It’s been one media outlet in particular that has caught the president’s ire, even though it has so far been spared his Twitter rage: the Drudge Report. Publicly, Trump hasn’t said a peep about the highly popular news aggregator run by right-wing media impresario Matt Drudge. But privately, he has simmered over the critical coverage that the site has run and linked to, with regards to the impeachment proceedings.
“What’s going on with Drudge?” Trump has been asking allies since Democratic lawmakers launched the impeachment probe in late September. In recent weeks, Trump has even asked Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and a top White House official—who has had a friendly relationship with the site’s creator—to “look into it” and reach out to Drudge, the sources said. It is unclear if Kushner has done so. The White House and Drudge did not respond to requests for comment on this story as of press time.
According to the above-linked report, Trump receives a daily package of printouts of Drudge headlines since he’s never used a computer himself.
In a first-of-its-kind poll, a new survey from YouGov and Out magazine found that LGBTQ+ voters favor the Massachusetts Senator by a nearly 2-to-1 margin over her Democratic rivals in the 2020 primary race.
In an online survey of 816 likely voters conducted between November 11 and November 18, 31 percent claimed that Warren is their preferred candidate, followed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (18 percent), former Vice President Joe Biden (16 percent), and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg (14 percent).
Further down the list, California Senator Kamala Harris came in at six percent, while New Jersey Senator Cory Booker (three percent), entrepreneur Andrew Yang (two percent), Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar (two percent), and former HUD Secretary Julián Castro (two percent) also polled in the single digits.
The US Social Security Administration is facing legal action, after refusing to approve survivor’s benefits for a woman whose same-sex partner died before they could legally marry.
Helen Thornton, of Washington, was with her partner Marge Brown for 27 years. The couple raised a son together, and Thornton served as Brown’s carer for three years before her death from cancer in 2006.
However, as Brown died before same-sex marriage became legal in the state, the US Social Security Administration refuses to recognise their relationship – denying Thornton, who is now 64, access to survivor’s benefits that a heterosexual spouse would be entitled to from age 60.
On Thursday, LGBT+ law firm Lambda Legal asked a federal court to override the decision to deny benefits to Thornton and to end discrimination against other same-sex surviving partners who were barred from marriage.
‘We cared for each other in sickness and in health’
Thornton said: “Margie and I were fortunate to share 27 years of love and commitment together on this earth.
“Like other committed couples, we built a life together, formed a family, and cared for each other in sickness and in health.
“Although we wanted to express our love for each other through marriage, discriminatory laws barred us from doing so before Margie’s death.
“Now, in my retirement years, I’m barred from receiving the same benefits – essential to my financial security – as other widows, even though Margie and I both worked hard and paid into the social security system with every paycheck.”
Social Security Administration ‘systemically discriminates’ against same-sex couples
Social Security rules stipulate that couples must have been married for at least nine months to qualify for survivor’s benefits – which excludes people who were in committed same-sex relationships before it was legal for them to marry.
Thornton’s lawyers told the US District Court for the Western District of Washington that the policies result in unconstitutional discrimination.
Helen Thornton and her late partner Marge (Courtesy Lambda Legal)
Lambda Legal counsel Peter Renn said: “By requiring same-sex couples to have been married at a time when that was impossible for them under state law in order to access survivor’s benefits, the Social Security Administration is now doubling down on unlawful discrimination that continues to harm surviving same-sex seniors every single month they are deprived of the benefits for which they paid.
“Helen and Marge were together for 27 years. They built a home, raised a child, and paid into Social Security like any committed couple. But because they couldn’t marry, Social Security is denying Helen the essential survivor’s benefits that she and Marge paid for.
“Heterosexual surviving spouses are able to count on the critical financial protection of survivor’s benefits after the death of their loved ones, but SSA casts surviving same-sex partners like Helen aside, even though they paid the same lifetime of contributions from their paychecks.”
Max Richtman of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare said: “Same sex partners should not be denied Social Security survivor’s benefits when discriminatory laws prevented them from getting married in the first place.
“Basic fairness demands that they receive the same benefits as married couples. It’s long past time to right this wrong.”
While large cities in blue states — like New York and San Francisco — are well known for their LGBTQ inclusivity, accepting environments can now be found across the country, even in some unexpected places.
The Human Rights Campaign’s annual Municipal Equality Indexrated more than 500 cities and towns based on how inclusive their municipal laws, policies and services are of the LGBTQ people who live and work there. Each municipality was rated on a scale of 0 to 100 based on 49 different criteria including nondiscrimination laws and “city leadership’s public position on equality.”
