National
The joy of giving
Fleming finds meaningful work directing Bohnett Foundation’s LGBT grants
Michael Fleming spent a lot of time on planes last week.
After leaving his home in Los Angeles, he flew to Boston to attend a dinner for LGBT officials receiving leadership training at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
On Friday, he traveled to D.C. to speak with Latino college students taking part in a Capitol Hill internship program with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. Before the day was out, he was on his way to New York to visit the city’s LGBT Community Center.
But for Fleming, who serves as executive director of the David Bohnett Foundation, the busy travel schedule isn’t unusual. He told the Blade he travels about 50 percent of the time for work.
“It’s totally valuable if you realize at the end of that flight, you’re meeting with really impressive and interesting people doing important work,” he said.
In the position he’s held since 2000, Fleming is charged with decision-making and oversight for grants that gay billionaire philanthropist David Bohnett makes to social justice causes through the foundation he chairs.
For 2010, Fleming estimates the Bohnett Foundation’s total amount of donations will top $5 million. Among the causes that are a priority for the organization are LGBT rights, gun control and the arts. Even animal language research gets a cut.
But donations to LGBT causes, Fleming said, land the most money, accounting for about 65 to 70 percent of the organization’s annual donations. Fleming noted that LGBT work is important for the foundation because such efforts are “very personal” for him and Bohnett, who are both gay.
“I think we’re passionate about it because it’s our lives and our rights and I think, as a funder, it’s the most important work we can be doing,” Fleming said.
Fleming said organizations that are working to advance same-sex marriage in the wake of Proposition 8 have been a priority for the Bohnett Foundation.
Funds are being directed to Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal, he noted, as well as toward the ongoing legal battles and public education campaigns in California.
“So if this matter comes up on the ballot again, you’ve laid groundwork for victory next time,” Fleming said.
Fleming married his spouse, the Cuban-born Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Luis Lavin, in October 2008 when same-sex marriage was briefly legal in California.
After marriage rights for gay couples were taken away following the passage of Prop 8, Fleming said the measure’s success was “poignant for everyone who got married” before its passage.
“We realized how lucky we were to be able to [get married], but I think it’s especially poignant realizing that so many of our friends and colleagues now do not have the ability to do the same thing we did,” he said.
In addition to supporting groups working specifically to advance same-sex marriage, Fleming said the Bohnett Foundation provides funding to just about every national LGBT group, including the Human Rights Campaign.
In particular, Fleming said the foundation is a major contributor to HRC’s Historically Black Colleges & Universities Program, which educates students in leading viable LGBT programs on campus.
“It’s been another program that gets young people — those who are [attending] historically black colleges and universities — to come to D.C.,” Fleming said. “There’s training that they go through. They learn about the political process; they learn how to take those skills back to the campus.”
Michael Cole, an HRC spokesperson, said the “continued generosity” of the Bohnett Foundation has enabled the program for seven years to “combat homophobia and intolerance on campuses where they too often run rampant.”
“When we started the program, there was only a single campus with an LGBT student group and now we work to support 26 such groups at [historically black colleges and universities],” Cole said.
The Bohnett Foundation has also provided many local LGBT community centers throughout the country with cyber centers, or areas where LGBT people can access computers and the Internet free of charge. Fleming estimated that the foundation has provided funds and equipment for more than 70 cyber centers throughout the country.
“Some are in big cities, but there others that are in medium-sized cities, or smaller places,” he said.
The D.C. Center is among the facilities to receive a cyber center from the Bohnett Foundation.
David Mariner, executive director of the Center, said the donation of six new computers, a flatbed scanner and a color laser printer has been a very important part of the D.C. Center.
“What the cyber center does is give people an opportunity to access the Internet and find out about resources in the community that are available to them,” he said.
Mariner said the cyber center has been integral to the D.C. Center’s career development program and has allowed local LGBT residents to work on their resumes and job searches.
Political giving
Fleming wears another hat, serving as Bohnett’s political director and advising him on political candidates that would advance LGBT rights and social justice causes.
A major donor to the Democratic Party, Bohnett last year donated $30,400 to the Democratic National Committee, according to Federal Election Commission reports. Other donations have gone to the few Democratic candidates that could take Republican seats this fall, including a $2,000 contribution to Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who’s seeking to become the state’s next U.S. senator.
