National
Anti-gay forces changing tactics on marriage
Calls for limiting fed’l recognition, state religious exemption measures emerge
NOM President Brian Brown criticized Eric Holder’s extension of rights to same-sex couples. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Move over Federal Marriage Amendment: anti-gay forces are focusing on new ways to halt the advancement of marriage equality — and the result could limit marriage rights for gay couples across the country.
As more states legalize same-sex marriage and efforts to pass a U.S. constitutional amendment prohibiting it have faded, the focus has shifted to containing federal recognition to marriage equality states and to advancing religious exemption bills allowing for discrimination against same-sex couples.
Outrage prompting calls for these measures was seen just last weekend when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced he would extend federal recognition of same-sex marriages to programs under the Justice Department’s purview.
The changes were intended to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year against the Defense of Marriage Act. Among other things, they would allow married same-sex couples to file jointly for bankruptcy. In addition, spouses won’t be forced to testify against each other.
Mainstream and conservative media outlets jumped on the development — the Washington Post called the change “sweeping” — while anti-gay groups expressed outrage over Holder’s extension of these rights to same-sex couples in states without marriage equality.
Brian Brown, president of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, said Holder’s decision was the latest in a series of moves that “undermine the authority and sovereignty of the states” with respect to marriage.
“The American public needs to realize how egregious and how dangerous these usurpations are and how far-reaching the implications can be,” Brown said. “The changes being proposed here to a process as universally relevant as the criminal justice system serve as a potent reminder of why it is simply a lie to say that redefining marriage doesn’t affect everyone in society.”
To limit federal recognition of same-sex marriages to marriage-equality states, anti-gay groups are championing legislation in the U.S. House known as the State Marriage Defense Act, which would prohibit the federal government from recognizing a same-sex marriage in a state that doesn’t allow gay nuptials.
Tony Perkins, president of the anti-gay Family Research Council, voiced support for the State Marriage Defense Act immediately after Holder’s announcement.
“Attorney General Holder’ s announcement — like his recognition of same-sex ‘marriages’ in Utah despite the Supreme Court granting a stay of the District Court decision overturning that state’s definition of marriage — illustrates the importance of congressional action to pass the State Marriage Defense Act (H.R. 3829), introduced by Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas),” Perkins said.
Neither the Family Research Council nor the National Organization for Marriage responded to the Washington Blade’s requests to comment on whether calls for this legislation represented a shift in focus away from the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Religious exemption measures emerge
Meanwhile, at the state level, new initiatives are emerging to establish carve-outs to civil rights and marriage equality laws to enable individuals or businesses to discriminate against LGBT people and their marriages on religious grounds.
One such initiative underway in Oregon is concurrent with Oregon United for Marriage’s work to bring the issue of marriage equality to voters on Election Day this year. Anti-gay groups are working to place on the ballot at the same time a measure to allow florists, bakers and other businesses to refuse to participate in these weddings on religious grounds.
Although it’s illegal in Oregon to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the proposal would enable such business to discriminate against gay couples. To qualify for the ballot, anti-gay groups must submit 87,213 valid signatures of Oregon residents by July 3. That’s half the number required to place the marriage equality constitutional amendment on the ballot because the anti-gay measure would only be statutory.
Mike Marshall, Oregon United for Marriage’s campaign manager, told the Washington Blade the religious exemption ballot initiative is a big fear because it could have an impact on the marriage equality campaign.
“The other side knows that when we shift the debate away from love and commitment to protecting religious freedom that you see support go down for marriage three to four percent, and that’s within the margin of victory for us,” Marshall said. “Instead of putting their resources into defeating our campaign, they’re creating a second campaign to shift the focus of the debate, and by doing that, at least carve some level of discrimination that they engage in.”
Marshall said if the religious exemption measure passes, the LGBT community would be faced with similar measures in every state over the next 10 years.
Religious exemption measures are becoming more common in state legislatures. In Kansas, the state legislature approved on Wednesday by a 72-49 vote a bill that would allow state residents to refuse services to gay couples related to same-sex weddings. In Arizona, a House committee approved a broad religious freedom bill to allow individuals and the businesses they own to refuse to provide services based on their religious beliefs.
