Connect with us

Living

Tough questioning for Gallagher at marriage hearing

Democratic lawmakers hammer anti-gay activist

Published

15 years ago

on

Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democratic lawmakers on Friday hammered anti-gay activist Maggie Gallagher during a congressional hearing with questions on why same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage and the extent to which the National Organization for Marriage participated in campaigns to rescind state marriage laws.

In testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Gallagher, NOM’s chair and co-founder, said marriage should restricted to one man and one woman because such unions are the only kind that can produce children and because state voters by referenda have affirmed 31 times that marriage shouldn’t be extended to gay couples.

“Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that create new life and connect those children in love to their mother and father,” Gallagher said. “This is not necessarily the reason why individuals marry; this is the great reason, the public reason why government gets involved in the first place.”

The hearing, which was titled “Defending Marriage,” took place on the heels of President Obama’s announcement on Feb. 23 that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that his administration would no longer defend the anti-gay law against litigation in court. Following a 3-2 party-line vote in March by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Council, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) directed the House general counsel to take up defense of DOMA in place of the administration.

Gallagher said the need to raise children by married parents of opposite genders affirms the rationale for having in place DOMA, the 1996 law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage, and criticized the Justice Department for dropping defense of the law.

“This is the rationale for the national definition of marriage proposed by Congress in passing DOMA: ‘civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing,'” Gallagher said. “If we accept, as DOMA explicitly does, that this is a core public purpose of marriage, then treating same-sex unions as marriage makes little sense.”

Following her opening statement, Gallagher bore the brunt of tough questioning from Democratic lawmakers during the question-and-answer session of the hearing.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, asked Gallagher if the children of Jen and Dawn BarbouRouske, a married same-sex couple from Iowa who were present during the hearing, should have parents who can receive the full protections of marriage or if she considers these children “expendable.”

“I think no children are expendable,” Gallagher replied. “Gay people have families that are not marital families, but they are families. I myself was an unwed mother, so I have firsthand experience with being in a family that’s not a marital family. I don’t think you need to have a message of stigmatization and exclusion to protect to an ideal.”

Nadler, sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation in the House, interrupted Gallagher, saying “the whole point” of DOMA is stigmatization and exclusion, and pressed Gallagher further on why the institution of marriage benefits when same-sex couples are excluded.

“Because including same-sex unions as marriages denies at a public level that marriage is about an important way for getting together mothers and fathers and children,” Gallagher said.

Nadler continued to question Gallagher on NOM’s involvement in 2010 Iowa campaign that successfully ousted three justices from the state Supreme Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The lawmaker asked Gallagher, who estimated that NOM contributed between $600,000 and $650,000 to the campaign, why she would criticize the Justice Department for allegedly making a political decision while her organization politicized the judicial process.

“The National Organization of Marriage is political advocacy organization, and so I think it’s appropriate for us to be politically involved in ways that Department of Justice is not,” Gallagher replied.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a co-sponsor of the DOMA repeal bill, asked Gallagher whether reports were true that her organization contributed $1.9 million to the 2009 campaign in Maine to abrogate the states’s same-sex marriage law. Opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in nullifying the marriage law in the state before gay couples could marry there.

“I don’t have those figures in front of me, but we were involved in the [effort],” Gallagher said. “But that’s probably on the order [of our contributions].”

NOM has repeatedly come under fire for failing to disclose their donors during the campaign against the Maine marriage law. State courts have ordered the organization to reveal their donors in accordance with the law, but NOM has yet to do so.

Following the hearing, Dan Fotou, eastern regional field director for GetEQUAL, praised Democratic lawmakers for hammering Gallagher with tough questions after her testimony.

“I think it was good to hear the Democrats standing up and challenging Maggie Gallagher’s position,” Fotou said. “Fifty-two percent of Americans think that marriage equality is OK, so I think today was good in terms of putting a face on hate once again, and Maggie does a really great job of that.”