Other recipients of Bohnett’s donations are gay congressional candidates. Bohnett gave Steve Pougnet in California, the mayor of Palm Springs who’s running for Congress, $4,800 last year. David Cicilline in Rhode Island, the mayor of Providence who’s running for Congress, received $2,400.
Fleming said donations to the gay congressional candidates are important for Bohnett because they “stand a very good chance” of winning their races.
“We’ve long been … supporters of the [Gay & Lesbian] Victory Fund,” Fleming said. “It’s been one of the chief tenets of the Victory Fund that it’s really terrific to have friends, but it’s even better to have folks from our own community elected.”
Although there has been criticism that the Obama administration and Congress have not moved quickly enough on pro-LGBT legislation, Fleming said this perceived lack of progress hasn’t been a factor in his advice as Bohnett’s political director.
“I don’t just say, ‘Well, this administration may have let us down on this item,’” Fleming said. “I look at things in totality [and say], ‘Well, they may have succeeded here and succeeded there.’”
Sean Theriault, a gay government professor at the University of Texas, Austin, said even donating $30,000 to the Democratic National Committee in the grand scheme is “small potatoes.”
“Now, if he bundles that money with other ‘gay money,’ it gives him just that much more clout,” Theriault said. “What it probably buys him is access to politicians who are already supportive of the gay rights agenda.”
While he wears two hats, Fleming said that Bohnett’s donations to political candidates and the foundation’s contributions to social justice causes are really one-and-the-same mission.
“At the end of the day, those things are all tied together,” Fleming said. “What he believes in when he gives money to really terrific non-profit programs are also things that he would care about our elected leaders paying attention to.”
‘Relationships are primary’
While the fruits of contributing to candidates and campaigns are difficult to witness firsthand — except on election night or when pro-LGBT bills become law — keeping an eye on work resulting from the foundation’s contributions is a different story.
Fleming was able to witness such work upon his visit to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, where about 30 Latino college students last week gathered to hear from various speakers as part of their internship program.
As part of a $25,000 grant, the Bohnett Foundation paid for two Latino college students to attend the internship program: Jefrey Valasquez from Mount Saint Mary College in New York, and Rolando Rodriguez from Columbia University.
Waiting at the event for his turn to speak, Fleming was dressed in a summer grey suit, sensible attire for the 100-degree temperatures. Behind his silver spectacles was a face bronzed with a California tan.
When his turn to speak came, Fleming introduced himself to the students and noted how impressed he was with the students’ resumes. An organizer said that only 30 out of 396 applicants were accepted.
Fleming described the students as people who have already achieved much. He advised them to focus on the relationships they build over the course of their careers.
“My sense is that everything in life is about relationships,” Fleming said. “Relationships are primary; everything else is secondary.”
As an example, Fleming recounted that he first knew Bohnett as someone who worked out at his local gym in Los Angeles. That relationship ultimately landed him a position running the foundation.
Fleming also recalled how Bohnett in 1999 closed a huge deal after GeoCities — an early social networking website he founded — was sold to Yahoo for about $3 billion. A few months after the sale, Fleming said Bohnett invited him for breakfast after a workout.
“It was the worst restaurant,” Fleming recalled. “You made $3 billion. Why’d he take me to this dump?”
Fleming said Bohnett asked him to help him give away his money and wrote down on a napkin the social justice causes deserving of donations.
“He says, ‘I got $4 billion. Do you want to help me?’” Fleming said. “Something’s telling me go to the gym more often.”
Since he accepted the position, Fleming said the Bohnett Foundation has made donations to various causes, including leadership-training programs like the one in which the students attending the event were engaged.
Fleming said he takes particular pride in the Bohnett Foundation’s contributions to the Latino internship program because the Latino community often goes unfunded by other foundations. He noted that the average allocation of philanthropic dollars to non-Latinos per year is $62, while those in the Latino community receive around $4.20.
“Some of these foundations are not paying attention,” Fleming said. “I’m going to go out and rely on all of you to go out there and pay attention. Those numbers have to increase. There’s no excuse why they won’t.”
Fleming also stressed the importance of minority groups, including LGBT people, realizing that they’re part of a common coalition.
