Connect with us

National

Election could jeopardize Iowa marriage rights

Democrats hoping to hang onto one-seat majority in Senate

Published

on

Liz Mathis
Liz Mathis

Liz Mathis. (Courtesy Mathis campaign site)

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.

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Kansas

ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs

A new Kansas bill requires transgender residents to have their driver’s licenses reflect their sex assigned at birth, invalidating current licenses.

Published

on

Kenda Kirby, transgender, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade
A transgender flag flies in front of the Supreme Court. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Transgender people across Kansas received letters in the mail on Wednesday demanding the immediate surrender of their driver’s licenses following passage of one of the harshest transgender bathroom bans in the nation. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit to block the ban and protect transgender residents from what advocates describe as “sweeping” and “punitive” consequences.

Independent journalist Erin Reed broke the story Wednesday after lawmakers approved House Substitute for Senate Bill 244. In her reporting, Reed included a photo of the letter sent to transgender Kansans, requiring them to obtain a driver’s license that reflects their sex assigned at birth rather than the gender with which they identify.

According to the reporting, transgender Kansans must surrender their driver’s licenses and that their current credentials — regardless of expiration date — will be considered invalid upon the law’s publication. The move effectively nullifies previously issued identification documents, creating immediate uncertainty for those impacted.

House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 also stipulates that any transgender person caught driving without a valid license could face a class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. That potential penalty adds a criminal dimension to what began as an administrative action. It also compounds the legal risks for transgender Kansans, as the state already requires county jails to house inmates according to sex assigned at birth — a policy that advocates say can place transgender detainees at heightened risk.

Beyond identification issues, SB 244 not only bans transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity in government buildings — including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops — with the possibility for criminal penalties, but also allows for what critics have described as a “bathroom bounty hunter” provision. The measure permits anyone who encounters a transgender person in a restroom — including potentially in private businesses — to sue them for large sums of money, dramatically expanding the scope of enforcement beyond government authorities.

The lawsuit challenging SB 244 was filed today in the District Court of Douglas County on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas, and Ballard Spahr LLP. The complaint argues that SB 244 violates the Kansas Constitution’s protections for personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and freedom of speech.

Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a temporary restraining order on behalf of the anonymous plaintiffs, arguing that the order — followed by a temporary injunction — is necessary to prevent the “irreparable harm” that would result from SB 244.

State Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat and the only transgender member of the Kansas Legislature, told the Kansas City Star on Wednesday that “persecution is the point.”

“This legislation is a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans,” said Monica Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas. “It undermines our state’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and persecution.”

“SB 244 is a cruel and craven threat to public safety all in the name of fostering fear, division, and paranoia,” said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “The invalidation of state-issued IDs threatens to out transgender people against their will every time they apply for a job, rent an apartment, or interact with police. Taken as a whole, SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”

“SB 244 presents a state-sanctioned attack on transgender people aimed at silencing, dehumanizing, and alienating Kansans whose gender identity does not conform to the state legislature’s preferences,” said Heather St. Clair, a Ballard Spahr litigator working on the case. “Ballard Spahr is committed to standing with the ACLU and the plaintiffs in fighting on behalf of transgender Kansans for a remedy against the injustices presented by SB 244, and is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights jeopardized by this new law.”

Continue Reading

National

After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast

Top editorial staff let go last week

Published

on

Cover of The Advocate for January/February 2026.

Former staff members at the Advocate and Out magazines revealed that parent company Equalpride laid off a number of employees late last week.

Those let go included Advocate editor-in-chief Alex Cooper, Pride.com editor-in-chief Rachel Shatto, brand partnerships manager Erin Manley, community editor Marie-Adélina de la Ferriére, and Out magazine staff writers Moises Mendez and Bernardo Sim, according to a report in Hollywood Reporter.

Cooper, who joined the company in 2021, posted to social media that, “Few people have had the privilege of leading this legendary LGBTQ+ news outlet, and I’m deeply honored to have been one of them. To my team: thank you for the last four years. You’ve been the best. For those also affected today, please let me know how I can support you.”

