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
Pride flag raised at Stonewall after National Park Service took it down
‘Our flag represents dignity and human rights’
A Pride flag was raised at the site of the Stonewall National Monument days after a National Park Service directive banned flying the flag at the birthplace of the LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S.
The flag-raising was led by Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal and supported by other elected officials.
“The community should rejoice. We have prevailed,” Hoylman-Sigal said shortly after the flag was hoisted. “Our flag represents dignity and human rights.”
The flag now sits in Christopher Street Park, feet away from the Stonewall Inn, where in 1969 a police raid of the gay bar sparked outrage and led to a rising of LGBTQ people pushing back on NYPD brutality and unjust treatment.
Elected officials brought a new flagpole with them, using plastic zip ties to attach it to the existing pole.
In 2016, President Barack Obama declared the site a national monument.
One day before the planned re-raising of the Pride flag, the National Park Service installed only an American flag on the flagpole, which days prior had flown a rainbow flag bearing the NPS logo.
The directive removing the flag was put forward by Trump-appointed National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron.
This comes one day after more than 20 LGBTQ organizations from across the country co-signed a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and General Services Administrator Ed Forst, demanding the flag be restored to the monument.
“It is our understanding that the policy provides limited exceptions for non-agency flags that provide historical context or play a role in historic reenactments. Simply put, we urge you to grant this flag an exception and raise it once again, immediately,” the letter read. “It also serves as an important reminder to the 30+ million LGBTQ+ Americans, who continue to face disproportionate threats to our lives and our liberty, that the sites and symbols that tell our stories are worth honoring … However, given recent removals of the site’s references to transgender and bisexual people — people who irrefutably played a pivotal role in this history — it is clear that this is not about the preservation of the historical record.”
The letter finished with a message of resilience the LGBTQ community is known for: “The history and the legacy of Stonewall must live on. Our community cannot simply be erased with the removal of a flag. We will continue to stand up and fight to ensure that LGBTQ+ history should not only be protected — it should be celebrated as a milestone in American resilience and progress.”
When asked about the directive, the NPS responded with this statement:
“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points. The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose. These include historical context or reenactments, current military branch flags, flags of federally recognized tribal nations affiliated with a park, flags at sites co-managed with other federal, state, or municipal partners, flags required for international park designations, and flags displayed under agreements with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Naturalization ceremonies.”
An Interior Department spokesperson on Thursday called the move to return the flag to the monument a “political stunt.”
“Today’s political pageantry shows how utterly incompetent and misaligned the New York City officials are with the problems their city is facing,” a department spokesperson said when reached for comment.
The clash comes amid broader efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to minimize LGBTQ history and political power. The White House has spent much of President Donald Trump’s second presidency restricting transgender rights — stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth, issuing an executive order stating the federal government will recognize only two sexes, male and female, and blocking Medicaid and Medicare from being used for gender-affirming care.
State Department
FOIA lawsuit filed against State Department for PEPFAR records
Council for Global Equality, Physicians for Human Rights seeking data, documents
The Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents.
The groups, which Democracy Forward represents, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday.
Then-President George W. Bush in 2003 signed legislation that created PEPFAR. UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima last March said PEPFAR has saved 26 million lives around the world.
The Trump-Vance administration in January 2025 froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during the freeze.
The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down because of gaps in U.S. funding. HIV/AIDS activists have also sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over reported plans it will not fully fund PEPFAR in the current fiscal year.
The lawsuit notes the Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have “filed several FOIA requests” with the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents. The groups filed their most recent request on Jan. 30.
“On Jan. 30, 2026, plaintiffs, through counsel, sent State a letter asking it to commit to prompt production of the requested records,” reads the lawsuit. “State responded that the request was being processed but did not commit to any timeline for production.”
“Plaintiffs have received no subsequent communication from State regarding this FOIA request,” it notes.
“Transparency and inclusion have been hallmarks of PEPFAR’s success in the last decade,” said Beirne Roose-Snyder, a senior policy fellow at the Council for Global Equality, in a press release that announced the lawsuit. “This unprecedented withholding of data, and concurrent ideological misdirection of foreign assistance to exclude LGBTQI+ people and others who need inclusive programming, has potentially devastating and asymmetrical impacts on already marginalized communities.”
“This data is vital to understanding who’s getting access to care and who’s being left behind,” added Roose-Snyder.
“We filed this lawsuit to seek transparency: the administration’s PEPFAR data blackout withholds information the public, health providers, and affected communities need to track the HIV epidemic and prevent avoidable illness and death, obscuring the true human cost of these policy decisions,” said Physicians for Human Rights Research, Legal, and Advocacy Director Payal Shah.