Recalling the fight in 2008 over Prop 8, Fleming said those advocating for the California measure sought to disrupt the coalition of traditionally progressive groups.
“And folks who don’t [want] people like me to get married — when they have to go look for a community that they thought would be their friend and vote against [Prop] 8, who’d they target?” Fleming asked the audience.
One of the students responded, “African Americans.”
“And?” Fleming asked.
“Latinos,” said another student.
“And they spend ridiculous sums of money trying to have a conversation in the Latino communities,” Fleming said. “The good news is that at end of the day, there was this poll out in the past week about marriage equality in California, and they’re the one minority community that’s over 50 percent in favor of it.”
Fleming said that those who care about LGBT civil rights are the same people who care about other people’s civil rights.
“The same folks who want to target you guys against me are the same ones that paint me as a middle-aged white guy and say, ‘Oh, you should [vote] this way on immigration,’” Fleming said. “They will break us up, they will target us. They will split us any way they can. Our communities, whatever communities we think we belong to, are much bigger than just one group, just one small group.”
Fleming said touring the country to see the benefits of his work is “overwhelming” because it’s far more informative than looking at grant reports.
“I think when you’re funding something,” he said, “especially an internship, especially something that involves young people, nothing compares to meeting them and hearing their stories and hearing what they learned working in Washington for the summer.”
Federal Government
Senate Democrats press DOJ over anti-trans prison directives
Markey joins other lawmakers in demanding reversal of policies
U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is urging acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and William Marshall III, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to reverse a policy affecting transgender inmates that lawmakers say is “endangering” their “health and safety.”
Markey, along with U.S. Sens. Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), sent the letter that the Washington Blade verified on Monday.
The letter is a direct response to a change in prison policy that went into effect in February 2025, rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates. The senators described how President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” forced a policy shift they argue is rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
In the letter, the lawmakers wrote “On Feb. 21, 2025, the BOP issued a memo to implement President Trump’s EO, requiring BOP staff to ‘refer to individuals by their legal name or pronouns corresponding to their biological sex,’ banning the use of funds for any ‘items that align with transgender ideology,’ and suspending clothing accommodations, pat search accommodations, and support programs offered to transgender individuals.”
“In a second memo, issued one week later, the BOP banned the use of federal funds for ‘any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.’ These changes have resulted in the denial — or threatened denial — of hormone treatment and gender-affirming accommodations for transgender individuals in BOP custody.”
“On Feb. 19, 2026, the BOP escalated its attacks, issuing a program statement titled, ‘Management of Inmates with Gender Dysphoria.’ It prohibits incarcerated people from receiving gender-affirming care, even if paid for with private funds. This practice forces incarcerated people to discontinue care, regardless of medical recommendations.”
The senators continued, “The agency has repeatedly enacted policies that strip transgender individuals of their gender identity and dignity. This includes requiring staff to refer to transgender individuals by pronouns that ‘align with their biological sex’ rather than gender identity and to confiscate gender-affirming items, such as undergarments, clothing, cosmetics, and wigs.”
“These policies risk triggering mental health crises, including increased suicidality, among incarcerated people with gender dysphoria. The BOP’s repeated guidance to roll back gender-affirming protections — despite a federal court order finding that the BOP’s actions to discontinue gender-affirming care are likely unlawful — generate confusion about the current state of regulations and convey the BOP’s indifference to court orders and the rule of law.”
“By stripping away appropriate medical and psychiatric care, safety protections, and measures to provide dignity, the BOP is exposing transgender individuals to significant harm.”
The Marshall Project, a nonprofit newsroom focused on the U.S. criminal justice system and immigration enforcement through data-driven reporting, also reported on the policy change. The outlet spoke with Shana Knizhnik, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, about the impact of the changes.
“It’s clear that this new policy is a ban on gender affirming healthcare,” Knizhnik, who works for the nationwide chapter of the ACLU said. “This is a policy that disregards the medical needs of our plaintiffs.”
The letter also asked the BOP and the DOJ specific questions regarding why the policy went into effect, as lawmakers suggested the changes appear politically motivated rather than based on new medical evidence regarding treatment for trans inmates.
The senators requested answers to these trans policy-specific questions by May 21, including:
“Does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impacts of recent policies that eliminate gender-affirming medical and psychiatric care?”
“Since January 20, 2025, how many transgender, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-diverse individuals have been transferred to a different facility to meet the EO’s goal of housing individuals ‘according to their biological sex?’”
“Given that the BOP has stopped enforcing Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations related to gender identity and collecting data on gender identity, how will the BOP protect the physical and emotional health and safety of incarcerated transgender individuals?”
“How does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impact of eliminating protections against sexual violence for this population?”
“Does the BOP plan to institute a specific process by which transgender individuals may seek assistance or lodge complaints regarding harms they experience from the recent BOP policies and actions implementing President Trump’s EO?”
“Describe the specific criteria the BOP intends to use to determine whether it will allow a ‘social accommodation’ for gender dysphoria.”
Markey also included a personal statement to the Blade explaining why he is using his position on Capitol Hill to push for more information and advocate for reversing the policy.
“This administration continuously shows their contempt for trans people and a total disregard for their rights and humanity. As part of this cruel campaign, the Bureau of Prisons has systematically stripped health care access and basic protections from trans people, abandoning its duty to the people in its custody. I won’t stop fighting until this administration’s hateful anti-trans policies are reversed and trans people’s rights are secured.”
The Blade reached out to the DOJ and the BOP for comment but had not received a response at press time.
National
Barney Frank on trans rights, 2028, and the need to ‘reform the left’
Gay former congressman starts home hospice care while completing new book
Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who served in the House from 1981 until his retirement in 2013 and who became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay in 1987, has resurfaced in the news over the past two weeks after announcing he has entered home hospice care and plans to publish a new book on, among other things, how Democrats can and should regain control of Congress.
According to media reports and an interview Frank conducted this week with the Washington Blade, his book, entitled “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy,” calls on the Democratic Party’s progressive left leaning members to be more strategic in pushing for laws and policies initially considered “politically unacceptable” to most U.S. voters and the American people.
Frank told the Blade he believes the LGBTQ rights movement has succeeded in advancing most of its agenda seeking protections against discrimination by initially pushing less controversial advances such as the end to the ban on gays in the military and non-discrimination in employment before taking on the more controversial issue of same-sex marriage.
While acknowledging that Congress has yet to pass a national law banning discrimination against LGBTQ people in employment, housing, and public accommodations as 22 states and D.C. have already done, he points to the two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, one legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, and the other declaring sexual orientation and gender identity are protected categories for which employment discrimination is prohibited under existing federal law in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.
Frank notes that while some in the LGBTQ community are fearful that LGBTQ rights are under attack and may be pulled back under the Trump administration, he believes Republicans in Congress at this time will not attempt to repeal any existing LGBTQ protections, especially those regarding marriage rights and employment protections secured by the Supreme Court rulings.
He says transgender rights are the remaining LGBTQ issue that have yet to be adopted rationally, and he fully supports ongoing efforts to advance trans rights. But like his criticism of the progressive left among Democrats, Frank says the efforts to advance trans rights could be jeopardized by the highly controversial issue of “male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports.”
He added, “That’s the most controversial, the most difficult. It affects the fewest number of people.” While he says trans rights supporters should continue to advocate for that, “they should not make it a litmus test and say well if you’re not for that you’re not a supporter of the rights of transgender people. There are places where people are supportive, and we want to encourage that.”
Frank, 86, told Politico he has entered home hospice care as he deals with ongoing congestive heart failure. He said he is remaining in his home in Ogunquit, Maine, where he has lived with his husband, Jim Ready, since retiring from Congress in 2013.
“I’ve been doing some writing. I wrote this book,” Frank told the Blade. “I’ve relaxed. Meanwhile, my health has been failing. Jim has been a saint in taking care of me,” he said. “And so, I take it easy.”
Frank spoke to the Washington Blade in a phone interview from his home on May 4.
Washington Blade: We’re hearing some interesting reports about the book you’ve been writing. Can you say when it will be published?
Barney Frank: Sept. 15 is the publication date.
Blade: Some of the reports about the book in the media have said you want the far left within the Democratic Party to be more cautious.
Frank: No, I’ll give you this. The job is to defeat populism to keep democracy. Clearly you have to know what caused it. I believe that the essential cause in the surge of populism was economic inequality and the failure of mainstream liberals to address inequality. And beginning in the ‘80s economic growth became less and less fair in its institutions. And that led to all this anger.
