National
Maine marriage campaign optimistic going into referendum
Polls indicate majority of voters would support ballot measure to allow same-sex marriage.
A Mainers United for Marriage volunteer speaks with likely voters in Sanford (Photo courtesy of Mainers United for Marriage)
SCARBOROUGH, Maine – Portland resident Ellen Ward never thought she would find herself speaking with fellow voters in support of marriage rights for same-sex couples.
The self-described introvert changed her mind, however, in 2009 when she listened to gays and lesbians and others testify in support of a same-sex marriage bill during a legislative hearing in Augusta, the state capital.
“They were leading very what most people call normal lives and just wanted to be able to affirm their love and commitment in the same way that other people got too,” Ward told the Washington Blade as she canvassed a suburban Portland neighborhood in the rain on Thursday afternoon. “And I was just really impressed with people standing up and testifying about that and churches testifying about that.”
Nearly three years after Maine voters repealed the state’s same-sex marriage law that then-Gov. John Baldacci signed, supporters of nuptials for gays and lesbians remain confident that a ballot question that would allow them to tie the knot will pass.
“What’s so unique about Maine is because we’re the first state to ever go on the offensive and bring the issue directly to the voters; we’ve been able to dictate our own timeline,” Matt McTighe, campaign manager of Mainers United for Marriage, the group supporting Question 1, told the Blade during an interview at his Portland office on Friday. “There was never a ticking clock. Every time this has come up before when it’s defensive it’s always in the current — something happens, a precipitating action, a court case, a legislative victory whatever. Our opponents then do something to undermine that or write something into the constitution or whatever. And now we’re on their turf. Now we’re playing defense on their side of the field.”
Voters in 2009 repealed the same-sex marriage law by a 53-47 percent margin. McTighe, a former Human Rights Campaign staffer who has worked on marriage efforts in Massachusetts and in other New England states for MassEquality and the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, described the 2012 campaign in Maine as a “night and day kind of difference” from that run ahead of the 2009 referendum.
“It’s always been designed from the ground up as a campaign for voters,” he said. “We didn’t have to worry about the legislature. We weren’t thinking about a court case or anything like that. Right from the beginning we’ve tried to figure out who are the voters we need to be talking to, let’s employ some of the most sophisticated modeling and tactics that have ever been applied to the marriage movement, let’s bring in the best people, the best consultants, the best field organizers, the best team and put together a plan and a model to figure out who we need to talk to.”
Voter: Same-sex marriage “doesn’t really affect me”
Maine is one of four states with either a same-sex marriage referendum or a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman on the ballot next month. The Maine Freedom to Marry Coalition in January submitted more than 105,000 signatures to the Secretary of State in order to bring the issue before voters.
Polls indicate a majority of Maine voters would support a ballot measure to allow same-sex marriage. (Photo by Michael K. Lavers)
A Portland Press Herald poll conducted between Sept. 12-16 shows Question 1 leads by a 57-36 percent margin. A Public Policy Polling survey late last month indicates 52 percent of likely voters support the ballot measure, compared to 44 percent who oppose it and four percent who remain undecided.
Several Scarborough residents with whom Ward spoke said they would support Question 1.
“I’ll probably vote for it,” said one teenager who turns 18 on Nov. 1. He told Ward that he also works with a lesbian. “It doesn’t really affect me. I’m not really 100 percent for it, but I have nothing against it. Not to put it the wrong way but I really don’t care. Do whatever you want. If anything it’ll be better for the economy.”
A woman who lives on a nearby cul-de-sac told Ward that she plans to vote against the ballot question.
“I personally don’t have a problem with you getting together, but I’m not in favor of calling it marriage,” she said. “It’s a sacrament. To redefine marriage, I would vote no.”
Ward conceded the woman’s position against marriage rights for same-sex couples was “discouraging.” She did acknowledge, however, that she feels that her support of basic rights for gays and lesbians was encouraging.
“People have come a long way on that issue, certainly than even 20 years ago,” said Ward, who recalled a telephone conversation she had a couple of months ago with a 90-year-old woman who marched against racial segregation in the 1960s. She initially said she opposed nuptials for gays and lesbians, but Ward said she suddenly changed her mind when she realized the parallels between the civil rights and same-sex marriage movements. “I just feel there are so many people that we talk to these days who are completely supportive.”
