National
Rare peek behind closed doors of secret gay donor confab
Md. governor, looking for donations, offends high-profile contributors

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley told a group of 200 LGBT donors that he supports civil unions over marriage rights for same-sex couples. (Photo courtesy of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's office)
A controversial appearance by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley prompted participants in a closed-door conference of wealthy LGBT political donors, held May 15-16 in Chicago, to breach a strict a confidentiality policy after he told the gathering he favors civil unions over same-sex marriage.
O’Malley was one of at least four U.S. governors invited to address the annual Political OutGiving conference, a highly confidential event for a network of more than 200 big-stakes LGBT contributors to political campaigns.
The network is operated by the Denver-based Gill Action Fund, which was founded in 2006 by gay entrepreneur and multimillionaire Tim Gill
Members of the network are warned that violating the confidentiality policy could result in their expulsion.
But several participants, speaking on condition that they not be identified, ignored the warnings and informed the Washington Blade about an exchange between O’Malley and Julie Goodridge, the lesbian plaintiff in the Massachusetts lawsuit that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in that state.
Goodridge reportedly interrupted O’Malley and told him that he appeared to be talking about civil unions the way people did in the early 2000s, multiple sources attending the event said.
“It’s 2010,” the sources quoted Goodridge as saying. It’s totally unacceptable to be pushing civil unions in a state like Maryland at this time when full marriage equality is gaining momentum among voters, sources paraphrased Goodridge as saying.
At least three people present during the exchange said the audience applauded Goodridge for her comments to O’Malley.
They said O’Malley, who expressed support for LGBT rights, replied that voters in his state aren’t ready for gay marriage. A recent Washington Post poll found for the first time that more Marylanders now support same-sex marriage than oppose it.
Joanne Kron, a spokesperson for Gill Action Fund, said in an e-mail that the group would not comment on the Goodridge-O’Malley exchange because “we don’t discuss the Political OutGiving conference, which is a private event.”
“Political OutGiving is a focused, bipartisan state-based strategy that concentrates on delivering resources from dedicated and generous donors to select campaigns in a limited number of states,” Kron said in her e-mail.
“Political OutGiving started in 2006 when hundreds of donors contributed around $3 million to targeted campaigns aimed at protecting or increasing the number of pro-LGBT supporters in state legislatures,” she said. “Political OutGiving similarly engaged in elections in 2008 and will be involved in campaigns in 2010.”
Goodridge did not return calls Tuesday seeking comment on her interaction with O’Malley.
Rick Abbruzzese, a spokesperson for O’Malley’s re-election campaign, said O’Malley flew to Chicago to attend the OutGiving conference on May 15, after presenting the winning trophy at Baltimore’s annual Preakness horse racing event.
“The governor’s position has been clear on this issue and consistent — that he does support civil unions and that he felt we could have reached a consensus within the Maryland General Assembly to move the issue of civil unions forward,” Abbruzzese said.
“He has not supported gay marriage in the past,” he said, adding that while O’Malley doesn’t believe enough support exists to pass a same-sex marriage bill, he feels the legislature “could move and pass legislation on civil unions.”
But O’Malley once favored same-sex marriage. He privately told LGBT supporters in 2006 and 2007 in e-mails and during meetings that he supported civil marriage rights for gay couples, before the state’s high court ruled against such rights. He once told a Baltimore TV station that he backed civil marriage rights for gays.
Sources familiar with the OutGiving conference, which was held in Chicago’s upscale Peninsula Hotel, said O’Malley was joined at the event by Democratic governors Chet Culver of Iowa, John Lynch of New Hampshire, and Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania.
Also attending were Democratic Lt. Gov. Diane Denish of New Mexico, who is running for governor, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, and Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.).
Attendees said a session in which O’Malley, Denish and other panelists participated was moderated by gay journalist Jonathan Capehart, who is an editorial writer for the Washington Post. Capehart could not immediately be reached for comment. Sources familiar with the event said Capehart, like most other participants in the event, agreed to keep his role and the meeting itself off the record.
Due to OutGiving’s confidentiality policy it could not be determined whether the Gill Action Fund, which operates the donor network, would give its support to O’Malley, who is being challenged this year by Republican former Gov. Robert Ehrlich.
O’Malley defeated Ehrlich in 2006, and political insiders are predicting a close race between the two rivals this year.
Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, a non-partisan statewide LGBT group, said that while the group is disappointed in O’Malley’s support for civil unions over same-sex marriage, she noted that he has repeatedly pledged to sign a same-sex marriage bill should it reach his desk.
By contrast, Meneses-Sheets points to Ehrlich’s decision to veto during his tenure as Maryland governor a limited domestic partnership bill that called for giving hospital visitation right to same-sex partners and medical decision-making authority for an incapacitated partner. She noted that Ehrlich has expressed opposition to same-sex marriage and, unlike O’Malley, could be expected to veto a marriage bill passed by the legislature.
Meneses-Sheets said that although pushing a same-sex marriage equality bill through the legislature next year will be a “challenge,” she and her Equality Maryland colleagues are hopeful that the remaining members of the State Senate who have blocked advancement of a marriage equality bill will be defeated in the November election.
“We have a plan in place and we’re working on all of the pieces it will take to get a win,” she said. “This is not a pie in the sky.”
Other LGBT activists in the state have expressed concern that O’Malley’s pledge to sign a marriage bill rings hollow because he refuses to use his political influence to push wavering lawmakers to back a marriage measure. Some activists say they doubt the November election, in which all members of the legislature come up before the voters, will result in enough new supporters to pass a marriage bill.
‘Moneyed gay people making things happen’
Although Gill Action’s Political OutGiving has been the subject of media coverage, including coverage in the LGBT press, the exchange between Goodridge and O’Malley appears to have triggered for the first time discussion and questions among members of the donor network about the need for the secrecy imposed by Gill Action’s leaders.
In response to the Blade’s inquiries about the Chicago conference, Gill Action Fund’s executive director, Patrick Guerriero, and its deputy executive director, Bill Smith, sent a joint e-mail to network donors on Tuesday urging them not to speak with the media.
“Doing really important work often attracts the media and we’ve been informed that a reporter is buzzing about the 2010 Political OutGiving conference,” the two said in their e-mail.
“As you know, the event is private and participant attendance is confidential,” Guerriero and Smith said.
Smith, who heads the Gill Action Fund’s Washington office, is a former aide to Bush administration official Karl Rove. Smith told the Advocate in a 2008 interview that pragmatic and sometimes hard-hitting tactics employed by Rove can be used by Gill Action for the advancement of LGBT equality.
“We’re not afraid to learn from anyone across the political spectrum who’s doing really smart work, be it EMILY’s List or GOPAC,” Smith told the Advocate.
EMILY’s List is a Democratic, liberal leaning group pushing for women’s rights that’s credited with helping elect Democrats to Congress. GOPAC is a Republican political action committee said to be responsible for helping Republicans win control of Congress during the 1990s.
Guerriero is a former Republican state legislator from Massachusetts and former president of the national gay GOP group Log Cabin Republicans.
Guerriero and Smith have said in the past that Gill Action Fund assesses candidates running for public office to determine whether they should be supported or opposed. It then sends its recommendations to its “top secret” donor list, according to one source familiar with the group.
The donors then make individual contributions to the recommended candidates. The system makes it difficult to measure which candidates are benefiting from the gay network.
Although the names of contributors must be reported to the Federal Election Commission, which makes its reports available for public inspection, reviewing FEC records would be useless for identifying OutGiving donors because Gill Action Fund never releases their names.
“The fact that it’s being kept out of the public eye — that’s bad news,” said New York gay rights attorney and activist Bill Dobbs. “It’s too much wheeling and dealing behind closed doors.”
One of the OutGiving donors who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity disagreed with the strict confidentiality policy.
“I think part of it is they don’t want to run the risk that there would be stories that these rich gay people get together and push their agenda and it’s the moneyed gay people that are making things happen,” the donor said.
But the donor said the donations were helping the LGBT rights movement in the long run by sending more supportive lawmakers to Congress and the state legislatures.
Sources who attended the Political OutGiving conference said that in addition to the donors, a number of prominent officials with other LGBT rights groups attended the event. Among them were Evan Wolfson, executive director of the same-sex marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry; Steve Elmendorf, a gay former congressional staffer and Washington political consultant; Mary Breslauer, a Boston-based consultant for the Human Rights Campaign; Chuck Wolfe and Robin Brand, director and deputy director of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund; and Matt Foreman, former National Gay & Lesbian Task Force director and a current official with the Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund, which awards grants to LGBT organizations and causes.
National
FDA approves new twice-yearly HIV prevention drug
Experts say success could inhibit development of HIV vaccine

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 18 approved a newly developed HIV/AIDS prevention drug that only needs to be taken by injection once every six months.
The new drug, lenacapavir, which is being sold under the brand name of Yeztugo by the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences that developed it, is being hailed by some AIDS activists as a major advancement in the years-long effort to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the U.S. and worldwide.
Although HIV prevention drugs, known as pre-exposure prophylaxis medication or PrEP, have been available since 2012, they initially required taking one or more daily pills. More recently, another injectable PrEP drug was developed that required being administered once every two months.