The Advocate’s PR firm when reached by the Blade said it no longer represents the company. Emails to the Advocate went unanswered.

Equalpride on Friday announced it acquired “Them,” a digital LGBTQ outlet founded in 2017 by Conde Nast.  

“Equalpride exists to elevate, celebrate and protect LGBTQ+ storytelling at scale,” Equalpride CEO Mark Berryhill said according to Hollywood Reporter. “By combining the strengths of our brands with this respected digital platform, we’re creating a unified ecosystem that delivers even more impact for our audiences, advertisers, and community partners.”

It’s not clear if “Them” staff would take over editorial responsibilities for the Advocate and Out.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Two very different views of the State of the Union

As Trump delivered his SOTU address inside the Capitol, Democratic lawmakers gathered outside in protest, condemning the administration’s harmful policies.

Published

on

President Donald Trump speaks at the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

As President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address inside the U.S. Capitol — touting his achievements and targeting political enemies — progressive members of Congress gathered just outside in protest.

Their message was blunt: For many Americans, particularly LGBTQ people, the country is not better off.

Each year, as required by Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president must “give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” The annual address is meant to outline accomplishments and preview the year ahead. This year, Trump delivered the longest State of the Union in U.S. history, clocking in at one hour and 48 minutes. He spoke about immigration, his “law and order” domestic agenda, his “peace through strength” foreign policy doctrine, and what he framed as the left’s ‘culture wars’ — especially those involving transgender youth and Christian values.

But one year into what he has called the “Trump 2.0” era, the picture painted outside the Capitol stood in stark contrast to the one described inside.

Transgender youth

In one of the most pointed moments of his speech, Trump spotlighted Sage Blair, using her story to portray gender-affirming care as coercive and dangerous. Framing the issue as one of parental rights and government overreach, he told lawmakers and viewers:

“In the gallery tonight are Sage Blair and her mother, Michelle. In 2021, Sage was 14 when school officials in Virginia sought to socially transition her to a new gender, treating her as a boy and hiding it from her parents. Hard to believe, isn’t it? Before long, a confused Sage ran away from home.

“After she was found in a horrific situation in Maryland, a left-wing judge refused to return Sage to her parents because they did not immediately state that their daughter was their son. Sage was thrown into an all-boys state home and suffered terribly for a long time. But today, all of that is behind them because Sage is a proud and wonderful young woman with a full ride scholarship to Liberty University.

“Sage and Michelle, please stand up. And thank you for your great bravery and who can believe that we’re even speaking about things like this. Fifteen years ago, if somebody was up here and said that, they’d say, what’s wrong with him? But now we have to say it because it’s going on all over, numerous states, without even telling the parents.

“But surely, we can all agree no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will. Who would believe that we’ve been talking about that? We must ban it and we must ban it immediately. Look, nobody stands up. These people are crazy. I’m telling you, they’re crazy.”

The story, presented as encapsulation of a national crisis, became the foundation for Trump’s renewed call to ban gender-affirming care. LGBTQ advocates — and those familiar with Blair’s story — argue that the situation was far more complex than described and that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions places transgender people, particularly youth, at greater risk.

Equality Virginia said the president’s remarks were part of a broader effort to strip transgender Americans of access to care. In a statement to the Blade, the group said:

“Tonight, the president is choosing to double down on efforts to disrupt access to evidence-based, lifesaving care.

“Rather than allowing families and doctors to navigate deeply personal medical decisions free from federal interference — or allowing schools to respond with nuance and compassion without putting marginalized children at risk — the president is instead advocating for reckless, one-size-fits-all political control.

“At a time when Virginians are worried about rising costs, economic uncertainty, and aggressive immigration enforcement actions disrupting communities and families, attacking transgender young people is a blatant political distraction from the real challenges facing our nation. Virginia families and health care providers do not need Donald Trump telling them what care they do or do not need.”

For many in the LGBTQ community, the rhetoric inside the chamber echoed actions already taken by the administration.

