National
CPAC highlights GOP division on gay rights, marriage
‘A few in our movement just don’t like gay people’
Conservative pundits urged the GOP to evolve on the marriage issue at CPAC. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The message from Republicans on gay inclusion in the party was mixed as the Conservative Political Action Conference unfolded over the weekend. As one faction of the party was saying evolve or die, the other was saying there’s no need for change.
The push for Republicans to adopt a more inclusive tone was heard most distinctly during an unofficial event at CPAC titled, “A Rainbow on the Right: Growing the Coalition, Bringing Tolerance Out of the Closet.”
That panel concluded just hours before Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced he supports marriage equality. But at the same time, leaders of the Republican Party — most prominently House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) — continue to assert steadfast opposition to marriage equality.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, was one of the lead speakers on the panel and advocated for a change in the conservative movement.
“In 2013, those who demonize gay people and oppose homosexuality are way out of the mainstream, because everyone has a gay person in their lives — and they know better,” LaSalvia said. “I believe that this issue contributes more to conservatives’ image problem than any other, because it’s an issue that cuts across all demographic groups. And it has to be addressed.”
LaSalvia, whose organization endorsed marriage equality in January, said the conservative movement has tolerated “anti-gay bigotry” for too long, but emphasized those who oppose same-sex marriage aren’t necessarily homophobes.
“Opposition to gay marriage isn’t, in and of itself, bigotry,” LaSalvia said. “There are, however, a few in our movement who just don’t like gay people, and in 2013 that’s just not OK in America anymore. Gay people are in every family, every circle of friends, and every community in the country now. Everybody knows a gay person.”
The panel, hosted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was an unofficial event that took place in the Gaylord National Hotel as CPAC was underway. GOProud, along with the John Birch Society, was barred in 2011 from sponsoring the annual conservative conference and hasn’t been allowed back since. While the American Conservative Union, which organizes CPAC, said the groups were barred because of “disrespectful behavior,” GOProud says they were barred from participating because it’s a gay organization.
On stage at CPAC, mention of marriage equality or other LGBT outreach was scant, although a few speakers brought up the issue. Most prominent was Sen. Marco Rubio, who said during his remarks on Thursday, “Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot.”
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Thursday as the keynote speaker of a dinner honoring former President Reagan also warned against an anti-gay image for the Republican Party.
“Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker, and the list goes on and on and on,” Bush said. “Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidate — even though they share our core beliefs — because those voters feel unloved, unwanted and unwelcome in our party.”
Off stage came another announcement: Portman announced that he’s had “a change of heart” and came to support marriage equality after his son Will, a student at Yale University, came out as gay two years ago.
“One way to look at it is that gay couples’ desire to marry doesn’t amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution,” Portman wrote in an op-ed for the Columbus Dispatch.
While the panel took place before Portman’s announcement, a number of prominent conservative commentators on the CEI panel, who spoke before a packed audience, advocated for a similar evolution in the Republican Party on marriage equality.
Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger for the Washington Post, said outreach to the LGBT community would be akin to the Republican Party’s effort to reach out to Latinos by working on immigration reform.
“I suggest that in another generation, or a half generation, this argument is going to be gone,” Rubin said. “Virtually every state in the union will have voted by popular vote; some may choose not to, and they’re going to experience whatever social and economic consequences flow from that. But in 10 years or so, no one is going to be talking about this.”
Earlier this month, polling analysis was unveiled by the LGBT advocacy Freedom to Marry showing opposition to marriage equality rests within three groups: white evangelical Christians, older people and non-college educated white people. Another notable statistic: 51 percent of Republicans under the age of 30 support marriage equality.
That last statistic was a point that Liz Mair, president of the Arlington, Va., consulting firm Mair Strategies, drew upon as she advocated for greater Republican outreach.
“The way that we’re going to talk about these issues and in some cases, the stands that we take on them, is going to prove to be a problem,” Mair said. “There’s something that needs to be addressed here, and that needs to be addressed now.”
