Connect with us

National

Iowa couple tired of GOP’s attacks on marriage

Scoring ‘political points’ on the backs of loving couples

Published

on

John Sellers and Tom Helton (Washington Blade photo by Chris Johnson)

DES MOINES, Iowa — The 2012 presidential election campaign has been personal for John Sellers and Tom Helton.

Several candidates in the race for the Republican nomination have pledged to end their same-sex marriage — and the marriages of gay and lesbian couples in Iowa and throughout the country — via constitutional amendment.

In an interview with the Washington Blade, Sellers, 51, a remote engineer for Clear Channel Radio, and Helton, 53, a clerical worker for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, expressed their unease with how the GOP contenders have addressed marriage.

“I know that not all Republicans feel that way,” Sellers said. “To a lot of people, it isn’t a huge issue. If you look at the latest poll results, the ones who are supportive of civil unions and marriages together, it’s the majority of the Republican Party.”

MORE IN THE BLADE: ROMNEY EDGES SANTORUM TO WIN IOWA CAUCUS

Sellers added he thinks these Republicans are “catering” to the what he said is a minority of Republicans who don’t believe in any kind of relationship recognition for gay couples.

Helton shared a similar sentiment that Republicans he knows are not as concerned about marriage as other issues — despite the GOP candidates attacking same-sex marriage as they have toured Iowa.

“I know a lot of Republican people that I work with and just acquaintances that really — I don’t want to say don’t care — but it’s not the main issue,” Helton said. “And a lot of the candidates like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, they’re focusing so much on that.”

The couple has been together 13 years and married in Des Moines on May 1, 2009, following a three-day waiting period after it was first possible for same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license in the state. Marriage equality was instituted in Iowa in 2009 when the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state constitution guaranteed marriage rights for gay couples.

Sellers recounted the well wishes he received after telling a female conservative co-worker about his wedding.

“When we got married, she was one the few people that acknowledged it, and gave us a gift,” Sellers said. “I think that’s very interesting because as this subject goes to her, this is a non-issue. We should have the same rights as everybody else, yet she’s a very conservative Republican.”

Nonetheless, no shortage of campaign rhetoric against same-sex marriage has spewed from Republican candidates as they made the rounds in Iowa.

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich — who reportedly directed $150,000 to a referendum effort in 2010 that successfully ousted three Iowa justices who ruled in favor of marriage equality — called marriage equality “a temporary aberration that will dissipate” at aIowa campaign event in September.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has been particularly critical of the Iowa justices who determined that same-sex couples have a right to marry in the state. She’s repeatedly called them “black-robed masters” for legalizing marriage equality in the Hawkeye State.

Enjoying a boost in the polls in Iowa in the days for before the caucuses, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Saturday during an interview with NBC News’ Chuck Todd that his version of the Federal Marriage Amendment would not only prohibit additional same-sex marriages, but existing marriages “would be invalid.”

“I’d love to think that there is another way of doing it, but I’ve got great concerns about the Supreme Court and the courts in the future, and what they’ll do to marriage is what they’ve done with abortion in this country, which is take it away from the public,” Santorum said.

Santorum’s vision contrasts with that of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who’s said that under his leadership individuals in existing same-sex marriages would remain married if a Federal Marriage Amendment passed, although future such marriages would be prohibited.

Candidates have also signed pledges committing themselves to work against same-sex marriage if they’re elected to the White House.

The FAMiLY LEADER, an anti-gay group in Iowa, has been soliciting candidates to sign a pledge to back a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

Three contenders — Bachmann, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Santorum — have each signed the pledge. Gingrich sent a letter to the organization saying he supports the principles of the organization, but he didn’t sign the pledge.

Those candidates — as well as Romney — have also signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage committing them to oppose marriage equality nationwide if elected president.

Republicans within the state have also gone after same-sex marriage as presidential candidates have toured the state. Last year, the Republican-controlled Iowa State House approved a constitutional amendment by a vote of 62-37. However, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) — whose leadership was recently assured by a recent special election maintaining his majority — has vowed to block the amendment in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Troy Price, executive director of One Iowa, a statewide LGBT group, said the presidential election season has made 2012 “a tough caucus cycle for the LGBT community.”

“For nearly a year, presidential candidates have been crisscrossing our state trying to score political points on the backs of loving, committed gay and lesbian couples,” Price said. “It’s hard to measure the impact this has had, but the one thing we do know is that this negative, divisive, and mean-spirited rhetoric we have seen this year has had an emotional toll on LGBT couples and their families.”

