Living
Tough questioning for Gallagher at marriage hearing
Democratic lawmakers hammer anti-gay activist
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.
Real Estate
Convert rent check into an automatic investment, Marjorie!
Basic math shows benefits of owning vs. renting
Suppose people go out for dinner and everyone is talking about how they are investing their money. Some are having fun with a few new apps they downloaded – where one can round up purchases and then bundle that money into a weekly or monthly investment that grows over time, which is a smart thing to do. The more automatic one can make the investments, the less is required to “think about it” and the more it just happens. It becomes a habit and a habit becomes a reward over time.
Another habit one can get into is just making that rent check an investment. One must live somewhere, correct? And in many larger U.S. cities like New York, Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles, Miami, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, Austin, or even most mid-market cities, rents can creep up towards $2,000 a month (or more) with ease.
Well, do the math. At $2,000 per month over one year, that’s $24,000. If someone stays in that apartment (with no rent increases) for even three years, that amount triples to $72,000. According to Rentcafe.com, the average rent in the United States at the end of 2025 was around $1,700 a month. Even that amount of rent can total between $60,000 and $80,000 over 3-4 years.
What if that money was going into an investment each month? Now, yes, the argument is that most mortgage payments, in the early years, are more toward the interest than the principal. However, at least a portion of each payment is going toward the principal.
What about closing costs and then selling costs? If a home is owned for three years, and then one pays out of pocket to close on that home (usually around 2-3% of the sales price), does owning it for even three years make it worth it? It could be argued that owning that home for only three years is not enough time to recoup the costs of mostly paying the interest plus paying the closing costs.
Let’s look at some math:
A $300,000 condo – at 3% is $9,000 for closing costs.
One can also put as little as 3 or 3.5% down on a home – so that is also around $9,000.
If a buyer uses D.C. Opens Doors or a similar program – a down payment can be provided and paid back later when the property is sold so that takes care of some of the upfront costs. Knowledgeable lenders can often discuss other useful down payment assistance programs to help a buyer “find the money.”
Another useful tactic many agents use is to ask for a credit from the seller. If a property has sat on the market for weeks, the seller may be willing to give a closing cost credit. That amount can vary. New construction sellers may also offer these closing cost credits as well.
And that, Marjorie, just so you will know, and your children will someday know, is THE NIGHT THE RENT CHECK WENT INTO AN INVESTMENT ACCOUNT ON GEORGIA AVENUE!
Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with Metro Referrals. Reach him at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].
Some vehicles age quietly — but not muscle cars.
For 2026, the Chevrolet Corvette tightens its focus, fixes one glaring flaw (the previously dowdy interior) and flaunts a futuristic design. The Dodge Charger, on the other hand, is loud and proud, daring you to ignore its presence at your peril.
CHEVROLET CORVETTE
$73,000-$92,000
MPG: 16 city/25 highway
0 to 60 mph: 2.8 seconds
Cargo space: 13 cu. ft.
PROS: Awesome acceleration. Race-car feel. Snazzy cabin.
CONS: No manual transmission. No rear seat. Tight storage.
Finally, the Chevrolet Corvette feels as good inside as it looks flying past you on the freeway. That’s thanks to the classy, completely redesigned cabin. Gone is the old, polarizing wall of buttons in favor of a sleeker, three-screen cockpit. There’s a large digital gauge cluster, a wide infotainment screen angled toward the driver, and a marvy new auxiliary display. Everything is modern and a bit glitzy — but in a good way.
Fit and finish are higher quality than before, and the controls are more intuitive. Chevy’s Performance App is now standard across trims, offering real-time data for drivers who enjoy metrics as much as momentum. And the new interior color schemes, including slick asymmetrical options, let you express yourself without screaming for attention—confidence, not obnoxious bluster.
As for handling, the steering is quick and sure, body control is exceptional, and acceleration is blazingly fast. A mid-engine layout also delivers sublime balance.
Three trim options, including the V8-powered Stingray, the E-Ray (also with a V8 but paired with electric all-wheel drive), and the Z06 and ZR1 variants for racing devotees.
(Note to self: For a truly mind-blowing experience, there’s the new 1,250-horsepower ZR1X all-electric supercar that goes from 0 to 60 mph in less that 2 seconds and is priced starting at $208,000.)