Experts familiar with the PrEP programs noted that while earlier drugs were highly effective in preventing HIV infection – most were 99 percent effective – they could not be effective if those at risk for HIV who were on the drugs did not adhere to taking their daily pills or injections every two months.
“Today marks a monumental advance in HIV prevention,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute, in a statement released on the day the FDA announced its approval of lenacapavir.
“Congratulations to the many researchers who spent 19 years to get to today’s approval, backed up by the long-term investment needed to get the drug to market,” he said.
Schmid added, “Long-acting PrEP is now not only effective for up to six months but also improves adherence and will reduce HIV infections – if people are aware of it and payers, including private insurers, cover it without cost-sharing as a preventive service.”
Schmid and others monitoring the nation’s HIV/AIDS programs have warned that proposed large scale cuts in the budget for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by the administration of President Donald Trump could seriously harm HIV prevention programs, including PrEP-related efforts.
“Dismantling these programs means that there will be a weakened public health infrastructure and much less HIV testing, which is needed before a person can take PrEP,” Schmid said in his statement.
“Private insurers and employers must also immediately cover Yeztugo as a required preventive service, which means that PrEP users should not face any cost-sharing or utilization management barriers,” he said.
In response to a request by the Washington Blade for comment, a spokesperson for Gilead Sciences released a statement saying the annual list price per person using Yeztugo in the U.S. is $28,218. But the statement says the company is working to ensure that its HIV prevention medication is accessible to all who need it through broad coverage from health insurance companies and some of its own support programs.
“We’ve seen high insurance coverage for existing prevention options – for example, the vast majority of consumers have a $0 co-pay for Descovy for PrEP in the U.S. – and we are working to ensure broad coverage for lenacapavir [Yeztugo],” the statement says. It was referring to the earlier HIV prevention medication developed by Gilead Sciences, Descovy.
“Eligible insured people will get help with their copay,” the statement continues. “Gilead’s Advancing Access Copay Savings Program may reduce out-of-pocket costs to as little as zero dollars,” it says. “Then for people without insurance, lenacapavir may be available free of charge for those who are eligible, through Gilead’s Advancing Access Patient Assistance Program.”
Gilead Sciences has announced that in the two final trial tests for Yeztugo, which it describes as “the most intentionally inclusive HIV prevention clinical trial programs ever designed,” 99.9 percent of participants who received Yeztugo remained negative. Time magazine reports that among those who remained HIV negative at a rate of 100 percent were men who have sex with men.
Time also reports that some HIV/AIDS researchers believe the success of the HIV prevention drugs like Gilead’s Yeztugo could complicate the so-far unsuccessful efforts to develop an effective HIV vaccine.
To be able to test a potential vaccine two groups of test subjects must be used, one that receives the test vaccine and the other that receives a placebo with no drug in it.
With highly effective HIV prevention drugs now available, it could be ethically difficult to ask a test group to take a placebo and continue to be at risk for HIV, according to some researchers.
“This might take a bit of the wind out of the sails of vaccine research, because there is something so effective in preventing HIV infection,” Time quoted Dr. David Ho, a professor of microbiology, immunology, and medicine at New York’s Columbia University as saying.
National
Activists rally in response to Supreme Court ruling
‘We won’t bow to hatred: we outlive it’

Politicians, LGBTQ activists, and allies gathered at the Lutheran Church of the Reformation in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C. on Wednesday following the ruling by the United States Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Skrmetti. The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender adolescents in a 6-3 decision.
A rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court was called for by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and other organizations following the high court ruling on Wednesday. However, due to a thunderstorm and flood watch, the scores of activists who were to attend the rally were directed to a Lutheran church down the street from the court. Undeterred, activists and community leaders were joined by U.S. Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) for an indoor rally at the church.
“We know that freedom is not inevitable,” Markey told the crowd. “It is fought for by people who said ‘no’ in the face of health cuts, ‘no’ in the face of discrimination, ‘no’ in the face of invasive laws that ban life-saving and life-affirming healthcare and ‘no’ to this anti-justice, anti-freedom agenda.”
Also speaking at the rally was Deirdre Schifeling, chief political advocacy officer of the National ACLU.
“We believe transgender rights matter,” Schifeling stated. “Transgender kids matter and deserve love, support and the freedom to shape their own futures. I am still processing how the Supreme Court could disagree with such an obvious truth.”
“Today’s ruling shows us that unfortunately these attacks on our freedom will not end here,” Schifeling continued. “The Trump administration and extremist politicians across the country are continuing to target our right — our human right — to control our own bodies.”