Price added the thousands of same-sex couples who’ve exercised their marriage rights in Iowa are constantly hearing candidates pledging to terminate their unions in the media.

“Every time we open a newspaper or turn on the TV and see people claim to be trustworthy leaders while in the same breath invalidate our families or say that we are a ‘temporary aberration,’ it hurts,” Price said.

But not all the Republican candidates have campaigned against same-sex marriage. Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has said government should get out of marriage entirely, although he supports DOMA and said he personally believes marriage is one man, one woman. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman supports civil unions, but has said DOMA “serves a useful purpose.”

Still, both Sellers and Helton say they’re backing President Obama in his bid for re-election in 2012 — even though the president himself has yet to endorse same-sex marriage. They said they would participate in the Democratic caucus — even though Obama is the only candidate — but work may prevent them from attending.

Sellers said he isn’t disappointed that Obama doesn’t support marriage equality. He noted the president said he could evolve on the issue and has faith the president will come out in favor of same-sex marriage.

“I think it’ll come,” Sellers said. “I think he’ll be supportive of us. He is pushing for the repeal of [the Defense of Marriage Act]. Publicly, I think people think they can only say what they can say. I assume he’s probably more concerned that there would be a backlash if he were to support it, but probably, he really does.”

In the meantime, Sellers and Helton are ready for the election to end so they no longer have to hear about their union being an issue for Republican candidates seeking the White House.

“Here you feel you really have to really cave to that wing of the Republican Party … even though, like I said, not all Republicans feel that way,” Sellers said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

Gay Venezuelan man ‘forcibly disappeared’ to El Salvador files claim against White House

Andry Hernández Romero had asked for asylum in US

Published

on

Andry Hernández Romero (Photo courtesy of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center)

A gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who the U.S. “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador has filed a claim against the federal government.

Immigrant Defenders Law Center, who represents Andry Hernández Romero, on Friday announced their client and five other Venezuelans who the Trump-Vance administration “forcibly removed” to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, filed “administrative claims” under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The White House on Feb. 20, 2025, designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”

President Donald Trump less than a month later invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The White House then “forcibly removed” Hernández, who had been pursuing his asylum case in the U.S., and more than 250 other Venezuelans to El Salvador.

Immigrant Defenders Law Center disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.

Hernández was held at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT, until his release on July 18, 2025. Hernández, who is back in Venezuela, claims he suffered physical and sexual abuse while at CECOT.

“As a Venezuelan citizen with no criminal record anywhere in the world, I would like to tell not only the government of the United States but governments everywhere that no human being is illegal,” said Hernández in the Immigrant Defenders Law Center press release. “The practice of judging whole communities for the wrongdoing of a single individual must end. Governments should use their power to help every person in the nation become more aware and informed, to strengthen our cultures and build a stronger generation with principles and values — one that multiplies the positive instead of destroying unfulfilled dreams and opportunities.” 

Immigrant Defenders Law Center filed claims on behalf of Hernández and the five other Venezuelans less than three months after American forces seized then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their home in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital.

Maduro and Flores have pleaded not guilty to federal drug charges. Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s vice president, is Venezuela’s acting president.

‘Due process and accountability cannot be optional’

Immigrant Defenders Law Center on Friday also made the following demands: 

  • The Trump administration must officially release the names of all people the United States sent to CECOT to ensure that everyone has been or will be released. 
  • The federal government must clear the names of the 252 men wrongfully labeled as criminal gang members of Tren de Aragua.  
  • DHS (Department of Homeland Security) must end the practice of outsourcing torture through third‑country removals, restore humanitarian parole, and rebuild a functioning, humane asylum system.  
  • DHS must reinstate Temporary Protected Status for all individuals who cannot safely return to their home countries, halt mass deportations and unlawful raids and arrests, and guarantee due process for everyone navigating the immigration system.  
  • Congress must pass the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, which would repeal the Alien Enemies Act.   

“In all my years as an immigration attorney, I have never seen a client simply vanish in the middle of their case with no explanation,” said Immigration Defenders Legal Fund Legal Services Director Melissa Shepard. “In court, the government couldn’t even explain where he was — he had been disappeared.” 