Similar measures have popped up in Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma and Maine (although the Maine measure was recently voted down in committee). Measures specifically allowing discrimination against same-sex marriage and gay people, likes the ones in Oregon and Kansas, have come up in South Dakota.
Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said passage of the bills could cause problems, such as allowing a county clerk to refuse to grant a marriage license.
“The state would still have to find someone to fill in, but it could make it more cumbersome for same-sex couples, not to mention hugely embarrassing,” Warbelow said. “No one should have to stand in line on the penultimate day of their marriage relationship only to find they have to go through a series of county clerks, one after another.”
The religious exemption measures aren’t exclusively found in the states. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) in the U.S. House and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) in the Senate have introduced legislation known as the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, which would prohibit the federal government from discriminating against organizations that exercise “religious conscience” against same-sex marriage.
Rep. Raúl Rafael Labrador (R-Idaho) has introduced the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Rose Saxe, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT Project, said they’re meant to enable discrimination against gay couples seeking to wed in the states at a later point in time in anticipation of that ruling.
“But the ones that are explicitly anti-gay, we see those as as sort of ‘Plan B’ from the other side in the sense that they see marriage is coming and they’re trying to ensure that even in states where we don’t yet have marriage or robust non-discrimination laws that can preemptively enshrine the right to discriminate,” Saxe said.
Isolated anti-gay incidents driving new tactics
Movement on these bills comes in the aftermath of isolated situations where business owners were accused of acting wrongfully by refusing services for same-sex weddings.
One prominent such incident took place in Colorado, where a judge in December determined a Lakewood bakery known as Masterpiece Cakeshop acted unlawfully by refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.
A similar incident occurred in Washington State, where Arlene’s Flowers owner Baronelle Stutzma refused to sell flowers to a gay couple and is now facing a lawsuit from the state and couple’s attorney. In Vermont, a resort that was sued in 2011 for refusing to host a lesbian couple’s wedding reception agreed to settle by paying $30,000 in damages.
In addition to invoking the wrath of anti-gay groups, these situations sparked concerns among libertarian-minded supporters of LGBT rights on social media over the perceived unfairness of requiring a business to recognize same-sex marriage.
Saxe said the religious exemption measures have begun to “pop up with more frequency” before state legislatures in the wake of media coverage of these incidents.
“I think those stories are part of the justification,” Saxe said. “In both South Dakota and Kansas, we saw the supporters of this legislation saying that this was about protecting the rights of businesses to not provide wedding services, but then the bills themselves…said any person could refuse to respect any marriage, which is not all about wedding services.”
The majority of the American public opposes making exemptions to accommodate these situations. According to a poll last year conducted by the Human Rights Campaign and the Third Way, 67 percent of voters are opposed to laws that allow businesses to discriminate against gay couples based on religious objections. Further, 56 percent of respondents thought it was already illegal for business owners in their state to refuse service to someone for being gay, although 30 percent were wrong because no such law exists in their state.
It’s also possible that the U.S. Supreme Court could take up a case related to one such isolated objection to a same-sex wedding and issue a sweeping decision enabling discrimination against same-sex couples.
Pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is the appeal of a decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court in the case of Elaine Photography v. Vanessa Willock, which found that the husband-and-wife owned photography business violated New Mexico’s civil rights law by declining to shoot Willock’s commitment ceremony in 2006, even though it was over religious beliefs. (Same-sex marriage at the time wasn’t yet legal in New Mexico.)
Anti-gay groups late last year filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis that the New Mexico court decision violated Elaine Photography’s rights under the First Amendment’s ban on compelled speech.
Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, said he thinks it’s “less likely” the court will take up the case because petitioners asked for a review of rejection of the photographer’s “compelled speech”and not free exercise of religion.
“Given this narrowing of the issue presented, I think it is somewhat less likely that the Supreme Court will grant review, because the issue presented affects fewer people and entities than a religious freedom claim would,” Davidson said.
