Connect with us

Living

Tough questioning for Gallagher at marriage hearing

Democratic lawmakers hammer anti-gay activist

Published

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Real Estate

Don’t procrastinate buying your home

Some experts predict rates will fall in June

Published

on

Spring is in the air and it’s a great time to buy a new home.

As springtime fills the air, cherry blossoms are blooming, much of the year still lies ahead and many have started to think about how they are progressing with their 2024 goals. If the dream of buying a house was put on hold when the interest rates went from 3% to almost 8%, and life got in the way of an idea that had gotten onto your to-do list, maybe now is the time to dust it off. 

Mortgage lender Tina Del Casale from Sandy Spring Bank says, “There is still hope the Fed will be happy with inflation numbers by June to finally pull the trigger on lowering interest rates.”  

The rates might not be as low as they were in 2021, but historically, they are still not as high as they were 20 years ago. Some people’s parents remember getting interest rates that were 12%, 14% or even higher.   

One of the biggest questions I get at homebuyer seminars is about is the process. What is buying a house ACTUALLY like?  I usually tell them that it’s like anything else. One step at a time. One form at a time. One bank transfer at a time. One house showing at a time. One home inspection at a time. If you have the wherewithal to plan a vacation, you can buy a house. 

  • Finding a Realtor
  • Finding a lender to get pre-approved (how much is your budget and what is a comfortable monthly payment)
  • Are there any first-time buyer programs that could be used? Is there down payment assistance?
  • Looking at the houses.
  • Finding one you like, and putting an offer together:
    • An offer usually involves a sales contract, any special forms that the jurisdictions require (lead-based paint acknowledgements, what appliances and systems in the house are included/excluded, if the home is part of a homeowners association, or a condo association, etc.)
    • Any forms related to getting an inspection done.
    • Who is selling the house, who is buying the house, how much is it being sold for, where it is exactly, and who are the others involved in the transaction (title company, agents, etc.)?
  • Getting any inspections done.
  • Negotiating any changes in the sales price or terms, or credits for inspection items.
  • Getting the final approval for the loan and then going to settlement.

Many people get interested in buying a house, but the “unknown” of it all can be daunting. It could be that the best way to think about it, is that like most things in life, you can’t cross every bridge BEFORE you get there. You just take it one day at a time. Some things will be surprisingly easy. Some things will require the advice of experienced lenders, Realtors, home inspectors and title attorneys.  

But if the process doesn’t begin somewhere, somehow, the idea just stays in one’s head in the “to do list” file.  And then 3 years go by, 5 years go by, 7 years go by. And your friends that DID buy a house laugh themselves to the bank when they go to sell the house they bought 3 years ago, 5 years ago, or 7 years ago.

If you need any recommendations for a local lender or Realtor, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with Metro Referrals. Reach him at [email protected] or 703-587-0597.

Continue Reading

Advice

Giving up drinking is killing our relationship

What happens when one partner is sober and the other isn’t

Published

on

I’m a 38-year-old guy, was single for most of my 30s, which I didn’t like at all, and I finally met a great guy last Memorial Day Weekend. 

Until New Year’s I would have said that everything was going great. I was on Cloud Nine. Eric is kind, handsome, smart, and a great catch.

But in December he decided to do “Dry January.” It was kind of on a whim I think. We were out with some friends and one of them said he was not going to drink at all for the month of January. He thought alcohol was playing too big a role in his life so he wanted to see what life would be like without it. Another friend said he would do it too, and then Eric said he would.

I wish we hadn’t gone out that night and then this whole thing wouldn’t have happened.

So, as the month progressed, Eric started talking more and more about how much better he was feeling without alcohol in his body or his life.

I don’t think we drank that much pre-January. Yes, we’d have something to drink every time we went out, with friends or just together, but not to excess.

At some point, Eric started saying that he wasn’t really enjoying going out with our friends, as he wasn’t drinking and they were (except the two friends who were also doing the Dry January thing). This meant I’d either go out without him (which I didn’t like) or we’d stay home, or go out just the two of us. But then if I’m drinking and he’s not, it just feels awkward. He hasn’t said anything but I feel like he’s judging me whenever I have a drink.

I was hoping he’d relax about the whole thing at the end of the month but now he’s decided he doesn’t want to drink anymore at all.

To make matters worse, he says that the month made him think more about the big role alcohol plays in his life (his words) and he has started going to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

So where does this leave me? I do want to keep drinking. I’m just a social drinker and I don’t have a problem with alcohol. I think it adds a fair amount of fun to my life. Plus, all my friends drink (including the two who did Dry January) and it’s a big part of our socializing. If you don’t drink when everyone else is drinking, it’s really not fun and it feels weird.

At this point Eric doesn’t go out with the friend group we were going out with because he doesn’t have a good time as the only non-drinker. (I get it, that’s one of the reasons I drink when my friends are drinking.) So I go out sometimes without him, which as I mentioned doesn’t feel so good, and which I don’t think is great for our relationship; or I don’t go out with my friends, which I don’t like.

I love Eric and I could see us having a great life together but his not drinking has opened what feels like a chasm between us.

