National
Couples make history testifying against DOMA
Senate hears from spouses, activists about burdens of marriage ban; hearing first-ever in Congress on repeal of anti-gay law
‘The time has come for the federal government to recognize that these married couples deserve the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples,’ said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
A Senate hearing Wednesday on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act featured poignant testimony from couples in same-sex marriages, who described how the anti-gay law has harmed them.
The hearing, which took place before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the first ever before Congress on repeal of DOMA, the 1996 law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The hearing was intended to highlight the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation pending before Congress that would repeal DOMA.
Ron Wallen, an Indio. Calif., resident, who married his partner of 55 years in 2008, said he’s unable to make payments on his home following the death of his spouse, Tom Carrollo, four months ago. Had he been in an opposite-sex marriage, he would have been able to receive Social Security benefits to help pay for the cost of living.
“I am selling the last house I shared with my husband in a panic sale because I can’t afford the mortgage and expenses,” Wallen said. “I am spending my days and nights sorting through our possessions, packing boxes to move — even while I am still answering the condolence cards that come in the mail.”
Susan Murray, who lives in Ferrisburgh, Vt., with her spouse, Karen Murray, said she also faces financial inequities as a result of DOMA. Murray was the co-counsel in the lawsuit Baker v. Vermont, which established civil unions in Vermont in 2000.
One issue Murray cited was the additional tax that she and her spouse have to pay on employer-based insurance coverage provided to them through her spouse’s employer, Fletcher Allen Health Care.
“Because of DOMA, I am not considered Karen’s spouse, so the value of that health insurance coverage for me ($6,200 a year) is considered taxable income to Karen,” Murray said. “She therefore has to pay income tax, as well as FICA and Medicare tax, on that ‘phantom’ income — unlike her other married colleagues.”
Andrew Sorbo, a Cheshire, Conn., resident and retired history teacher, also testified about financial troubles he faced after his spouse, Colin Atterbury, died of pancreatic cancer in 2009. Among other things, Sorbo said he was denied the right to be included in his deceased spouse’s medical insurance plan through the federal government.
Andrew Sorbo (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
“When I retired as a teacher in 2005, I had no alternative except to pay for my insurance coverage in full through my former school district, at a much higher cost than if I could have been covered under Colin’s plan as a spouse,” Sorbo said. “Last year, my insurance payments consumed almost a third of my $24,000 teacher pension.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the committee, spoke out in his opening statement for passage of the Respect for Marriage Act and said it would allow same-sex couples married under state law to receive federal benefits.
“Nothing in this bill would obligate any person, religious organization, state, or locality to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex,” Leahy said. “What would change, and what must change, is the federal government’s treatment of state-sanctioned marriage. The time has come for the federal government to recognize that these married couples deserve the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), sponsor of the DOMA repeal legislation, maintained that the anti-gay law should be off the books because marriage, as well as other issues related to family such as adoption and divorce, have been under the jurisdiction of state law.
“Family law has traditionally been the preserve of state law,” Feinstein said. “The single exception is DOMA. Chief Justice [William] Rehnquist once wrote that family law ‘has been left to the states from time immemorial, and not without good reason.’ He was right.”
Passed by Congress in 1996, DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton. Both Clinton and the bill’s sponsor at the time, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr, have come out for repeal of the law.
DOMA has two components: one that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and another that allows states not to recognize such marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
As a result of the component of DOMA known as Section 3, married same-sex couples cannot participate in federal programs. For instance, they can’t file joint federal income taxes, receive spousal benefits under Social Security or obtain exemptions of the estate tax law upon the death of one of the spouses.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who represents a state where same-sex marriage will be available next week, emphasized the fiscal reasons for repealing DOMA and predicted that lifting the anti-gay law from the books “would, on balance, likely increase federal revenue.”
According to Schumer, in 2004 the Congressional Budget Office found that DOMA repeal at the time would have increased revenues by less than $400 million a year from 2005 through 2010, and by $500 million to $700 million annually from 2011 through 2014.
“I think that there are three fundamental principles at stake here,” Schumer continued. “Repealing DOMA makes good fiscal sense, it respects states’ rights to make their own determinations about marriage, and it treats all married people the same. It’s fair, it makes sense, and it’s time.”
The sole committee member to speak out against DOMA repeal during the hearing was Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the committee.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key
Grassley, who represents a state where same-sex marriage is legal, said he opposes the Respect for Marriage Act because he believes marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.
“The bill before us today is entitled the Respect for Marriage Act,” Grassley said. “George Orwell would have marveled at the time. A bill to restore marriage would restore marriage as it has been known — one man, one woman. That is the view of marriage that I support. This bill would undermine, not restore marriage by repealing it.”
