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.”
Vice President JD Vance and his wife, second lady Usha Vance, will visit Hungary next week.
An announcement the White House released on Thursday said the Vances will be in Budapest, the Hungarian capital, from April 7-8.
JD Vance “will hold bilateral meetings with” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The announcement further indicates the vice president “will also deliver remarks on the rich partnership between the United States and Hungary.”
The Vances will travel to Hungary less than a week before the country’s parliamentary elections take place on April 12.
Orbán, who has been in office since 2010, and his Fidesz-KDNP coalition government have faced widespread criticism over its anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
The Associated Press notes polls indicate Orbán is trailing Péter Magyar and his center-right Tisza party.
President Donald Trump removed Attorney General Pam Bondi from her post Thursday, following growing criticism over how she and the Department of Justice handled a range of issues, including matters related to sex offender and Trump ally Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump announced Bondi’s removal on Truth Social, where he also said Todd Blanche will serve as acting head of the Justice Department.
“Pam Bondi is a great American patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my attorney general over the past year,” Trump wrote on the platform. “Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown on crime across our country, with murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900.”
Trump was seen as recently as Wednesday with the now-former attorney general at a Supreme Court hearing on citizenship.
The decision contrasts with Trump’s previous public praise of Bondi, the 87th U.S. attorney general and former 37th attorney general of Florida, who served in that role from 2011-2019 before joining the Trump-Vance administration. He has frequently lauded her loyalty and said he speaks with her often. Bondi was also one of president’s defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial.
Privately, however, Trump had grown frustrated that Bondi was not “moving quickly enough” to prosecute critics and political adversaries he wanted to face criminal charges, according to multiple sources. The New York Times reported that her inability to charge former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James with any crimes is a large factor in the president’s choice to fire her from the government’s primary law enforcement agency.
The move comes as Trump has sought to minimize public turmoil within his administration, avoiding the perception of a revolving-door Cabinet that defined his first term.
Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York who unsuccessfully ran for governor, has emerged as a leading contender to lead the Justice Department. He has been one of Trump’s most reliable allies.
“He’s our secret weapon,” Trump said of Zeldin in February during a White House event promoting the coal industry, adding, “He’s getting those approvals done in record-setting time.”
Bondi has also growing faced scrutiny from Congress.
The House Oversight Committee recently subpoenaed her to testify about the department’s handling of certain files, where she declined to answer key questions during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing in February.
The Tampa native has a long history of opposing LGBTQ rights through her roles in government. As Florida attorney general, she fought against the legalization of same-sex marriage, arguing it would cause “serious public harm,” pushing forward a legal battle that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars. She also asked the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that found the state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
More recently, Bondi established a “Title IX Special Investigations Team” within the Justice Department focused on restricting transgender women and girls from participating in women’s and girls’ sports teams and accessing facilities aligned with their gender identity. She also told Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to turn over the medical records of anyone under 19 who received gender-affirming care.
Her removal follows Trump’s decision last month to oust another controversial female Cabinet figure, Kristi Noem.
The White House
VIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
Eugene Ramirez booed first family at Kennedy Center
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended the opening night of “Chicago” at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Tuesday. They were greeted by a mix of cheers, applause, and some audible boos.
Among them was Eugene Ramirez, a gay Washington resident, who later shared his account of the night after being briefly detained by security for booing the president and giving a thumbs-down gesture — an expression of what many would call a textbook definition of constitutionally protected speech to criticize the government.
Ramirez attended the opening night performance with a group of friends, hoping to catch a final show before the center undergoes two years of major changes under Trump oversight. The musical, based on a 1926 play of the same name, has become synonymous with Broadway success.
With music by John Kander, lyrics by Fred Ebb, and a book by Ebb and Bob Fosse, “Chicago” has cemented itself as a cultural staple — known for its signature Fosse choreography, stripped-down staging, and sleek, campy aesthetic. The story follows Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly, women who murder their husbands but — with the help of the manipulative, charismatic, and narcissistic attorney Billy Flynn — walk away scot-free.
It remains the longest-running American musical in Broadway history, and its 2002 film adaptation famously won the Academy Award for Best Picture. On this night, however, the production also became the backdrop for a very modern moment of political protest.
“I accompanied five friends to opening night of ‘Chicago’, as a way to enjoy a final performance in the Kennedy Center as we know it,” Ramirez began to recount to the Washington Blade, describing the moment his group settled into their seats inside the ornate Opera House theater.
Just before the performance began, the twice impeached president and first lady appeared in the balcony box, drawing immediate attention from the audience below. Theatergoers stood, cheered, clapped, and waved, while Ramirez made a different choice.
While accounts of the crowd’s reaction have varied, Ramirez said his response was intentional, immediate, and within his rights. Moments after booing and giving a thumbs-down while recording on his iPhone, security intervened.
The video of Ramirez booing the Trump’s is here:
“Within moments, the director [of security] and another guard approached and escorted me to a side area where several other security guards were waiting,” he said. “I was detained until everyone was seated and the lights dimmed.”
As he was escorted away, Ramirez said his instincts as a journalist kicked in. A former lead anchor for Sinclair’s national evening news broadcast, he said the situation immediately felt off — or more aptly put — as if he could see the strings being pulled from someone attempting to control the narrative.