How do couples handle this situation, where one person wants to stop drinking and the other does not? The impact is seeming increasingly huge to me and I don’t see how to make it stop being a divisive problem.

Michael replies:

I don’t think that Eric’s sobriety needs to be a divisive problem, if you can tolerate that you don’t get to have your life with Eric be exactly as you would like. 

This is the same dilemma that everyone in a serious relationship must face. Our partners are always different from us in some important ways, even if it doesn’t seem that way at first. And we have to figure out how to live with these differences, contentedly for the most part.  Our partners face the same challenge. 

Of course, not every difference can be (or should be) resolvable. For example, if one person is determined to parent and the other person is determined to be child-free, it makes great sense to part ways — unless one person decides they’d rather stay with their partner than have it their way.  

You and Eric have to figure out if your differences around alcohol are a deal-breaker, or if you can find a way to build a solid relationship, even as you drink socially and he is sober.

Whether and how you do this are for the two of you to figure out.  That said, here are some ideas for your consideration: 

  • Can you accept Eric’s not joining you for some or even many of your social activities?
  • Can you and Eric talk about what might help him be more comfortable joining your friends now and then?
  • Can you ask Eric what it’s like for him when you are drinking, rather than assuming that he is judging you? (Important question for your consideration: What led you to make that assumption rather than asking him?)
  • If Eric is making friends in Alcoholics Anonymous, would you want to join him at times when he socializes with them? 

The main ingredients here are generosity, flexibility, collaboration, and curiosity.

Speaking of curiosity, rather than wishing that the two of you had missed that invitation to participate in Dry January, how about being curious about Eric’s decision to stop drinking? I suspect that your dismissiveness has a negative impact on his desire to be close to or confide in you. If you are curious about this important life change that Eric is undertaking, you will certainly learn a lot about your boyfriend, and likely deepen your connection.

Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C. 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

Real Estate

Down payment strategies: Financing your home purchase 

Understanding the options key to unlocking the door to a dream home

Published

on

Looking for your dream home? First, you need to understand how to make the down payment.

Navigating the path to homeownership can be a complex journey, especially when it comes to accumulating the necessary down payment. For members of our LGBTQ community, understanding the available options for saving and financing this crucial aspect of home buying is key to unlocking the door to their dream home. Let’s explore effective methods and resources specifically designed to support LGBTQ individuals on their path to homeownership.

Traditional Savings Strategies

Saving for a down payment often begins with traditional methods such as setting aside a portion of your income into a dedicated savings account. High-yield savings accounts and automated savings plans, some offering up to 5% interest in today’s market, can expedite the process, providing a disciplined approach to accumulate funds over time. Additionally, exploring investment opportunities that match your risk tolerance can offer potential growth for your down payment savings.

Down Payment Assistance Programs

A variety of down payment assistance programs exist to help homebuyers with their initial costs. These programs often offer grants or low-interest loans to first-time homebuyers or those who haven’t owned a home in the past three years. 

It’s essential to speak with a GayRealEstate.com agent to determine what programs may be available, plus online research into local and state assistance programs, as many are designed to support individuals in specific communities, including the LGBTQ+ community.

For medical professionals, police, teachers, firefighters, and other community heroes, there are several special loan and assistance programs designed to help with home purchases, often offering benefits like down payment assistance, reduced closing costs, and more favorable loan terms.

The Hero Home Loan Program provides first responders, including police officers, firefighters, and paramedics, with benefits such as lower interest rates and reduced closing costs. This program aims to make homeownership more accessible by offering more flexible credit score requirements and down payment assistance .

For educators, firefighters, law enforcement officers, and medical professionals, the Everyday Hero Housing Assistance Fund (EHHAF) offers closing cost assistance through gift funds. This program is designed to support those who serve their communities by making homeownership more affordable, with no repayment required for the grant funds​​.

The HUD Good Neighbor Next Door Program offers up to 50% off the list price of homes for law enforcement officers, pre-Kindergarten through 12th-grade teachers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. This initiative aims to encourage community revitalization by assisting these professionals in homeownership within the communities they serve​​.

Homes for Heroes provides assistance specifically to first responders and offers significant savings through Hero Rewards when buying, selling, or refinancing a home. On average, participants save $3,000, with the program offering real estate and mortgage specialist connections tailored to the needs of first responders​​.

LGBTQ-Friendly Lending Options

Finding a lender that understands and supports the unique needs of our LGBTQ community can make a significant difference. Some lenders and organizations specialize in offering inclusive financial products and resources to assist LGBTQ+ homebuyers. These may include specialized mortgage products, financial planning services, and guidance through the home buying process.

The journey to homeownership is a milestone that requires careful planning and support. Remember, every step taken towards saving and financing your home purchase brings you closer to the dream of homeownership.

(GayRealEstate.com offers valuable resources and advice tailored to meet the unique needs of our LGBTQ+ community in their journey towards homeownership. For more comprehensive guidance and support in navigating the home buying process, visit GayRealEstate.com choose an agent and start a no-obligation conversation today.)

Jeff Hammerberg is founding CEO of Hammerberg & Associates, Inc. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular