcare, civil rights, and the future of LGBTQ protections in California are expected to feature prominently in both campaigns. The Washington Blade sat down with former Biden-Harris administration health officials who worked under Becerra’s leadership and also with LGBTQ advocates. Both paint a clear picture of Becerra — a longtime ally whose support for LGBTQ rights and health equity has spanned multiple decades and offices.

“For Equality California, he has been a staunch ally over his decades of service serving California. From his time in Congress to attorney general to HHS secretary, he’s been a partner to the LGBTQ community at large, and specifically to Equality California, advancing LGBTQ equality,” Tony Hoang, executive director of Equality California told the Blade. “As he’s been the front-runner making the top two, we’re excited to get behind him in the race so that he wins the general election in November.”

Hoang argued that California’s next governor will play a critical role in protecting LGBTQ rights amid continued attacks from the Trump-Vance administration.

“It is critical that California remains a bulwark against what’s happening from the Trump administration. That’s why we were so supportive of Secretary Becerra’s campaign for governor,” Hoang said. “He has been there in that fight. When he was attorney general, he sued the Trump administration over 100 times, including a lawsuit where Equality California was an organizational plaintiff around the transgender military ban. Over the remainder of Trump’s term, it’s critical that California continues to fight to stand up for our values, including LGBTQ people in all facets of equality.”

Former HHS official Adrian Shanker, who oversaw LGBTQ health initiatives during the Biden-Harris administration, pointed to Becerra’s emphasis on health equity as one of the defining characteristics of his leadership.

“As Secretary, Xavier Becerra required all of us to include a health equity lens in all policies. No matter what the policy was, he wanted health equity to be centered. Health equity means ensuring that all people can attain their highest levels of health,” Shanker explained. “One of his priorities was clinical trial diversity. He wanted to make sure that new drug modalities and treatments were studied on all kinds of bodies, including populations that had historically been excluded from research.”

Shanker also emphasized that while leading HHS, Becerra consistently relied on scientific expertise rather than political considerations when making policy decisions.

“He really believed that we can’t politicize science. We have to let science drive the policy. He established a very strong scientific integrity policy for the department. That’s important for LGBTQ health, but it’s also important for everyone’s health.”

Shanker expanded on the multiple HIV prevention efforts including making the medication covered by nationwide subsidy programs allowing for americans of all income levels to get this life saving healthcare during Becerra’s tenure at HHS.

“We worked to make PrEP free for anyone on Medicare. The secretary trusted the scientists in the department to determine what was safe and effective and then championed the results,” Shanker said.

For many LGBTQ advocates, California’s role as a refuge state has become increasingly important as Republican-led states enact restrictions affecting transgender people and LGBTQ healthcare access.

Admiral Rachel Levine (ret.), the first openly trans person confirmed by the U.S. Senate and Becerra’s former assistant secretary for health, said California’s next governor will be central to those fights.

“We have an increasingly hostile federal environment against the LGBTQIA community in general, but particularly against the transgender and nonbinary communities. They have targeted the most vulnerable among us, especially trans youth, their families, and their medical providers. California is a refuge, and no one is a stronger supporter of our broader community and our transgender community than Secretary Xavier Becerra,” she told the Blade.

“He articulated his strongest and most enthusiastic support for our community throughout his time at HHS. Health equity was really principle number one for Secretary Becerra, and that includes health equity for our LGBTQIA+ community.”

Levine, who worked directly under Becerra, also praised his leadership style.

“Xavier Becerra really is an outstanding leader. I worked for him and with him when he was secretary and I was assistant secretary for health. He’s so down to earth and unassuming, and he talks a lot about his background, his parents, and his family. He exhibits all the traits you would want in a leader. He is personable, always professional, always compassionate, organized, and knowledgeable.

“I think that he will make an outstanding governor of California. He has local experience in California, where he served as attorney general, and he also has experience in Washington as a member of Congress and as Secretary of Health and Human Services. His background and his character make him an outstanding choice for governor.”

Shanker similarly pointed to Becerra’s engagement with LGBTQ communities and transgender advocates during his time at HHS as one of his strong suits — one that shows he is willing to commit to the right thing even if it is what some in higher powers, disagrees with.

“Secretary Becerra visited LGBT centers. He spoke at our HHS Pride Summit each year. He met directly with transgender health leaders and advocates.”

One meeting in particular stood out to Shanker– where Becerra’s leadership and tenacious dedication to committing to serving the American public.

“He said that his policy is to never do anything mild. He wanted actual policy change that advances the health and well-being of all Americans. He wasn’t looking for small, little tweaks. He wanted structural improvements.”

Shanker went on explaining that Becerra’s approach to all things — but especially very trivialized trans healthcare thoughts remained rooted in scientific evidence.

“He wasn’t reading the tea leaves to determine what policy we should enact. He was trusting the science and wanted to do the right thing for the people affected by our decisions,” Shanker said.

Hoang said that commitment to the evidence — and what LGBTQ advocates have point blanked asked from him has continued throughout Becerra’s gubernatorial campaign.

“I will say that he has done everything that we’ve asked of him and continues to speak proudly in support of the trans community. Full stop. We were lucky enough to work with him during his time as attorney general, but also as HHS secretary, ensuring that decisions are based upon science versus the rhetoric coming from MAGA extremists.”

As a recent example, Hoang pointed to Becerra’s support for trans student-athlete AB Hernandez.