Democratic lawmakers’ criticisms during the hearing weren’t limited to Gallagher. Conyers questioned Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), chair of the subcommittee, why no witnesses from the Justice Department were present to defend Obama’s decision to drop defense of DOMA.

“What bothers me about this hearing at this subcommittee is that the Department of Justice is not present,” Conyers said. “I was informed that they were not invited. … We have one of the leaders of the country, Ms. Gallagher, who’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars against judges … but there’s nobody here from the Justice Department.”

In response, Franks said the Justice Department would be invited to come during an upcoming hearing in May before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee on the DOMA decision. Upon further questioning, Franks maintained the panel was fair because its makeup included witnesses on both sides of the issue.

But Franks’ response apparently didn’t allay the concerns of Conyers, who said he hopes Congress can hear the Justice Department to respond to the criticisms of Gallagher.

“There’s a political tone in this hearing that I want to diminish as much as possible,” Conyers said. “The fact of the matter is this is not in regular order and I do not approve the way that we’re starting out this subcommittee [hearing].”

Despite the general tone in favor of DOMA during the hearing, several panel members known for having anti-gay views — including Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who’s railed against same-sex marriage in home state, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who’s leading the effort to eliminate gay nuptials in D.C. — didn’t make an appearance. Neither the office for King nor Jordan responded to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on why the lawmakers didn’t attend the hearing.

Ian Thompson, who’s gay and legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the lack of presence by anti-gay lawmakers was telling that the they were uncomfortable with their positions.

“The thing that was particularly striking to me was the fact that so few DOMA supporters on the committee actually were in attendance,” Thompson said. “So, from my perspective, if the hearing was intended to demonstrate the support of the House of Representatives for DOMA, from the attendance alone, it was a complete and total flop.”

Rep. Trent Franks (Blade photo by Michael Key)

But a few anti-gay Republicans did make an appearance to rebuke the notion of extending marriage rights to gay couples and to criticize the Justice Department for dropping defense of DOMA.

Franks called Obama’s decision to discontinue defense of the anti-gay law an “edict” that “failed to show the caution and respect for Congress and the courts.”

“When the President unilaterally declares a duly enacted law unconstitutional, he cuts Congress and the American people out of the lawmaking process,” Franks said. “Such heavy-handed presidential action undermines the separation of powers and the principle that America is a constitutional republic predicated on the rule of law.”

Franks continued that the arguments in favor of DOMA are “reasonable and right” because marriage between one man and one woman is the best union for raising children.

“Traditional marriage has proven to be the most successful institution in humanity’s history for the propagation and preparation of the next generation,” Franks said. “The traditional family has proven to be the best department of welfare, the best department of education, the best department of crime prevention, and the best department of economic security that there has ever been.”

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a lawmaker known for anti-gay views, also made an appearance at the hearing and railed against what he called the government altering the definition of marriage. Smith, chair of the full House Judiciary Committee, offered an opening statement during the hearing even though he’s not a member of the subcommittee.

“If we tamper with the definition of marriage, harmful unintended consequences could follow,” Smith said. “The ability of religious institutions to define marriage for themselves to promote their sincerely held beliefs could be threatened.”

Smith said the will the people is for continued definition of marriage between one man and one woman — noting the 31 successful ballot initiatives that restricted marriage to such unions — and said the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide protections for same-sex couples seeking to marry.

“No one can seriously believe that the Constitution’s founders intended to create a right to same-sex marriage,” Smith said. “By refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act against legal challenges, the administration has allowed the courts to overrule that popular law.”

Franks and Smith’s opening statements were countered by initial remarks from Nadler, who called arguments that Justice Department acted inappropriately by dropping defense of DOMA a “red herring” and said the real question should be whether anyone — either the Obama administration or Congress — should defend the law.

