National
Will GOP candidates attack marriage in Iowa, N.H.?
Gay nuptials legal in both early voting states
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich arranged for the donation of $200,000 to the Iowa campaign in the 2010 election that successfully ousted three justices who in ruled in favor of same-sex marriage from the bench. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
The kick-off of the 2012 election season — marked by potential Republican presidential candidates’ travels to the early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire — is raising questions about the degree to which the GOP candidates pursuing the White House will attack same-sex marriage in these states where gay nuptials are legal.
The issue of marriage could come to the fore during the early stages of the 2012 race because it will be the first presidential election in which same-sex marriage is legal in the first two states to hold primaries. In Iowa, where same-sex marriage was enacted by court order, the Republican caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 6, and in New Hampshire, where marriage equality was enacted through legislation, the Republican primary is expected Feb. 14.
Many of the potential Republican presidential contenders are already on the record in their opposition to same-sex marriage or have histories working against the advancement of marriage rights for gay couples. For example, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have come out in favor of state and federal constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
According to Politico, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who’s pushed for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in her home state, railed against marriage equality on Monday in a speech at the latest installment of the Iowa Family Leader’s presidential lecture series.
“In 5,000 years of recorded human history… neither in the East or in the West… has any society ever defined marriage as anything other than between men and women,” Bachmann was quoted as saying. “Not one in 5,000 years of recorded human history. That’s an astounding fact and it isn’t until the last 12 years or so that we have seen for the first time in recorded human history marriage defined as anything other than between men and women.”
Bachmann also reportedly called Iowa judges “black-robed masters” for legalizing same-sex marriage, echoing a line she used during a previous trip to the state.
“That’s what you had here in Iowa: black-robed masters,” Bachmann said. “They are not our masters. They are not our morality. They are not put there to make the decisions.”
Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich arranged for the donation of $200,000 to the Iowa campaign in the 2010 election that successfully ousted three justices who in ruled in favor of same-sex marriage from the bench. David Lane, executive director of Iowa for Freedom, the organization that led the campaign, reportedly said the ouster of the justices “wouldn’t have happened without Newt.”
“Newt provided strategic advice and arranged the initial seed money, about $200,000, which is what got everything started,” Lane was quoted as saying.
During the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference in February., former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum told the Washington Blade that one law should govern marriage throughout the country as he reiterated support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
“I was one of the authors of the Federal Marriage Amendment,” Santorum said. “I don’t think you can have varying laws on marriage. You run into, as we’re seeing, all sorts of problems about reciprocity between the states. This is an issue that there should be a law, the people should be able to decide it and hopefully that’s what will happen.”
Still, as he reiterated his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, Santorum also said the economy and national security should precede marriage as issues of importance in the 2012 election.
Other lower-tier candidates have positions different from full-throated opposition to same-sex marriage. Former U.S. ambassador to China and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman has endorsed civil unions, which is the same position on relationship recognition for same-sex couples that President Obama has. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has called for a truce on social issues, which has earned him criticism from social conservatives within the Republican Party, although he has wavered on his position on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in his own state.
Fred Karger, a Republican political strategist and the first openly gay presidential candidate, told the Washington Blade he plans to speak out for same-sex marriage during his campaign as he predicted that other GOP presidential contenders will speak out against marriage as they seek support in Iowa and New Hampshire.
“It will be an issue,” Karger said. “Some of the Republicans running plan on making it an issue. I’m doing my best to stop that and talk about the advantage of gay marriage and just working in both states to move on to more important issues.”
Karger, who gained notoriety after he shed light on the Mormon Church’s involvement in Proposition 8, said he’ll “absolutely” advocate for preserving the right to same-sex marriage in Iowa and New Hampshire over the course of his presidential campaign.
“I think every other Republican who is considering running is adamantly opposed to gay marriage, and then you’ve got the gay candidate who is, of course, the only full equality candidate running in both parties,” Karger said.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said he thinks the marriage issue will figure prominently during the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary because of the nature of the voters in these elections.
“We’re talking about GOP primary voters and caucus-goers, and these are much more conservative than the general population — especially those attending a caucus,” Sabato said.
Sabato said he expects the candidates to express strong opposition same-sex marriage in Iowa because of the fundamentalist Christian influence on the Republican Party in the state and because it has become what he called a “big statewide issue.”
But in New Hampshire, where the state slogan is “Live Free or Die,” Sabato said social issues “may play less well.” Still, he observed candidates are stuck with publicly articulated positions wherever they go.