This year’s report heralded 88 cities with a perfect score of 100, and many of the index’s high-scoring municipalities can be found in states not typically thought of as being inclusive to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people.
Here are 11 small cities (less than 200,000 residents) in red states (those that haven’t voted for a Democrat for president in the 21st Century) that scored at least an 80 on HRC’s Municipal Equality Index.
The Midwestern town is home to the University of Missouri and has a bustling nightlife scene with a multitude of gay-friendly spots. The city’s MEI score has risen sharply since 2015 when it received a 74, in large part due to city initiatives like the hiring of a LGBTQ liaison to its police department.
–
Missoula, Montana
MEI score: 100, Population: 73,000
Autumn in Missoula, Mt.akpakp / Getty Images
For six years, representatives in the mountain state of Montana fought to decriminalize consensual same-sex relations, which was formerly classified as a felony. The law was ruled unconstitutional in 1997, and Missoula has continued to advocate for the equal rights of its LGBTQ citizens since. Last year, the town unveiled a rainbow crosswalk that was planned by Empower Montana’s youth program, Youth Forward.
–
Brookings, South Dakota
MEI score: 100, Population: 24,000
Main Street in Brookings, S.D.Jon Platek
After Brookings received a score of 12 out of 100 in 2013, local leaders embarked on a multiyear mission to bump their rating to 100. It wasn’t until 2018, when the town adopted a nondiscrimination ordinance, that it finally achieved the coveted score. Brookings is an outlier in South Dakota, where the average MEI score is 31, well below the national average of 58.
–
Huntington, West Virginia
MEI score: 100, Population 47,000
A yoga studio in Huntington, W.V., on April 5, 2019.Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post via Getty Images file
Since Huntington was first placed on the index in 2012, the small town has more than doubled its MEI score. Aside from anti-discrimination ordinances, the city also launched the Open for All campaign, which encourages businesses to post a sticker that signifies their support of the LGBTQ community. The Human Rights Campaign called the town a “shining beacon of hope” in a part of the country not known for LGBTQ inclusivity.
–
Covington, Kentucky
MEI score: 94, Population: 40,000
The riverfront in Covington, Ky., in 2017.Raymond Boyd / Getty Images file
In 2003, Covington passed one of the state’s first fairness ordinances, which prohibited LGBTQ discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. This year, the city celebrated Northern Kentucky Pride’s 10-year anniversary with a vibrant rainbow crosswalk. The annual pride event’s slogan reads “Y’all Means All.”
–
Norman, Oklahoma
MEI score: 92, Population: 123,000
The Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium in Norman on Nov. 9, 2019.Brian Bahr / Getty Images file
Norman, home of the University of Oklahoma, became the first city in the conservative state to pass a nondiscrimination ordinance for LGBTQ people. Norman’s progressive policies toward gay residents is evident in it’s index score, which is 30 points above the second-highest ranked Oklahoma city in the index.
–
Charleston, West Virginia
MEI score 91, Population 45,000
The Elk City historic district in Charleston, W.V.Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post via Getty Images file
The capital and most populous city in West Virginia has moved to improve the lives and rights of its local LGBTQ community. In May, Mayor Amy Shuler Goodwin announced the creation of the city’s first LGBTQ working group, which will develop anti-bullying policies and LGBTQ-awareness training within the city.
–
Flagstaff, Arizona
MEI score: 88, Population: 72,000
The desert near Flagstaff, Arizona.Steve Smith / Getty Images
Nestled next to ponderosa pine forests and mountain ranges, Flagstaff is particularly inclusive to the LGBTQ community. The city is home to Pride in the Pines, an annual LGBTQ celebration that has featured neon dance parties and performers from “RuPaul’s Drag Race.”
–
Juneau, Alaska
MEI score: 86, Population 32,000
Coastal mountains and houses in Juneau, Alaska.Sergi Reboredo / Universal Images Group via Getty Images file
Juneau is home to the Southeast Alaska LGBTQ+ Alliance, also known as SEAGLA. The group began meeting in 1980 and offered a safe space to same-sex couples, with events that included dance parties, solstice celebrations and potlucks. In 2014, SEAGLA planned Juneau’s first pride event, and the organization has continued to meet and advocate for the LGBTQ community since it’s inception.
–
Manhattan, Kansas
MEI score: 83, Population: 54,000
The Kansas State Wildcats marching band during a game at the Bill Snyder Family Stadium in Manhattan on Oct. 26, 2019.Icon Sportswire / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images file
Kansas made strides toward equal protections this year, with the state’s MEI score increasing by 12 points. Manhattan is the second-highest rated city behind Overland Park, a much larger suburb of Kansas City. Kansas State University is in Manhattan and was recently ranked as one of the 25 most LGBTQ friendly universities in the U.S. by Campus Pride.
