Connect with us

National

Rising Cain

GOP frontrunner attacked from left and right over marriage

Published

on

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The new GOP presidential frontrunner continues to make headlines on LGBT issues as both pro-LGBT advocates and anti-gay forces express concerns about his candidacy.

Hermain Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, said Sunday in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he wouldn’t push for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage if he were elected president.

“I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage, but I am pro-traditional marriage,” Cain said.

Pressed by host David Gregory on whether states should decide the issue for themselves, Cain replied, “They would make up their own minds, yes.”

Cain’s remarks on “Meet the Press” echo comments he made in June during a New Hampshire presidential debate in which he said the issue of marriage should be a “state’s decision.”

The candidate’s lack of support for a Federal Marriage Amendment differentiates him from other Republican candidates — including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum — who’ve called for a Federal Marriage Amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country.

The former pizza magnate has come under fire from social conservatives for not endorsing a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage as other GOP candidates have done.

In an interview Sunday with Radio Iowa, Santorum said Cain wouldn’t defend the family as president and compared his position on marriage to President Obama’s.

“The idea that this issue should be left to the states is the position Barack Obama takes and it’s not the right position,” Santorum said. “There needs to be a uniform definition of marriage in this country.”

The National Organization for Marriage has also targeted Cain for not signing the organization’s pledge to oppose marriage equality as president by backing a Federal Marriage Amendment and defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said in an e-mail to supporters earlier this month that he hopes Cain will come around to endorse a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“Cain’s comments on a federal marriage amendment have not always been crystal clear and consistent,” Brown said. “I personally hope that means he is in the process of ‘evolving’ on the issue, as the campaign moves forward.”

Despite his position on the amendment, Cain’s lack of support for a Federal Marriage Amendment isn’t winning him any support from LGBT advocates.

Dan Pinello, a gay government professor at the City University of New York, said the LGBT community shouldn’t look to Cain as being more sympathetic than the other Republican candidates.

“The difference among those right-wing Republican candidates on LGBT issues is the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee,” Pinello said, “It’s just as simple as that. There isn’t any consequential difference. They hate us, generally, period.”

Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, questioned the authenticity of Cain’s remarks on Sunday and said the candidate has “been all over the map” on a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage.

“It’s not entirely clear where he stands on this,” Cole-Schwartz said. “Certainly his positions have not been consistent.”

In 2004, while running as a U.S. Senate candidate in Georgia, Cain issued a statement against the Masssachusetts court decision that brought marriage equality to the Bay State and called for a U.S. constitutional amendment to rescind the ruling.

“The courts have failed the American people,” Cain said at the time. “Congress needs to enact a constitutional amendment to protect the sacred institution of marriage.”

Cain continued, “Liberal-minded judges have opened a floodgate of judicial tyranny that will chip away at the core values of this country until nothing sacred is left! It started with not allowing prayer in schools, not being able to display the Ten Commandments, attempting to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and now making same-sex marriages legal.”

The assertion that Cain’s position on marriage is the same as Obama’s doesn’t hold up.

For starters, in addition to opposing a Federal Marriage Amendment, Obama voted against the measure as a U.S. senator. Cain has also pledged to defend DOMA in court and has criticized Obama for dropping his defense of the 1996 anti-gay statute in court cases.

Cain also came under fire from LGBT advocates earlier this month for saying that he believes homosexuality is a choice and science hasn’t proven otherwise.

Additionally, Cain said in a January radio interview with anti-gay conservative Bryan Fischer that he would veto the Employment Non-Discrimination Act if it reached his desk. Said Cain, “I would veto that relative to special rights to homosexuals.”

Cole-Schwartz said a Cain presidency would “be a tremendous problem for the LGBT community” based on the candidate’s positions and history.

“Just recently, his comments that being gay is a choice and suggesting that the science proves his point just shows that these are not issues that he has spent time thinking about in a positive way,” Cole-Schwartz said.

Even so, Cain’s positions on some LGBT issues continue to differentiate him among the other Republican candidates.

Earlier this month, Cain told the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein he has no problems with openly gay people serving in the military and wouldn’t seek to reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if elected president.

“I will not seek it, but I think it is a distraction at this point,” Cain said. “Wherever the military is, the day that I take office, I’m not going to stir that pot because I think it’s an unnecessary distraction at this point.”

Other Republican presidential candidates — including Santorum and Bachmann — have said they would reinstate the gay ban.

However, Cain added he will “listen” if military leaders want “something different” on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and said if it were never repealed, he would have “been fine with it.”

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said Cain has often been “inconsistent” on LGBT issues over the course of his campaign.

“I do think on a macro he’s much more approachable, but there has been some back and forth,” Cooper said. “He’s in a sense demurring in larger public fora on these issues, but when you put him before a more conservative audience, he seems to obviously lean a bit more right.”

Cain’s positions on LGBT issues could become of greater interest if he’s nominated to carry the Republican banner in the general election.