“Journalism is a vocation, not just a job. I immediately knew there wasn’t just an uncomfortable interaction with security,” he said. “The Kennedy Center is a federally funded cultural institution, and being questioned about speech related to the president in that setting felt like something the public should know about.”
Ramirez explained the difference between a standard visit by a public official and this performance: the president’s appearance wasn’t just ceremonial; it was very clearly a media moment.
“The White House press pool was there, and it was clear this was an effort to manage the president’s image in the media,” Ramirez continued. “The irony was not lost on me that this was happening on opening night of ‘Chicago’, a musical about manipulating the press to shape public perception.”
According to Ramirez, the explanation he received from Kennedy Center Director of Safety and Security Karles C. Jackson Sr., was brief, but illuminating.
“He said, ‘they don’t want booing,’ and even called out my thumbs-down gesture. He never clarified who ‘they’ were, but whether it was the administration or the Kennedy Center, the distinction felt meaningless,” he explained. “Mr. Jackson ultimately told me he was just trying to do his job, shook my hand, and allowed me to return to my seat once the lights dimmed and the overture started playing.”
Ramirez said he didn’t blame the guard individually, noting the broader context of the Kennedy Center’s uncertain future and the pressures staff were under.
“With the center closing in the coming months, some of these security guards being pressured to restrict our freedom of speech may only have a few weeks of work left.”
He believes the decision to remove him was driven less by disruption than optics, particularly given the presence of the press.
“It was very clearly about protection — whether protecting the president from visible dissent, or his image before the media present. There was no disruption as almost everyone was standing and reacting loudly to the arrival of the president and first lady, with cheers, applause, and hand gestures. The difference was that my reaction, unlike most, was negative.”
Drawing on his experience covering public officials, Ramirez said the incident felt more about controlling perception than security.
“Usually, law enforcement may monitor or intervene if there’s a disruption, but here there was no disruption at all. Simply expressing dissent in a public, cultural space drew the attention of security. It made it feel less like a matter of decorum and more like an effort to control the narrative around the president,” he said. “It’s about what happens when dissent is treated as disruption rather than a right.”
“The show hadn’t started. I threatened no one. Billy Flynn would have approved of the optics. The rest of us should be paying attention.”
Ramirez framed the incident as part of a broader constitutional concern, one that is plaguing the Trump-Vance administration as they continue to reject rules and normalcy set forth by other reserved presidents.
“Being singled out by security at a federally funded institution for expressing dissent shouldn’t be brushed off; it undermines the First Amendment,” he said, looking at it slightly distanced from it now. “Being of Cuban heritage, and a journalist, it’s a right I’m not willing to give up readily.”
“Publicly funded cultural institutions should allow visible dissent, even in politically charged moments,” he added. “Of course, I understand the need to manage disruptions during a performance, but that was not the case here.”
The themes of “Chicago”, a long-running satire about media manipulation and public perception, added another layer of irony to the experience, Ramirez explained.
“The satire truly leapt off the stage! A show about controlling the narrative, manipulating the press, and covering up truths by leaning on showmanship and distractions. The show is decades old, but could’ve been written today. We’re being razzle-dazzled daily and it’s getting harder to tell fact from fiction, no matter where you get your news.”
He, being gay, also acknowledged how hard it must have been for the performers on stage, assuming that at least some in the cast were also members of the LGBTQ community — and artists — two things Trump doesn’t always get along with.
“It was not lost on me that many of the actors on that stage, that the president and first lady presumably applauded, are members of the LGBTQ community which this administration has rolled back protections for under the guise of religious liberty and free speech, resulting in blatant discrimination.”
He pointed to a particular number that felt surreal given the circumstances.
“Its ‘Razzle Dazzle’ number celebrates keeping audiences off balance; at its climax, a massive American flag descends as the song celebrates blinding audiences to what is real. Watching that scene after being detained for a thumbs-down was surreal.”
Ramirez said the show’s closing lines were especially sharp given the presidential audience and what he just experienced.
“At the end of the show,
Velma says: ‘You know, a lot of people have lost faith in America.’
Roxie replies: ‘And for what America stands for.’
Velma: ‘But we are the living examples of what a wonderful country this is.’
Roxie: ‘So we’d just like to say thank you and God bless you.’
They had both just gotten away with murder!”
His closing lines, however, were a bit more pointed than “scintillating sinners” Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly’s were in the show.
“Democracy only works when citizens are allowed to boo,” he said. “Tuesday night at the Kennedy Center, ‘Chicago’ made that point better than I ever could.”
The Blade reached out to the Kennedy Center but did not receive a comment back.
Women’s FEST returns to Rehoboth Beach next week
Belarusian lawmakers approve bill to crackdown on LGBTQ rights
Calendar: April 3-9
How new barriers to health care coverage are hitting D.C.
Kenyan advocacy groups launch LGBTQ voter mobilization campaign
‘Out for McDuffie’ event held at D.C. gay bar
‘Jonah’ an undeniably compelling but unusual memory play
The Oscar-losing performance that’s too good to miss
Thousands attend ‘No Kings’ protests in D.C.