Yes, the ride in any of these Corvettes can be firm. And visibility is, well, rather compromised. But this supercar is a total Dom, not a timid sub. Think Alexander Skarsgard in “Pillion,” and you get the picture.
DODGE CHARGER
$52,000-$65,000
MPG: 16 city/26 highway
0 to 60 mph: 3.9 seconds
Cargo capacity: 22.75 cu. ft.
PROS: Choice of gas or EV power. Modern tech. Spacious cabin.
CONS: No V8 engine (yet). Soft steering. Less-than-lithe cornering.
Everything old is new again for the Dodge Charger. The automaker initially was phasing out gas-powered models in a shift to electric vehicles but then quickly pivoted back to include gas engines after yo-yo regulatory changes this year from, well, the yo-yos in the White House.
Powerful twin-turbo engines in the R/T and Scat Pack trims produce up to 550 horsepower. These models come standard with all-wheel drive but can be switched to rear-wheel drive for classic muscle-car antics when the mood strikes you.
At the same time, Dodge still offers the electric Charger Daytona, delivering up to 670 horsepower and ferocious straight-line acceleration.
The Charger’s aggressive design, massive digital displays and practical hatchback layout carry over, reinforcing its ability to be both a performance diva and everyday companion. With the larger-than-expected storage space, I appreciated being able to fit a boatload of groceries in the trunk during a Costco run.
New wheel designs, paint choices and trim variations help you visually distinguish between gas and electric Chargers. But no matter the model, each one feels decisive and deliberate on the road. Commuting in stop-and-go traffic during rush hour is fine, but this street machine excels at high-speed cruising on the freeway.
The turbo six-cylinder engine delivers muscular torque with less drama than the old V8s, but still with plenty of urgency. The electric Daytona version is a different kind of thrill, with its instant, silent thrust that feels like it could almost launch you to the moon.
Steering is stable but not exactly crisp, and the Charger’s weight makes it less lithe—and lively—than other muscle cars, especially when navigating tight corners.
But that’s just fine with me. Like Bea Arthur as Dorothy in “The Golden Girls,” this no-nonsense muscle car is proud to be big, bold and brassy.
Real Estate
Top buyer-friendly markets for the LGBTQ community
Home should be a place where you can be fully yourself
Buying or selling a home is one of the most meaningful financial and emotional decisions a person can make. For LGBTQ+ individuals and families, that journey can also come with unique considerations — from finding truly inclusive neighborhoods to working with professionals who understand and respect who you are.
The good news? Across the United States, there are increasingly buyer-friendly housing markets where LGBTQ+ home buyers and sellers can find opportunity, affordability, and community. When paired with the right representation, these markets can offer not only strong financial value, but peace of mind.
For more than 30 years, GayRealEstate.com has been the leading source of LGBTQ+ real estate representation, helping LGBTQ+ buyers and sellers connect with vetted, LGBTQ+ friendly real estate agents who understand the nuances of fair housing, legal protections, and inclusive service.
Below, we explore top buyer-friendly markets for the LGBTQ+ community, along with practical tips to help you navigate the process with confidence.
What Makes a Market Buyer-Friendly?
A buyer-friendly market isn’t just about lower prices — especially for LGBTQ+ home buyers. It often includes:
- Increased housing inventory (more choices, less pressure)
- Slower price growth or stabilized pricing
- Greater negotiating power for buyers
- Established or emerging LGBTQ+ communities
- Local protections and inclusive policies
- Access to LGBTQ+ friendly real estate agents and resources
Markets that combine affordability with inclusivity can be especially attractive for first-time gay home buyers, same-sex couples, and LGBTQ+ families planning for long-term stability.
Top Buyer-Friendly Markets for LGBTQ Home Buyers
1. Austin & San Antonio, Texas
Once known for extreme competition, many Texas metros have shifted into more buyer-friendly territory due to increased inventory.
Why it works for LGBTQ+ buyers:
- Strong LGBTQ+ communities, especially in Austin
- More negotiating leverage than in prior years
- Diverse neighborhoods at varying price points
Tip: Texas does not have statewide LGBTQ+ housing protections, making it especially important to work with an experienced LGBTQ+ friendly realtor through GayRealEstate.com.
2. Columbus & Cincinnati, Ohio
Ohio cities continue to attract buyers looking for value without sacrificing culture or inclusivity.
Why it works:
- Lower median home prices
- Growing LGBTQ+ populations
- Strong healthcare, education, and job markets
These cities are particularly appealing for LGBTQ+ buyers relocating from higher-cost coastal markets.
3. Richmond, Virginia
Richmond has become a standout for LGBTQ+ home ownership thanks to affordability, history, and progressive growth.
Highlights:
- Inclusive local culture
- Buyer-friendly price trends
- Walkable neighborhoods popular with LGBTQ+ professionals
4. Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota
The Twin Cities consistently rank high for LGBTQ+ quality of life and legal protections.
Why LGBTQ+ buyers love it:
- Strong anti-discrimination laws
- Stable home values
- Excellent resources for LGBTQ+ families
Minnesota offers one of the safest environments for LGBTQ+ home buyers and sellers navigating the real estate process.
5. Jacksonville & Tampa Bay, Florida
Florida remains complex for LGBTQ+ buyers, but some metros still offer strong buyer opportunity.
What to know:
- Increased inventory = more negotiating power
- Coastal lifestyle at lower cost than South Florida
- Local LGBTQ+ communities continue to grow
Because statewide protections vary, partnering with a GayRealEstate.com LGBTQ+ friendly real estate agent is essential.
Finding LGBTQ-Friendly Neighborhoods
Not every “affordable” neighborhood is inclusive — and safety, comfort, and belonging matter.
When searching for LGBTQ+ friendly neighborhoods:
- Look for visible LGBTQ+ organizations, events, and businesses
- Research local non-discrimination ordinances
- Ask your agent about lived experiences, not just statistics
- Talk to neighbors and local LGBTQ+ groups
Agents in the Gay Real Estate Network often provide insight that listing data alone cannot.
The Importance of LGBTQ Real Estate Representation
While fair housing laws exist, LGBTQ+ housing discrimination still happens — sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly.
Working with an LGBTQ+ friendly real estate agent helps ensure:
- Respectful communication
- Advocacy during negotiations
- Awareness of legal protections
- A safer, more affirming experience
GayRealEstate.com has spent over three decades building the most trusted network of gay realtors, lesbian real estate agents, and LGBTQ+ friendly real estate professionals nationwide.
Legal Protections Every LGBTQ Buyer and Seller Should Know
Federal protections now include sexual orientation and gender identity under the Fair Housing Act, but enforcement and local laws vary.
Before buying or selling:
- Understand your state and local protections
- Know how to document discriminatory behavior
- Work with professionals who take advocacy seriously
- Use trusted LGBTQ+ real estate resources
GayRealEstate.com agents are experienced in helping clients navigate these realities with confidence.
Tips for LGBTQ Home Buyers & Sellers
- Get pre-approved early to strengthen your buying position
- Interview agents and ask direct questions about LGBTQ+ experience
- Don’t ignore your instincts — comfort matters
- Plan long-term: community, schools, healthcare, and protections
- Use LGBTQ+-specific resources rather than generic searches
Buyer-friendly markets create opportunity — but representation creates security.
Whether you’re a first-time gay home buyer, a same-sex couple relocating, or an LGBTQ+ seller preparing for your next chapter, choosing the right market and the right representation makes all the difference.
For over 30 years, GayRealEstate.com has been the trusted leader in LGBTQ+ real estate, connecting buyers and sellers with professionals who understand the importance of inclusion, advocacy, and respect.
Your home should be more than a place to live — it should be a place where you can be fully yourself.
Scott Helms is president and owner of Gayrealestate.com.
Convert rent check into an automatic investment, Marjorie!
Swing actor Thomas Netter covers five principal parts in ‘Clue’
Queer liberation is your liberation
A ‘Battle’ we can’t avoid
LGBTQ Ugandans targeted ahead of country’s elections
McPike prevails in ‘firehouse’ Dem primary for Va. House of Delegates
Faith programming remains key part of Creating Change Conference
LGBTQ Iranians join anti-government protests
The power of no