“Far from demeaning, trivializing or destroying the institution of marriage, [gay] couples have embraced this time-honored tradition and the commitment and serious legal duties of marriage,” Nadler said. “Rather than defending DOMA in court, Congress should be working to repeal it.”

Two legal experts on the panel presented opposing views on whether the administration acted within bounds in its decision to discontinue defense of DOMA in court.

Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, said the Justice Department’s decision is in violation of its policy.

“The Obama administration’s decision to abandon defense of DOMA — or more precisely, to abandon its charade of pretending to defend DOMA — departs sharply from the Department of Justice’s long-standing practice,” Whelan said.

Whelan said Obama dropped defense of the anti-gay law to appease a political constituency and to induce the courts to “invent the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

“With the exception of laws that intrude on the executive branch’s power, the long-standing practice of the Department of Justice is to vigorously defend the constitutionality of any law where a reasonable may be made,” Whelan said. “This ‘reasonable standard’ is a very low bar. It basically means that the Department of Justice will defend a federal law against constitutional challenge when it can offer non-frivolous grounds in support of the law.”

Carlos Ball, a gay law professor at Rutgers Law School (Blade photo by Michael Key)

But Carlos Ball, a gay law professor from Rutgers Law School, testified that Obama acted within his authority because another statute exists saying that the attorney general must inform Congress if the administration decides to no longer defend a law.

“The existence of that statute seems to be a recognition by the Congress of the reality that the executive branch sometimes, in rare cases, can not defend the constitutionality of a law,” Ball said. “The executive branch, as a co-equal branch of government, has the authority and obligation to make independent assessment’s regarding a law’s constitutionality.”

Ball noted precedent for an administration declaring an existing law unconstitutional and dropping defense of the statute in court — the 1990 case of Metro Broadcasting v. FCC. Then-acting U.S. Solicitor General John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, argued that a law providing for minority preferences in broadcast licensing was unconstitutional. Despite the position of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court later upheld the law.

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Real Estate

Factors to consider when hiring an interior designer

It’s essential to have confidence in the professionals you engage

Published

2 days ago

on

September 27, 2026

By

(Photo courtesy of StatePoint)

(StatePoint) Ready to redesign your home? Whether you have only a vague notion of how you want your spaces to look or a very specific vision, relying on the expertise of a professional can help you bring your dream home to life. Before choosing and hiring an interior designer, though, be sure to take the following factors into consideration:

Style: Identify your style. Is it boho chic? Industrial? Maximalist? Many designers have their own signature look and preferences. It’s best to understand what vibe you want first, then search for a designer who aligns with that style.

Past client projects: One of the best ways to know whether a particular designer is the right fit for you is to review their past client projects. Ask to see their portfolio or review their finished projects on their website or socials. Also, take a look at reviews and testimonials to ensure their previous customers walked away satisfied with a job well done.

Budget: Communicate your budget in advance of work to confirm that you and your designer are on the same page financially. Your decorator will need this ballpark figure to get a handle on the scope of the project and to make design decisions accordingly. You should also use this conversation to understand their rates so you can decide whether you want to move forward.

Preferred vendors: It’s important that the interior designer you choose has preferred vendors that they work with. These are partners they’ve built strong relationships with that provide the same first-rate experience they do, and have streamlined processes in place. “A home renovation has so many moving parts. That’s why we try to take the hassle out of the process for designers and homeowners alike,” says Katie Zess, senior marketing manager and director of Renewal by Andersen’s Interior Designer Loyalty Program. 

Through the loyalty program, the full-service window and door replacement division of Andersen Corporation offers their program members exclusive access and rewards, including a “designer discount” they can share with their clients. Renewal by Andersen also offers designers a dedicated point of contact to ensure a smooth process that’s customized for your project from start to finish. To learn more, visit renewalbyandersen.com.

Before you begin your home renovation, it’s essential to have confidence in the professionals you hire. Be sure your interior designer has fostered partnerships that will streamline your redesign, and that their goals and budget aligns with yours.

