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.”
The White House
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Country’s anti-LGBTQ record a reported barrier
Richard Grenell, President Donald Trump’s special envoy for “special missions,” is making it known that he is interested in the Russian ambassadorship.
According to reporting by the Daily Mail, Grenell has “floated” his interest in the role to coworkers, but issues surrounding the former German ambassador’s sexuality have made securing the position more difficult.
“He had an interest in the job — or at least he floated the idea to select colleagues. But Putin’s regime is extremely anti–LGBTQ, so I’m sure they didn’t take that thought too seriously,” one source close to Grenell told the Daily Mail. “That would never happen anyway.”
Grenell has long been one of Trump’s closest allies and was the first openly gay person to hold a Cabinet-level position. He was ousted last month as acting director of the Kennedy Center, a position he had held since Trump reestablished the board to be composed of his political supporters in 2025.
In addition to leading the nation’s cultural arts center, Grenell previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Germany from 2018 to 2020, and as the special presidential envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations from 2019 to 2021. He was also a State Department spokesperson to the U.N. under the George W. Bush administration and a Fox News contributor.
Russia has a longstanding history of being anti-LGBTQ.
In 2013, the country passed a law banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors. In December 2022, Putin signed legislation expanding the ban, making it illegal to promote same-sex relationships or suggest that non-heterosexual orientations are “normal” for people of any age, widening censorship across media and public life.
The Russian courts have also supported the restriction of LGBTQ identity in the country. In November 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court granted a request from the Justice Ministry to outlaw the “international LGBT movement” as “extremist,” allowing authorities to criminalize advocacy and potentially prosecute individuals for expressions of LGBTQ+ identity or support.
In addition to LGBTQ rights issues, the war between Russia and Ukraine has become a global concern. Ukraine, which was part of the former Soviet Union, includes the territory known as Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. The annexation remains a major point of international dispute over sovereignty. Since 2022, Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine has escalated the conflict, drawing global attention and sanctions while straining U.S.-Russia relations.
The U.S. has spent $188 billion in total related to the war in Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Russian ambassadorship seems to be a difficult role to fill, according to additional information presented by the Daily Mail. With Trump already being seen as relatively positive by Russian President Vladimir Putin, and with close ties to members of his Cabinet and family — like son-in-law Jared Kushner — the ambassadorship is complicated and viewed as less critical than in previous administrations.
“There is no rush to fill that role because it has now been deemed unnecessary,” another source told the U.K.-based publication.
Bob Foresman, a seasoned businessman with decades-long ties to the Kremlin, was reportedly once the frontrunner, according to the Daily Mail. Foresman served as vice chair of UBS Investment Bank and Deputy Chairman of Renaissance Capital between 2006 and 2009, and earlier led investment banking for Russia at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein from 1997 to 2000.
“This is a pattern, especially in the Trump administration — special envoys big–footing the ambassadors,” a source told the Daily Mail. “It is shocking that we are already in April and we don’t have an ambassador to one of the most important countries in the world.”
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Iran
LGBTQ groups condemn Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization
Ceasefire announced less than two hours before Tuesday deadline
The Council for Global Equality is among the groups that condemned President Donald Trump on Tuesday over his latest threats against Iran.
Trump in a Truth Social post said “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Tehran did not reach an agreement with the U.S. by 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday.
Iran is among the handful of countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death.
Israel and the U.S. on Feb. 28 launched airstrikes against Iran.
One of them killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran in response launched missiles and drones against Israel and other countries that include Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus.
Gas prices in the U.S. and around the world continue to increase because the war has essentially closed the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s crude oil passes.
Trump less than 90 minutes before his deadline announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran that Pakistan helped broker.
“We the undersigned human rights, humanitarian, civil liberties, faith-based and environmental organizations, think tanks and experts are deeply alarmed by President Trump’s threat regarding Iran that ‘a whole civilization will die tonight’ if his demands are not met. Such language describes a grave atrocity if carried out,” reads the statement that the Council for Global Equality more than 200 other organizations and human rights experts signed. “A threat to wipe out ‘a whole civilization’ may amount to a threat of genocide. Genocide is a crime defined by the Genocide Convention and by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as committing one or more of several acts ‘with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, racial or religious groups as such.'”
The statement states “the law is clear that civilians must not be targeted, and they must also be protected from indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.”
“Strikes on civilian infrastructure — such as the recent attack on a bridge and the attacks President Trump is repeatedly threatening to carry out to destroy power plants — have devastating consequences for the civilian population and environment,” it reads.
“We urge all parties to respect international law,” adds the statement. “Those responsible for atrocities, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, can and must be held accountable.”
The Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, MADRE, and the Robert and Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center are among the other groups that signed the letter.
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
