Connect with us

22 LGBT Advances That (Probably) Will Disappear Under A President Romney

Published

on

Under a President Mitt Romney, there are at least 22 advances in LGBT civil rights delivered by President Barack Obama that most likely will disappear. While Nancy Pelosi and, to a far lesser extent, Harry Reid, have worked to support civil rights and protections for the gay community, Barack Obama has — sometimes with great fanfare, oftentimes in the shadows — delivered important advances.

Back in 2010, at Change.org, I wrote a somewhat controversial (at the time) article, “Obama’s Gay Rights Come With An Expiration Date,” which stated:

President Obama should know better than to incrementalize gay rights, and tie them to his presidency. And yet, that’s exactly what he’s doing.

…

President Obama has slowly and quietly doled out rights to the LGBTQ community. These are rights we should have by the very nature of our existence, rights that every other American has upon birth, but the president has doled them out cautiously, meekly, without pomp or circumstance, and, worse, he has tied them to his presidency.

This tactic is problematic for two reasons.

First, by expanding our civil rights by issuing executive orders and memoranda, President Obama’s gay civil rights come with an expiration date. Yes, that’s right. The rights he has decreed, without working through Congress, are tied to his presidency. Any of his successors can, simply with the stroke of a pen, wipe out all our hard-earned rights, just because he or she wants to. Do you honestly think the next Republican president won’t do that?

Today, the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson posts a long list of 21 LGBT advances a President Romney could — with the stroke of a pen or incrementally — make disappear into a more progressive history.

Asking, “Would President Romney undo pro-LGBT advances?,” Johnson notes:

Many of the pro-LGBT advances that have happened under the Obama administration occurred through changes made by the executive branch rather than through legislation. Changes that were made without the consent of Congress could be reversed under an administration that wanted to cozy up to the religious right.

The Washington Blade has identified five regulatory changes and 16 sub-regulatory changes enacted by the Obama administration that could be reversed if Romney were elected to the White House. These changes include giving greater recognition to same-sex couples, protecting federal LGBT workers against discrimination and ensuring the federal government recognizes the correct gender of transgender people.

The one Johnson doesn’t include in his list of “five regulatory changes and 16 sub-regulatory changes” is the most-obvious: Obama’s support of same-sex marriage equality.

Here’s the list from the Blade:

Regulations

The Administrative Procedures Act provides safeguards against politically motivated policy switches. Thus repealing the policies below would involve a multi-year process.

  • The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopted a regulation ending the ban on HIV-positive visitors and immigrants.
  • President Obama issued Presidential Memorandum in April 2010 directing HHS to issue regulations requiring all hospitals receiving Medicaid and Medicare to prohibit discrimination in visitation against LGBT people. HHS issued a final regulation that went into effect in early 2011.
  • HUD issued final regulations in January 2012 prohibiting discrimination in federal public housing programs and federally insured mortgage loans.  HUD also requires its grantees to comply with LGBT-inclusive state and local housing discrimination protections.
  • The Office of Personnel Management published final regulations in the Federal Register expanding the eligibility for long-term care coverage to same-sex partners and sick leave to care for a same-sex partner.
  •  The federal Prison Rape Elimination Commission proposed national standards to reduce sexual abuse in correctional facilities, including standards regarding LGBT and intersex inmates. They were later instituted as a rule finalized by the Justice Department last month.

Sub-Regulatory Guidance/Policy Announcements

These are policy advances instituted by — and subject to the will of — the administration.

