National
Romney strong in first debate; LGBT issues not addressed
Obama mentions ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal among accomplishments
LGBT issues were virtually absent in the first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney turned in a strong performance in his first debate with President Obama Wednesday night, winning the contest according to most pundits and observers.
The 90-minute debate was virtually devoid of LGBT issues as the candidates clashed over broader economic issues and health care reform.
The most direct reference to LGBT issues came from Obama when he mentioned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as part of a list of his accomplishments that he achieved through bipartisan effort.
Obama said he’ll “take ideas from anybody, Democrat or Republican” to advance the middle class and that strategy is how the administration passed small business tax cuts, enacted three trade agreements and “how we repealed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.'”
Lanae Erickson, director of the social policy and politics program for the centrist advocacy group called Third Way, said she was pleased Obama included “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” among his bipartisan initiatives.
“Our country has come a long way when the only time an LGBT issue came up in the first presidential debate was as an example of bipartisanship,” Erickson said. “Obama used repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in a list of things he had done to partner with folks across the aisle — it seems like that would have been unthinkable in 2004, or even 2008.”
Romney made an oblique reference to social issues. He talked about the first line of the Declaration of Independence and protecting “religious tolerance and freedom” in the country, which sometimes has been interpreted as code for support of social conservatives.
But the remark was incidental during the debate as moderator Jim Lehrer — whose performance was immediately savaged by critics — avoided social issues and posed questions on the economy, government programs and tax policy. Questions on LGBT issues weren’t raised — nor anything on other social issues, such as women’s rights or immigration.
Among the major points that came up included Romney saying he’d like to keep certain provisions in financial reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank, such as transparency and leverage limits. Romney also reiterated his pledge to repeal health care reform, but said he supports a policy that keeps insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-exisiting conditions.
Obama and Romney also sparred over tax policy. Obama expressed support for tax cuts for the middle class because “we do best when the middle class is doing well” as he accused Romney of backing a policy that consists of tax cuts for the rich. Romney denied the charge, saying he doesn’t support tax cuts that add to the deficit, prompting Obama to quip, “Well, for 18 months he’s been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he’s saying that his big, bold idea is, ‘Never mind.'”
Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, praised Obama for presenting a starkly different economic plan from Romney’s, saying the president went into more detail than the Republican candidate.
“Mitt Romney came to tonight’s debate prepared to take pot shots at President Obama while dodging questions about the specifics of his vague plans,” Davis said. “In contrast, President Obama addressed the American people directly and laid out a vision for the next four years. Romney’s choices — style over substance, attacks over proposals, platitudes over policies — speak to his character and the type of leader he would be.”
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, said Romney won the debate because he laid out greater detail in his proposals.
“Tonight was a very good night for Mitt Romney, a very bad night for Barack Obama, and a very good night for those Americans hungry for a new president and a new direction,” LaSalvia said. “Gov. Romney offered a clear contrast to the failed policies of the last four years. While Gov. Romney offered a new direction, President Obama couldn’t defend his record and offered little in the way of a vision for the future.
Romney also criticized Obama for taking $716 billion from Medicare to pay for expenses in other programs and pledged to reinstate those funds if elected president. This criticism, which has come before from the Republican side, has been roundly panned as a distortion — notably from former President Clinton during his speech at the Democratic National Convention — because the administration redirected those funds to close the donut hole under Medicare to provide prescription drugs for seniors.
John Aravosis, who’s gay and editor of AMERICAblog, took issue with what Romney had to say about Medicare, accusing the Republican candidate of being less than truthful.
“I didn’t like the fact that Romney seemed to trot out a lot of lies, particularly the claim that the president is ‘cutting’ Medicare when Romney’s VP, Paul Ryan, put the president’s Medicare proposal in his own budget,” Aravosis said. “But I also found it creepy that Romney kept saying his Medicare plan would exempt current seniors. If the plan is so good, then why not let current seniors ‘enjoy’ it too?”
Following the debate, many observers concluded Romney won. Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter admitted to CNN afterward that “Romney absolutely wins the preparation, and he wins the style points” while adding the Republican candidate’s proposed policies aren’t resonating with the American people.
Dan Pinello, who’s gay and a political scientist at the City University of New York, said Romney won the debate, but only by presenting positions that were different from those on which he campaigned previously.
“Romney had the more animated performance in the debate, while Obama was more cautious,” Pinello said. “But Romney appeared to depart from important policy positions he’d taken during the primary campaign, not to mention his departures from Paul Ryan’s budget. So the debate winner was the New Mitt Romney, a person different from the one who had been the Republican nominee prior to Oct. 3. The loser, however, appeared to be the Republican Party’s base.”
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, attributed the perception that Romney came out on top to the lack of social issues in the debate.
“One thing came through loud and clear tonight, and we hope our fellow Republicans take note: In a domestic debate without divisive and distracting social issues, conservative ideas resonate, moderates and independents listen, and the Republican wins,” Cooper said.
But Lehrer bore the brunt of criticism from observers. The candidates often ignored him and kept talking after he informed them their time had expired and was seen as asking questions that were too general.
Aravosis said he’s “not thrilled” LGBT rights didn’t come up in a debate about domestic policy, although he acknowledged there’s an opportunity for them to come up in subsequent debates, adding of the debate, “Was there a moderator? I didn’t notice.”
Davis also said Lehrer’s “poor moderation overshadowed the night” as well as Romney’s behavior, but blamed the Republican candidate for being unfairly harsh in demanding more time to speak.
“Knowing that Romney bullied a gay teen during prep school helps to explain his churlish behavior at tonight’s debate,” Davis said. “Instead of looking presidential, Romney appeared to be nothing more than a belligerent schoolyard bully.”
The next debate will be between the No. 2 candidates on the tickets — Vice President Joseph Biden and Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan — and will take Oct. 11 in Danville, Ky. Following that, two more presidential debates will take place: a town-hall style debate on domestic and foreign policy in Hempstead, N.Y., on Oct. 16 and a foreign policy debate in Boca Raton, Fla., on Oct. 22.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
Risking it all for love during World War II
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