With 130 days until California’s Super Tuesday primary election, Secretary of State Alex Padilla will announce Friday afternoon at Equality California Institute’s annual Fair Share for Equality policy convening that he will partner with the civil rights organization to protect transgender and gender-nonconforming voters’ access to the ballot box and boost LGBTQ civic engagement in 2020. Equality California Institute is the educational arm of Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights organization.
Specifically, the partnership will include:
The development and distribution of training materials to county registrars that promote best practices for poll workers to engage with voters whose gender identity, expression or pronouns do not appear to match their name on the voter rolls;
The development of content such as brochures, posters and digital media to inform transgender and gender-nonconforming voters of their rights;
Targeted nonpartisan ‘Get Out the Vote’ communications and 2020 census outreach efforts to increase civic participation within the LGBTQ community.
“Every eligible voter has a right to cast a ballot free from any unnecessary burdens or intimidation,” said Secretary of State Alex Padilla. “Elections officials have a duty to facilitate the participation of all eligible voters. By partnering with Equality California we can benefit from their expertise and experience to better train poll workers and ensure a welcoming voting environment for LGBTQ citizens. California is proud to be proactive in protecting the voting rights of LGBTQ voters and fostering an inclusive democracy.”
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law estimates approximately 0.76% of Californians — or 218,400 people — identify as transgender. Based on the overall numbers of eligible and registered California voters as of February 2019, that means there are likely at least 190,000 eligible voters and 150,000 registered voters statewide who identify as transgender.
“No one should be denied the right to vote because of their gender identity or expression — and there’s certainly too much at stake next year to let that happen in California,” said Equality California Institute Executive Director Rick Zbur. “While other states impose strict, unnecessary voter ID laws targeting people of color and the LGBTQ community, California is making sure every single eligible voter has a chance to cast a ballot. We’re grateful to Secretary Padilla for his leadership and partnership in the fight to protect access to the ballot box and advance LGBTQ civil rights.”
In most cases, California voters are not required to show identification to a poll worker before casting a ballot. Still, many transgender and gender-nonconforming voters may be registered and appear on the voter roll under a name that does not appear to “match” their gender identity, expression or the name and pronouns that they use. Additionally, Californians voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail, who did not provide a driver’s license number, state identification number or the last four digits of their social security number on their registration form, may be asked to show a form of identification when going to the polls. In these cases, voters’ names and gender markers on their form of identification may not appear to “match” their gender identity, expression or the name and pronouns that they use.
If all other legal requirements are met, a transgender or gender-nonconforming person is entitled to to vote just like any other person, regardless of their gender identity or expression. If poll workers aren’t given the tools and training that they need to respectfully engage with transgender and gender-nonconforming voters, tens of thousands of California voters could be at risk of being disenfranchised. The partnership announced Friday seeks to ensure that does not happen in the State of California.
###
Equality California is the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights organization. We bring the voices of LGBTQ people and allies to institutions of power in California and across the United States, striving to create a world that is healthy, just, and fully equal for all LGBTQ people. We advance civil rights and social justice by inspiring, advocating and mobilizing through an inclusive movement that works tirelessly on behalf of those we serve. www.eqca.org
An Indiana University professor blasted by his employer for “sexist, racist, and homophobic” views penned a lengthy response to detractors, reiterating his notions that gay men should not be K-12 teachers and that women could indeed be “sluts.”
Eric Rasmusen, a 60-year-old business and economics professor at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business, created a web page to respond to what he called “the 2019 kerfuffle in which the Woke crowd discovered” his social media posts and other comments.
He also responds directly to the university’s executive vice president and provost, Lauren Robel, who earlier this week slammed his views while also saying they constitute free speech protected by the First Amendment.
“Professor Eric Rasmusen has, for many years, used his private social media accounts to disseminate his racist, sexist, and homophobic views,” Robel said in her statement. “I condemn, in the strongest terms, Professor Rasmusen’s views on race, gender, and sexuality, and I think others should condemn them.”
But she said that “is not a reason for Indiana University to violate the Constitution of the United States.”
Kelley School of Business Dean Idie Kesner also posted an open letter to students and staff, criticizing Rasmusen but defending the school’s stance: “While many have called for the professor’s dismissal, there are legal reasons why the University cannot dismiss him over his postings. Like all of us, Professor Rasmusen has First Amendment rights.”
“I open doors for ladies; I say that sodomy is a sin. I am sure that is enough to qualify me for those insults under the Provost’s personal definitions,” the professor said.