So, the mainstream left finally figured that out after [Bernie] Sanders and Trump in ’16. So, we then – because I was working to make that change – got the Democrats to pay attention to economic inequality. And Joe Biden’s program did. The problem is at that point, people on the left who had correctly been critical of the failure to address equality said, OK, that’s not the only problem you guys are missing. There are all these other problems.
And they jumped from being right on the question of inequality and equality to believing in a lot more social changes, some of which were just unacceptable to the public. And the mistake they make is they don’t distinguish – there are a lot of issues I’ve been for in my life, but I had to assert that they were not currently politically survivable.
So, you do two things. Those that are politically survivable work to get them done. Others, you become an advocate. But you don’t make the most controversial part of your agenda litmus tests and drive away your allies. You will remember that on marriage that was an issue and in 2000 they insisted you will be for marriage.
So, my thesis is that while the mainstream understood its mistake on inequality, the most militant and ideological of our left misunderstand public opinion and they are pushing the public to — and they are insisting on acceptance of things that are not politically acceptable.
Blade: Having said what you said, how do you see that impacting gay rights or LGBTQ rights?
Frank: Well in the first place, gay rights – one of the things I want to address – is this fear that gay rights are going to be taken away – rights for LGB people. Nonsense. We’re not going to lose any of those rights. If they tried to undo marriage, for instance, the political reaction they would get would be abortion type sentiment. They are just not going to do that because it causes them too many political problems.
The problem is advances we hope to make in the area of transgender people. But there is no chance of losing – I can’t think of a single right that is in jeopardy. They are not going to reintroduce the ban in the military. They’re not going to tell people their marriages are cancelled. Again, the Republicans are not even trying to do that because they know there would be a terrible backlash.
With regard to LGBT there is one analogy. And that is the most controversial issue we faced over the years on what was the gay-bisexual agenda was same-sex marriage. And we left that until the end. And you remember we did the military. We did ENDA. We moved on to everything else, and it wasn’t until the very end that we went into marriage. [NOTE: ENDA did not ultimately pass.]
I think the analogy to that is male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports. That’s the most controversial, the most difficult. It affects the fewest number of people. And I believe had we deferred on marriage — people who believe that’s important should advocate for it. But they should not make it a litmus test and say well if you’re not for that you’re not a supporter of the rights of transgender people. There are places where people are supportive, and we want to encourage that.
Blade: You said you don’t think we will lose any rights, most of the laws related to nondiscrimination are from the states or municipal laws that were passed.
Frank: Tell me what you think will be lost. You and I always have this problem. I’ve always felt you were cynical and skeptical. Tell me what right we now have that’s in jeopardy.
Blade: One would be if the Supreme Court reverses its decision on same-sex marriage.
Frank: If they do, Congress would now step in on that, which would be the passage of Tammy Baldwin’s bill.
Blade: But what I was going to ask you next is in all the years you’ve been in office and as of now a federal LGBTQ rights bill has not been passed by Congress yet. Is there a chance of that happening?
Frank: I do not think it will happen because the members of Congress do not want to be in the position of voting to cancel people’s marriages. There are valid marriages throughout the country. And the notion that Congress will pass a bill invalidating those, no they won’t. They won’t do anything that’s as disruptive and that will cause a strong reaction. Have you seen a federal bill to do that? I haven’t.
Blade: No, and I am sorry if I’m not putting the question across correctly. I’m talking about the bill that bans discrimination based on employment, public accommodations and other areas for LGBTQ people that Congress has not yet passed. You co-sponsored that for many years.
Frank: I know that, and the Supreme Court did that one. No, I don’t think that – oh, all right, that’s a different question than marriage. If the Supreme Court reverses itself on that – I don’t see any sign that they’re going to, then I think you would see the federal bill passed.
[He is referring to the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that employment discrimination against gay, bi, and trans people was equivalent to sex discrimination, which is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.]
Blade: Are you talking about marriage?
Frank: For both for marriage and for non-[discrimination] – I don’t think a marriage bill would pass nationally. To distinguish, I don’t think a bill striking down marriages would pass. Too much violent reaction. As to employment discrimination, where they haven’t acted yet, if the Supreme Court changes that – I think that’s extremely unlikely – then I think Congress would step in.