Grassley and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) were the only Republican senators who made an appearance at the DOMA hearing. Grassley was the only GOP committee member who asked questions of the witnesses.
Witnesses who married someone of the same-sex testified about how DOMA negatively affected their relationship or their ability to receive benefits after the death of their spouse.
The hearing took place on the heels of an announcement from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday that President Obama supports the Respect for Marriage Act.
“I can tell you that the president has long called for legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people families, friends and neighbors,” Carney said. “He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act introduced by Sen. Feinstein and Congressman Nadler, which would take DOMA off the books once and for all. This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”
President Obama has previously said he supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but has yet to come out in support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which is the specific measure pending before Congress that would repeal the law.
During the hearing, Grassley erroneously said that Obama until Tuesday “was a supporter of DOMA.” During the 2008 campaign, Obama made full repeal of DOMA one of his campaign promises.
Experts testify before Senate
House members also testified on both sides of the Respect for Marriage Act. Two Democratic members — Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the sponsor of the bill, and John Lewis (D-Ga.) — favored DOMA repeal, while Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a lawmaker known for his anti-gay views, opposed it.
Nadler maintained that not just same-sex couples — but children being raised by LGBT parents — are among those who are affected by the discrimination of DOMA.
“No legitimate federal interest in the welfare of children is ever advanced by withholding protection for some children based on the desire to express mild disapproval of their parents,” Nadler said. “It defies common sense to claim that it’s necessary to harm or exclude the children of married same-sex couples in order to somehow protect the children of opposite-sex couples.”
Similarly, Lewis expressed disbelief that Congress has yet to act on something as fundamental as allowing Americans the right to marry the person they choose.
“I find it hard to believe that in the year 2011, there’s still the need to hold hearings and debate on whether or not to allow people to marry the one they love,” Lewis said.
Lewis said DOMA imposes similar discrimination that blacks endured in the South under segregation and recalled the discrimination he faced as a child growing up in Southern Alabama.
“As a child, I tasted the bitter fruits and racism and discrimination, and I did not like it,” Lewis said. “And in 1996, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, the taste of that old bitter fruit filled my mouth once again.”
King, countering those arguments, based his testimony against repeal of DOMA on the basis that marriage is intended for procreation and thus should be reserved for one man and one woman because the union can produce children.
“The other side argues that you can’t choose who you love and that the union between two men and two women is equal to that of one man and one woman,” King said. “These are the same arguments that are used to promote marriage between fathers and daughters, mothers and sons or even polygamous relationships.”
Expert witnesses on both sides of DOMA testified before lawmakers. LGBT advocates maintained DOMA should be repealed to lift the burden of discrimination against same-sex couples, while supporters of DOMA said the anti-gay law is necessary to keep marriage as between one man and one woman.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, was among the LGBT advocates who testified during the hearing. He addressed the financial burdens DOMA imposes on same-sex couples.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
“DOMA means that the many protections the federal government provides for the health and financial security of American families remain out of reach for same-sex couples and their children,” Solmonese said. “Same-sex spouses of federal employees and active members of the military are denied access to health insurance coverage and a host of other benefits. Even when private sector companies voluntarily provide spousal health benefits, they are taxed, making it financially burdensome if not impossible for gay and lesbian couples to make use of these fair-minded policies.”
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said DOMA “carves out a gay exception” in the way the U.S. government traditionally and currently treats married couples.
“DOMA divides those married at the state level into first-class marriages for those the federal government prefers and second-class marriages for those the federal government doesn’t like,” Wolfson said. “But in America, we don’t have second-class citizens, and we shouldn’t have second-class marriages either.”
Arguing in favor of DOMA, anti-gay advocates maintained the importance of keeping marriage between one man and one woman.
Austin Nimrocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the purpose of family and relationships is to procreate and raise children.
“Accordingly, from the lexicographers who have defined marriage, to the eminent scholars in every relevant academic discipline who have explained marriage, to the legislatures and courts that have given legal recognition and effect to marriage, they all demonstrate that an animating purpose of marriage in every society is to increase the likelihood that procreative relationships benefit society,” Nimrocks said. “Marriage between a man and a woman is a long standing, world-wide idea that is a building block of society.”
Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, warned that DOMA repeal could require the federal government to recognize not only same-sex marriages — but also polygamous relationships.
“If the male-female nature of traditional marriage can be dismissed as an artifact and its inherent link to procreation denied, then surely the distinction between a marriage of two persons and a marriage of three or more is all the more arbitrary and irrational,” Whelan said. “It’s doubtful that any further sliding down the slippery slope would be necessary to get to polyamory: unlike the novelty of same-sex marriage, the polygamous version of polyamory has been widely practiced throughout history — and is therefore arguably up the slope from same-sex marriage.”