“When the government detains and transfers people in secrecy, without transparency or access to the courts, it tears at the basic protections a democracy is supposed to guarantee,” added Shepard. “What this experience makes painfully clear is that due process and accountability cannot be optional. They are the only safeguards standing between people and the kind of lawlessness our clients suffered. We must end third country transfers, restore the asylum system, and humanitarian parole, and reinstate temporary protective status so this nightmare never happens again.” 

Continue Reading

The White House

Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy

Recent policy actions from the White House limit transgender rights in sports, immigration visas, and overarching federal policy.

Published

on

President Donald Trump stands in the Roosevelt Room in December 2025. (Washington Blade Photo by Joe Reberkenny)

In a proclamation issued by the Trump White House Thursday night, the president said he would, among other things, “restore public safety” and continue “upholding the rule of law,” while promoting policies that restrict the rights of transgender people.

“We are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written, and ensuring colleges preserve — and, where possible, expand — scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes,” the proclamation reads. “At the same time, we are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”

The statement comes amid a broader series of actions by the Trump administration targeting transgender people across multiple federal policy areas, including education, health care, and immigration. A nearly complete list of policies the current administration has put forward can be found on KFF.org.

One day before the proclamation was issued, the U.S. State Department announced changes to visa regulations that could impact transgender and gender-nonconforming people seeking entry into the United States.

The policy, published March 11 and scheduled to take effect April 10, introduces changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, commonly known as the “DV Program.” The rule is framed by the department as an effort to strengthen oversight and prevent fraud within the visa lottery system, which allocates a limited number of immigrant visas annually to applicants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.

However, the updated language also standardizes the use of the term “sex” in federal regulations in place of “gender,” a change that LGBTQ advocates say could create additional barriers for transgender and gender-diverse applicants.

The policy states: “The Department of State (‘Department’) is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (‘DV Program’) to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word ‘shall’ to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term ‘sex’ in lieu of ‘gender’; and replace the term ‘age’ in the DV Program regulations with the phrase ‘date of birth’ to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.”

Advocates say the shift toward using “sex” rather than “gender” in federal immigration rules reflects a broader push by the administration to roll back recognition of transgender identities in federal policy.

According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, an estimated 15,000 to 50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants currently live in the United States, with many entering the country to seek refuge from persecution and hostile governments in their home countries.

Continue Reading

Florida

Fla. House passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill

Measure could open door to overturning local LGBTQ rights protections

Published

on

(Photo by Catella via Bigstock)

The Florida House of Representatives on March 10 voted 77-37 to approve an “Anti-Diversity in Local Government” bill that opponents have called an extreme and sweeping measure that, among other things, could overturn local LGBTQ rights protections.

The House vote came six days after the Florida Senate voted 25-11 to pass the same bill, opening the way to send it to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who supports the bill and has said he would sign it into law.

Equality Florida, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization that opposed the legislation, issued a statement saying the bill “would ban, repeal, and defund any local government programming, policy, or activity that provides ‘preferential treatment or special benefits’ or is designed or implemented with respect to race, color, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

The statement added that the bill would also threaten city and county officials with removal from office “for activities vaguely labeled as DEI,” with only limited exceptions.

“Written in broad and ambiguous language, the bill is the most extreme of its kind in the country, creating confusion and fear for local governments that recognize LGBTQ residents and other communities that contribute to strength and vibrancy of Florida cities,” the group said in a separate statement released on March 10.

The Miami Herald reports that state Sen. Clay Yarborough (R-Jacksonville), the lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said he added language to the bill that would allow the city of Orlando to continue to support the Pulse nightclub memorial, a site honoring 49 mostly LGBTQ people killed in the 2016 mass shooting at the LGBTQ nightclub.

But the Equality Florida statement expresses concern that the bill can be used to target LGBTQ programs and protections.

“Debate over the bill made expressly clear that LGBTQ people were a central target of the legislation,” the group’s statement says. “The public record, the bill sponsors’ own statements, and hours of legislative debate revealed the animus driving the effort to pressure local governments into pulling back from recognizing or resourcing programs targeting LGBTQ residents and other historically marginalized communities,” the statement says.

But the statement also notes that following outspoken requests by local officials, sponsors of the bill agreed to several amendments “ensuring local governments can continue to permit Pride festivals, even while navigating new restrictions on supporting or promoting them.”     

The statement adds, “Florida’s LGBTQ community knows all too well how to fight back against unjust laws. Just as we did, following the passage of Florida’s notorious ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ law, we will fight every step of the way to limit the impact of this legislation, including in the courts.”

Continue Reading

Popular