  • The Department of Health and Human Services revised its funding guidance around abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education programs, requiring that recipient programs are inclusive of and non-stigmatizing toward LGBT youth.
  • HHS, in partnership with the Department of Education and Department of Justice, launched stopbullyingnow.com.
  • The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency recently released new 2011 Performance Based National Detention Standards.  These new standards provide guidance that aims to improve treatment of LGBT and HIV-positive people in detention facilities.
  • In summer 2011, ICE published a memo and clarifying guidance providing that an individual’s family relationships, including a same-sex relationship, would be considered as a factor in labeling certain deportations as low-priority deportations.
  • The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol announced a proposed regulatory change expanding the meaning of “members of a family residing in one household” for the purposes of the customs declaration form, which must be completed prior to re-entry to the United States.
  • The DOJ issued an opinion clarifying that the criminal provisions of the Violence Against Women Act related to stalking and abuse apply equally to same-sex partners.
  • The State Department revised the standards for changing a gender marker on a passport, making the process less burdensome for transgender people.
  • In September 2011, the Social Security Administration confirmed that it ended the practice of allowing gender to be matched in its Social Security Number Verification System (SSNVS). This resulted in the immediate cessation of SSA sending notifications that alert employers when the gender marker on an employee’s W-2 does not match Social Security records.
  • The State Department extended numerous benefits to the partners of Foreign Service officers, including diplomatic passports and access to emergency evacuation.
  • The State Department reversed a Bush administration policy that refused to use a same-sex marriage license as evidence of a name change for passports.
  • The Department of Education issued guidance clarifying when student bullying may violate federal law, distributed a memo outlining key components of strong state anti-bullying laws and policies and made clear to public schools that gay-straight alliances have a right to form and meet.
  • The Department of Education published guidance and, in coordination with the Department of Justice, has pursued Title IX complaints filed by LGBT students experiencing harassment based on sex or sex stereotyping.
  • OPM added gender identity to the equal employment opportunity policy governing all federal jobs.
  • The Department of Labor issued guidance clarifying that an employee can take time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for a same-sex partner’s child.
  • The IRS clarified that domestic partners (and their children) can be designated beneficiaries for VEBA funding/payment purposes.
  • The Census Bureau overturned the Bush administration’s interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act and agreed to release data on married same-sex couples along with other demographic information from the 2010 Census.

SOURCE: HRC

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Sounds Like Putin’: Trump Blasted for Declaring Top News Organizations ‘Illegal’

Published

1 day ago

on

March 14, 2025

By

President Donald Trump, just 54 days into his second term, declared himself “the chief law enforcement officer in our country” and labeled two major news organizations, CNN and MSNBC, as “illegal,” while further denouncing their coverage as “illegal.” His remarks Thursday afternoon were delivered to officials at the U.S. Department of Justice, in an appearance that shattered a decades-old norm designed to insulate the department from political interference—a safeguard established in response to President Richard Nixon’s abuses of power. Trump’s statements have drawn sharp criticism for their authoritarian tone and direct attack on press freedom, sparking alarm.

“I believe that CNN and MSNDC,” said Trump (video below), using his own derogatory twist on MSNBC’s name, “who literally write 97.6% bad about me, are political arms of the Democrat Party. And in my opinion, they’re really corrupt and they’re illegal. What they do is illegal.”

Trump also “rallied against the press,” in general, “claiming they are influencing judges and, without any evidence, claiming the media works in coordination with political campaigns, which is not allowed in the news industry,” The Hill reported.

READ MORE: White House Caught Admitting Real Reason for Mass Firings: Experts

It has been widely reported that during his first term in office, Fox News host Sean Hannity spoke with Trump “nearly every weeknight.”

“These networks and these newspapers are really no different than a highly paid political operative. And it has to stop, it has to be illegal, it’s influencing judges and it’s really, eh, changing law and it just cannot be legal. I don’t believe it’s legal and they do it in total coordination with each other,” the President alleged.

Trump’s remarks were just a part of a speech that lasted more than one hour, during which he “delivered an insult-laden speech that shattered the traditional notion of DOJ independence,” as Politico reported. During those remarks, Trump also “labeled his courtroom opponents ‘scum,’ judges ‘corrupt’ and the prosecutors who investigated him ‘deranged.'”

“With the DOJ logo directly behind him, Trump called for his legal tormentors to be sent to prison.”

It is not the first time the President, who is a convicted felon, has declared MSNBC “illegal.”

Last month, when MSNBC host Joy Reid left the news network, Trump unleashed a torrent of hatred.

“Lowlife Chairman of ‘Concast,’ Brian Roberts, the owner of Ratings Challenged NBC and MSDNC, has finally gotten the nerve up to fire one of the least talented people in television, the mentally obnoxious racist, Joy Reid,” Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform. “Based on her ratings, which were virtually non-existent, she should have been ‘canned’ long ago, along with everyone else who works there. Also thrown out was Alex Wagner, the sub on the seriously failing Rachel Maddow show. Rachel rarely shows up because she knows there’s nobody watching, and she also knows that she’s got less television persona than virtually anyone on television except, perhaps, Joy Reid.”