Whelan previously testified in April against same-sex marriage before the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing on “Defending Marriage.”
The assertion that DOMA would institute same-sex marriage is places where it didn’t exist before didn’t go without criticism from LGBT advocates after the hearing.
Rick Jacobs, chair and co-founder of the Courage Campaign, rebuked the assertion during that DOMA repeal would expand the places where gay couples can marry and maintained the Defense of Marriage Act would simply remove the federal government from the marriage issue.
“They don’t seem to understand what DOMA is,” Jacobs said. “They just keep missing the point that all DOMA is give the states the ability to decide what marriage is.”
Mary Bonauto, civil rights projects director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, also chided anti-gay advocates’ emphasis on marriage as between one man, one woman during the hearing as she said DOMA only affects those who are already married.
“I think it’s important to talk about marriage, but I wish there had been that much more delineation between what marriage is about one hand and what DOMA does, which is simply discriminate against people who are already married,” Bonauto said. “But there’s still, particularly in the opposition witnesses, this complete conflation between DOMA and marriage.”
Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family, bore the brunt of the tough questioning from the committee undermining his credibility for his position that children reared by opposite-sex parents are better off than those raised by same-sex parents.
Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
“It is a strong and dramatically consistent finding in the social science, psychological and medical literature that children do best when living with their own married mother and father,” Minnery said.
In his testimony, Minnery cites a December 2010 study from the Department of Health & Human Services which he said found “children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never life in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) challenged Minnery’s assertion, saying the HHS report “actually doesn’t say what you said it says.”
“It says that nuclear families — not opposite-sex married families — are associated with those positive outcomes,” Franken said. “Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that married same-sex couple that has or had adopted kids would fall under the definition of the nuclear family in the study that you cite?”
Minnery replied that he would believe the study means nuclear families are families with opposite-sex parents, but Franken denied this speculation, saying, “It doesn’t,” eliciting laugher from those attending the hearing.
“The study defines nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and each biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family,” Franken said. “And I, frankly, don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said following the hearing the testimony of those affected by DOMA compared to apparently misleading testimony of the anti-gay law’s proponents shows why “we’re winning on this issue.”
“The families who spoke — they talked from their human experience,” Carey said. “The other side talked from technical matters, from research that actually didn’t reveal the true, full research. We’re actually — children are doing quite well in our families, thank you very much.”
Time for a markup?
Now that the Respect for Marriage Act has had a hearing in the Senate, one option to move the legislation would be to hold a markup to bring the legislation to the floor. All 10 Democrats on the committee have signaled support for the legislation, so the bill already has sufficient support to move forward.
A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the committee has yet to set a date to report out the legislation to the Senate floor.
“This hearing began to build the record for repealing DOMA, and this is the beginning of the process,” the aide said. “Sen. Leahy will continue to work with Sen. Feinstein and other supporters, and hopes there will be support from both sides of the aisle for this repeal, but I have no announcements to make today concerning any kind of timeline.”
Jacobs said he wants to see more co-sponsors for the Respect for Marriage Act — and maintained he wants “all Democrats on board” — but said the time may be right for a markup on the bill.
“I think that we should move to that pretty quickly,” Jacobs said. “I’d like to see it. I know some people don’t, but I think we need to keep the momentum going.”
Following the hearing, Solmonese expressed caution about moving to a markup and deferred the decision to the Senate Judiciary Committee leadership.
“If we are genuinely committed to a clare path to victory, to ensuring that DOMA is repealed, then I would defer to the chairman in terms of the degree to which he thinks the time is appropriate for a markup — and how that relates to a full Senate vote and the prospects in the House,” Solmonese said. “As was the case with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ as was the case with any legislative victory that we have seen through to the end, we never want to evaluate it on the merits of one action.”
Bonauto, who’s leading several lawsuits against DOMA in the federal courts, said she isn’t sure if a committee vote on DOMA repeal — or a floor vote in the Senate without action in the House — would have any effect on how the courts would evaluate the constitutionality of the anti-gay law. She cautioned that a symbolic victory in the Senate may not have the desired impact on the courts.
“It’s hard to predict,” Bonauto said. “In the 1970’s, when the Congress had approved of the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it up for ratification to the states, the Supreme Court stayed its hand and didn’t declare that gender was a suspect classification because it thought the issue was moving through the political process. I think we’ve all learned through of the failure of ratification of the ERA that because something has been approved by the Congress of even is a constitutional amendment is set forth for ratification, it doesn’t predict future results.”
National
Human Rights Watch sharply criticizes US in annual report
Trump-Vance administration ‘working to undermine … very idea of human rights’
Human Rights Watch Executive Director Philippe Bolopion on Wednesday sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over its foreign policy that includes opposition to LGBTQ rights.