He also touched upon some of his views that have drawn criticism.
On alleged sexist slurs: “Is ‘slut’ a slur against women? Not at all. It is a slur against certain women, against a minority of women, and for them it is a justified slur, a descriptive one. A women who sleeps with 100 men in a year is a slut.”
On whether gay men should be teachers: “Homosexuals should not teach grade and high school,” Rasmusen said. But he says he’s OK with them teaching college. “Professors prey on students too, so there is a danger, but the students are older and better able to protect themselves, and there is more reason to accept the risk of a brilliant but immoral teacher.”
On affirmative action: The professor said affirmative action may be right or wrong. “What is clear is that *some* students are admitted because of their race — which means that other students are denied because of their race, since we have a fixed number of spots.”
Rasmusen also said he strives for views that stand the test of time. “What I aim for is a view that stands up to both the 18th century and 21st century critiques, not to mention 1st-century, and to critiques from ancient China as well as ancient Greece. The Provost is taking the opposite tack here, saying that we should not care about what other cultures and times think of our views, only what people in 2019 think.”
The recent attention to Rasmusen was sparked by his Nov. 7 retweetof an article, “Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably.” Rasmusen prefaced the tweet by saying, “Geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness.”
Robel said in her statement that while the university will not try to fire Rasmusen, it will take steps to ensure that “students not add the baggage of bigotry to their learning experience.”
No student will be required to take any of his classes, Robel said. In addition, she said he will have to use double-blind grading on assignments to “ensure that the grades are not subject to Professor Rasmusen’s prejudices.”
Surrounded by supporters Saturday morning, San Diego Council President Georgette Gómez kicked off her campaign for U.S. Congress, to replace retiring Rep. Susan Davis in 2020.
Davis, a 10-term incumbent, surprised many earlier this month when she announced plans to forego a re-election bid for seat representing the 53rd Congressional District.
Gómez is the fifth candidate to enter the race to succeed Davis, joining Democrats Jose Caballero, Joaquín Vázquez, Sara Jacobs, and Republican Famela Ramos.
“My mission and passion have always been serving our community, and that’s who I’ll fight for in Washington, DC,” said Gómez at a rally Saturday.
“We’ve got to take our country back from Trump, but we have a bigger job than just standing up to the politics of hate and division. In Congress, I’ll continue working to make a real difference in working people’s lives by fighting for healthcare for all, more infrastructure funding for San Diego, and the affordable housing our community desperately needs.”
Gómez, a longtime community organizer, is popular among progressives and has experienced a quick rise in San Diego politics since being elected to office in 2016. She became chair of the Metropolitan Transit System board in January 2018 and 11 months later was elected city council president, allowing her to set the council’s agenda and advance new transportation and housing policies.
Gómez is taking a risk by turning her eyes toward Congress and leaving a four-year term on City Council on the table.
Gómez unveiled endorsements from State Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, and neighboring U.S. Rep. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego.
An unset field adds uncertainty to the race, as do the strengths of some of her opponents, most notably Jacobs.
Jacobs lacks Gómez’s local profile; much of her career experience comes from outside of San Diego. She has worked at UNICEF, the United Nations and as a contractor for the State Department.
She has the benefit of already having mounted a campaign on the scale of a congressional bid. Jacobs ran for a seat representing the 49th District last year, ultimately placing third in the primary, 1.7 percentage points behind eventual general election winner Rep. Mike Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano.
When Gómez won her race for the City of San Diego’s 9th District in 2016 about 36,000 voters cast ballots in that general election. That same year nearly 297,000 voters cast ballots in the race for the 53rd Congressional District.
Jacobs, the granddaughter of Qualcomm co-founder Irwin Jacobs, also brings significant financial resources to the race. During her run for the 49th District seat, Jacobs spent more than $2 million in personal funds — in addition to $800,000 raised — in support of her candidacy.
In the 53rd Congressional District registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans, 184,464 to 94,421. The district includes communities north of Interstate 8, from Linda Vista to El Cajon, and areas south of the freeway, including Mission Hills, areas around Balboa Park, parts of Mid-City, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Spring Valley and Chula Vista.
Two gay journalists from Saudi Arabia are being detained in an asylum centre in Australia after they were outed by the government in their home country and forced to flee.
The men – who have not been named – believe they were outed by Saudi state security and had their romantic relationship revealed to family over contact with foreign media.
One of the men, who has worked with CNN, the BBC and the Saudi media ministry, told the news outlet that they were outed as gay to his partner’s family in September.
The gay journalists are in ‘an impossible situation’ as they are detailed in Australian asylum centre.