Margaret Hoover, a conservative CNN contributor, also warned that continued opposition to marriage equality will harm the conservative movement as younger voters grow older.
“The millennial generation, the 30 and unders, are simply not hearing conservatism because they’re tuning us out based on a certain set of issues,” Hoover said. “Winning the argument and showing that we’re an inclusive movement is critical to not turning them off to a whole other rainbow of our other ideas.”
One question that sparked discussion concerned whether government should get out of the institution of marriage altogether — for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples — and simply allow individuals to form contracts with whomever they choose. That view was espoused last week by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who won the CPAC straw poll as the attendees’ preferred presidential candidate for 2016.
Mair explained that while many conservatives would like to see the government out of marriage, many aspects of government are involved in marriage, so support for marriage equality is the best option for libertarians.
“Unless you have a radical overhaul of the tax system, a radical overhaul of the entitlement system and, frankly, probably a radical overhaul of the immigration system, also, because that is going to affect certain same-sex couples, that’s not actually going to be a practical way of ensuring equality and rights,” Mair said.
Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large for the National Review, said he agrees the Republican Party needs to work on greater inclusiveness toward LGBT people, but noted that work needs to be done to hold onto social conservatives within the movement.
“You’re going to have to show me who you’re going to replace the 20 to 30 million social conservatives and evangelicals who may leave the party if you completely abandon some of those issues,” Goldberg said. “So the trick is to explain to people on our side why this is the right position because if you do that, you’ll have a great moral victory, but you’ll lose even more elections. It makes a lot more sense to try to persuade the people who agree with you on 80 percent of the issues to stick with you, than to say, ‘Go to hell over this one issue!'”
And remarks from other prominent Republicans over the weekend demonstrate the view that marriage is one man, one woman is still held by leaders within the party.
Most prominent is Boehner, who said in an interview on ABC “This Week” airing on Sunday that he couldn’t imagine his views on marriage changing, even if — like Portman — a child came out to him as gay.
“I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” said Boehner said. “It’s what I grew up with. It’s what I believe. It’s what my church teaches me, and I can’t imagine that position would ever change.”
According to Roll Call, former Republican presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum under questioning at CPAC indicated he was unmoved when asked about Portman’s newfound support for marriage equality, saying, “Just because someone changes their mind doesn’t change things.”
Santorum reportedly added Republicans are confronting “very difficult facts” in their live, but if marriage were just about “two adults who love each other,” there’s no reason not to let “three or four people” marry. His remarks reportedly generated loud applause.
And on a CPAC panel on bullying faced by conservatives, titled “Stop THIS: Threats, Harassment, Intimidation, Slander & Bullying from the Obama administration,” Brian Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage, maintained opposition to marriage equality is a conservative principle.
“When you hear someone act as if standing up and believing for the truth about marriage is not a conservative principle is not the truth, refuse to back down, refuse to be cowed, do not accept the notion that this is an issue that somehow we can’t talk about or we can’t debate,” Brown said. “Don’t accept the idea that we need silence on this issue. What we need is people standing up more than ever for marriage is the union between a man and a woman. What we’ve seen in state-after-state is that when people do this, far from being a losing issue, it’s a winning issue.”
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Noticias en Español
The university that refuses to let go
Joanna Cifredo is a trans woman participating in University of Puerto Rico strike
Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.
I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.
I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.
There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.
Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.
From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.
And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.
Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.
The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.
In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.
I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.
How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?
Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.
Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.
He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.
Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.
Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?
Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.
A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.
Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.
Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.
Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.
As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?
Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.
For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?
La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.
It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.
After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.
National
Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup
Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited
More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.
The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.
“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23. “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”
“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”
The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.
The full advisory can be read here.
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
The queer appeal of ‘The Devil Wears Prada’
Lesbifriends Travel to host queer night out
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
Botswana repeals colonial-era sodomy law
-
Federal Government5 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
European Union3 days ago
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
-
Delaware4 days ago
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
-
State Department5 days ago
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