Earlier this month, the Pride flag was removed from the Stonewall National Monument under a National Park Service directive that came from the top. Community members returned to the site, raised the flag again, and filed suit, arguing the removal violated federal law. To advocates, the move was symbolic — a signal that even the legacy of LGBTQ resistance was not immune.

Immigration and fear

Immigration dominated both events as well.

Inside the chamber, Trump boasted about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants detained in makeshift facilities. Outside, Democratic lawmakers described those same facilities as concentration camps and detailed what they characterized as the human toll of the administration’s enforcement policies.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), speaking to the crowd, painted a grim picture of communities living in fear:

“People are vanishing into thin air. Quiet mornings are punctuated by jarring violence. Students are assaulted by ICE agents sitting outside the high school, hard working residents are torn from their vehicles in front of their children. Families, hopelessly search for signs of their loved ones who have stopped answering their phones, stop replying to text… This is un-American, it is illegal, it is unconstitutional, and the people are going to rise up and fight for Gladys Vega and all of those poor people who today need to know that the people’s State of the Union is the beginning of a long fight that is going to result in the end of Republican control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States of America in 2026.”

Speakers emphasized that LGBTQ immigrants are often especially vulnerable — fleeing persecution abroad only to face detention and uncertainty in the United States. For them, the immigration crackdown and the attacks on transgender health care are not separate battles but intertwined fronts in a broader cultural and political war.

Queer leadership

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) speaks at the People’s State of the Union on the Mall on Feb. 24. (Photo by Andrei Nasonov)

After delivering remarks alongside Robert Garcia, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, took the stage and transformed the freezing crowd’s anger into resolve.

Garcia later told the Blade that visibility matters in moments like this — especially when LGBTQ rights are under direct attack.

“We should be crystal clear about right now what is happening in our country,” Garcia said. “We have a president who is leading the single largest government cover up in modern history, we have the single largest sex trafficking ring in modern history right now being covered up by Donald Trump and Pam Bondi In the Department of Justice. Why are we protecting powerful, wealthy men who have abused and raped women and children in this country? Why is our government protecting these men at this very moment? In my place at the Capitol is a woman named Annie farmer. Annie and her sister Maria, both endured horrific abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. As we move forward in this investigation, always center the survivors; we are going to get justice for the survivors. And Donald Trump may call this investigation a hoax. He may try to deflect our work, but our message to him is very clear that our investigation is just getting started, and we will we will get justice for these survivors.”

He told the Blade afterwards that having queer leaders front and center is itself an act of resistance.

“I obviously was very honored to speak with Kelley,” the California representative said. Kelley is doing a great job…it’s important that there are queer voices, trans voices, gay voices, in protest, and I think she’s a great example of that. It’s important to remind the country that the rights of our community continue to be attacked, and then we’ve got to stand up. Got to stand up for this as well.”

Robinson echoed that call, urging LGBTQ Americans — especially young people — not to lose hope despite the administration’s escalating rhetoric.

“There are hundreds of thousands of people that are standing up for you every single day that will not relent and will not give an inch until every member of our community is protected, especially our kids, especially our trans and queer kids. I just hope that the power of millions of voices drowns out that one loud one, because that’s really what I want folks to see at HRC. We’ve got 3.6 million members that are mobilizing to support our community every single day, 75 million equality voters, people that decide who they’re going to vote for based on issues related to our community. Our job is to make sure that all those people stand up so that those kids can see us and hear our voices, because we’re going to be what stands in the way.”

A boycott — and a warning

The list of Democratic lawmakers who boycotted the State of the Union included Sens. Ruben Gallego, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Chris Murphy, Adam Schiff, Tina Smith, and Chris Van Hollen, along with dozens of House members.

For those gathered outside — and for viewers watching the livestream hosted by MoveOn — the counter-programming was not merely symbolic. It was a warning.

While the president spoke of strength and success inside the chamber, LGBTQ Americans — particularly transgender youth — were once again cast as political targets. And outside the Capitol, lawmakers and advocates made clear that the fight over their rights is far from over.

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading

Popular