“Just last week, he put out a statement that was read at the track meet for AB Hernandez, the trans athlete who was competing in the track and field championships.”

He added: “He has been a staunch ally, a proven staunch ally, of the LGBTQ community and specifically trans people.”

Levine said the importance of the California governor’s race extends far beyond state borders.

“I think it’s very important because states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, and others are ground zero for these battles. They serve as places of refuge, particularly for trans youth and nonbinary youth who may have to leave their states because of these attacks and hateful laws,” she said. “The governors of those states, including the governor of California, could not be more important. We could have no better defender than Xavier Becerra.”

For Hoang, the stakes of this election are difficult to overstate.

“I think because we see that the stakes are high. It’s trite to say, but this is truly one of the elections of our lifetimes, where you are seeing access to essential health care being denied to trans youth, having billions of federal dollars being up for grabs, and ensuring life-saving programs. Ensuring that LGBTQ Californians understand what’s at stake in this governor’s race is really critical, and we’re going to do all that we can to ensure that Xavier is our next governor.”

Hoang said many LGBTQ Californians are feeling anxious about the current political climate.

“It’s all over the place. I think in this time where it is a relentless onslaught of attacks from the federal government, folks feel disillusioned and feel scared.

“That is why it’s imperative that we ensure that LGBTQ people and our allies understand that even though there’s so much misinformation out there, it’s critical that folks turn out to vote — not just for the governor’s race — but ensuring that we take back Congress into pro-equality hands, and that they have strong champions in state legislatures all the way down to school boards.”

Looking ahead, both advocates pointed to healthcare access as a major challenge facing LGBTQ Californians.

“One area that we’re working on now, and that we know will continue, is backfilling dollars from the state government to the extent that the federal government continues to strike funding from things like HIV prevention programs, funding for trans health care, among others,” Hoang said.

“Ensuring that California does not let our communities get thrown under the bus is critical. Particularly when you have some folks in the broader Democratic Party who think that our rights are expendable, ensuring that the governor continues to step up and work with the state legislature to advance pro-equality legislation and budget priorities.”

Levine specifically pointed to the closure of some gender-affirming care programs in California.

“Even though California has tried to protect access to gender-affirming care for youth, a number of academic medical centers have closed their programs. It would be great for a governor to work with those programs, universities, deans, and presidents to see if they can reopen them.

Levine clarified that although there is currently no legislation in California restricting gender-affirming care, there is always a chance with the strike of the president’s pen or a conservative legislator to bring that to California.

“There is no law or regulation currently forcing those programs to close. There are threats—threats from executive orders, threats involving Medicaid—but those matters are still being fought through the courts.”

She concluded:

“Secretary Becerra is a fighter for health equity. He’s a fighter for disadvantaged communities, and I’m sure that he will take this on.”

Asked why LGBTQ voters should trust Becerra, both Shanker and Hoang pointed to his record.

“Actions speak louder than words. He has a record of action in terms of advancing the health and well-being, and in prior roles, the legal rights, of LGBTQI people,” Shanker said.

“It’s easy to say what you think you need to say to win political office. It’s harder to point to a record of results, which is what he can do because of his years in Congress, his years as attorney general, and his four years as secretary of Health and Human Services.”

Hoang offered a similar assessment.

“Especially in this moment, where there are a lot of platitudes out there, we have a candidate who has shown proven leadership in support of our community when it wasn’t popular. Looking back to his days in Congress, when he was one of 67 members of Congress who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, and when he stood up to the Trump administration as attorney general by suing over LGBTQ rights, he has shown time and time again that he will reach out to the most vulnerable and use his platform to serve.”

Levine, meanwhile, declined to weigh in on political strategy but reiterated her confidence in Becerra’s support for LGBTQ Americans.

“I’m not a politician. I’ve always been a physician and public health professional. Even though I was in a politically appointed position, my job was health equity and the protection of public health. It’s hard for me to comment on the politics of it. But all I can tell you is that there’s no bigger supporter of our community than Xavier Becerra.”

The Blade reached out to both the Becerra and Hilton campaigns seeking comment on their LGBTQ policy platforms, including how they would address trans rights in California as the federal government has taken an increasingly adversarial approach toward transgender Americans. Neither campaign responded to requests for comment by press time.

Continue Reading

National

UFC fighter says ‘Michelle Obama is a man’ at White House event

Josh Hokit attacks former first lady in comment to Joe Rogan

Published

on

UFC fighter Josh Hokit made a racist and transphobic comment about Michelle Obama on Sunday night. (Screen capture via UFC/YouTube)

UFC fighter Josh Hokit, in a crude post-match stunt, told podcaster Joe Rogan that, “Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right America?”

The incident occurred as part of President Trump’s UFC Freedom 250 event held on the White House lawn on Sunday night. Hokit won his fight then gave an interview to Rogan on stage when he made the remark.

Trump has not addressed the incident but has a history of attacking the Obamas using racist imagery. 

White House spokesperson Steven Cheung responded to questions by saying, “He had a great win last night. He showed toughness and the ability to pressure his opponent both on his feet and on the ground.”

BET’s report on the incident noted, “The ‘Michelle Obama is a man’ claim is not new. It is a transphobic and racist conspiracy theory that has been used against the former First Lady since 2007, weaponizing both transphobia and the misgendering of Black women, who are often targets of similar attacks.”

Continue Reading

Popular