Several polls published over the weekend have Cain leading the Republican candidates or at least have him tied with Romney.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey conducted earlier this month found Cain leading the pack with support from 27 percent of respondents. Romney came in second with 23 percent of support.

A Public Policy Poll published last week gives him even greater national standing with support of 30 percent of responders while Romney comes in second at 22 percent.

Cain has become known for proposing a “9-9-9 plan” for tax reform, which would replace the current tax code with a 9 percent personal income tax, a 9 percent business transactions tax, and a 9 percent federal sales tax.

Whether Cain will remain at the top of the pack remains to be seen. Other Republican candidates — such as Bachmann and Perry — have shown similar strength in the polls, but later faltered. Romney has consistently been in first or second place in polls as the primary season has geared up.

Pinello said the reason for Cain’s current standing in the polls — as well as the rise and fall of other candidates — is because the religious right and the Tea Party factions of the Republican Party are “desperate to find” an alternative to Romney.

“A year or so ago, Sarah Palin had a flirtation with the Tea Party and the religious right, and then four months ago, the fascination was with Michele Bachmann,” Pinello said. “Then it was Rick Perry, then it was Chris Christie, and now it’s Herman Cain. It’s a series of infatuations with each of these candidates, which, for a host reasons tend quickly to crash and burn.”

Cooper said Cain has started a debate on tax reform with his 9-9-9 plan, but doesn’t think his candidacy will have much traction.

“I suspect that he’s enjoying what he’s doing, but I don’t think he really intends to go all way,” Cooper said. “Maybe this is his way of setting himself up for a potential cabinet appointment.”

Pinello predicted Cain’s standing would fade because of the candidate’s lack of money and organization. According to the most recent Federal Election Commission reports, Cain has raised $5.3 million thus far in the election cycle, while Romney has raised $32.2 million and Perry has raised $17.1 million.

“He just relied entirely upon these debates for promoting himself, and that’s not adequate in a rigorous primary, let alone a general election,” Pinello said. “So, I think he’s a flash in the pan just like the others were. Next month, it’ll be someone else.”

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

DOJ seeks to dismiss some claims in gay FBI employee’s bias lawsuit

David Maltinsky was fired after displaying Pride flag at desk

Published

on

A gay FBI trainee was fired after displaying a Pride flag at his desk. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Attorneys for gay former FBI employee David Maltinsky, who was fired from his job as a non-agent employee at the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office in October 2025 after more than 16 years of service for displaying an LGBTQ Pride flag at his workstation, filed court papers on July 15 opposing a motion by government attorneys to dismiss some but not all of the provisions in his unlawful discrimination lawsuit seeking to overturn the firing.

Maltinsky’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in D.C. on Nov. 19, 2025, states that FBI Director Kash Patel acted illegally by violating Maltinsky’s First Amendment constitutional rights and the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ordering his firing on grounds that he “exercised poor judgement with an inappropriate display of political signage” by displaying the Pride flag.

The firing came at a time when Maltinsky successfully completed 16 weeks of the FBI’s 19-week training program at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Va. to become an FBI Special Agent, according to the lawsuit.

In addition to Patel, who took office as FBI director in February 2025 under the Trump administration, the lawsuit names as defendants the FBI itself, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI.

“Defendants discriminated against Maltinsky for engaging in protected speech, for his sexual orientation, and for opposing discrimination – a clear and brazen violation of federal law and the Constitution,” the lawsuit states in an amended complaint filed May 5, 2026.

The Department of Justice, which is representing the FBI in its response to the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request from the Washington Blade for comment on the lawsuit and why it is seeking dismissal of some but not all of the lawsuit’s multiple allegations, including its claim that the firing violated Maltinsky’s First Amendment rights.

In its “Partial” motion filed on June 15, 2026, to dismiss some provisions in the lawsuit, the Justice Department through Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate and Associate Branch Director Christopher Hall, stated that the lawsuit fails to provide sufficient evidence that Maltinsky was fired because he is gay.    

“The Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations that Director Patel or any other decisionmaker expressed hostility toward gay employees, relied on Plaintiff’s sexual orientation in making employment decisions, even knew Plaintiff’s sexual orientation or otherwise indicated that Plaintiff’s status as a gay man played any role in the challenged actions,” the motion states.

Based on that, among other things, the motion says the lawsuit’s claim that the firing violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be dismissed. A 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that the 1964 law bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity along with its other categories including race, religion, and gender.  

In its arguments that the decision to fire Maltinsky was illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, the lawsuit’s amended complaint points out that FBI officials at the Los Angeles Field Office where Maltinsky worked presented the Pride flag to him and gave him full permission to display it at his workstation.  

“The FBI encouraged and honored Maltinsky’s work by awarding him the 2020 Director’s Award For Excellence-Outstanding Service in Diversity and Inclusion,” the lawsuit says. “In 2022, the Attorney General for the Department of Justice awarded Maltinsky the Attorney General’s Award for Equal Employment Opportunity, DOJ’s highest award for performance in support of the Equal Employment Program,” it says.

