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.
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

More Than Half of Americans Disapprove of Chief Justice John Roberts: Poll

Published

1 day ago

on

December 26, 2025

By

Over half of Americans disapprove of the job Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts is doing, according to a new Gallup poll.

In a poll taken this month by Gallup, 53% of American adults disapprove of the job Roberts is doing, compared to 38% who approve and 9% with no opinion. This is the highest disapproval rating since Gallup started asking the question.

It’s also the first time his disapproval rating has been higher than his approval rating. The last time the question was asked was in December 2023, where 46% disapproved compared to 48% approval. Even that was a huge step down from December 2021 when 60% approved and 34% approved.

READ MORE: ‘Brutal’: Trump Approval Tanks as Support Plummets Across Key Issues, Poll Shows

When broken out by demographics, 67% of Republicans approved of the job Roberts was doing, compared to 21% disapproval. Only 16% of Democrats approved while 78% disapproved, and among Independents, 35% approved while 57% disapproved.

The poll was conducted via telephone between December 1-15, and had a sample size of 1,016 adults across America. The margin of error was 4%.

The Supreme Court under Roberts has frequently come under fire, particularly when it comes to cases involving President Donald Trump. While the court has not always sided with the president—on Tuesday, it ruled against him in the case about deploying the national guard to Chicago—public perception is that the Court is in Trump’s pocket.

In June 2024, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called the Roberts Court the “most corrupt in American history.” A September 2021 Gallup poll saw the full Court’s approval rating hit a record low of 40%.

A month after Ocasio-Cortez made her comments, the Court made one of its most controversial rulings—deciding that Trump had immunity from prosecution for any acts made in an “official” capacity as president. The Court ruled 6-3 in that case along ideological lines, with Roberts himself writing the court’s opinion.

Experts were shocked that the Court even took up that particular case, as there had been no contradiction in lower court rulings about the limits of presidential immunity.

“Let’s not beat around the bush, decision by the Supreme Court to hear the Trump immunity case is outrageous and, at its heart, fundamentally corrupt,” author and legal expert David Rothkopf wrote at the time the Court decided to hear the case. “The Appeals Court decision was bullet proof and there is no case Trump has any sort of immunity. The decision not to hear it until late April makes further significant trial delays likely. They are deliberately delaying the trial without any reasonable legal reason to do so. This is a political decision and, in my estimation, an ugly one.”

 

Continue Reading

News

Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Attempt to Deport Head of Anti-Hate Group

Published

1 day ago

on

December 26, 2025

By

The CEO of a anti-hate group is allowed to stay in the United States after a federal judge stopped his deportation.

Imran Ahmed, the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons among other Trump administration officials. Ahmed requested a restraining order so he can fight the administration in court.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Trump administration announced an order to revoke his visa, along with the visas of four other Europeans, over claims of digital censorship. Following the announcement of the government’s intent to deport him, Ahmed alleged that the government was targeting him “as punishment for the research and public reporting carried out by the nonprofit organization that Mr. Ahmed founded and runs, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (“CCDH”), which studies the content moderation policies of major social media companies, including Elon Musk’s company, X Corp.,” the lawsuit read.

READ MORE: Trump Pushes Census Do-Over to Exclude Non-Citizens — and to Immediately Redistrict House

“In other words, Mr. Ahmed faces the imminent prospect of unconstitutional arrest, punitive detention, and expulsion for exercising his basic First Amendment rights.”

District Court Judge Vernon S. Broderick ruled in favor of Ahmed; in addition, Broderick also ruled that Ahmed cannot be arrested and detained before his case can be heard, according to the BBC.

“The federal government can’t deport a green card holder like Imran Ahmed, with a wife and young child who are American, simply because it doesn’t like what he has to say,” Roberta Kaplan, Ahmed’s lawyer, told the BBC.

Ahmed’s anti-hate group was formed to combat disinformation and antisemitism online. In the past it’s collected evidence of racist and extremist content on X since Elon Musk bought the platform. X previously filed suit against CCDH in 2023 over its reporting, alleging the data collected by the group was based on “incorrect, misleading and outdated metrics,” according to the Straits Times.

The anti-hate group has recently criticised ChatGPT amid reports of the program being linked to suicides, murders and self-harm.

On Friday, Ahmed accused the tech industry of urging the administration to retaliate against him.

“This has never been about politics,” he told The Guardian. “What it has been about is companies that simply do not want to be held accountable and, because of the influence of big money in Washington, are corrupting the system and trying to bend it to their will, and their will is to be unable to be held accountable.”

“There is no other industry, that acts with such arrogance, indifference and a lack of humility and sociopathic greed at the expense of people,” he added.

The visa bans announced on Tuesday also targeted former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, Global Disinformation Index CEO Clare Melford and Anna Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of HateAid, according to The Hill.

“For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship,” Rubio tweeted Tuesday. “Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.”

Of the five, Ahmed is the only one who actually lives in the United States. The others, as of this writing, remain barred from entering the United States.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Stephen Miller Shares Bizarre Anti-Immigration Tweet Referencing Frank Sinatra

Published

1 day ago

on

December 26, 2025

By

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller shared a bizarre tweet Friday using an old Christmas special as an excuse to slam migrants.

“Watched the Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra Family Christmas with my kids,” Miller wrote.  Imagine watching that and thinking America needed infinity migrants from the third world.”

The 1967 Christmas special can be seen on YouTube. The show is a variety show featuring not just the two famous crooners, but their semi-famous offspring, including Deana, Ricci and Dino on the Martin side, along with Nancy and Frank Junior on the Sinatra side.

READ MORE: ‘Red Flag’: Stephen Miller Accused of ‘Reviving Fascist Rhetoric’ at Kirk Memorial

It’s not clear what in the special would have made Miller think about “infinity migrants” coming to America, but both Martin and Sinatra were first-generation Americans with parents who came to the U.S. from Italy.

Miller is an anti-immigration hardliner, and has been called the “architect” of the Trump administration’s immigration policy by Reuters. Earlier this month, he condemned the children of migrants—people like Sinatra and Martin—on Fox News.

“With a lot of these immigrant groups, not only is the first generation unsuccessful. Again, Somalia is a clear example here,” Miller said, according to the New York Times, “You see persistent issues in every subsequent generation. So you see consistent high rates of welfare use, consistent high rates of criminal activity, consistent failures to assimilate.”

Miller is in favor of more ICE raids, and called the protests in California this summer an “insurrection” and “all the proof you need that mass migration unravels societies,” according to Forbes. In his role as an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security, he set a quota of 3,000 arrests a day for ICE.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.