Continue Reading

Real Estate

The LGBTQ real estate map is being redrawn

Affordability, higher mortgage rates reshaping where we choose to call home

Published

3 days ago

on

September 27, 2026

By

LGBTQ buyers are looking beyond Palm Springs and other popular queer destinations these days when searching for a forever home. (Photo by photojohn830/Bigstock)

For decades, the map of LGBTQ+ America was relatively easy to recognize.

New York. San Francisco. Los Angeles. Palm Springs. Provincetown. Fort Lauderdale and Wilton Manors.

These communities became LGBTQ+ destinations because they offered something that wasn’t always easy to find elsewhere: visibility, acceptance, community and the freedom to live openly.

But that map is changing.

Today’s LGBTQ+ homebuyers are navigating a housing market defined by high prices, elevated mortgage rates and affordability challenges. At the same time, remote and hybrid work, retirement and the growth of LGBTQ+ communities beyond traditional destinations are giving buyers more choices about where to live.

Increasingly, the question isn’t simply, “Where are the most LGBTQ-friendly places to live?”

It’s also: “Where can I find community and afford the life I want?”

That shift may become one of the defining LGBTQ+ real estate trends of the coming decade.

Affordability Is Changing the Conversation

For many buyers, the biggest issue in today’s housing market is simple: the monthly payment.

The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 6.95% in mid-September, compared with 6.26% a year earlier, according to Freddie Mac.

Meanwhile, the median price of an existing U.S. home reached $429,100 in August, according to the National Association of Realtors.

The combination of elevated home prices and higher borrowing costs has changed what many Americans can afford—and where they can afford it.

Some buyers are purchasing smaller homes or condominiums. Others are moving farther from major urban centers. Still others are reconsidering expensive markets entirely.

For LGBTQ+ buyers, this is helping broaden the definition of an LGBTQ+-friendly place to call home.

LGBTQ+ Buyers Have More Choices

A generation ago, relocating away from a major city or established gay neighborhood could sometimes mean sacrificing access to a visible LGBTQ+ community.

That’s increasingly less true.

Traditional LGBTQ+ destinations such as Palm Springs, Fort Lauderdale and Wilton Manors, San Francisco, New York and Provincetown remain important centers of LGBTQ+ life. But today, LGBTQ+ buyers can also find established or growing communities in cities across the country.

Places such as Minneapolis, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Atlanta and the Tampa Bay area are among the markets attracting buyers who may be looking for a different balance of housing costs, lifestyle and community.

The goal isn’t necessarily to find the cheapest house.

It’s to find the right combination of affordability, LGBTQ+ community, lifestyle, employment opportunities, healthcare, culture and quality of life.

Remote and hybrid work have expanded those possibilities for some buyers. If a job no longer requires being in an expensive employment center five days a week, the geographic search for a home can become considerably larger.

That can make communities that once seemed impractical suddenly worth considering.

Retirement Is Redrawing the Map, Too

Retirement is another important part of the changing LGBTQ+ real estate landscape.

As more Americans reach retirement age, LGBTQ+ retirees are considering where they want to spend the next chapter of their lives. Housing costs, taxes, healthcare, climate and proximity to airports, restaurants and cultural activities all play a role.

But LGBTQ+ retirees may have additional questions.

Will I feel comfortable living openly?

Is there an LGBTQ+ community nearby?

Can I find LGBTQ+-affirming healthcare?

Will I have opportunities to build a social network as I get older?

Those considerations can make choosing a retirement destination particularly personal.

Palm Springs and Fort Lauderdale/Wilton Manors remain well-known LGBTQ+ retirement destinations. But retirees are also exploring smaller cities and communities across the Southeast, Midwest and other regions where housing costs and lifestyles can look very different.

For many, the search is becoming less about moving to a famous gay destination and more about finding a place where community, lifestyle and affordability intersect.

Buyers Finally Have More Leverage

There is another significant change in today’s housing market: buyers have regained some negotiating power.

The National Association of Realtors reported 1.62 million existing homes for sale in August, up 5.9% from a year earlier. That represents approximately 4.9 months of housing supply, the highest level in more than a decade.

Realtor.com also reported that 20.4% of active listings had experienced a price reduction in August.

That’s a very different environment from the pandemic-era housing market, when buyers in many communities faced bidding wars, waived inspections and offers well above asking price.

Depending on the market, today’s buyer may have more time to evaluate a property and greater opportunity to negotiate price, repairs, closing costs or other concessions.

But there is an important caveat: there is no single national housing market.

Conditions can vary dramatically from one city—or even one neighborhood—to another. Some markets remain competitive, while others have considerably more inventory and negotiating room.

That’s one reason local expertise matters.

Sellers Need a Different Strategy

The changing market also has implications for LGBTQ+ homeowners considering selling.

Strategies that worked several years ago may not work today.

Buyers are highly sensitive to monthly payments, and an overpriced home can quickly be passed over when competing properties are available.

Sellers should pay close attention not only to recent comparable sales but also to homes currently competing for the same buyer.

Condition matters, too.

Repairs, landscaping, staging and professional photography can make a meaningful difference when buyers have more choices. Pricing correctly from the beginning has also become increasingly important.

More Than 30 Years Serving the LGBTQ+ Community

One part of buying or selling a home hasn’t changed: the importance of working with a real estate professional who understands your priorities.

For more than 30 years, GayRealEstate.com has served the LGBTQ+ community, connecting buyers and sellers with LGBTQ+ and allied real estate professionals throughout the United States.

Over that time, the GayRealEstate.com network has supported more than $2 billion in real estate sales and more than 55,000 transactions.

Behind those numbers are thousands of people making one of life’s most personal decisions: where to call home.

For LGBTQ+ buyers, that conversation can involve much more than bedrooms, bathrooms and price per square foot. It can include community, acceptance, healthcare, family, retirement, lifestyle and the ability to live openly.

An experienced LGBTQ+ or allied real estate professional can understand why those considerations belong in the real estate conversation.

Finding Home in a Changing America

The 2026 housing market presents real challenges.

Mortgage rates remain elevated. Home prices are high. Affordability continues to strain buyers across much of the country.

But there are also signs of a more balanced market. Inventory has increased. Price reductions have become more common. Buyers in many markets have regained negotiating power.

And for LGBTQ+ Americans, something else has changed: there are more places to consider calling home.

The next great LGBTQ+ destination doesn’t necessarily need the country’s largest Pride celebration or its most famous gay neighborhood.

It could be a smaller city with a growing LGBTQ+ community, attainable housing, good healthcare, strong cultural amenities and a quality of life that leaves room for travel, retirement or simply enjoying the home you’ve worked hard to own.

Ultimately, today’s LGBTQ+ real estate search increasingly comes down to three questions:

Where can I afford the life I want?

Where will I find my community?

And where will I feel at home?

The answers are becoming more varied—and that’s helping redraw the map of LGBTQ+ America.


Scott Helms is with GayRealEstate.com.

GayRealEstate.com has served the LGBTQ+ community for more than 30 years, connecting LGBTQ+ homebuyers and sellers with LGBTQ+ and allied real estate professionals across the United States. Its network has supported more than $2 billion in real estate sales and more than 55,000 transactions.

Continue Reading

Advice

I’m 66, he’s 27. Is it love or am I being played?

What to do when your friends don’t trust your boyfriend

Published

3 days ago

on

September 27, 2026

By

Dear Michael,

I’m 66, Peter is 27. I’m retired, financially comfortable. He’s a grad student.

We met last summer at the beach and started dating. Now we’re living together. I want this to be forever, and Peter says he does too.

The problem: Some of my friends are telling me that Peter is taking me for a ride.