Blade: Are you saying we may not need an LGBTQ non-discrimination act by Congress for the states that haven’t passed that?
Frank: I would be in favor of that, yes. But again, I think you and I – you have always been pessimistic. There is a political time now that works in our favor. And as I said, on abortion, they burned themselves very badly on abortion. And yes, I’m still for a national anti-discrimination bill. But I do not think the right wing wants to be caught taking rights away that already exist. Because that’s a lot harder than denying them in the first place. And I don’t see any movement for that. You tell me what you are worried about. What bills are you worried about?
Blade: I was simply saying they haven’t yet passed a federal non-discrimination bill.
Frank: No, what’s going to change on the Supreme Court? I don’t see a pretty quick reversal on the Supreme Court. So, I think people are just – they have to have a cause. And they are inflating the likelihood that we are going to lose some rights when I see no evidence of it. And in fact, I see a lot of political reasons why those in Congress don’t want to do that.
I’ll tell you there are a lot of Republicans who would vote for same-sex marriage. For example, the leadership would say for Christ’s sake, don’t bring that up. They don’t want to take a position on it. And they got burned on abortion, badly.
Blade: To the extent that you are observing this, do you think the LGBTQ rights organizations are doing what they should be doing?
Frank: Well, I think some are stressing the negative too much. Because when people believe nothing good ever happens, they may get discouraged. I think they should be concentrating on the transgender issue. And I know the most controversial parts are protecting people’s rights to medical care, their rights selecting their own gender. And that’s what I would be working on.
And yeah, it would be nice to pass the national bill. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Well, if the Democrats get the House, the Senate, and the presidency, maybe it will happen. But I don’t see the urgency of that because I don’t see any movement to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision.
Blade: What message would you have for the LGBTQ community?
Frank: My message is one, we’re in good shape. And two, that what remains in the transgender issue – who is first? Which are those of your issues that are the most politically acceptable. And you work your way through and as you win on some of those the resistance on the tougher ones will diminish. And the other issue is we are – the problem is the stand to protect the rights of transgender people. But the rights for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, I do not think they are in jeopardy and I do not think a lot of resources should be spent on being what I think is a very small threat.
Blade: For those states and municipalities that do not have laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination, do you think attitudes are changing so there would be little or no discrimination?
Frank: Oh, no question. First of all, I think it’s very unlikely that any of the rights they have will be taken away. And secondly, if they had to take some positive steps to take away protections they would not do it. And I think that ship has sailed in our direction and isn’t going back. In the end, you cannot underestimate there’s a big political difference between denying people their rights in the first place and taking it away from them after they’ve enjoyed it.
Anything is theoretically possible, but I don’t see any evidence that’s likely to happen.
Blade: We’re coming up to the midterm elections this year, but is there anyone coming up in the next presidential election who you might be supporting?
Frank: Oh, I think at this point we’re going to have a fairly open Democratic process. And it’s very clear at this point the way American politics is going it will be a basically supportive Democrat against a basically opposed Republican. And I’ll be supporting the Democrat. And so, this Democrat would be the best one, the most electable. And which one, I haven’t decided that. I want to see how people will fare when they start running.
But I think it is inconceivable that the Democrats would nominate someone who is not fully supportive.
Blade: Some people might be asking what you have been doing since you retired from Congress.
Frank: I’ve been doing some writing. I wrote this book. I’ve relaxed. Meanwhile, my health has been failing. Jim [husband Jim Ready] has been a saint in taking care of me. And so, I take it easy. In terms of what I do, I have two rules, two pieces of advice for people who retire. One is that you should make up two lists. One is you should have a bucket list, a list of things you want to do before you’re through. But more important than the bucket list is a list that rhymes with bucket. That’s a very important list. And that’s one that I increasingly defer to.
Blade: And what is the one other than bucket?
Frank: It rhymes with bucket. What rhymes with bucket?
Blade: Oh, OK.
Frank: That’s the list I follow.
Florida
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
Republican Fla. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed anti-DEI bill
Following the passage of anti-DEI legislation in Florida, Key West will no longer receive any state funding for its future Pride events.
