Connect with us

National

Eyes on N.H. for GOP presidential primary

Romney enjoys strong lead, but Santorum rising

Published

on

[Editor’s Note: The Washington Blade will have this reporter in New Hampshire next week for the New Hampshire primary.]

Eyes are turning to New Hampshire as the next battleground state for Republican candidates seeking the White House.

The GOP contenders are set to compete Tuesday in a primary to determine who’ll win the state’s 12 at-large delegates in the race to win the Republican nomination.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, coming off a narrow win of eight votes in the Iowa caucuses earlier this week, is the strong front-runner in the polls for a second win in New Hampshire.

According to a Suffolk University/7News Poll published on Friday, Romney holds a strong lead of 40 percent from likely Republican primary voters in the Granite State. He’s followed by libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has support from 17 percent of poll responders.

Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, predicted that Romney would be victorious on Tuesday and the win would make certain he would be the Republican presidential nominee.

“No non-incumbent Republican candidate has ever won both Iowa and New Hampshire,” LaSalvia said via email. “If Romney does this, it would be unprecedented. He’s leading in all of the national and state polls, so if he wins New Hampshire the race for the nomination is over. AND he will win New Hampshire.”

LaSalvia endorsed Romney in op-ed piece published in Friday in the Daily Caller, citing economic and tax policy as reasons to support the candidate. The endorsement was a personal one, and not on behalf on GOProud.

Romney has a reputation for being less anti-gay than other candidates for saying he favors gay rights. Unlike other candidates, he said wouldn’t restore “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and is against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Still, he opposes same-sex marriage and backs the Federal Marriage Amendment.

While Romney and Paul are ahead in New Hampshire, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has risen in the polls in the state following his strong second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses. In the Suffolk University/7News Poll, the candidate has vaulted into third place in New Hampshire by claiming 11 percent of support.

David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, said the poll shows momentum for Santorum.

“Rick Santorum is the only Republican candidate moving up in New Hampshire,” Paleologos said. “He has cleared the [former U.S. House Speaker Newt] Gingrich and [former Utah Gov. Jon] Huntsman hurdles for third place and is only 6 points away from second place. Watch out Ron Paul.”

But Santorum has been enjoying a less than popular reception from some of the attendees during crowds at his campaign events in the state over his opposition to gay rights.

In one such instance on Friday during a town hall in Keene, N.H., Santorum reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage and his belief that gays shouldn’t be able to serve openly in the military.

“Everybody has certain inalienable rights, serving in the military is not an alienable right,” Santorum said. “It’s a privilege. You’re selected. Not everybody can serve for a variety of different reasons.”

Explaining his opposition to same-sex marriage, Santorum said, “Marriage is a privilege. It is not a right. It is privilege given by society, held up by society, for purposes that it provides some societal good, and I would make the argument, some extraordinary societal good.”

Santorum continued that if marriage was an inalienable right, one “could imagine all the different types of marriages that would happen.” He added, “It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges, it’s discrimination to deny rights.”

“Everyone has a right to live their life,” Santorum concluded. “That doesn’t mean they’re entitled to live their life. That doesn’t mean that they’re entitled to certain privileges that society gives for certain benefits the society obtains from those relationships.”

Santorum’s remarks are consistent with his support for a Federal Marriage Amendment and his plan to restore “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Following Santorum’s remarks, several members of the audience responded with boos.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, blasted Santorum for espousing anti-gay views in a state that is known for its libertarian leanings.

“Rick Santorum’s anti-gay hate is not going to perform well in New Hampshire,” Solmonese said. “His reception there is indicative of just how poorly he will fare with mainstream voters as the primaries progress.”

Solmonese continued that Santorum’s position are not just inconsistent with the views of the majority of people in New Hampshire, but also most Americans.

“Rick Santorum’s views are out of step with the majority of Americans across demographics and faiths,” Solmonese said. “He is basing his campaign off of bashing an entire community of his fellow Americans. That may serve him well with certain constituencies, but it’s something most Americans will not stand for.”

Despite Santorum’s rise, Paul remains the candidate in second-place. Although he enjoys a following among libertarians and younger voters — as well as some LGBT people — his views on gays and AIDS have recently come under scrutiny.

In his 1987 book, “Freedom Under Siege,” Paul wrote that a victim of AIDS is “frequently a victim of his own lifestyle.”

On Jan. 1, Paul defended this position during an interview when FOX News’ Chris Wallace asked the candidate if he still holds these views. The candidate suggested the U.S. government shouldn’t fund AIDS treatment efforts.

“Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by sexual activity, and when it’s promiscuous its spreads diseases,” Paul said. “So if a fault comes with people because of their personal behavior — and in a free society, people do dumb things — but [it] isn’t to be placed as a burden on other people, innocent people. Why should they have to pay for the consequences? That’s a sort of a nationalistic, or socialistic, attitude.”

Asked whether people with AIDS should be denied health care coverage, Paul said no, but added that insurance companies and markets should determine the best way to handle such cases.

Carl Schmid, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, said Paul’s remarks demonstrate he’s “way outside the thinking of any compassionate rationale human being” and “irrational” because only 13 percent of AIDS patients receive care from private insurance companies — the rest is government subsidized care.

“Congressman Paul does not seem to understand the preventive benefits of people with HIV being in care and treatment,” Schmid said. “When people are not in care the virus will spread even more. If we followed his irresponsible remarks the HIV situation would actually be worse.”

Yet another candidate that many will be watching in New Hampshire is former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. Many observers say a strong showing for Huntsman in New Hampshire, where he has been focusing his campaign, will make or break his path going forward.

But according to the data from University/7News Poll, Huntsman is polling at bottom of the pack. He had support from 8 percent of respondents, although that’s greater than his standing on a national scale.

Huntsman has a strong following among gay Republicans. The candidate supports civil unions and has advocated for a general notion of moving toward equality. Still, said he thinks the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act “serves a useful purpose.”

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, is among those saying Huntsman’s showing in New Hampshire will determine his later moves.

“By foregoing Iowa, Jon Huntsman heavily committed to the ground game in New Hampshire to produce significant voter support,” Cooper said. “How well he performs there will help determine next steps in South Carolina and Florida.”

Cooper has been selected by the Huntsman campaign to represent the candidate as a delegate during the Republican National Convention. Log Cabin hasn’t made an endorsement in the presidential race.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits

Administration criticizes National Museum of American History

Published

on

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum is expected to install warning signs outside the National Museum of American History warning visitors of supposedly anti-American content. (Photo courtesy of the Office of the Governor of North Dakota)

The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.

According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”

Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.

Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.

“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.

The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.

The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.

The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”

The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.

It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”

Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”

On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.

In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.

House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”

In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.

Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.

“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.

Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.

It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.

An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)

Continue Reading

National

Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups

Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs

Published

on

The Trump administration will discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations that provide HIV prevention services. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.

 News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.

Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.

Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.

Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.

A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.

 Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.

“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.” 

Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.  

 Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.

“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,”  Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.

Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.

In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.  

 “Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.

It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end. 

“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.

“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes. 

Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.

Continue Reading

National

At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers

Published

on

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.

By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.

They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”

Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.

In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”

That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.

After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.

At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.

“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.

Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.

All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.

The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.

I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.

In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.

It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.

Continue Reading

Popular