READ MORE: ‘Team Fight’: Democrats Call for Schumer to Resign

Trump’s Friday afternoon assault on the media was swiftly criticized.

“This is what a dictator sounds like,” wrote U.S. Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI).

“Journalism is legal,” declared award-winning investigative journalist Lindsay Beyerstein. “Criticizing the president is legal. Being a Democrat is legal. Nothing Donald Trump is ranting about here is a crime and he’s disgracing himself and the Department of Justice by talking this way.”

Journalist Matt O’Brien observed, “Trump wants to get rid of freedom of speech because he wants to be a dictator. And unlike his first term, he now has a government full of fascists who are eager to make that a reality.”

Marlow Stern, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Journalism at Columbia University’s Columbia Journalism School wrote: “sounds like putin.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning political columnist Kyle Whitmire wrote simply: “Enemy of the Constitution.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Basically Underwater on Everything’: Trump in Big Trouble With Majority of Voters Poll Finds

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

White House Caught Admitting Real Reason for Mass Firings: Experts

Published

1 day ago

on

March 14, 2025

By

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is “basically admitting” the White House “lied” about the mass firings of tens of thousands of federal government employees, a legal expert is alleging, based on her remarks on Friday. Many of not most of the terminated government workers were ordered to be reinstated by two separate federal courts on Thursday. Judges ruled the terminations were likely unlawful.

According to The New York Times, one judge “said in his lengthy ruling that the government’s contention that the firings of the probationary employees had been for cause, and not a mass layoff, ‘borders on the frivolous.'” Another judge “concluded much the same and made it clear that he thought the manner in which the Trump administration had fired the probationary workers was a ‘sham.'”

Leavitt previously has been criticized for having exhibited “a fundamental misunderstanding of the separation of powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution since 1789,” and for making false claims in general.

READ MORE: ‘Team Fight’: Democrats Call for Schumer to Resign

On Friday, having been asked to clarify a previous statement, Leavitt told reporters that the Trump administration will be “fighting back” against those two rulings “by appealing, fighting back by using the full weight of the White House Counsel’s office and our lawyers at the federal government who believed that this injunction is entirely unconstitutional.”

Leavitt insisted that the injunction — presumably both injunctions blocking the administration from additional mass firings and requiring that the fired probational employees be reinstated — are unconstitutional.

She claimed that, “for anybody who has a basic understanding of the law, you cannot have a low level district court judge filing an injunction to usurp the executive authority of the president of the United States.”

That is false, and violates the separation of powers, as legal experts and Supreme Court cases have made clear, although it is a claim the Trump administration has repeatedly asserted.

“That is completely absurd, and as the executive of the executive branch, the president has the ability to fire or hire. And you have these lower level judges who are trying to, uh, block this president’s agenda,” she stated (video below).

That appears to be the remark that drew the attention of attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration policy expert and senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.

READ MORE: ‘Basically Underwater on Everything’: Trump in Big Trouble With Majority of Voters Poll Finds

“Pay attention here to how the White House is basically admitting to have lied about why these people were fired,” Reichlin-Melnick wrote. “Now they claim this was the President’s command and must not be overruled. But when the firings were happening, they claimed on paper it was for ‘performance’ reasons.”

Andrew Heineman, legislative director for U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) wrote: “It sounds very much like Leavitt just admitted that the firings were part of Trump’s ‘agenda.'”

Leavitt went on to suggest that there is a conspiracy of activist judges working to “block” President Trump.

“It’s very clear, and as I just cited, I was appalled by the statistic when I saw it this morning in three or, uh, in one month in February, there have been 15 injunctions of this administration in our agenda,” she said.

“In three years under the Biden administration, there were 14 injunctions. So, uh, it’s very clear that there are judicial activists throughout our judicial branch who are trying to block this president’s executive authority.”

She went on to praise President Trump and his legal team, saying that despite being “indicted nearly 200 times,” he was able to become President.

Trump has not been indicted nearly 200 times. He was indicted four times, and faced a total of 91 felony charges.

“We are going to fight back,” she insisted, “and as anyone who saw President Trump up in his legal team fighting back, they know how to do it. He was indicted nearly 200 times, and he’s in the Oval Office now because all of the indictments, all of these injunctions have always been unconstitutional and unfair.”

“They are led by partisan activists, who are trying to usurp the will of this president and we’re not going to stand for it.”