Although it’s hard to say what action the Supreme Court will take, it may issue writ of certiorari to take up the case this year. If so, a decision would be expected before the court adjourns in June.
CORRECTION: An initial version of this article incorrectly reported the number of signatures to place the anti-gay measure on the ballot in Oregon. The Blade regrets the error.
Minnesota
Flanagan beats Craig in Minn. Senate primary after winning key LGBTQ endorsements
The race highlights a growing ideological shift within the Democratic Party, as Democrats increasingly seek a more robust pushback against Trump.
Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan won the Democratic primary for the Senate in Minnesota, as progressive Democrats continue to clinch nominations across the country.
On Tuesday night, NBC News called the race for Flanagan, who received 59.0% of the state’s Democratic primary vote, while her opponent, Rep. Angie Craig, received 39.4%. Flanagan ran against Craig for retiring Sen. Tina Smith’s seat.
Smith, along with Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., endorsed Flanagan, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., backed Craig.
Flanagan also received the endorsement of the Christopher Street Project, a transgender rights organization that has been at the center of efforts to counter the Republican Party’s push against transgender rights. The group chose Flanagan over Craig in part because Craig has not co-sponsored the Trans Bill of Rights, legislation that has been introduced multiple times in Congress and seeks to establish federal protections for transgender Americans.
The endorsement underscored a key difference between the two Democrats on LGBTQ issues. While Craig is the first openly lesbian mother in Congress, the Christopher Street Project said LGBTQ identity alone is not enough without a strong commitment to transgender rights as they are increasingly debated in legislative offices around the country.
In 2022, the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., endorsed Flanagan’s re-election campaign for lieutenant governor alongside Tim Walz, calling the duo “Champions of Equality.”
Flanagan called the race an expensive fight of the “many versus the money,” Flanagan told NBC News’ “Meet the Press Now.” Craig and her allies combined to spend nearly $20 million on the airwaves, while Flanagan and her allies spent $4.7 million, according to AdImpact and NBC.
“I’m running to make sure that people can afford the lives they want to live,” Flanagan said. “I want to get big money out of our politics, and I want to fight for things like ‘Medicare for All’ so that people aren’t just paying for health insurance but actually have access to health care.”
Flanagan criticized Craig, who is in her fourth term, for not standing up enough to President Donald Trump’s administration, a characterization Craig disputed. Craig flipped a competitive House seat in the Twin Cities metro area and had argued that she was the best candidate to win in November.
Craig faced criticism for voting for the Laken Riley Act, an immigration detention measure that Trump signed into law shortly after he started his second term in January 2025. Craig said she later regretted that vote.
Flanagan has been vocal about her stance on abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In a recent Minnesota Public Radio debate she said that ICE “has to be ripped apart.” Flanagan said she does support immigration enforcement to ensure secure borders.
Immigration and ICE debates are especially pertinent in the Twin Cities, as ICE agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis during an enforcement crackdown at the behest of President Trump.
Despite the contested race, Craig made it clear that Democrats are committed to unifying.
“We have an existential crisis in our nation with Trump and Republicans, and so I would be right by the lieutenant governor’s side asking my supporters to support her,” Craig said. “The most important thing in this election is that we beat Republicans. That’s what matters.”
On the Republican side, former NFL sideline reporter Michele Tafoya won the Senate primary. Considered an outsider to the Republican Party structure, she did not win the state GOP’s endorsement at the May convention, where delegates instead backed retired Navy SEAL Adam Schwarze.
She has run her campaign on a slew of issues Republicans have deemed worthy — including transgender sports participation, corruption, and minimizing illegal immigrants in the area.
This recent pattern of moderate and centrist Democrats raising huge funds — in many instances backed by major PACs — only to lose to more progressive and less experienced candidates is growing as more people grow disillusioned with the Democratic Party’s inability to push back against Trump and Republicans. A similar outcome happened in Michigan’s Democratic primary last week when progressive physician Abdul El-Sayed won over incumbent U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.).
Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who decided not to run for re-election, stayed neutral in the Senate primary but his wife, Gwen, backed Craig over Flanagan, the governor’s ticketmate.
The Senate seat will be determined in the election on Tuesday, November 3, later this year.
Federal Government
Todd Blanche’s record on LGBTQ issues comes under scrutiny as he takes over DOJ
Blanche was confirmed by the Republican controlled Senate 50-49.
Todd Blanche, President Trump’s former personal lawyer, was sworn in as attorney general of the United States on Monday.
Blanche secured the position as the country’s 88th chief law enforcement officer on Sunday night after a contentious Senate confirmation process, ultimately ending with a 50-49 vote in his favor. All Democrats, as well as Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voted against him.
The confirmation hearing — and subsequent vote — brought questions surrounding Blanche’s credibility and integrity, as well as concerns about Trump’s ethical dilemmas surrounding cronyism, to the forefront.
The attorney general acts as the head of the Department of Justice, responsible for enforcing federal laws, representing the U.S. in court, and advising the president.
Blanche has a long history in Washington, beginning when he attended American University for his undergraduate education, like fellow former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. He began his legal career as an intern in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position.
That job eventually led him to work as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003.
Blanche left the public sector in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
There, Blanche represented several figures associated with President Donald Trump, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican and moved from New York City to Palm Beach, Fla., where he would be closer to Trump’s primary legal residence at Mar-a-Lago.
He then served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York state case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
While serving as acting head of the Department of Justice before his official confirmation, Blanche played a central role in overseeing the department and was involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
One of the first issues was transgender rights and gender-affirming care, particularly for minors — an issue the White House and Republican Party have made a key part of their broader cultural agenda and federal policy efforts.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population.”
The letter came before NYU Langone ended its gender-affirming care at the behest of the president, forcing the hospital system to stop prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
The hospital’s change in policy came after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued providing the care.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he continued in the letter.
In addition to his anti-transgender positions, Blanche also echoed his predecessor, Pam Bondi, in taking a public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level.
He aligned with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessons in schools and limited lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Blanche called it “another great decision that came down today,” arguing the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education.”
“It took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that,” he said. “Now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche also faced scrutiny over a slew of other issues surrounding his leadership during his tenure as acting AG.
The Justice Connection, a watchdog organization that works to protect current and former civil servants working in the U.S. Department of Justice, called his work so far “devastating.”
The organization said Blanche “harmed the department’s workforce, advanced the politicization of the department, undermined the rule of law, and threatened public safety.”
The group cited several issues, including what it described as Blanche minimizing the violent reality of the January 6 insurrection led by Trump supporters; investigating and attempting to prosecute President Trump’s perceived political enemies; the botched release of the Epstein Files to Congress and the public, including the release of victim and witness details and censorship surrounding the scope of Trump’s relationship with the convicted sex trafficker and pedophile; and the expansion of federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota which lead to the death of two U.S. citizens by federal officials.
Sharon McGowan, senior vice president of Policy & Litigation at the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the country, provided a statement to the Blade about Blanche’s confirmation calling it “chilling.”
“The last thing Todd Blanche deserves is a promotion,” McGowan said via email. “For months, Blanche has used his position as Acting Attorney General to advance President Trump’s personal and financial interests and to weaponize the Justice Department against the President’s enemies, whether they be transgender kids or civil rights organizations trying to help people vote. His notion of justice is warped and dangerous, and LGBTQ+ Americans deserve better.”
National
HRC condemns DoE removal of LGBTQ bullying data from federal survey
Organization cites rise in homophobic, transphobic policies, worse mental health outcomes
The Human Rights Campaign is slamming the White House — and the Department of Education — following their removal of some LGBTQ bullying data from federal data collection.
The Civil Rights Data Collection is a mandated survey of all public school districts that collects figures on a wide variety of statistics about students — including demographics that include race, ethnicity, sex, disability status, and English learner status; course-level enrollment data, such as how many students are enrolled in advanced placement or honors classes; and school climate information, such as rates of bullying, harassment, suspensions, and expulsions.