“Romney probably isn’t playing in Iowa so he’s under less pressure [to speak out against same-sex marriage],” Sabato said. “The candidates who are going to contest Iowa will have to tow the line on same-sex marriage. A handful will trumpet their position and make it a centerpiece of their campaigns. Examples: Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.”
Advocates who work on both sides of the marriage issue are urging Republican candidates to take strong positions either for or against same-sex marriage — depending on where the advocates stand — as the primary season approaches.
Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage, said via e-mail she thinks a Republican candidate who has a position other than opposition to same-sex marriage would not do well in the presidential campaign.
“I think it’s highly unlikely that any candidate who does not support marriage as the union of husband and wife will be a major player for the GOP nomination,” Gallagher said. “If NOM has done nothing else in our first three years (stop: and I think we’ve done more), we’ve clearly demonstrated electorally that it is a really bad idea to be for gay marriage if you are a Republican.”
But Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, said Republican presidential candidates should look to other high-profile Republicans who have endorsed same-sex marriage — such as gay former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.S. solicitor general Ted Olson and former first lady Laura Bush — to determine how they should stand on the issue.
“With poll after poll showing majority support nationwide and increasing momentum in favor of the freedom to marry in virtually every part of the population, it’s in the best interests of Republicans to look to the right side of history, not the right-wing,” Wolfson said.
Still, Wolfson said he expects many Republican candidates would seek to appease social conservatives and “pander to hard-core anti-gay opposition” on the issue of marriage as they pursue their presidential ambitions.
“Such candidates will soon discover that bashing gay families and marriage does not play — and not just in the general electorate, but in states such as Iowa and New Hampshire where non-gay as well as gay family members have seen firsthand how neighbors, kin, and communities are strengthened by the freedom to marry — and the love, commitment and connectedness at its core,” Wolfson said.
The potential renewed attention to same-sex marriage as part of the upcoming presidential campaign also raises questions about whether marriage equality in Iowa and New Hampshire would be in jeopardy as a result of high-profile leaders coming to the states and speaking out against gay nuptials.
Rescinding same-sex marriage in Iowa couldn’t happen easily because marriage was put into place in 2009 as a result of a ruling by the state Supreme Court. Overturning the decision would require ratification of a state constitutional amendment. In Iowa, passage of such a measure requires approval in both chambers of the legislature in two concurrent sessions followed by a majority vote of approval from the electorate, so the earliest same-sex marriage could be undone is 2013.
On Feb. 1, the Republican-controlled Iowa State House approved a constitutional amendment by vote of 62-37, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) has vowed to block the amendment in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Troy Price, interim executive director of One Iowa, said he expects Republican presidential candidates to come to Iowa and speak out against same-sex marriage as his organization works to protect marriage equality.
“However, while they try to make this an issue, they are in no way speaking for all the Republicans in Iowa,” Price said. “Earlier this year, former Republican State Senator Jeff Angelo – who sponsored a marriage ban amendment five years ago – came out against current efforts to pass the Anti-Marriage Equality Amendment and write discrimination into our constitution, and we know that there are many other Republicans out there who feel the same way.”
Even with candidates’ rhetoric against same-sex marriage, Price said he remains “confident as ever that marriage will be protected.”
The legalization of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire could be in greater danger because it was enacted through the legislative process and could be repealed. Gov. John Lynch (D) has pledged to veto any repeal legislation that comes to his desk, but the Republican supermajority of the legislature seated last year could find sufficient votes to override his veto to undo the marriage law. A vote on repeal legislation is expected in the House in January, which would be shortly before the Republican presidential primary.
Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, said marriage equality remains popular in the state.
“I don’t think the candidates necessarily want to deal with this issue,” she said. “It’s actually pretty popular in New Hampshire — marriage equality. There’s really strong opposition to repealing it, and I just know if I were a candidate, I would want to weigh in on that.”
Rev. Gene Robinson (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Rev. Gene Robinson, the gay bishop of the Episcopal Diocese in New Hampshire, said last month in a Center for American Progress conference call that LGBT rights supporters in his state “are nervous and aware” of the possible impact on the Republican presidential primary, but nonetheless feels assured that marriage equality will remain on the books.
“We’re assuming that there will be a fight to repeal the marriage equality law in New Hampshire,” Robinson said. “There is a veto-proof majority in both the House and the Senate. Clearly, the governor will veto a repeal if it comes through, but I’m fairly confident that we will get enough Republicans with us that we will forestall a veto.”
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Log Cabin Republicans to honor Scott Presler
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
