National
Gay Iowa lawmaker fears undoing of marriage rights
McCoy talks Iowa caucuses, future LGBT intiatives

HOUSTON — The only openly gay member of the Iowa State Senate believes marriage equality in the state could “absolutely” be in danger, despite a recent win solidifying a Democratic majority in the chamber for the remainder of the year.
State Sen. Matt McCoy, who’s served in the legislature since 1993 — first as a House member and then as a senator — said marriage rights for gay couples could be in jeopardy in the 2012 election if Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal loses his seat or Democrats lose their majority in the chamber.
“We’ve got to make sure that we win some of those key seats that have allowed us to hold on to a majority,” McCoy told the Blade during an interview in Houston. “So we need to have a very strong Democratic year across the board, so that from the very top of the ticket on down, we’re going to need a strong ticket.”
McCoy made the comments Saturday during the 27th International Gay & Lesbian Leadership Conference sponsored by the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute.
Gronstal, whose seat has been targeted by Republicans in the 2012 election, has said he wouldn’t allow a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Iowa, which has had marriage equality since 2009. The Republican-controlled House has already approved such a measure.
The amendment would need to pass in two consecutive sessions of the legislature before it would be sent to voters, so the soonest it could appear before voters is 2014 — even with Republican control of both the House and Senate next year.
Concern over the future makeup of the Iowa Legislature persists despite a recent Democratic win in a special election assuring that Democrats would continue to maintain control of the legislature through next year.
On the upcoming Iowa caucuses, McCoy said some of the lower-tier candidates, such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), are doing well and there’s an anybody-but-Romney attitude in the state. But he added that Obama is in a strong position to defeat any challenger.
“I think Obama can beat any of them,” McCoy said. “I believe that, for obvious reasons, I think that Gingrich makes a better nominee for Democrats to beat, although Romney’s been all over the board on his issues. I think it’ll either be Romney or Gingrich, and, I think, of the two, I think, I’d rather run against Gingrich than Romney.”
A transcript of the interview between McCoy and the Blade follows:
Washington Blade: Sen. McCoy, can you tell me what you think the Democratic win in the special election and sustained Democratic majority in Iowa means for marriage equality?
Matt McCoy: Well, it’s a terrific win for us. Obviously, we know that by picking up this additional seat, we hold our majority, and, in addition to that, we can ensure that marriage equality will not be on the ballot at least through 2014. So we’ve got two consecutive sessions that this would have to pass, and that won’t happen under a Democratic-controlled Senate for the next year.
Blade: But do you think the next makeup of the legislature could threaten marriage equality in Iowa?
McCoy: Absolutely. I think we’ve got a terrific battle with our leader, Majority Leader Mike Gronstal. We’re very concerned that he win re-election as a Democrat. He’s personally worked with us to hold up control of that issue. In addition to that, we’ve got to make sure that we win some of those key seats that have allowed us to hold on to a majority. So we need to have a very strong Democratic year across the board, so that from the very top of the ticket on down, we’re going to need a strong ticket.
Blade: Do you think we’ll hear more about marriage from the Republican presidential candidates as we get closer to the caucuses?
McCoy: I think so. I think that they’ve done an artful job trying to dodge it a little bit. Their own polling is indicating that this issue is being more accepted widely among the public, and as long as that continues to occur, that is going to be a major problem for the Republican presidential candidates because as they take those extreme positions on those issues, people are becoming more and more disenfranchised with them, especially independent voters.
Blade: What’s your prediction for what will happen will those caucuses? As a Democrat, do you have a particular favorite?
McCoy: As an Iowan, I’ve had an opportunity to see them all come through, and the circus is definitely in town, let me tell you.
I think that right now, I have to take my hat off to some of the non-traditional candidates running the caucuses. I think Ron Paul is doing very well in Iowa, much better than is indicated in the polls. I think that [Rick] Santorum has a base of support among evangelicals, and I think [Michele] Bachmann has a base of support.
I think there is a very strong anti-Romney, or anybody but [Mitt] Romney attitude and [Newt] Gingrich has a pretty strong hold among some of the more traditional Republicans that are less evangelical-based.
So, I would say overall, it’s a tossup, it’s an early test in January. We’re probably less than, what, four weeks away from actually knowing where Iowa is going to come down on that issue, but at this time, I would say Romney is still not faring well in Iowa, and that’s a problem for him.
Blade: Who do you want to see as the Republican nominee, as a Democrat?
McCoy: I think Obama can beat any of them. I believe that, for obvious reasons, I think that Gingrich makes a better nominee for Democrats to beat, although Romney’s been all over the board on his issues. I think it’ll either be Romney or Gingrich, and, I think, of the two, I think, I’d rather run against Gingrich than Romney.
Blade: Now that Iowa has marriage equality, what do you want to see next in terms of LGBT rights for your state?
McCoy: There’s a couple of issues that I’m working on right now. One of them is related to adoptions and for gay parents having the opportunity to just simply list their name as Parent 1 and Parent 2 on the birth certificate as opposed to mother and father. So that is one of my initiatives right now.
That’s an issue pending before our state Supreme Court. I have no doubt that our court’s is going to make the right decision on that, but I’m going to try to help them out this session by bringing that issue out in the public.
The second issue that I’m working on is a decriminalization issue on HIV exposure. We have stigmatized HIV as a disease that’s a communicable disease, and put a criminalization with it that has, unfortunately, had the consequences of more than 36 people having charges filed against them in the state of Iowa of what could become a Class B felony if they’re convicted with $21 million a year in actual costs associated with that.
So, one of the things I want to see us do is treat HIV exposure, HIV transmission as we would treat any other communicable disease, and not stigmatize it among LGBT folks, saying, “Oh, it’s their disease.” It’s all of our disease, and we need to treat it with prevention, education and outreach, and that’s one of the initiatives I know that World AIDS Day — that they’re trying to reach out to people and really help bring the prevention and education and outreach back into our channels. And so, that’s something we could do a better job on as a community, so as a state leader, that’s one of my top initiatives in terms of our issues, LGBT issues in the state of Iowa.
Blade: And what about your plans for yourself? Do you have plans to run for office outside of the legislature at this time?
McCoy: I just received an opportunity to chair the Commerce Committee. I’m also chairing the Infrastructure Appropriations Committee, and I’m vice chair of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, which means I got a lot of opportunity to do a lot of work and make a lot of decisions, and right now, that’s a great place to be. I can’t imagine anything else in my life right now, but, in the future, obviously, I want to keep the doors open. I’m a fairly young person, and I see the future is bright for LGBT leaders in the future, and so I hope that there will be a place for me to serve, and I hope there will be a place for other LGBT, out, elected officials to play a role in their state and national government in the future.
Blade: Thanks so much, Senator.
Watch the video of the interview here:
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