National
Sullivan, Gallagher trade barbs on marriage at forum
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
A forum intended to address whether LGBT people have a place in the conservative movement quickly gave way to discussion on the validity of same-sex marriage as a conservative value.
Gay conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan and Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, presented opposite sides of the argument Wednesday during a Cato Institute forum in Washington, D.C.
Sullivan said he’s touted same-sex marriage as a conservative value since the publication of his 1995 book “Virtually Normal,” and noted that he remains “in favor of marriage rights rather than civil partnerships.”
“I believe that gay people are members, integral members, of our families, and we deserve not to be cast out or segregated from them as we grow old,” he said.
When gays realize their sexual orientation, Sullivan said, they suffer considerable psychological pain when they subsequently realize they won’t be able to marry.
“We were told as kids when we figured out we were gay and we knew that could never happen to us,” he said. “The psychic wound and pain that it inflicts — and still inflicts everyday on our children — destroys the psyche, warps the soul, destroys the soul.”
But Gallagher rejected the notion that same-sex marriage could be considered a conservative value, citing majority opposition to gay nuptials in national polling.
“Somewhere between 55 to 60 percent — even if they support gay rights — think this marriage thing is something else, gay marriage is not right,” she said.
Gallagher also decried that people in the United States who believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman are accused of being bigots.
“People are waking up in a American where suddenly their deepest core moral convictions — they’re being told are immoral and should be the legal equivalent of racism,” she said. “It’s pretty striking and people are pretty scared.”
Arguing that not all gays are in support of same-sex marriage, Gallagher said she knows openly gay people who’ve worked for NOM and believe that same-sex couples shouldn’t have marriage rights. When pressed by Sullivan to names these individuals — arguing they couldn’t be outed if they’re openly gay — Gallagher declined.
Also in her argument against same-sex marriage, Gallagher lamented the Catholic Church’s recent decision to close its foster services in D.C. now that marriage rights for gay couples will soon be available in the district.
In response, Sullivan noted that divorce has always been available in D.C., and the Catholic Church had run a foster agency in the district even though divorce runs contrary to Catholic beliefs.
But the primary focus on the forum — titled “Is There a Place for Gay People in Conservatism and Conservative Politics?” — was whether gays belong in the conservative movement, particularly if they’re concerned about the advancement of LGBT rights.
Nick Herbert, a gay member of British Parliament and the country’s Conservative Party, said his party has made considerable headway in reaching out to LGBT people, even going so far as to apologize for the party’s past hostility toward them.
Herbert said the Conservative Party has adopted acceptance of gays because of the tenet of democracy that all people are created equal.
“Conservatives should always believe that everyone should have an equal chance in life, regardless of any other factors, and that they should not be discriminated against,” he said.
Herbert said a successful political party should be open to everyone and reflect the country it aspires to govern. He noted that if the Conservative Party secures a majority in the House of Commons by one just seat in the upcoming election, the party would likely have more openly gay ministers serving in government than the Labor Party.
Herbert said although he’s a conservative, he supports hate crimes legislation in his country and he rejects legislation that would prohibit same-sex couples from adopting. He also noted that Conservative Party leader David Cameron endorsed civil partnerships as relationship recognition for same-sex couples.
“Gay people are not the property of the left, or of any party,” he said. “They will vote for the political party which best sits with their views, so long as that party does not make itself taboo.”
But Gallagher expressed skepticism about whether gays could be involved in the American conservative movement if they’re seeking new laws that would require religious people to tolerate gays.
Gallagher also said she didn’t think the British model for conservatism would fit well in the United States and that she didn’t know many American conservatives who would like their movement to be more like the movement in the United Kingdom.
“With all due respect, I’m not here to say what a British conservative should believe, but it seems to me that America remains a unique place for the protection of liberty, or classical liberalism, which I share,” she said.
But Sullivan maintained that gays in American can identify as conservatives, even though he said the Republican Party doesn’t embraced conservatism.
“I do not see the connection between being gay and whether you are in favor of the Iraq war,” he said. “I simply do not see a connection between being gay and whether you believe in a carbon tax rather than cap-and-trade.”
Sullivan decried how the Republican Party in recent years had taken upon itself to demonize LGBT people to win elections — particularly in 2004 when former President George W. Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment.
At the forum’s end, Sullivan gave a few barbed responses to questions from the audience. The moderator asked Sullivan, who endorsed President Obama in the 2008 in the election, how conservatives can support the president even though Obama supports government expansion.
Sullivan said he wouldn’t answer because it has no relevance to topic of the forum.
“That’s an utterly irrelevant question to this conversation,” he said. “I won’t answer it. I’m happy to answer it at some other level, but it’s so utterly unrelated to the subject we’re talking about, I think it’s a preposterous question.”
Additionally, Sullivan rebuked an accusation from audience member Jamie Kirchick, a writer for The New Republic, who said Sullivan doesn’t “speak for gay conservatives.”
Kirchick noted the significant number of gays who said in exit polls they voted for Republican nominee John McCain in the 2008 election.
Sullivan said was very clear in his book “The Conservative Soul” in how he adheres to conservatism and that he’s been studying the works of conservative intellectuals for some time.
“I think a know a little bit more about it than Jamie Kirchick, to be honest, and I do not believe the conservative movement as it now exists in America has a place for a conservative like me,” Sullivan said. “But I do refuse to give up the term conservative because it’s something that I believe in.”
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
The frightening rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia
Ensuring safer drinking water
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