The State Department has yet to respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the lawsuit.
New York
N.Y. lawmaker vows ‘Pride flag will fly again’ at Stonewall Monument
After a Jan. 21 policy shift, Pride flags were banned at national parks, prompting backlash from Bottcher and LGBTQ advocates.
Hours after news broke that the National Park Service would no longer allow Pride flags to fly at the Stonewall National Monument — the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement in the United States — the Washington Blade spoke with New York State Sen. Erik Bottcher, who represents the area surrounding the Stonewall Inn and the national monument.
During the interview, Bottcher, who is gay, spoke about the policy change and outlined steps he plans to take in the coming days to push for its reversal.
“This is another act of erasure,” Bottcher told the Blade. “It’s a cowardly attempt to rewrite history and to intimidate our community. This is Stonewall — it’s where we fought back, where we ignited a global movement for equality — and we refuse to go back. We’re not going to accept these acts of erasure.”
The Stonewall Inn became a flashpoint in 1969 after NYPD officers raided the bar, part of a longstanding pattern of police harassment of LGBTQ spaces. The raid sparked days of protest and resistance along Christopher Street, now widely recognized as the catalyst for the modern LGBTQ rights movement.
While the events are often referred to as the “Stonewall Riots,” many activists and historians prefer the term “Stonewall Uprising,” emphasizing that the resistance was a response to systemic oppression rather than senseless violence. LGBTQ patrons and community members fought back — shouting “Gay Power!” and “Liberate Christopher Street!” — as crowds grew and frustration with police abuse boiled over.
Since the uprising, LGBTQ people and allies have gathered annually in June to commemorate Stonewall and to celebrate Pride, honoring the movement that placed LGBTQ voices at the center of the fight for equality.
In June 2016, then President Barack Obama officially designated the space as the Stonewall National Monument, making it the United States’s first national monument designated for an LGBTQ historic site.
Now, nearly 10 years later, President Trump’s appointed NPS acting director Jessica Bowron changed policy on Jan. 21 regarding which flags are allowed to be flown in national parks. Many, including Bottcher, say this is part of a larger targeted and deliberate attempt by the administration to erase LGBTQ history.
“It’s clear they’re making a conscious decision to erase the symbols of our community from a monument to our community’s struggle,” he said. “This is a calculated and premeditated decision, and it could be — and should be — reversed.”
“Let’s be clear,” Bottcher added, “they wish we didn’t exist … But we’re not going anywhere. We refuse to go back into the shadows.”
When asked why it is critical to challenge the policy, Bottcher emphasized the importance of visibility in preserving LGBTQ history.
“This is why it’s so important that we not let this stand,” he said. “Visibility is critical. When people see us, learn about us, and get to know us, that’s how we break down prejudice and stereotypes. We cannot allow them to push us back into the shadows.”
Other LGBTQ leaders and elected officials were quick to condemn the removal of the Pride flag, which had flown since the site’s official designation as a national monument.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the decision “outrageous.”
“I am outraged by the removal of the Rainbow Pride Flag from Stonewall National Monument,” Mamdani said in a statement. “New York is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, and no act of erasure will ever change or silence that history.”
“Our city has a duty not just to honor this legacy, but to live up to it,” he added. “I will always fight for a New York City that invests in our LGBTQ+ community, defends their dignity, and protects every one of our neighbors — without exception.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also condemned the move.
“The removal of the Pride Rainbow Flag from the Stonewall National Monument is a deeply outrageous action that must be reversed immediately,” Schumer said in a statement to The Advocate. “Stonewall is a landmark because it is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, and symbols of that legacy belong there by both history and principle.”
Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the flag’s removal will not erase the movement it represents.
“They can take down a flag, but they can’t take down our history,” Renna said. “Stonewall is sacred ground rooted in resistance, liberation, and the legacy of trans and queer trailblazers who changed the course of history.”
Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Brandon Wolf echoed that sentiment.
“Bad news for the Trump administration: these colors don’t run,” Wolf said. “The Stonewall Inn and Visitors Center are privately owned, their flags are still flying high, and that community is just as queer today as it was yesterday.”
Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, said the removal was aimed squarely at LGBTQ visibility.
“The Pride flag was removed from Stonewall for one reason: to further erase queer and trans people from public life,” Hack said. “Stonewall marks the moment when queer and trans people fought back and demanded dignity. Our history is not theirs to erase.”
Bottcher closed with a promise to his constituents — and to the broader LGBTQ community — that the Pride flag’s removal would not be permanent.
“We will not be erased. We will not be silenced,” he said. “And the Pride flag will fly again at the birthplace of our movement.”