I know all the cliches about older gay men thinking they’re in a loving relationship when the truth is they’re just some young guy’s sugar daddy. But I don’t feel old. And I think I have a grip on reality. 

I do support Peter financially now, but he is eventually going to have a job. And if I didn’t pay for things, there’s no way he could share my life in terms of travel, dining out, etc. I want to have fun with him and am happy to foot the bill. 

My friends say there’s no way he could be attracted to anything but my money. But I take great care of myself and look good. We don’t have the greatest sex life but I think it’s pretty hot. Peter says he is attracted to older guys.

And there’s much more to our relationship than sex. Despite the age difference, I think we are kindred spirits, and Peter says he feels the same. We both like travel, talking about politics, have similar taste in books and movies and TV shows. Lots of common interests.

I can deal with the age/money criticisms, but there’s some other stuff I’m more worried about.

One of my friends says he saw Peter making out with someone much younger over the summer. That worries me. I asked Peter about it and he said it wasn’t true. 

Peter does go out, solo, because he can stay up a lot later than I want to. My party-till-dawn days are over. He says he’s just dancing and hanging out with friends. I want to believe him.

One night he didn’t come home and it unsettled me. He told me it just got too late so he crashed at a friend’s place. I thought of asking the friend about it but I didn’t want to seem like I was spying on Peter, and I also was afraid that the friend would say this didn’t happen. If it didn’t, then what? Do I break up with him for lying and cheating? I really don’t want to be old and alone. I can’t tell if my friends are making me paranoid or if I am being played.

Michael replies:

Obviously, I can’t know if Peter is telling you the truth or not. But I can give you some pointers on dealing with trust in a relationship. The main person to focus on trusting is yourself. 

Do you trust your own sense of whether or not Peter is being honest with you? If not: What would it take for you to do so? Could you let yourself see things that you are currently not wanting to let yourself see? What is now stopping you from seeing him accurately?

You describe many ways in which you think the two of you are compatible. How about in terms of values? Do you respect Peter’s character? Can you get a good read on whether he is just telling you what you want to hear in order to stay in the relationship, or giving you an honest representation of where he really stands?

I understand that you’re afraid of finding out that Peter is lying to you, and that you don’t want to have to deal with ending the relationship. Given the possible ramifications, that makes sense. But do you want to let your fear stop you from keeping your eyes open?

When we decide to see things not as they are, but as we wish they were, or tell ourselves that what we see isn’t what we’re seeing, we end up getting hurt. And we do a great disservice to ourselves by discrediting our own internal witness, making it difficult to trust both ourselves and other people.

Only you can decide which would be preferable: Living with someone whom you don’t trust to be honest with you, or being alone.

In considering this possibility, keep in mind that none of us have a guarantee that we won’t be hurt in our relationships. In fact, it’s pretty much certain that at times we will be. Partners do break each other’s hearts, sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. That in itself is no reason to end a relationship. 

But being with someone who is purposely deceiving you doesn’t sound that appealing. 

Our relationship difficulties often give us possibilities to grow. Your fears about Peter’s infidelity are an opportunity for you two to have some conversations about how important you each think honesty is in a relationship; and what risks you are willing to take in order to have an honest relationship. 

People are often afraid to speak the truth because of the possible consequences. But if you don’t speak up, you can easily wind up in a hollowed-out relationship where neither of you is willing to address what is really going on with each of you. That is the opposite of intimacy.  

And, having a standard where each of you is forthcoming would avoid the minefield of a distrustful relationship where one of you is the detective and one of you is the suspect. That dynamic creates an imbalanced relationship and often leads to the watched partner wanting to get away with things. 

Bottom line: Are each of you interested enough in an intimate relationship to be consistently honest with each other, even if your partner may not like what you say? And to do your best to respond thoughtfully to your partner’s honesty, even when he tells you something that you do not want to hear?

Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, New York, and all PSYPACT states. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].

Continue Reading

Popular