National
Parker ‘comfortable’ as LGBT role model
Houston’s lesbian mayor reflects on her first 100 days

Houston Mayor Annise Parker addressed a crowd of more than 700 at Sunday’s 10th annual Victory Fund Champagne Brunch in D.C. (DC Agenda by Michael Key)
The lesbian mayor of the country’s fourth largest city says she’s comfortable serving as a role model for the LGBT community and acknowledged being taken aback by the extensive international media coverage of her political victory.
In a nearly 30-minute interview, Houston Mayor Annise Parker spoke with DC Agenda before her appearance at the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund’s 10th annual Champagne Brunch in D.C. on Sunday to discuss a range of issues and reflect on her first 100 days in office.
Parker recalled how she issued an executive order March 25 protecting city employees against job bias on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. She said she issued the directive because it was something she was “aware needed to be done.”
The inclusiveness of the directive makes it one of the most sweeping citywide job discrimination protections in the country for LGBT people.
Parker also encouraged President Obama to make good on his campaign promises to the LGBT community, even though she said she understands he’s had “huge economic problems, financial problems he’s had to confront.” She identified ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as an issue on which she’d like to see greater effort from Obama.
DC Agenda: You’ve been mayor of the city of Houston for just over 100 days. How would you describe your experience? Has anything surprised you?
Annise Parker: I feel like I’m doing what I’ve been meant to do. I’m the right person at the right time, and I’m thoroughly enjoying the experience. I trained for this job through my years as a lesbian activist, community activist, council member and controller. I even have the small business and the private sector experience. They all are coming together and I’m using every skills set I have.
… The one thing that I’ve had to spend a lot of time and energy on that I did not expect is that because the president made an announcement changing his funding for NASA, and Houston is a big component of NASA and it’s going to have a really potentially devastating impact on the jobs and the economy in my city. So that’s the only thing that was not on anybody’s radar, and that’s filled up a lot of my time and energy.
And so, I’ve been part of pulling together an interesting bipartisan coalition of our local congressional delegation in opposition to my president on that particular issue.
DC Agenda: Have LGBT issues come up during your tenure as mayor in a way that you didn’t anticipate when seeking office?
Parker: No, I’ve issued an executive order extending our non-discrimination protection exclusively to transgender employees, but that’s the only specific issue directed at my community. And that’s something that I was already aware needed to be done.
DC Agenda: Why did you see the need to issue this executive order?
Parker: I was a member of city council when our non-discrimination ordinance passed, and the interpretation at the time was that it was inclusive, but it was never as clear as I wanted it to be, nor the transgender community wanted to be, so that was just an opportunity just to fix something that had been bugging me for a while — and we have more and more transgender employees in city government.
DC Agenda: Were you surprised that the Houston Area Pastor Council spoke out against that executive order?
Parker: No, that’s a fringe group. It received virtually no attention from the rest of the city. Actually, I was surprised that anybody even noticed, but not surprised that no one beyond that really small circle paid any attention to them.
DC Agenda: Do you feel like you’ve been a role model or visible advocate for the LGBT community?
Parker: I believe I’ve been a role model for the LGBT community since the 70’s. During the 80’s, I was — with my colleague in government, Council member [Sue] Lovell — we were the two most visible lesbian activists in the city of Houston for a very long time. So, I’ve been a community role model.
And I am comfortable with that role and comfortable speaking on GLBT issues within some narrow constraints in that my first priority is to be mayor of the city of Houston — for all the citizens of Houston. And I was, as I prepared my campaign for mayor, I had to decide what issues I could advocate — like an executive order that’s strictly my signature going out that dealt with my 21,000 employees and the vendors that deal with them — and what would have to be something, in my opinion, that needed to come from the community.
I know I disappointed some members of the GLBT community in Houston when I said I wasn’t going to immediately advocate for an overturn of our ban on domestic partner benefits. But the reason for that was clear, and I said, I worked through these issues before I entered the race, and how I felt philosophically and where I was comfortable, and that is it was a citizen initiative and referendum that gave us the ban. It needs to be a citizen referendum that undoes that ban. If my community brings a petition to undo our ban on domestic partner benefits, I would wholeheartedly embrace it and help them win it, but it’ll take a vote of the citizens.
And so, the key for me is very clear communication that I care passionately about GLBT issues. I will go — here I am in Washington — to raise money for GLBT candidates. I will speak out when it does not interfere with my duties as mayor.
But on the other hand, I’ve — within the boundaries of the city of Houston and sort of the greater Houston area — I have a friendly incumbent role. I’m not getting involved in any local races, unless they’re actively anti-gay, and so I know that I’m a Democrat, but some of my Democratic colleagues are disappointed that I won’t help organize and take out incumbent Republicans. If they’re working with me, it’s about my city, not my community. So I have to wear multiple hats.
DC Agenda: Going back to the domestic partner benefits for city employees, what will the LGBT community need to put forward to undo that?
Parker: It’s a petition drive. It has to go to a vote of the voters. I cannot undo it as mayor. The mayor and council together cannot undo it. It’s in our charter through citizen initiative and referendum. It would need to be undone, and I could, yes, as mayor, with support of council, I could put the issue on the ballot, but the community has to show a willingness to get out and fight for this and that’s why I suggested they do their own petition drive and bring it forward because it’s ultimately going to be a political battle at the ballot box.
DC Agenda: Do you want to see the referendum undone during your tenure as mayor?
Parker: I would like to see the ban on domestic partner benefits undone during my tenure as mayor. I don’t know that any sitting politician wants to have a divisive vote during their tenure, so it’s a little bit different answer. [Laughs] But I’d also like to see a more complete non-discrimination ordinance that applies citywide. But that’s something that will have to be negotiated with the 14 members of city council, and that actually, too, could come — I think a non-discrimination ordinance is something that, since it already hasn’t been pre-empted by a referendum process, could be done on city council, but the community needs to be involved in that. It shouldn’t be something that’s all driven by city hall.
DC Agenda: Let’s move to federal issues. There’s been a lot of criticism that the Obama administration hasn’t been making good on the promises made to the LGBT community during the 2008 campaign. How would you evaluate how well the Obama administration has handled those issues?
Parker: We’re clearly not high on the president’s agenda, but I don’t know that we necessarily should be, considering the huge economic problems, financial problems he’s had to confront. But we deserve to be on the agenda somewhere and he did make promises to the community, and I think we have been more than patient.
DC Agenda: If you had to give the president a grade on how well he’s done on these issues, what would it be a why?
Parker: Oh, I hate giving letter grades. Maybe a B minus.
DC Agenda: What makes you choose a B minus?
Parker: It sounded a little bit better than a C plus. I cut him some slack because he came in and he has tackled some really, really tough battles, but he made commitments during the campaign, and I think it is always important to be very clear what you intend to do and then do what you said you were going to do.
DC Agenda: Is there any one particular LGBT issue that you’d like to see more initiative from President Obama on?
Parker: Gays in the military. That has just been festering out there for a very, very long time.
DC Agenda: What do you want to see specifically from President Obama on this issue?
Parker: To press forward to a resolution that allows our service members to serve openly — easy for me to say, since I don’t have to navigate the politics of Congress or the Joint Chiefs.
DC Agenda: How important do you think President Obama’s memorandum offering hospital visitation benefits to same-sex couples was and do you think it’ll particularly help LGBT Houston residents?
Parker: I think it’s an important action. I think it’s a humane act while it has been a problem for some members of our community, that is something that fortunately has gotten better over the last few decades of working on that issue. I appreciate him doing that, but it is a problem that we have been making progress on. More and more of us have chosen to take the legal steps necessary to allow us full access.
DC Agenda: This November, we could see an unprecedented number of LGBT candidates running for office. What advice do you have for those candidates?
Parker: Every race is different. The dynamic of every race is different. I’m asked since I’ve been in my office — starting my 13th year now in office in Houston. I’m asked regularly about the candidates, what they should do, what they should know.