“The U.S. used to actually be a government that was advancing the rights of LGBT people around the world and making sure that it was finding its way into resolutions, into U.N. documents,” he said in response to a question the Washington Blade asked during a press conference at Human Rights Watch’s D.C. offices. “Now we see the opposite movement.”
Human Rights Watch on Wednesday released its annual human rights report that is highly critical of the U.S., among other countries.
“Under relentless pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms,” said Bolopion in its introductory paragraph. “To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.”
The report, among other things, specifically notes the U.S. Supreme Court’s Skrmetti decision that uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical interventions for minors.
The Trump-Vance administration has withdrawn the U.S. from the U.N. LGBTI Core Group, a group of U.N. member states that have pledged to support LGBTQ and intersex rights, and the U.N. Human Rights Council. Bolopion in response to the Blade’s question during Wednesday’s press conference noted the U.S. has also voted against LGBTQ-inclusive U.N. resolutions.
Maria Sjödin, executive director of Outright International, a global LGBTQ and intersex advocacy group, in an op-ed the Blade published on Jan. 28 wrote the movement around the world since the Trump-Vance administration took office has lost more than $125 million in funding.
The U.S. Agency for International Development, which funded myriad LGBTQ and intersex organizations around the world, officially shut down on July 1, 2025. The Trump-Vance administration last month announced it will expand the global gag rule, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services, to include organizations that promote “gender ideology.”
“LGBTQ rights are not just a casualty of the Trump foreign policy,” said Human Rights Watch Washington Director Sarah Yager during the press conference. “It is the intent of the Trump foreign policy.”
The report specifically notes Ugandan authorities since the enactment of the country’s Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2023, which punishes “‘carnal knowledge’ between people of the same gender” with up to life in prison, “have perpetrated widespread discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, their families, and their supporters.” It also highlights Russian authorities “continued to widely use the ‘gay propaganda’ ban” and prosecuted at least two people in 2025 for their alleged role in “‘involving’ people in the ‘international LGBT movement’” that the country’s Supreme Court has deemed an extremist organization.
The report indicates the Hungarian government “continued its attacks on and scapegoating of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people” in 2025, specifically noting its efforts to ban Budapest Pride that more than 100,000 people defied. The report also notes new provisions of Indonesia’s penal code that took effect on Jan. 2 “violate the rights of women, religious minorities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, and undermine the rights to freedom of speech and association.”
“This includes the criminalization of all sex outside of marriage, effectively rendering adult consensual same-sex conduct a crime in Indonesia for the first time in the country’s history,” it states.
Bolopion at Wednesday’s press conference said women, people with disabilities, religious minorities, and other marginalized groups lose rights “when democracy is retreating.”
“It’s actually a really good example of how the global retreat from the U.S. as an actor that used to be very imperfectly — you know, with a lot of double standards — but used to be part of this global effort to advance rights and norms for everyone,” he said. “Now, not only has it retreated, which many people expected, but in fact, is now working against it, is working to undermine the system, is working to undermine, at times, the very idea of human rights.”
“That’s definitely something we are acutely aware of, and that we are pushing back,” he added.
Maryland
4th Circuit dismisses lawsuit against Montgomery County schools’ pronoun policy
Substitute teacher Kimberly Polk challenged regulation in 2024
A federal appeals court has ruled Montgomery County Public Schools did not violate a substitute teacher’s constitutional rights when it required her to use students’ preferred pronouns in the classroom.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision it released on Jan. 28 ruled against Kimberly Polk.
The policy states that “all students have the right to be referred to by their identified name and/or pronoun.”
“School staff members should address students by the name and pronoun corresponding to the gender identity that is consistently asserted at school,” it reads. “Students are not required to change their permanent student records as described in the next section (e.g., obtain a court-ordered name and/or new birth certificate) as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their identified name. To the extent possible, and consistent with these guidelines, school personnel will make efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the student’s transgender status.”
The Washington Post reported Polk, who became a substitute teacher in Montgomery County in 2021, in November 2022 requested a “religious accommodation, claiming that the policy went against her ‘sincerely held religious beliefs,’ which are ‘based on her understanding of her Christian religion and the Holy Bible.’”
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in January 2025 dismissed Polk’s lawsuit that she filed in federal court in Beltsville. Polk appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.
Minnesota
LGBTQ Minnesotans speak out amid ICE crackdowns
‘Our nervous systems are not set up to live under constant threat’
Uncloseted Media published this article on Jan. 31.