That data collection has been ongoing since 1968 — nearly six decades — but now has a major change in what questions are being asked, or not asked, that advocates are largely attributing to the Trump-Vance administration’s culture war fight on LGBTQ children in the country.
Changes to the 2025-2026 survey questions — approved by the Office of Budget and Management in July — eliminated a space for schools to report how many students identify as nonbinary, how often those students are victims of harassment and bullying, and whether school districts have policies prohibiting gender identity-based incidents.
K-12 Dive, a publication that focuses its reporting on news related to K-12 education, first published a list of these data collection changes from 2024-2025 to 2025-2026.
These questions, as well as others that included LGBTQ student topics on treatment in schools, were added to the CRDC under the Biden-Harris administration. By including these questions, policymakers hoped this would lead to increased investigations into discrimination complaints, initiate compliance reviews, and provide policy guidance to districts, according to Education Department documents.
The CRDC also eliminated the mention of “gender identity” from the definition of rape and sexual assault. The prior collection of data (before the Trump-Vance administration changed it) defined rape as something that could be done to “all students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation, or gender identity.” Now, the new data collection questions say, “All students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation can be victims of rape,” removing “gender identity” from the new definition.
By removing and changing definitions, this could have a real-world impact on some of the school’s most vulnerable students. According to CRDC data from 2021-2022, more than 1,800 school districts reported enrolling one or more nonbinary students.
Additional data also shows that the changes to data collection is harming public school students. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee released a report in April finding that the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to all but close the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights has left students facing discrimination and harassment throughout the country without the federal recourse they are entitled to under federal law.
The Williams Institute, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, has data indicating the true number of nonbinary and transgender children is much higher — they estimate that for children ages 13 to 17, nearly 724,000 identify as nonbinary or trans.
This is in line with a slew of policies pushed by the Trump-Vance administration since their federal takeover. Within his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This directive attempts to make the federal definition of gender unchangeable, determined by sex assigned at birth alone.
Within his first month of his second term, Trump issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
He also pushed multiple anti-trans executive orders, including Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” and Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” targeting trans athletes and military members, respectively.
These policies have a real-world impact on trans people.
The Trevor Project, a nonprofit dedicated to crisis and suicide prevention for LGBTQ people under 25, reported that, for the seventh year in a row, LGBTQ youth are at higher risk for suicide as a result of mistreatment and stigmatization.
Trevor Project data showed that nearly 60 percent of LGBTQ young people ages 13-17 said they were bullied in the past year, and that 36 percent of LGBTQ youth seriously considered suicide in the last year. The data shows a bigger discrepancy for trans youth, with that number hovering around 40 percent considering suicide.
HRC President Kelley Robinson issued a statement following the approval of the new data collection questions that leaves LGBTQ students’ bullying statistics under — if not completely unreported.
“If there was even a shadow of a doubt, this latest move by the Trump administration makes it abundantly clear they do not care about the safety of LGBTQ+ students, and trans students in particular,” Robinson said. “These are adults who should be protecting our kids. And instead, they are making sure bullying and harassment are not tracked. If they are not tracked, bullying and harassment cannot be prevented or stopped — which is exactly what the Trump administration wants. Parents deserve to know their kids are safe at school, and every single young person deserves dignity and safety at school. Anything less is plain evil.”
HRC has a “Welcoming Schools” initiative that they say is the “most comprehensive” bias-based bullying prevention program in the nation. The program includes LGBTQ and gender-inclusive resources for schools, help navigating special education and disability resources for LGBTQ-identifying students, and other tools to help schools become more inclusive.
This program has been in effect for nearly two decades and, according to HRC, reaches nearly 750,000 students.
The Washington Blade reached out to both the Department of Education and Office of Management and Budget for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
Flanagan beats Craig in Minn. Senate primary after winning key LGBTQ endorsements
Gay ANC commissioner sues D.C. over police ‘failure’ to pay reward money
New LGBTQ visitor center slated for Wilmington, Del.
Jason DePuy on coping with homophobia in ‘Big Brother’ house
