Connect with us

News

Clinton emails: ‘We should emphasize LGBT human rights’

Former secretary of state responds to Iraq, creation of LGBT liaison

Published

on

Hillary Clinton, gay news, Washington Blade

Hillary Clinton, gay news, Washington Blade

Hillary Clinton called for emphasis of LGBT rights in her State Department emails. Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The State Department late Tuesday made public 3,000 pages of emails from Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state, including one message in which she seeks to “emphasize LGBT human rights” in Iraq amid media reports of anti-LGBT human rights violations in the country.

Clinton, who’s now pursing the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, expressed the view in response to a 2009 Voice of America report forwarded to her by adviser Cheryl Mills on the alleged murder and torture of gay Iraqi men, many of whom reportedly said they were more secure under the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Clinton responded 11 minutes after Mills sent her the article.

“So sad and terrible,” Clinton writes. “We should ask Chris Hill to raise this w govt. If we ever get Posner confirmed we should emphasize LGBT human rights.”

Clinton email #1

The Chris Hill to which Clinton is referring is likely the U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the first two years of the Obama administration. Posner is likely Michael Posner, who came to serve in the State Department after his confirmation as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor.

Clinton’s call for pushing LGBT rights within the State Department is consistent with her stated philosophy that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights” and her 2011 speech in Geneva in which she highlighted international LGBT rights concerns.

Other emails in the batch unveiled on Tuesday, which span from March to December 2009, demonstrate the hang-wringing on the perceived lack of progress on LGBT issues in the first years of the Obama administration and the potential creation of a State Department official dedicated to LGBT human rights.

The emails reveal that among the individuals forwarding articles to the Clinton State Department on LGBT rights was Richard Socarides, a gay New York-based advocate who advised former President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues.

Socarides told the Washington Blade that as a former White House official he sometimes passed along information and reports he thought would be of interest to the State Department. Sometimes, Socarides said, Clinton’s staff reached out to him with a specific question.

“From what I can tell, these emails are all part of that back-and-forth,” Socarides.

In one email to Mills, Socarides forwards a Gay City News article on anti-LGBT brutality in Iraq and writes, “You guys will have to deal with this at some point if not already.”

In response to the exchange, Socarides expressed satisfaction with how issues related to the rights of LGBT Iraqis were handled, saying it was part of ongoing concern about the country and “raised by our government at many levels and on repeated occasions.”

In another email dated May, 22, 2009, Mills forwards to Clinton an article in the Advocate on a draft letter signaling the State Department’s intention to extend partner benefits to gay Foreign Service officers.

Clinton’s response isn’t revealed, but Mills commentary on the article is simply “Oh my.”

Clinton Email #2

In another December 2009 email in which he forwards a Voice of America article on evangelical leaders spreading anti-gay sentiment in Africa, Socarides recommends the creation of an international LGBT point person.

“There is a lot of appreciation for everything the Dept has done around this so far and I think you could really build on it by putting someone there in charge of international LGBT human right issues,” Socarides said.

Socarides’ email was in turn forwarded to Clinton by Mills, who endorsed the idea, saying, “I think this is a good idea — what do you think?”

Clinton’s initial response was “Mira patel in sp told me she is already starting to do this. Do you want someone in drl.” The rest of Clinton’s response is redacted by the State Department. Mira Patel served at the State Department as an advisor for Clinton after having served on her Senate staff.

The response from Clinton apparently wasn’t adequate for Mills, who responded she “would want someone higher profile” and Patel is likely preparing a “response to incoming rather as an affirmative agenda.”

“Not sure how I got to be the person pushing all things in this area — think from the earlier reports on family benefits but as a general matter — we have a reaction mechanism right how (to others, to me sending emails re Uganda (and now Uganda is doing same kind of anti-gay law)) etc.,” Mills writes. “This would be someone who’s profile would be an affirmative agenda.”

Clinton has a short response to Mills eight minutes later, “Let’s discuss.” The Clinton emails don’t reveal the resolution of this discussion, which may have been taken offline.

In response to the email exchange, Socardies pointed to the appointment of Daniel Baer as deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights & Labor. Part of the portfolio for Baer, who now serves as U.S. ambassador to Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe, was international LGBT rights issues.

No specific LGBT international affairs official was appointed during Clinton’s tenure, but the State Department named Randy Berry as special envoy for the human rights of LGBTI persons under current Secretary of State John Kerry.

Clinton email #3

The emails unveiled by the State Department aren’t the last missives expected to be made public. As a result of a Freedom of Information Act request and the direction from Clinton herself, the emails are slated to keep coming on a rolling basis and all 55,000 pages should be public by Jan. 29. Clinton deleted an estimated 32,000 emails on recommendation from her legal team.

Over the course of her tenure at the State Department period, Clinton opposed same-sex marriage. The Blade could find no emails discussing the issue or any potential evolution on her views. Clinton endorsed same-sex marriage after she left the State Department in 2013.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Rehoboth Beach

BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth

Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear

Published

on

Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach will host a BLUF leather social on Friday, April 10 at 5 p.m. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel

Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.

Published

on

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.

A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.). 

Continue Reading

Puerto Rico

The ‘X’ returns to court

1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk via Bigstock)

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.

Continue Reading

Popular