By HOPE PISONI, SAM DONNDELINGER, SPENCER MACNAUGHTON, and TAYA STRAUSS | Since the start of December, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., have been under the thumb of an extremely heavy presence of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
During the crackdown, which the agency refers to as “Operation Metro Surge,” at least 3,000 people — mostly undocumented immigrants — have been arrested so far. Tensions came to a boil in January when federal immigration enforcement agents shot and killed poet Renee Good and ICU nurse Alex Pretti on separate occasions. In response, Minneapolis-area residents have started to push back. On Jan. 23, Minnesotans organized the first citywide general strike in the U.S. in nearly 80 years, with tens of thousands protesting and over 700 businesses closing in solidarity. And additional protests are taking place nationwide in at least 36 states over Jan. 30 and 31.
Many queer people have been on the frontline of these protests. We spoke with six people on the ground in the Twin Cities to learn more.
Watch the full interview above or read the transcript here:
SPENCER MACNAUGHTON: Hi everyone, I’m Spencer Macnaughton, and today I am here with six queer folks from the Minneapolis area. Everyone, thank you so much for speaking with me and Uncloseted Media today.
ALL: Thanks for having us.
SM: Yeah, great to be with you. And obviously we reached out to you all based on the headlines. And a lot of what’s playing out at the national level is happening right there in Minneapolis where you guys live. And I just wanted to start to really get a pulse check. How are you guys feeling right now? I have not been in Minneapolis. For folks who only see what’s unfolding on social media or on TV, take us inside what life has been like for you all the past few weeks.
RACHEL DOMINGUEZ: It’s incredibly stressful. Our nervous systems are not set up to live under constant threat. That’s the biggest thing that I think people are not understanding about what’s going on. And I’ve lived in Minneapolis for 41 years. We had a little dress rehearsal for this about five years ago, but it was nothing — there was no precedent. There’s no precedent for this. It’s like water about to come to a boil. Everyone here is stressed out. We’re angry. We’re scared for our safety, for our neighbors’ safety, for our livelihoods. We have no idea when this is gonna stop. Oh, and it’s two fucking degrees out.
JUNE REICHERT: It’s hard to go on like normal when this is happening. Part of my, and I’m sure everybody in your profession, is to not even acknowledge it. Pretend that everything’s okay while you’re at work, while you are going to school, while you are going shopping and everything. And little do you know, down the street, a Somali family is being harassed for no good reason. It brings this feeling of sorrow, especially when it does affect your professional life. When somebody who you’ve been working with for a long time, all of a sudden, as part of my job, I can’t get a hold of them. I work with a lot of people from the Hispanic community and they’re just gone. And you just sit wondering. It’s horrible. It’s a horrible feeling.
SM: And June, tell me more about that. That actually happened?
JH: So for what it’s worth, I sell insurance. I have had clients who have been picked up and I can’t get a hold of them. I mean, I can verify what happened to them, but these people I’m able to get a hold of every single day when I need to, to take care of this, that or the other issue. And now I can’t get a hold of them for a week straight. What am I supposed to think? You know?
SKOT RIEFFER: My day job, I work for a catering company. We have no work at my catering company for the next two months because every single event has canceled because of the ICE occupation. And these events are things from corporate events to weddings. And we’re all now without a job, essentially. My catering company is maybe 30 percent white people and so all of us are checking in with everyone else all the time. One of our folks, also a member of the Hispanic community, has lost four family members. They just got kidnapped. And they’re just gone.
ALICIA KOPP: I am the child of a migrant. I’m from a mixed heritage. My father is from Guatemala. He’s been a citizen since ‘83. Right now, we’re not letting him leave the house. We’re running all errands. The stress that you had spoken to earlier, Rachel, that is definitely wearing thin on all of us.
SM: I mean, what type of mental health effects is that having on him by not being able to leave the house and also probably understanding the reasons why he’s not leaving the house?
AK: When I handed him things like, I showed him what was in a whistle kit with the red cards. This is an emergency contact card. On the inside, the top part says, “help me,” and it’s got whoever’s holding it, their information. The bottom has their loved one and their lawyer and contact information. And they carry this in one of these red cards that on one side has your constitutional rights and on the other side says what you would tell to an immigration agent if they tried to stop you. Or you would just put it up to the window in your car or slip it through, so that you don’t have to talk to them. Now, what good it does? Yeah, I don’t exactly know. Because they’re not exactly following the rules, they kind of tell a lot of people, “That doesn’t matter, we don’t care.” But with this contact card, you have it on you, you literally hand it to somebody if you feel like you’re about to get picked up and say, “I need help. Contact this person for me.” Trying to explain to my dad why, even though he’s a citizen now, I wanted him to have this on him if he’s leaving the house? That was hard. And he was a little belligerent at first. I’m just like, “Look, you’ve kept me alive for 50 fricking years. It’s my turn to do the same for you. And right now, they don’t care that you’re a citizen. They just see you and they go, ‘Yep, we don’t want him here.’ And they’re gonna take you away. You’ll be away from your medicine. You’ll be away from us. It will take us how long to figure out where you are.” Even if it’s like hours, that probably isn’t great for somebody that probably shouldn’t be rassled to the ground by young dumb men or women or whoever they are. But you know, it’s hard. It’s really hard for him and it’s hard for all of us because you don’t wanna have to talk to your parents like that.