In a letter provided to the Key West Business Guild, the LGBTQ visitor and tourism center for the string of islands, a senior assistant county attorney for Monroe County officially said that the organization would no longer receive funding for its ongoing projects as a result of Senate Bill 1134 and House Bill 1001, starting in 2027.
The popular Key West Pride, gay men–leaning Tropical Heat weekend, and Womenfest will no longer receive any state money. This is something that Gay Key West Visitor Center Executive Director Rob Dougherty highlighted will shift how all the largest LGBTQ events in the Keys will be held after this year.
He said that the explanation is solely a result of SB 1134 and HB 1001, which limits the official actions of local governments by “prohibiting counties and municipalities, respectively, from funding or promoting or taking official action as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion …”
The legislation is being used to impose restrictions on funding events that exclude — whereas the events’ true purpose is to uplift already marginalized groups.
“Womenfest lost it [funding] because it’s a women’s-only event. Tropical Heat lost it because it’s a men’s-only event … that’s how this is being applied.”
This will not impact anything this year, Dougherty assured the Washington Blade; however, the future is not as certain.
“The law that (Republican Florida) Gov. DeSantis signed does not go into effect until Jan. 1, so for 2026 we’re okay,” Dougherty told the Blade. “But it impacts Key West Pride 2027, it impacts Tropical Heat 2027 and Womenfest — so we have lost all funding for those three events.”
He said that this will amount to a large chunk of the expected funding for the LGBTQ celebrations, which the Key West tourism board says is “internationally known as a gay mecca.”
“We’re due to lose about $200,000. Not all of that is direct, but the way that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) distributes their money, about $75,000 of it is for Key West Pride, and that helps to pay for things like marketing, swag, and other things that promote the event.”
He went on to explain that marketing to many major metropolitan areas with large LGBTQ populations may not see the same Key West advertisements and push as in years past — and that is the point.
“Our digital marketing, our print marketing, our SEO marketing — all of that is paid for through there, and it targets places with direct flights like Washington, D.C., New York, Philly, Atlanta, Dallas. So it’s definitely going to impact that.”
The money that will stop coming is not just to run events and celebrations, he explained. Money that goes back directly into the community is going to be hardest hit.
“An estimated 250,000 LGBTQ+ travelers make it to Key West on an annual basis, and on a very conservative basis, for every LGBTQ+ person there are two to four allies traveling with the same values.”
“The TDC also estimates that $1,500+ is spent per person per visit … so if you take those figures and multiply those all together, it comes up to about $1.2 billion … that is potentially going to be lost.”
He says that this will intrinsically change how Key West’s tourism — especially the large LGBTQ side of it — will run, especially since gay vacations need a foundation and expectation of safety and support to blossom.
“We travel based upon where we feel most welcome,” Dougherty said. “Key West has always been its own little place … the LGBTQ+ history of Key West and everything about Key West has always been a little bit weird for people, and that’s why they come here.”
The Guild was formed in 1978 to encourage summer tourism and support Key West’s gay community — becoming the nation’s first LGBTQ destination marketing organization. It has grown tremendously from its original membership to now include more than 475 enterprises representing virtually every facet of the island’s business community.
He also went on to say that this should be eye-opening for anywhere considered an LGBTQ destination, regardless of whether it is in a blue state or a red one.
“I think it can be a wake-up call across the country, because if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.”
Anti-LGBTQ violence prevention efforts highlighted at D.C. community fair
Celebrated performer Rose Levine plays Rehoboth on May 15
The rise of accidental landlords
Senate Democrats press DOJ over anti-trans prison directives
Washington Blade’s Pride on the Pier returns June 13 to kick off D.C. Pride week
Memorial service for trans rights advocate SaVanna Wanzer set for May 17
LGBTQ people, weed, and mental health: what you need to know
Your guide to D.C. region’s many Pride celebrations
New Vatican report acknowledges LGBTQ Catholics feel isolated in the church
Repression, toxic masculinity fuel intense queer drama ‘Half Man’
-
District of Columbia5 days agoMemorial service for trans rights advocate SaVanna Wanzer set for May 17
-
Cannabis Culture4 days ago
LGBTQ people, weed, and mental health: what you need to know
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Your guide to D.C. region’s many Pride celebrations
-
The Vatican4 days ago
New Vatican report acknowledges LGBTQ Catholics feel isolated in the church