I would say the most important thing is run for the position that you want, be passionate about the issues. I see too many people who say, “Oh, I want to be in office.” You have to love what you do. Don’t run for local government office or city office if you don’t care about trash pickup and potholes and barking dogs — and I do.
And then decide what your positions are on the range of gay issues that you [are] going to be asked, understand what your answers are, and go out and be honest. Voters appreciate honestly.
DC Agenda: Is there any race that you’re particularly paying attention to this November?
Parker: Not really. I am focused on our races in Texas. We’re electing a governor of Texas. And there are — as I said, I’m staying out of my local races in Texas, including the governor’s race, but I’m very passionately interested in it because it will have an impact on my constituents.
DC Agenda: Have LGBT issues or anti-gay rhetoric been playing any role in the gubernatorial election?
Parker: Not as far as I know so far.
DC Agenda: What do you think former Houston mayor and Democratic candidate Bill White’s chances are for election as Texas governor?
Parker: Difficult but not impossible. He’s a very smart, hard campaigner. He’ll have plenty of money to spend and he’s running against a governor who has the potential for fumbling the ball, so I certainly think it’s a competitive race, although it’s an uphill battle.
DC Agenda: How concerned do you think LGBT Americans should be about Democrats losing control of either chamber of Congress this fall?
Parker: It’s not unusual to have a midterm fallback for the party in power, but because so many state Republican parties have been hijacked by the Tea Party movement, and many of our Republican Congress members have taken a turn to the right, we need to be very vigilant to make sure that we don’t allow Congress to backtrack on our issues and that we do our best to keep out those who have taken these hard right turns.
DC Agenda: Do you think your position as mayor has influenced how the people of Texas or the Texas state government have looked at LGBT issues?
Parker: I hope so. I have been fielding media [interviews] from around the world, actually. I think it’s also affecting how people around the world view Houston and view Texas. I’ve had dozens and dozens of national and international media interviews since my election, and they fall into two categories: one category is “Wow, you’re a lesbian mayor,” and the other category is, “How did this happen in Houston or how did this happen in Texas?” It gives me an opportunity to talk a little bit about my hometown and why it’s different in Texas.
DC Agenda: Same-sex marriage is prohibited by the state constitution in Texas. What do you think would need to happen to reverse that?
Parker: A statewide referendum. I mean, literally, it’s a very simple answer. It would have to be declared unconstitutional by our state Supreme Court or we would have to do a statewide vote to undo it.
DC Agenda: What kind of planning do you think we’d need to see from the LGBT community for that to happen?
Parker: … It’s not just about putting more openly LGBT elected officials or putting more into — we have a statewide Equality Texas, a statewide organizing and lobbying effort. It’s going to take all of us convincing our families and our friends that recognition of intimate relationships is an important issue to them as well. We have to win the hearts and minds fight before we go back to legislative fight, and that’s a slow process.
DC Agenda: When, if ever, do you see that happening?
Parker: Really within my lifetime, but I don’t know how long that’s going to be. I have been an activist for more than 30 years, so, more like 35 years. I’ve seen a lot of changes for our community, and I can take the long view. I think it would have been unimaginable when I was out in college organizing on campus to have three members of Congress — let alone the mayor of Houston — who are out and open. We are so far beyond what I would have expected to see back then.
DC Agenda: Would you be interested in pursuing other political office after you’ve finished your tenure as mayor?
Parker: I haven’t even thought about it. Hopefully, I will be able to serve my full allotted terms under term limits — a maximum of six years. At that time, I will have been in office 18 years in Houston, and I’ll have to consider what I want to do next. But I love local government. I think it’s the most important level of government because it’s the most immediate to the people.
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.
-
Theater5 days agoD.C. summer theater offers something for every taste
-
a&e features5 days agoSummer in the City: Free exhibits, movies, more fill D.C.’s calendar
-
Real Estate5 days agoWith gas prices soaring again, a staycation is a good plan
-
Obituary4 days agoGary Sutton, known for ‘warmth and laughter,’ dies at 62