TERRESA HARDAWAY: I just wanted to comment on how I’m feeling in this moment, and I would say that while I am tired, I’m not exhausted. And it’s because Black people have always been under occupation. And I’m so happy that people are coming to the realization that state violence and national violence is something that affects all of us. But I gotta say my exhaustion probably comes from the long story posts and the Instagram posts of people realizing for the first time that they are also a part of this system. And they realize that they are also subject to be attacked and to be violently murdered in the street, just like Black people, I think that’s where my exhaustion might come in. But I will say, because we are used to this, I know that this is not gonna be the final moment. I don’t want to hold onto this hopelessness that I feel like a lot of folks who are just coming into that realization are starting to feel on their own. And so we have to just keep fighting. And as tired as we are, now is the time for us to actually push the system that we want to stop harming our neighbors.
SM: And how do you push a system in this moment? What is the strategy in terms of pushing? Because, you know, it does feel like a moment where change could happen because there’s so much attention on it.
TH: There are many, many ways that folks can tap into mutual aid networks, can tap into organizations who have been advocating for immigrant rights and equity in those spaces. If there are holes within our neighborhoods that need to be filled, people need food, people need supplies, and they aren’t comfortable leaving their house, there are organizations who have already been doing that work that people can tap and support. People can become legal observers. There is a lot of things that folks could do. This anxiety that I know that we’re all feeling and this exhaustion? I would say focus that into some of the work that’s already happening.
RD: My kid has only gone to Southside Family School for his entire life. That’s where Renee Good, that’s where her kid went. Still goes there actually. So, our kids, first off, they couldn’t be in school. Because the New York Post ran some bullshit article about how our school was some like communist indoctrination training center that recruited her to join an ICE watch. And then all of a sudden death threats, bomb threats, people coming into the teachers’ houses and knocking on the doors and running away. Bomb threat, they had to bring the dogs in. So my kid didn’t even get to go to school for two weeks and now they’re back in school in a secret location. Like this is the fucking Taliban that we’re hiding from.
SM: Wow.
RD: I can’t even say where my kid goes to school. We’re not even supposed to text it.
SM: I’m sorry you have to do that. And I, yeah, and we’ve all seen those harrowing headlines and images of children as young as 2, as young as 5, being taken by ICE over the last few weeks. I wanted to ask more broadly, for the kids you guys know in your life, what is the impact this is having on children?
AK: A lot of stuff for kids are being canceled. I know that the Minnesota Orchestra has canceled their Young People’s Concert Series for the time being because it’s just not safe to go down there. The students that auditioned last spring to be part of the All State Ensembles, all of their concerts have been canceled because it is just not safe.
SR: My partner and I have started doing neighborhood patrols because there’s a daycare two houses down from ours that caters to our small little, poor community around here and everything like that. And so there’s a lot of different folks who go to this daycare. And so every morning from 7:30 ‘til 10, I’m out there, and then from 3 until 5, which is the pickup times. And so we’re out there as observers.
And there’s been some real scary things, and one thing that is really burned in my head was this dad came up and was chatting with me and thanking me for being there and whatnot. He said to me that his kid, his daughter came up to him and asked him, “Dad, what do I do when the men come and take my friends?” And he didn’t have an answer and he was like, “I feel like my job as a dad is to be able to answer these questions and I do not have an answer” and he was sitting there, and we’re outside, it’s –10 and he’s crying. And I’m crying. And our tears are freezing to our damn faces and all I can do is just nod and hug this guy and just be like “yeah, I don’t have an answer either, man.”
SM: You mentioned the ICE patrolling. Tell me about what that is, what you do and why you’re doing it.
SR: We’re just looking for suspicious vehicles. So if out-of-state plates, a slew of identical looking SUVs drive by, we’re marking it, we’re reporting it to the other people in our Signal groups and everything like that. And then in the situation, just the other day, there were three black SUVs that drove by, all of them with ICE agents in full equipment, everything. So we reported all of that. We’re monitoring, we’re taking pictures, we are marking plates, we’re running plates if needed, and just letting every — like there’s a Hmong Market just down the road, and so we let them know. There’s a small, kind of a strip mall that’s almost all owned by people of color, and we call one of them and then they distribute the word and they’ll lock their doors if we see anyone. Just things like that.
SM: When you say you report it, who do you trust right now to report to?
SR: Our neighbors.
SM: Your neighbors.
