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

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
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

GOP Leader Erupts Over Democrat’s Effort to Fund SNAP — Then Blocks Bill

Published

on

Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune launched into a diatribe attacking Democrats when one — Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico — asked unanimous consent to pass legislation to pay the 42 million Americans who use SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Later, Thune apologized — to reporters, not Senator Luján, for his remarks.

Despite having about $5 to $6 billion in emergency funds for SNAP, the Trump administration decided to reverse its previous policy to pay recipients during a shutdown. That policy, which was removed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website, had stated the “Congressional intent” was to make the funds available.

Experts have said there is a legal requirement to fund SNAP via its contingency reserves during the shutdown.

“Senate Republicans blocked legislation on Wednesday that would help low-income households afford groceries during the government shutdown, despite bipartisan support for providing nutrition aid to tens of millions of Americans,” Bloomberg News reported.

Punchbowl News’ Andrew Desiderio described Thune’s remarks as a “blowup,” and said he went “nuclear.”

READ MORE: ‘No Moral Compass’: Cuomo Condemned for ‘Odious’ and ‘Racist’ Remarks on Mamdani

“The senator from New Mexico was absolutely right,” Leader Thune said on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon. “SNAP recipients shouldn’t go without food.”

Republicans’ position is that Democrats are to blame for the shutdown, now in its 29th day. But polling shows that more Americans blame Republicans and President Trump for the shutdown than Democrats, whom they believe are trying to reopen the government more than Republicans.

“People should be getting paid in this country. And we’ve tried to do that 13 times. And you voted no, 13 times,” he said, pointing to Democrats who have refused to vote to reopen the federal government until Republicans agree to reinstate the Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Obamacare premiums are expected to skyrocket without the subsidies.

“This isn’t a political game,” Thune said, angrily. “These are real people’s lives that we’re talking about. And you all just figured that out?”

“29 days and, ‘Oh, there might be some consequences.’ There are people who are running out of money. Yeah, we’re 29 days in.”

“13 times, people over here voted to fund SNAP. 13 times, they voted to fund WIC,” he said of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

READ MORE: Trump Suggests He Could Invoke the Insurrection Act — and ‘Courts Wouldn’t Get Involved’

“My aching back,” Thune said, expressing frustration.

The Majority Leader then went on to charge that Democrats want the shutdown to continue, long term.

“So are they making plans to end the shutdown and reopen the government?” he asked. “Nope. They’re gonna propose a bill to fund food stamps during their shutdown.”

“This bill is a cynical attempt to provide political cover for Democrats to allow them to carry on their government shutdown for the long term.”

After his remarks, and after leaving the floor, Politico reported that Thune told reporters, “Sorry I channeled a little bit of anger there.”

READ MORE: Trump Admin Blames Dems’ Immigration and Trans Policies for Food Stamp Shut Off

 

Continue Reading

News

‘No Moral Compass’: Cuomo Condemned for ‘Odious’ and ‘Racist’ Remarks on Mamdani

Published

on

Andrew Cuomo, the Democrat running as an independent in the New York City mayoral race, is under fire for remarks he made in an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo.

Describing the Democratic nominee, State Assembly member Zohran Mamdani, as “totally out of sync with New Yorkers” and “how New Yorkers feel,” Cuomo — who has been trailing by double-digits in most polls — told Bartiromo that Mamdani “is dual citizenship” and “was a citizen of Uganda.”

Mamdani was born in Kampala, Uganda, and moved to New York City when he was seven.

“He just doesn’t understand the New York culture, the New York values, what 9/11 meant, what entrepreneurial growth means, opportunity means, why people came here,” Cuomo alleged.

READ MORE: Trump Suggests He Could Invoke the Insurrection Act — and ‘Courts Wouldn’t Get Involved’

“Well, this is very important, because next year, we’ll be 25 years since 9/11, I believe,” Bartiromo told Cuomo. “And if he’s the mayor, how is he going to treat all of those people who are still in mourning, from losing their lives, 3,000 people?”

“I mean, all of the first responders that we lost on 9/11, I was there at the New York Stock Exchange,” she noted. “I guess I’m wondering if you’re expecting New York to look more like London? You go to London right now, and it is largely Muslim. Women are completely covered up. I don’t know if you expect, if Mamdani were to be in charge, him to change the look of New York as well.”

“Look,” said Cuomo, the former New York State governor who was forced to resign amid sexual harassment allegations and a damning report released by the Office of State Attorney General Letitia James, “he is out of sync with how New Yorkers feel.”

“I just think he doesn’t get it, you know?”

“His parents owned a mansion in Uganda,” Cuomo continued. “He spent a lot of time there. He just doesn’t understand the New York culture, the New York values, what 9/11 meant, what entrepreneurial growth means, opportunity means, why people came here.”

Critics blasted the former governor.

READ MORE: Public Turns on GOP as Shutdown Fallout Deepens: Report

“What an odious thing to say,” remarked author Rebecca Fishbein, who has written for The New York Times. “I hope New York Jews understand that the dual loyalty trope is used against them, too. If Cuomo feels comfortable attacking Mamdani in this way, what’s to stop him from turning on NY’s Jewish pop[ulation] when it stops being politically advantageous for him to support?”

“Politician who resigned last position in disgrace is desperate for comeback so using religious bigotry,” commented Brian Kaylor, author of “The Bible According to Christian Nationalists.”

“Cuomo and Bartiromo, two Italian Americans, repurposing the same type of xenophobia, bigotry, and religious prejudice that was used to discriminate against Italian Catholic immigrants,” observed Ron Cassie, a senior editor at Baltimore magazine.

“This is easily as racist as anything Trump has said,” noted attorney Noah Popp.

Historian Paul Cohen, a faculty member at The University of Toronto, wrote, “there is here no moral compass, no human substance, no political commitments, no attachment to virtue, no sense of character, no nagging voice of conscience … there is only the hunger for power, and the readiness to pay whatever price necessary to acquire it.”

So here’s Andrew Cuomo reacting to Maria Bartiromo wondering if Mamdani will “change the look of New York” and have Muslim women “completely covered up,” telling her that Mamdani “doesn’t understand New York culture” because he has “dual citizenship” and “he’s a citizen of Uganda.”

[image or embed]

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona.bsky.social) October 29, 2025 at 11:50 AM

READ MORE: Trump Admin Blames Dems’ Immigration and Trans Policies for Food Stamp Shut Off

Continue Reading

News

Trump Suggests He Could Invoke the Insurrection Act — and ‘Courts Wouldn’t Get Involved’

Published

on

President Donald Trump, who has recently and repeatedly floated invoking the Insurrection Act, implied that the courts would be powerless to prevent it.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as he traveled in Asia this week, President Trump on Wednesday was asked about remarks he made on Tuesday — that he could send more than just the National Guard into American cities.

“Sure, I would, I would do that if it was necessary,” Trump replied. “You know, if it was necessary, I’d do that, but it hasn’t been necessary. We’re doing a great job without that, but, yeah, if it was necessary.”

“As you know, I’m allowed to do that,” he said.

READ MORE: Public Turns on GOP as Shutdown Fallout Deepens: Report

“But, you know, if I want to enact a certain act, I’m allowed to do it,” he claimed, appearing to refer to the Insurrection Act while not naming it.

“Routinely, other, about 50% of presidents have used that, as you know, and I’d be allowed to do whatever I want.”

Substantially less than half of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act. The last one to do so was President George H. W. Bush, in 1992.

“But I’d be allowed to do that, you understand,” Trump continued.

“And the courts wouldn’t get involved, nobody would get involved, and I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, I could say, send anybody I wanted, but I haven’t done that because we’re doing so well without it.”

On Tuesday, Trump told reporters: “You know, people don’t care if we send in our military, if we send in our National Guard, if we send in Space Command, they don’t care who the hell it is.”

“Really, we could do as we want to do,” he insisted.

READ MORE: Trump Admin Blames Dems’ Immigration and Trans Policies for Food Stamp Shut Off

Earlier this month, according to Politifact, Trump said: “Don’t forget I can use the Insurrection Act. Fifty percent of the presidents, almost, have used that. And that’s unquestioned power.”

And two weeks ago, again, Trump told reporters, “I could use it. If I wanted to, I could use it … I’m allowed to use the Insurrection Act.”

Just days ago, more than forty members of Congress, including military veterans, urged Trump to not violate the Posse Comitatus Act or the Insurrection Act by using U.S. Armed Forces against Americans on American soil.

During the first Trump presidency, in 2020, he said in a Rose Garden speech, “If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”

READ MORE: ‘Do What Leaders Do’: Dem Leader Scorches ‘Missing in Action’ Trump

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.