Critics blasted Leavitt’s grasp of the law.

Semafor’s David Weigel posted headlines of federal judges, or, “low level district court” judges, as she said, blocking other President’s actions.

“You sure about that? You sure about that?” he asked, mockingly.

Attorney and Democratic activist Aaron Parnas, responding to Leavitt’s claim that you cannot have a  judge block a president’s wishes, responded: “You actually can. That’s why we have three branches of government.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Entire World Ripping Us Off’: Trump Quotes FDR in Angry Tariff War Meltdown

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Team Fight’: Democrats Call for Schumer to Resign

Published

2 days ago

on

March 14, 2025

By

Democrats across the political spectrum—liberal, moderate, and progressive—appear united in their outrage over Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to back the Republican-led bill to fund the government and prevent a shutdown. They argue that the legislation enables President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to continue dismantling the federal government while jeopardizing health care and veterans’ benefits. Without a signed bill, the federal government will shut down at 12:01 AM on Saturday.

Calls are mounting for Leader Schumer to resign. There appears to be a movement on social media demanding his resignation, across platforms including X, Bluesky, and TikTok.

Protestors in New York City are chanting, “Vote no, it’s time to go,” while some hold up signs that read, “Schumer — Be a fighter not a collaborator,” and, “Don’t be a Schumer chicken s—.”

SENATOR AOC?

Some are calling for U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the popular progressive Democrat from New York, to primary the 74-year old Schumer, who was first elected to Congress in 1981.

“I think there is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal,” Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez told reporters on Thursday. “And this is not just about progressive Democrats. This is across the board. The entire party. There are members of Congress who have won Trump-held districts in some of the most difficult territory in the United States, who walked the plank and took innumerable risks in order to defend the American people, in order to defend Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Just to see some Senate Democrats even consider acquiescing to Elon Musk, I think it is a huge slap in the face, and I think that there is a wide sense of betrayal if things proceed as as currently planned.”

READ MORE: ‘Basically Underwater on Everything’: Trump in Big Trouble With Majority of Voters Poll Finds

Some House Democrats “are so infuriated with Schumer’s decision” that they have begun encouraging Ocasio-Cortez “to run against Schumer in a primary,” CNN reported Thursday night. “Multiple Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others directly encouraged Ocasio-Cortez to run on Thursday night after Schumer’s announcement.”

One member said that Democrats were “so mad,” CNN added, “that even centrist Democrats were ‘ready to write checks for AOC for Senate,’ adding that they have ‘never seen people so mad.'”

SCHUMER’S ‘STRATEGY’

When in the minority, Democrats for years have handed Republicans enough votes to help pass numerous “continuing resolutions,” bills that keep the federal government’s lights on, but this time it’s different. Right now, Democrats are aching for a leader who will fight the Trump/Musk/MAGA machine.

Their anger erupted Thursday night.

Leader Schumer on Wednesday had announced that it did not appear there would be enough Democratic votes to help Senate Republicans pass the House bill, and instead that they would filibuster it. But on Thursday afternoon he declared he would support the legislation, suggesting there would be enough votes to pass it.

Schumer’s reasoning is not wrong, many are willing to admit. Elon Musk reportedly wants the shutdown because if the government stays closed for 30 days, he can then mass fire even more government employees.

But Democrats are saying Schumer’s rationale does not meet the moment. They want someone to fight, not cave.

Adam Jentleson is a writer, political commentator, and the former deputy chief of staff to the late U.S. Senator Harry Reid. Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, was an extraordinarily successful Senate Majority Leader from 2007 to 2015.

READ MORE: ‘Entire World Ripping Us Off’: Trump Quotes FDR in Angry Tariff War Meltdown

“There is a lot of ‘what would Harry Reid have done?’ and sadly we will never know,” Jentleson wrote late Friday morning. “But I can say that we won the 2013 shutdown because we spent months laying track on a clear message about health care. The terms of the shutdown were well-defined before it happened.”

Critics say that’s what’s missing — that Leader Schumer hasn’t bothered to do that.

Pointing to a late Friday morning report indicating that Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune said that he and Leader Schumer have not even spoken, Democratic strategist Matt McDermott writes, “The problem here is that all evidence suggests @SenSchumer has no strategy whatsoever. Absolutely stunning that he hasn’t talked to the Senate Majority leader, even to attempt to negotiate concessions.”

McDermott also offered this insight:

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Thursday night sat down with Schumer, and summed up the situation for him.

“I’ve seen a lot of House members, and across an ideological range, interestingly enough, urging the Senate to filibuster this, saying, look, this is existential about whether we control the power of the purse or not. We cannot essentially sign off on this DOGE unilateral arrogation of this power,” Hayes explained.

The Democratic Leader’s response was that “it’s different in the Senate,” because voting against the bill in the House would not have led to a shutdown. But that’s incorrect. If the House bill failed, and no other passed, that would have absolutely led to a shutdown.

“I felt so strongly that the shutdown would be the greatest disaster we face with these arrogant, arrogant autocrats that we had to avoid the shutdown and fight and many of the other things, every other issue that we have,” Schumer added.

‘TEAM FIGHT’ — ‘MISREAD THIS AT YOUR OWN PERIL’

Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker issued a statement explaining his opposition to passing the continuing resolution, but his chief of staff late Thursday night served up an analysis of what Democrats are feeling.

“The fight going on in the Democratic Party right now is not between hard left, left and moderate,” explained Anne Caprara. “It’s between those who want to fight and those who want to cave. And Team Fight stretches across all ideological aspects of the Party. Misread this at your own peril.”

Right now, it appears there might be enough Senate Democrats willing to vote in favor of the continuing resolution, or at least, vote for “cloture,” meaning to allow debate on the bill.

One who is not voting yes is U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), largely considered a moderate Democrat.

“When I saw the House bill on Sunday, I said, ‘Hell no,’ because I just was not interested in voting for something that was going to enable these guys to fire more veterans and cut education and health programs, screw up air safety, tank the economy,” Senator Kaine said Thursday morning on MSNBC. “Why would I do it?”

Kaine noted that during an Armed Services Committee,”the Pentagon looked us in the face and said, this House CR will hurt national security, will weaken our ability to maintain ships and subs. It’s going to do damage to us. And then my Republican colleagues on the committee said, we agree with you, this is going to hurt national security, but it’s better than a shutdown.”

He criticized Speaker Johnson f0r sending House members home after passing the continuing resolution this week, because there’s now little means to alter the bill.

“And I decided then, when the Republicans are trashing this, but acting like they have to go along, I’m not going along.”

“I went back to my days in living in Honduras,” Kaine shared, “when it was a military dictatorship, and I learned something very important. That a bully can take something from you but you shouldn’t hand it over to him, so I’m voting no.”

Kaine also said, “we’re winning cases in court right now against things that Trump is doing. But if we vote for this bill and sort of say, ‘Okay, we’re going to put our imprimatur on some of this,’ I even worry it might make it harder for us to prevail in court on some of these battles.”

PRAISE FROM TRUMP

Critics from across the Democratic spectrum continue to blast Senator Schumer.

“Schumer’s decision is an unconscionable surrender that shows he does not have what it takes to meet this moment,” explained MeidasTouch co-founder Brett Meiselas on Thursday night. “Time for new leadership in the Democratic Party.”

“It is clear that some of us understand the present danger & some don’t! I stand by the NO vote on the blank check for Trump & Elon,” wrote U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). “I’ve got no explanation nor agreement with Senate Dems being complicit in Trump’s Tyranny.”

SiriusXM host Qasim Rashid, Esq. wrote: “Schumer thinks he’s smart to vote with GOP now because ‘in 6 months Trump will be unpopular.'”

“What’s Schumer smoking to think THIS time is different? Schumer—resign & retire.”

“How badly do you have to f— up being the Democratic leader that Trump is praising and congratulating you????” an astonished Elie Mystal, the justice correspondent for The Nation, asked on Friday.

Indeed, President Trump is praising Leader Schumer.

“Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing — Took ‘guts’ and courage!” Trump wrote on Friday morning. “The big Tax Cuts, L.A. fire fix, Debt Ceiling Bill, and so much more, is coming. We should all work together on that very dangerous situation. A non pass would be a Country destroyer, approval will lead us to new heights. Again, really good and smart move by Senator Schumer. This could lead to something big for the USA, a whole new direction and beginning! DJT.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Not Above the Law’: Fist-Pounding Democrat Explodes Asking ‘Where’s Elon Musk?’

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.