SR: We have a Signal group, I’m part of several Signal groups. I will get called. Someone will tell me and be like, “hey, we need a big white guy here right now.” And I will show up. And then when I get there, I see things, I take pictures, I send it to that group and I send it to my group of my immediate block of neighbors. And so then they all know, and then they’ll either go check on the neighbors next door who didn’t respond in the group or will drive to the daycare or whatever is needed to do.
SM: Maybe this is a dumb question, but why do you think they’re saying “we need a big white guy”?
SR: I mean, I’m just as likely to get shot and killed and kidnapped and everything as anybody else at this point. But if they’re trying to push the agenda that these types of people are bad people and whatnot, and if in every camera frame that they have, if there’s someone who looks just like you? That bullshit narrative, it’s harder for them to sell it. If I’m standing there, it’s harder for them to sell it. And I hate it. It sucks on so many levels, obviously.
SM: Can people talk about what they’re doing to push back?
TH: Yeah. I think for me and my teams at Blackbird Revolt and Black Garnet Books, we have these spaces. And so this is something that we didn’t have in 2020. And so being able to activate these spaces, hosting a poster making and community space for folks to come together who do feel similarly and just want to be in space with each other has been really amazing. We are also holding a drive where folks can purchase a book, that’s either in English, Spanish or Somali, that we’re able to deliver to families that don’t feel comfortable leaving their homes.
RD: The people here, we don’t have any faith in the politicians, that they’re going to do anything meaningful or that they have any power at all. We don’t have any faith that the police are going to protect us or that the National Guard is gonna protect us or that Tim Walz or Jacob Frey or any of them are gonna be able to protect us.
SM: Why don’t you feel like you have faith in Jacob Frey? I mean, when I see him on TV and he’s saying “get the hell out,” it seems like he’s giving his best effort, but is that a sentiment that is not felt on this call?
SR: It’s super fucking easy to say “get the fuck out.” We’re all saying that, but all of us are also in the street. All of us are also helping, donating food, donating time. Where the fuck has he been?
TH: I’m seeing the real people who are standing up for these communities out at the protest. I ain’t never once seen that man and that man just stay talking shit and never moves and never has any action behind it. Fuck that man. Fuck all of this whole, “get the fuck out.” Stop, anybody can say a cuss word, but you actually have the power to pass policy and you’re not doing it. So it’s not about not having faith. We have a history of seeing them say shit and then not backing that up with action. So it’s not about faith. We have a historical record of y’all not doing shit for the people.
SM: So let me ask then quickly, what do you want him to do? What could he do that would be meaningful right now if he could actually do, that’s within his power?
JH: If you don’t want to start a constitutional crisis by arresting an ICE officer while he’s doing the awful things that he’s doing, fine, I guess. I would argue differently.
RD: No, that’s not fine. That’s what they should do. That’s what they could do.
JH: Correct.
RD: They could get some fucking balls and call the commanders into their office and say, “Look, are you loyal to the constitution or are you a Nazi that’s gonna fold?”
JH: If these people want to preserve whatever level of normalcy that we know has not existed as Rachel, Terry and Alicia have all described, then citations, parking violations, trespassing violations, these people are using their administrative warrants, that are not admissible to use to enter people’s homes, to enter people’s homes. And they aren’t getting trespassing citations for that. They aren’t getting charged for that, I don’t even think the mayor has talked about the fact that they’re doing that. And these are all things that are actions that can be done instead of tweeting really hard. I want action. I don’t want words. I don’t want you to look like a big tough guy and to get all the people on Twitter or Bluesky or whatever to go, “Oh, he owned him.” I want them gone. I don’t want them here anymore.
SR: He could at the very least talk to us. All he’s doing right now is talking to the media. Talk to us, show up. Maybe he’s doin’ shit behind closed doors. Okay fine, but tell us. Talk to us. Come out, listen. Talk. Be present.
SOREN ASTER: One thing we did at the clay pit as well is I changed it to appointment only. I did as much research as I could on how to keep ICE from coming into the public space of my business, and I found that by making it by appointment only, the whole space becomes private and they cannot come in. So my door stays locked. I let people in as I see fit, but just as another form of precaution, keeping those doors locked. It’s an absolute nightmare.
SM: It literally sounds like it’s created a situation where every move you make is nerve-wracking because of what’s happening.
SA: Absolutely.
SM: I’ve heard many people saying that what’s unfolding in Minneapolis is a queer story. And I find that interesting. And I’m curious, do you guys agree with that?