“In special recognition of Maltinsky’s efforts to improve the FBI, in June 2021 LAFO [Los Angeles Field Office] leadership entrusted to Maltinsky two Pride flags that had been flown from the flagpole located in front of the LAFO,” the lawsuit complaint continues. “Maltinsky displayed one of those flags at his workstation.”

Although the lawsuit doesn’t say so directly, all of that happened during the administration of President Joe Biden and previous FBI Director Christopher Wray, who held the director’s position from August 2017 to January 2025, when Donald Trump took office as president.

Nathaniel Zelinsky, one of the attorneys representing Maltinsky regarding the lawsuit, told the Blade that because the Justice Department did not contest the lawsuit’s First Amendment provisions, the case will move forward to the discovery stage, in which he and fellow attorneys can seek and obtain government documents, and most likely go to trial. He said that regardless of whether the judge approves the dismissal of the lawsuit provisions the government has asked for, the other provisions and the case as a whole  will continue.

“And those First Amendment claims are extremely serious,” he said. “The government, by its admission, fired David Maltinsky because they did not like the speech he displayed when he put up the Pride flag that was gifted to him by the FBI,” Zelinsky said. “The federal government cannot discriminate against its workers based on their speech.”      

Continue Reading

North Carolina

Authorities investigate officer-involved shooting outside Asheville gay bar

Incident took place near Shakey’s on Wednesday

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

An officer-involved shooting outside of a gay dive bar, Shakey’s, in downtown Asheville, N.C., left one man dead Wednesday.

The bar released a statement the following morning regarding the incident, stating that bar staff had asked a patron to leave earlier in the night citing concerning behavior. The bar said that later the man was spotted with a gun in the parking lot.

The bar proceeded to call 911, locked the doors to the establishment, and followed dispatcher instructions on how to keep patrons of the bar safe while officers arrived. These protocols included getting patrons away from the windows and staying low to the ground.

According to Shakey’s, shots were fired outside of the business. When the Asheville Police Department officers arrived, they fired back. The individual died from their injuries, according to the police.

“Because of everyone’s quick actions, cooperation, and concern for one another, every customer and every employee inside Shakey’s made it home safely. We are incredibly thankful,” Shakey’s said on their Instagram page. They thanked Asheville police, emergency dispatchers, EMS, and all first responders who were on scene.

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Chad Flowers, stated that the suspect involved in the shooting was Arturo Castillo Palomar.

The Washington Blade reached out to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation for a comment regarding the possibility of the event being considered a hate crime. They said the issue is currently under investigation and that the findings would be turned over to the district attorney for review.

Continue Reading

Pentagon

Hegseth announces testosterone initiative as trans troop ban continues

SPARTA Pride criticized Pentagon policy

Published

on

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. military will begin testing and treating service members with hormone therapy despite banning similar medical care for transgender service members.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that troops ages 30 and older will be subject to annual testosterone screenings, while younger service members will have the option to voluntarily opt in. Some troops may then be recommended for hormone therapy, he explained in a video posted to social media.

“Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters age 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment,” Hegseth said in a video posted to X, captioned “The High-T Department of War.”

This push to test testosterone levels, as the hormone is commonly referred to as “T,” runs counter to current medical guidelines. Physicians are generally advised to discuss testosterone therapy only with men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.

Testosterone is a vital sex hormone that all humans naturally produce. It helps regulate muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. In men, it is primarily produced in the testicles, while in women it is produced in the ovaries and adrenal glands.

Natural testosterone levels in men decline with age and have long been associated with issues such as erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes, and weight gain. However, experts continue to debate whether these conditions should routinely be treated with testosterone therapy.

Hegseth’s announcement aligns with other actions taken by the Trump-Vance administration — including efforts by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — to make testosterone therapy more accessible for men, particularly those assigned male at birth.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration proposed easing prescribing restrictions on testosterone gels, pills, patches, and injections following a December advisory panel that recommended reducing regulatory hurdles to expand access to testosterone therapy.

Currently, FDA labeling specifies that these medications are approved only for men with hypogonadism, a medical condition that causes abnormally low testosterone levels.

The announcement came as a shock to many LGBTQ advocates because Hegseth and the Defense Department have cited the use of hormone therapy by trans service members as justification for their dismissal under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.

The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation proceeds. As a result, many trans service members have had their gender-affirming medical care halted, even as similar hormone therapy is now being expanded for cisgender service members. Under the executive order, the military currently disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings for trans personnel.

SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans, and their allies, issued a statement to the Washington Blade following Hegseth’s announcement.

“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”

The legal fight over trans military service remains ongoing.

On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so, while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.

The Blade reached out to the Pentagon to ask why cisgender service members could receive hormone therapy while trans service members could not, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Continue Reading

Popular