The men’s lawyer Alison Battisson said they went through passport control in Australia when they arrived in Australia over a month ago. They were taken to the detention centre after they said they intended to seek asylum.
All the things – except death and torture – that they feared in Saudi Arabia came true in Australia.
Battison said that the men could have lived and worked as normal while their asylum application was being processed if they had been allowed to submit a protection application.
“All the things – except death and torture – that they feared in Saudi Arabia came true in Australia,” Battison said.
“They’re in an impossible situation.”
One of the men is currently still in the centre and the other is in hospital under guard where he is being treated for tuberculosis.
The men were reportedly outed over contact with Canadian journalists.
The men’s outing was apparently linked to the arrival of two reporters from Canadian public broadcaster CBC in Saudi Arabia. One of the detained men facilitated their entry visas and scheduled interviews for them. They went on to meet two Saudi dissidents who were arrested at a later stage.
One of the men said he was questioned by the Presidency of State Security in September of last year over the visit of the two Canadian journalists. He was reportedly asked about his relationship with his partner at the time and was told that his “secret” would be revealed if he didn’t stop working with foreign media.
The men believe that state security told his partner’s family about their sexuality and nature of their relationship in September of this year. They said they would get police and tribal leaders involved, which encouraged the men to flee.
The man said that they had been put in a situation where they “had to leave because it got to be too dangerous.”
LGBT+ people in China are being forced to undergo so-called ‘conversion therapy’ in at least 96 public hospitals and unlicensed centres, according to a new human rights report.
China removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders in 2001, but in the absence of a conversion therapy ban the practise has continued to thrive and is openly advertised on vans and billboards.
There are many different techniques, including electric shocks and testosterone injections, but no reliable scientific evidence that sexuality can be changed.
“It’s not just a commercial scam, but an action that violates people’s rights,” Wang Zhenyu of Equal Rights for LGBTI told Reuters.
Zhenyu compiled the report along with several other rights groups, questioning health departments in 25 cities that offer conversion therapy. In 17 cases, they found no evidence that any action had been taken against them.
Conversion therapy has been described as a form of torture (Pexels)
Four cities had punished medical institutions between 2017 and 2018 for practicing psychiatry without proper credentials, among them the capital, Beijing, and the southern city of Changsha in Hunan.
However, the majority were allowed to continue practising on vulnerable individuals, who were often pressured by their family to undergo damaging treatments, including shock therapy which is illegal.
This was seen by activist Peng Yanzi, who went undercover in a conversion therapy centre in 2014 and was forced to undergo electrotherapy. He then brought the case to court and won.
Two years later, a man sued a hospital in the city of Zhumadian where he had been locked up for 19 days while receiving therapy. In another case in July, a young transgender woman’s family committed her to a hospital against her will in the southern city of Jingdezhen.
China’s National Health Commission did not respond to Reuters‘ request for comment.
In a rule change announced on Friday, November 1, the Trump administration said that health programmes receiving grants from government Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) would no longer have to abide by nondiscrimination guidelines protecting LGBT+ people.
The Trump administration changed the regulations in the name of “religious freedom”, and it would also apply to abortions, contraception, gender confirmation surgery, or any other services or people healthcare providers might disagree with “on moral or religious grounds”.
This week, US district judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California joined two other judges in writing off Trump’s new rule.
Alsup wrote in his decision: “Under the new rule, to preview just one example, an ambulance driver would be free, on religious or moral grounds, to eject a patient en route to a hospital upon learning that the patient needed an emergency abortion. Such harsh treatment would be blessed by the new rule.”
He added: “When a rule is so saturated with error, as here, there is no point in trying to sever the problematic provisions. The whole rule must go.”
According to Instinct, Jamie Gliksberg of Lambda Legal which represented the plaintiffs said in a statement: “That is now three judges in two weeks who have recognised the Denial of Care Rule for what it is, an egregious and unconstitutional attack on women, LGBT people and other vulnerable populations.”
Two federal judges have already blocked Trump’s rule allowing discrimination against LGBT+ people in healthcare.
Donald Trump and the White House had claimed the religious protections were introduced following a “significant increase” in complaints from hospital workers who were being forced to violate their faith by treating LGBT+ patients – but Engelmayer ruled that this was “factually untrue”.
According to Advocate, the next day judge Stanley Bastian of Washington announced that he would also rule against the Trump administration in a lawsuit brought by Washington state.
Washington state attorney general Bob Ferguson added in a press release: “This rule would have disproportionately harmed rural and working poor Washington families, who have no alternatives to their local health care providers, as well as LGBTQ individuals, who already face discrimination when they seek medical care.”