JH: I want to push back a lot on the idea that this is a very queer thing that’s happening. As a transgender person, I’ve been a community activist for quite a while, especially in 2022 when the federal government, from my perspective, was failing to protect my trans siblings in states like Florida and Texas. There’s a lot of my activism that I do that is directly fueled by my queer identity. My neighbors, my friends, my colleagues, my clients even, are being attacked by a force that is an invasion to our city and our state. And it is on me as a human with human emotions and a personal connection to this place to protect my community, and that’s got nothing to do with me being gay. The motivation is, in this instance, for one of a very rare time in my experience, very disconnected from my queer identity. It’s got more to do with protecting Minnesotans. It’s got more to deal with protecting communities, immigrant communities and communities of color who people who look like me, as we’ve discussed here, famously just don’t even bat an eye at, and it’s wrong.
SA: I don’t think it’s an inherently queer thing, but I think that queer people and Black and Brown people are used to having to rely on our community, rather than our government and other people to get the things that we need and to get the support and to make things happen. We’re used to having to riot, and we’re used to having to scream and try and get people to listen to us and our stories. And so I think when this started. The first people that really knew what to do and how to do it and how to organize are those people. And so I think that it’s one part of the story.
SM: One thing we had mentioned earlier is what happened in Minnesota in 2020. Many have compared what’s happening now to the George Floyd protests of 2020. Um, how do you guys compare it? How is it different? How’s it similar?
AK: The big difference? We knew who the police were, we kind of know who these people are, but we don’t know who those people are. We know that they are some of the same people that were let out of the Jan. 6 stuff because of the pardon. And we know they’re likely a lot of the cops that left the profession because they couldn’t beat up on people so freely in Minneapolis anymore with some of the initiatives that have been trying to change the culture of our police forces.
Editor’s Note: While some government officials, including U.S. Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) have called for the DOJ to release information on any participants of the Jan. 6 insurrection employed by ICE, no details have been published. Additionally, several police chiefs and sheriffs have reported that ICE has tried to poach their officers for recruitment, but Uncloseted Media was unable to confirm any cases of this in Minneapolis.
TH: I think for me, I compare it to the longevity of support that’s gonna be happening. I think that after a year, after the protests, after the uprisings, it went back to business as normal, business as usual. I’m also a runner. And so when I’m gonna run a short distance, if I know I’m just trying to get a fast-ass time running a mile, I’m gonna run at that at full velocity. And I feel like people who are just getting activated, that’s what they’re doing. They’re running at it at full velocity and then they get exhausted. Y’all need to run this as if it’s gonna be a 50 mile race. I think for me, how I was activated during the uprisings, I’m really leaning on community. I am texting my group of white allies and being like, “Y’all, I need y’all to pick this up. I need you to help me here, dah dah dah.”
JH: It is unfortunate to me that many people, similar to in 2020 and 2021, will see the immediate aftermath of something and see Derek Chauvin got arrested or whatever it is, and they’re done. And that’s it. And we made the change. And now we can go back. It’s a joke in my community: We can go back to brunch. No we can’t. We’re not done. And they think once ICE is out of Minneapolis and the white people stop dying, then they can just go back to sipping their tea. And I’m worried about that. So it’s a push and pull, and I really want to remain optimistic, and I know there is a future worth fighting for. But I’m also worried that some people will see the short-term victories and give up.
SM: Trump has said that Minnesotan protesters are “left-wing agitators.” I want to know, maybe as a last question, I want to know, how important is protest and what else is getting you through right now?
AK: Well, protest is very important to me, but also understanding the multitude of ways that you can participate in protest. You don’t have to be out necessarily facing off with people that are on an opposing side. You are doing protest by maybe doing a Zoom concert because your concert got canceled and you’re still going to play. Or by delivering food for neighbors and other health and home needs, like laundry detergent is a huge one right now that people need as well as just things like shampoo and soap.
SA: All of the reactions that have happened are really logical when you think about it from an outside perspective. If you take out left and right and the political ideologies of it all, people are coming in and abducting people that are here, mostly not committing crimes. A lot of people, perfectly legal. In any other situation, I think the logical answer would be to fight back and to step up to your community and do what you can to prevent those kidnappings and to prevent that violence from happening.
TH: Protests were so important that it is the first amendment. And so when we get asked things like, “Why are we protesting?” The country was founded on that. I don’t want people to just only relate it to Black people or just to trans people. It was something that was laid at the foundation of this country. We do get to say what we want our government to do and protest is our way of being able to speak out about that. And if you weren’t comfortable with that, you shouldn’t have ran for president.
Snow, ice, and politics: what is (and isn’t) happening
50 years later, it’s still worth a return trip to ‘Grey Gardens’
Marc Shaiman reflects on musical success stories
Human Rights Watch sharply criticizes US in annual report
LGBTQ Victory Fund looks beyond Washington for change in 2026
This queer comedy show will warm you up
Out dancer on Alvin Ailey’s stint at Warner Theatre
Unconventional homes becoming more popular
D.C. Council urged to improve ‘weakened’ PrEP insurance bill
