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

The financial realities facing LGBTQ+ first-time buyers

Beyond affordability: credit, support systems, and trust

Published

1 day ago

on

October 4, 2026

By

For many first-time buyers, the conversation starts with affordability but that only represents part of the picture. (Photo by karenroach/Bigstock)

For many first-time buyers, the conversation starts with affordability: home prices, interest rates, monthly payments, and the down payment. Yet these initial figures represent only part of the picture. For LGBTQ+ first-time buyers, credit history, access to financial support, household structure, and whether the professionals involved feel trustworthy can also shape the path to homeownership. While these hurdles affect various demographics and show up differently for everyone, they often create friction long before an offer is submitted.

Affordability Is Only the First Filter 

A buyer may be able to handle a monthly mortgage payment and still struggle to qualify for the loan they expected. Loan approval hinges on a holistic review that goes far beyond basic income. Lenders generally consider credit history, debt obligations, available cash, employment and income documentation, and the buyer’s overall financial profile. That distinction matters for first-time buyers who have spent years paying rent successfully but have a limited credit file, uneven credit history, student loan balances, or other debt. Even renters with flawless track records of managing monthly payments can run into unexpected hurdles when a lender applies standard underwriting criteria. Early preparation can help. By auditing credit reports, resolving discrepancies, tackling existing debt, accumulating savings, and engaging early with a certified loan officer, buyers can catch and fix vulnerabilities before they derail a deal.

Support Systems Can Change What Is Possible 

Homebuying advice often assumes that first-time buyers have access to a familiar financial safety net: parents who can help with a down payment, relatives who can provide a gift, or family members who can explain the process because they have purchased homes before. That support is not universal. Some LGBTQ+ buyers have strong financial and emotional support from their families of origin. Others turn to partners, close friends, trusted mentors, or chosen family for backing, while some navigate the entire venture independently. The important point is not to assume what a buyer’s support system looks like. The difference can be practical. When family assistance isn’t an option, buyers often need more time to build reserves. They may rely heavily on down-payment assistance programs or specialized loan options offered by their lender. A buyer receiving gift funds may need to understand documentation requirements before using those funds. Support also includes knowledge. Those raised around property owners often enter the process with a baseline understanding of key mechanics like earnest money, home inspections, appraisals, closing fees, and mortgage terminology. A first-generation buyer may be learning it all at once. Lacking that foundational awareness can lead to costly mistakes surrounding critical deadlines, hidden fees, and contractual obligations.

Household Structure Deserves Careful Planning 

LGBTQ+ buyers may purchase alone, with a spouse, with an unmarried partner, or in another shared household arrangement. These varying arrangements change the game for mortgage applications, combined credit assessments, titling methods, and the division of ongoing home equity. Those decisions deserve deliberate attention. Because two co-buyers may have vastly different credit standings, putting both names on a mortgage application isn’t always the best route. Mortgage responsibility and legal ownership are related, but not identical. A first-time buyer should be able to ask these questions without feeling awkward about explaining a relationship, correcting assumptions, or wondering whether a professional understands the household in front of them. If legal or tax complications surface, buyers should seek tailored advice from an independent professional.

Trust Is a Financial Issue, Too 

Trust can sound like a “soft” consideration compared with a credit score or closing-cost estimate. In reality, it directly shapes strategic financial choices at every stage of the transaction. A buyer who doesn’t feel comfortable with an agent or lender may hesitate to disclose concerns, ask basic questions, or admit they don’t understand a term. They might hold back on detailing how they plan to co-own a home with a partner, or unquestioningly agree to costs without fully grasping the long-term impact. That is a poor foundation for a major financial commitment. First-time buyers need professionals who explain the process clearly, respect the buyer’s household and identity, and make room for questions without judgment. High-level skill and deep market knowledge remain essential, but clear communication and accountability are equally vital. Buyers should understand who each professional represents, what that professional is responsible for, and when outside legal, tax, insurance, or financial advice may be appropriate.

A Better First Step Is Better Information 

The financial realities of buying a first home extend well beyond the list price. A buyer’s credit profile determines loan availability, while their support network dictates their financial wiggle room and access to guidance. Household structure can affect borrowing and ownership decisions. Ultimately, trust is what empowers a buyer to speak up, ask tough questions, and safeguard their financial well-being. For LGBTQ+ buyers, an affirming experience should not replace professional expertise. True support requires both identity-affirming care and top-tier professional guidance working in tandem. Pride Real Estate Connections was built from lived experience with exclusion in real estate and connects LGBTQ+ buyers, sellers, families, and allies with independent real estate professionals through its referral network. The goal is simple: connect clients with vetted agents and lenders who offer unconditional respect, deep expertise, and a space where no one has to minimize who they are. Buying a first home is already complex. Buyers deserve the clarity to focus on core choices: managing their budget, structuring ownership, navigating tradeoffs, and relying on advisors who truly have their back. Pride REC is a referral and connection platform, not a brokerage, and independent real estate professionals provide their own services. Buyers must execute their own due diligence and partner with accredited legal, tax, and lending specialists tailored to their unique needs.


Devin Schaff is co-founder of Pride Real Estate Connections.

Continue Reading

Real Estate

Factors to consider when hiring an interior designer

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

Published

1 week 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

1 week 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

Popular