Marriage remains “personal” for voters
Six Mainers United for Marriage ads continue to air on local television stations. These include one that features four generations of a family from the Downeast town of Machias and another that spotlights firefighters who support nuptials for gays and lesbians. Protect Marriage Maine, the group opposing Question 1, debuted their first two television ads on Monday.
“You have to make this about the voter themselves. You need to give them a personal reason to connect with the gay people that they know in their lives, to think about this issue in a way that they haven’t thought of before,” said McTighe, who is also a firefighter in the southern coastal Maine town of York. He applauded President Obama for supporting marriage rights for same-sex couples, but stressed the issue remains what he described as a deeply personal one for each potential voter. “You don’t just change your mind because somebody else did. You have to change your mind because somebody made it personal to you. Somebody showed you what is at stake. And also gave you an opportunity to have your questions and concerns addressed. That’s why the grassroots approach has been so unique, to be able to go out and have door-to-door with everyone in our persuadable universe, those people we identified early on.”
Mainers United for Marriage reported to the state Commission on Ethics and Election Practices late on Friday that it has raised slightly more than $3.35 million so far this year, compared with the $429,794.32 that Protect Marriage Maine has pulled in. McTighe told the Blade that he would like to raise another $750,000 to $1 million “to keep pace with” the amount of airtime that the National Organization for Marriage has reserved on the state’s television stations in the weeks leading up to Election Day.
“Now is sort of the crunch time,” he said. “We’ve been prepping for his. We’ve been planning for this so now we feel like we’re prepared for everything. When they come out with one attack, we’ve got plan A. When they come out with a different attack, we’ve got plan B. We can pull it as needed. We can execute as we need to, as long as we have the resources.”
McTighe said another challenge that the campaign faces of potential complacency.
“Because we are doing really well in the polls and because people are seeing all this great stuff and people love our TV ads and all this other stuff and we’re getting all this great earned media, it’s almost too easy for people to say, well they don’t need my help. They don’t me to volunteer. They don’t need me to donate. They don’t need me to write a check. They’ve got 57 percent in the polls. Well I don’t care as much now,” he said. “But the fact is we’ve never won before. Whether that 57 percent is solid or soft or who knows, we’ll see, but we’ve never won. Until we win, we should just assume that our opponents will dump whatever resources they need. We should just assume that they will stop at nothing. And we should assume that no lead is safe until we can actually win and hold one for just once, at least once. Then we can start saying okay well is a point where you’re safe. We’re just not there yet. We’re not there in any of the states.”
In spite of these potential hurdles, McTighe remains optimistic that Mainers United for Marriage will be able to successfully respond to Question 1 opponents’ ads and statements against nuptials for gays and lesbians during the final weeks of the campaign.
“We feel extremely well positioned to deal with anything they throw our way because we’ve had two and a half years to prepare for everything,” he said. “That is what’s so unique about Maine.”
Ward agreed.
“People have had a lot more chance to think about this,” she said, noting the passage of same-sex marriage laws in New York and other states since the 2009 vote. “It’s very much on people’s minds and people are talking about it now. It’s not so unheard of. I think people are just kind of more getting used to the idea and saying, oh, I have people in my family that this [impacts] or I have neighbors and I think they’re very nice people and wow, you know they want to get married. A lot of people had never thought of that before. I think part of it is people are getting used to the idea. And people who are already on board are saying of course, of course this matters. And more and more they want to see this happen. It just seems a no brainer to them.”
A Mainers United for Marriage volunteer speaks with a likely voter in Brunswick (Photo courtesy of Mainers United for Marriage)
National
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Administration criticizes National Museum of American History
The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.
According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.
Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.
“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.
The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.
The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.
The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”
The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.
It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”
Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”
On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.
In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.
House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”
In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.
Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.
“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.
Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.
It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.
An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)
National
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs
A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.
News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.
Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.
Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.
A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.
Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.
“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.”
Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.
Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.
“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,” Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.
Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.
In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.
“Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.
It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end.
“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.
“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes.
Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.
National
At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.
They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”
Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.
In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”
That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.
After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.
At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.
“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.
Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.
All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.
The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.
I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.
In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.
It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.
PHOTOS: Petal Release Party
Madonna headlines World Pride Music Festival in Amsterdam
Reggie White relishing first season as artistic director of Woolly Mammoth
PHOTOS: Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade
Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade draws hundreds of thousands
‘Heartstopper Forever’ delivers satisfying conclusion
Madonna to perform at World Pride in Amsterdam
BLADE ENDORSEMENT: Susan Stewart for mayor of Rehoboth Beach
PHOTOS: Lambda Legal in the Pines