“If politicians think that we are going to sit back and be defeated, that we are going to let them strip our rights and freedoms away without a fight, they’ve got another think coming,” Schifeling said. “We will never back down. We will never back down or give up. We will organize, we will mobilize and we will fight to protect trans rights in our communities, in our legislatures, in our elections, and in court rooms across the country.”

“Today, the highest court in this land decided that the bodily autonomy of trans youth, specifically trans youth of Tennessee and states with bans harming youth across the country do not matter,” said trans advocate Hope Giselle-Godsey.
“The opponents of trans equality think that today is a victory, but history will remember it as a moment that sharpened us and not silenced us,” Giselle-Godsey continued.
“So yes, today we grieve for the people in those states where those bans exist, but we grieve in motion,” Giselle-Godsey said. “To the system that thinks that it won today, just like every other time before: you will lose again. Because we won’t bow to hatred: we outlive it. We out-organize it. We out-love it. We are still here and we are not finished yet.”

U.S. Supreme Court
Lawyers who fought gender affirming care ban at the Supreme Court remain optimistic
Wednesday’s decision, while disappointing, leaves room for more legal challenges

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday upholding Tennessee’s ban on medical care for transgender minors, several of the plaintiffs’ attorneys expressed disappointment with the outcome but stressed that the fight was not over.
While the decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti will shield Tennessee and more than 20 other states from litigation challenging their anti-trans healthcare restrictions, the majority decision was not so broadly written that opportunities to fight for expanded rights and protections — or to push back against the Trump-Vance administration’s discriminatory policies — were extinguished, they said.
Addressing reporters during a press call hours after the decision was released were Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, Karen Loewy, director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, and Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee.
On the one hand, the lawyers were adamant that the conservative justices in the 6-3 majority opinion “got this completely wrong,” as Cameron-Vaughn said, because Tennessee’s law is “clearly a sex based classification and transgender based classification” on its face.
At the same time, he said “the fact that it’s a narrow ruling means that we will continue to fight and stand with trans people and their families in Tennessee with all the tools at our disposal to continue to stand against the assault from the government.”
Explained Strangio, “The court did not rule on whether or not transgender status independently warrants the type of heightened scrutiny that sex based classifications also trigger,” meaning that “lower court decisions — for example, in the 9th and the 4th Circuit that have already recognized that transgender status triggers this type of heightened scrutiny — will remain good law, and that government discrimination targeting transgender people, either through facial classifications or invidious discrimination, are both contexts in which the [Supreme] Court has today explicitly left open for heightened scrutiny.”
“The most immediate effect is on our clients and other young, young transgender people in Tennessee and across the country who need medical care that the government has stepped in to ban,” added Strangio, who is the first transgender attorney to argue before the Supreme Court. “And for them, we are devastated, and we know that we will continue fighting so that government discrimination against transgender people will end.”
“This is a setback in many ways,” he said, “but we continue onward in the fight and we can, you know, hold simultaneously, both the pain of this decision and all of the possibilities of the future we’re building.”
Responding to a question from the Washington Blade about whether the justices considered the potential harms of cutting off access to treatments for young people who have begun to medically transition, Strangio said he and his co-counsel stressed the issue in briefs and during oral argument.
He continued, “I think one of the frustrating things about the type of deference that this court found would apply here” as opposed to a more heightened level of scrutiny “is that they don’t really look at the underlying evidence, and so they can just sort of defer broadly and uncritically to state legislatures or legislatures more more generally.”
Strangio noted that while the dissenting opinions from the liberal justices, particularly Sonia Sotomayor’s, addressed harms related to the sudden loss of access to treatments for transgender youth, “that did not figure in in the majority opinions, in the ways that we all wished that it would have.”
“And we know how devastating it is for people to lose access to medically necessary care,” he said.
Responding to the same question, Loewy said “I would just lift up Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in as much as her questioning of Tennessee’s attorneys during argument was a recognition of the real harms to our actual clients. And her dissent really talks about what it meant before our clients had access to the gender affirming medical care that they needed, and the real harm of that now being unavailable to them.”
“So, there was definitely some recognition during the discussion, during argument, of what this really means for trans young people,” Loewy said. “And you know, it was clearly not part of the calculus that the majority was willing to really consider.”
-
U.S. Supreme Court2 days ago
Supreme Court upholds ban on transgender care for minors
-
U.S. Federal Courts4 days ago
Meeting the moment: Democracy Forward takes prominent role in fighting Trump regime
-
District of Columbia3 days ago
Juvenile arrested for anti-gay assault in D.C.
-
National4 days ago
New LGBTQ+ Archive to save scrubbed federal resources