National
Election could jeopardize Iowa marriage rights
Democrats hoping to hang onto one-seat majority in Senate

Next week’s special election in Iowa could jeopardize the state’s same-sex marriage rights if a Republican candidate wins and overturns Democratic control of the upper chamber of the legislature.
In an election set for Tuesday, Democrat Liz Mathis, a former news anchor for an Iowa TV station, and Republican Cindy Golding, a businessperson, are competing to represent Iowa’s 18th District in the state Senate. The vacancy was created by the retirement of Democratic former State Sen. Swati Dandekar, who left the Senate for an appointment in Republican Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s administration.
Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal (D) has vowed that a state constitutional amendment overturning marriage equality — instituted in 2009 in Iowa by order of the state Supreme Court — won’t come up as long as he remains leader of the chamber. But Democrats hold a majority in the state Senate by a margin of 25-24, so a win by the Republican would make for a tie in the leadership vote and throw control of the chamber into question.
The Democratic and Republican candidates have taken opposite positions on a constitutional amendment that could overturn marriage equality in Iowa. During an interview Monday with the Cedar Rapids Editorial Board, Mathis said she supports marriage equality, while Golding called for bringing the issue to the voters.
Mathis said she agrees with the Iowa Supreme Court ruling and said she doesn’t “believe in discrimination.”
“I believe in the Iowa State Supreme Court, their unanimous ruling, appellate ruling on gay marriage,” Mathis said. “Varnum v. Brien is constitutionally sound. And I’ll just leave it at that.”
Golding, on the other hand, reiterated her belief that the “citizens of Iowa should vote on this issue.”
“I believe that once we vote on it, whether we vote it up or down, the spotlight can come off Iowa for that issue and we can focus on business, we can focus on jobs, focus on education,” Golding said. “We can focus on the things we really need to be taking our time and energy. Because nobody in our district, it was not a huge issue to either one of us as we were going around. It became an issue to us by the national media.”
Golding continued that while she doesn’t believe the ruling has “dramatically changed” Iowa, she does believe the decision has affected schools. She took issue with what she said was scholarships for LGBT students at her daughter’s high school.
“I am curious what the sexual orientation of a student should be for a scholarship in high school,” Golding said. “That troubles me.”
Asked whether there are other criteria for the scholarship, Golding replied, “Well there’s academics, but you must be a declared GLBT student in order to apply for it. That troubles me.”
The plan for Senate leadership if the election results in a tie between the number Democrats and Republicans in the chamber remains in question. During a previous tie in 2005 and 2006, Democrats and Republicans alternatively shared power in the Senate and a rule was put in place ensuring no legislation could come up without consent of both parties. But Price said Republican Leader Paul McKinley has said he won’t agree to such a rule this time around.
In February, the Iowa House passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or even marriage-like unions. For the measure to come to the voters, it would need to first make it through the Senate before the term of the legislature expires. The measure would then have to pass both chambers of the General Assembly again in a separate session with the same language. The soonest the constitutional amendment could come before voters is 2013.
LGBT advocates in Iowa called a Democratic win in the election crucial to preserving marriage equality in Iowa as well as preventing other conservative initiatives from moving through the legislature.
Troy Price, executive director of One Iowa, said a Republican victory could remove the last barrier in the state legislature preventing the passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
“We could see this thing on the ballot in less than two years,” Price said. “For us, this election means quite a bit, and that’s why we’re working so hard to try and protect and maintain the pro-equality majority in the Senate.”
State Sen. Matt McCoy (D), the first openly gay person elected to the Iowa Legislature, said the election is “very crucial” for marriage equality and the progressive agenda.
“This is a must-win election as it relates to marriage equality,” McCoy said. “Obviously, civil rights for tens of thousands of people are at stake, and in addition to that, I think all the other right-wing social agenda issues are potentially at stake as well. So we could see a completely different agenda: less focus on education, less focus on human services, less focus on growing our economy and jobs and more focus on right-wing fringe political issues and agendas.”
According to the Daily Iowan, the district in question is about evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
Price said he’s “cautiously optimistic” about a Democratic win.
“Things are looking up there from our perspective,” Price said. “We’ve been working really hard. We’ve been identifying new marriage supporters in the district and trying to do everything we can to get those people out to the polls.”
McCoy also expressed confidence in Mathis’ ability to win the election and said her supporters are “spending enormous amounts of money” to ensure she wins.
“We feel very confident that we have an excellent candidate who’s working very hard and is doing all of the right things at this point to ensure that we can win this election,” McCoy said. “So, we feel very comfortable that this is a seat we can win and hold.”
The election has also come to the attention of national groups — both pro-LGBT and anti-gay — working on the issue of marriage. The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, announced last month that it would conduct an independent expenditure campaign — along with the Family Leader, a local anti-gay group — to assist Golding with her campaign.
Brian Brown, NOM’s president, called the race a “pivotal election contest” in the effort to bring marriage rights for gay couples before the Iowa electorate.
“A proposed constitutional amendment on defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman enjoys broad-based, bipartisan legislative and voter support, but is being prevented from coming to the floor of the Senate by Majority Leader Mike Gronstal,” Brown said. “If Ms. Golding is successful in her election, we are hopeful that senators will finally have the opportunity to vote on the marriage amendment, and we expect it to pass handily.”
Among NOM’s efforts is the distribution of a mailer featuring pictures of both Mathis and Golding on opposite sides on the Scales of Justice. Mathis is pulling the scale down on her side. The caption below Mathis reads, “Liz Mathis supports gay marriage; No vote of the people.” The caption below Golding reads, “Cindy Golding supports traditional marriage; Will let the people vote!”
But NOM’s involvement reportedly hasn’t stopped there. Price said he’s heard anecdotally NOM is “knocking on doors” in the district and is set to hold an event on Sunday as part of a national press tour.
“We are aware that this is on their radar screen … so we’re doing everything we can to try and counteract that,” Price said.
Pro-LGBT national groups are also involved in the election on behalf of the Democratic candidate. Price said the election is “definitely on their radar” as well, but couldn’t immediately name any of the national pro-LGBT groups that are involved. The Human Rights Campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment on the election.
“This election is really a local election from our perspective, so we’ve just been working with out local partners to make sure that the voice of equality is heard,” Price said.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
-
a&e features3 days ago
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
-
Maryland4 days ago
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
-
Congress5 days ago
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances