Opinions
Why do we care so much about Iowa?
Drawn out caucus process more about hype than politics
Remember Herman Cain? He was just one of several former front-runners in Iowa who flamed out. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The Iowa caucuses are over and the question has to be: Who cares? And what does it all mean? The caucuses tend to not matter all that much, except to self-righteous Iowans. It was a big deal in 2008 when Barack Obama won and Hillary Clinton came in third but then she bounced back in New Hampshire and they slugged it out for the next seven months. Bill Clinton came in fourth in Iowa the year he won the nomination. What the caucuses do is bring millions of dollars into the state, which becomes the focus of the national media for months.
This year there is no Democratic contest so it is only Republican voters who are really paying attention. Those voters range from conservative to ultra-conservative. Evangelicals there tend to be virulently anti-LGBT, pro-life, states rights advocates and generally believe we would be better off if we went back to the 1950s where their own LGBT relatives were forced to stay in the closet and abortions were performed with coat hangers in backrooms. They are often hypocrites pontificating about the sanctity of marriage and then explaining how they could vote for a sleaze like Newt Gingrich.
Remember Mike Huckabee? Most don’t but he won the Iowa Republican caucus in 2008. This year’s games began when Rep. Michele Bachmann won the Ames straw poll in which you bus people in from around the state and pay them to vote.
She was big news in all the national media outlets, which screamed, “Bachmann is the frontrunner.” That didn’t last very long. Next came Rick Perry, the Texas governor who many said was “the candidate for those who thought George Bush was too cerebral.” Well Iowans thought he was the cat’s meow until his debate performances doomed his candidacy.
Next they fell in love with Herman Cain. I think it made them feel good to support someone who was the only face of diversity in their midst even though he hardly ever campaigned there since he was too busy selling his book. But something about his yelling 999 everywhere made their hearts flutter. Their love affair with him kept going until they found out he may have had too many of his own. First it was those pesky women he harassed and then the one with late night phone calls and cash payments his wife didn’t know about for 13 years. After Cain was cast aside there was that quickie love affair with Newt Gingrich, sort of like his marriages, which flamed out as soon as Romney and Paul began their vicious negative commercials about him. Those negative commercials simply told the truth.
As the day of reckoning approached there were three candidates left standing who fought for the hearts of Iowa’s Republican voters. First was the ever-steady Mitt Romney who had first come courting in 2008. He appeared to claim the hearts of the same 25 percent of caucus goers who loved him then. His positions, if you could figure out what they are on any particular day, still seemed too moderate for most Iowans. But some were beginning to say they might overlook his positions because they thought he was the candidate most likely to beat Obama and after all that was the overriding goal.
Then there was Ron Paul, the 76-year-old libertarian running to be president of a government he generally believes shouldn’t exist. And finally the newest heartthrob, or flavor of the week for evangelical Iowans, Rick Santorum. He seemed to be winning the hearts of far-right Iowans as he had won other far-right hearts when he served as a senator from Pennsylvania. Even Tea Party members in Iowa seemed willing to forgive his votes for millions of dollars in earmarks, his support of Romney in 2008 and his worst offense: that he once said abortion may be OK in the case of rape or incest.
Caucus day dawned clear and bright. Nearly 40 percent of Iowa Republicans still claimed they hadn’t made a final decision after all the meet and greets, millions of phone calls and campaign ads, and reading all the campaign literature. The national media were in Iowa spending millions of dollars on food, hotels and travel, to be the first to tell us who the winner was. It is hard to accept that someone other than the candidates themselves and maybe their husbands, wives or other relatives were waiting for this news with baited breath. Most Americans like me were just waiting for this spectacle to be over.
Then early Wednesday morning came the announcement. The top three vote getters were Romney, Santorum and Paul, with Romney winning by just eight votes. Again, I say, who cares? Now on to New Hampshire.
A right does not need to be banned to be restricted. Sometimes it only needs to be made uncertain.
That is what emerges from a closer examination of adoption access for same-sex couples across different countries. There is no broad legal rollback. What appears instead is a more subtle pattern: rights that remain on paper but become fragile, conditional, and uneven in practice.
Italy provides a clear example.
Since 2023, under the government of Giorgia Meloni, administrative decisions have limited the automatic recognition of both mothers in female same-sex couples, particularly in cases involving assisted reproduction abroad. In practice, many families have been forced into additional legal proceedings to validate relationships already established.
At the same time, Italy has intensified its opposition to surrogacy, extending penalties even to those who pursue it outside the country. Human rights organizations have warned that these measures disproportionately affect LGBTQ families, particularly male couples.
The judiciary, however, has pushed back.
In 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that a non-biological mother cannot be excluded from legal recognition when there is a shared parental project. It also removed a long-standing restriction that prevented single individuals from accessing international adoption.
Italy has not eliminated these rights. But it has made them unstable.
When a right depends on litigation, judicial timelines, or shifting interpretations, it is no longer fully guaranteed.
In the United States, the structure differs, but the outcome converges.
At the federal level, same-sex couples can adopt. Yet the system varies widely across states.
Data from the Movement Advancement Project show that while some states explicitly prohibit discrimination in adoption, others provide no clear protections. In several states, licensed agencies can refuse to work with same-sex couples based on religious objections.
Access, therefore, is shaped not only by law, but by geography, institutions, and applied standards.
Research from the Williams Institute further complicates the narrative. Same-sex couples adopt and foster children at higher rates than different-sex couples.
The contradiction is clear.
Child welfare is invoked, yet the pool of available families is reduced. Faith is cited, yet it is used as a filter within publicly funded systems.
The consequences are tangible
children remain longer in care
processes become more complex
families face unequal scrutiny
What is happening in Italy and the United States is not isolated. Across parts of Europe, conservative governments have advanced legal frameworks that reinforce traditional definitions of family while limiting recognition of diverse ones.
Adoption is not always addressed directly. But the impact accumulates.
Options are restricted while the language of protection is used to justify it.
There is no need to soften it.
This is not only a debate about family models. It is a decision about who is recognized as family and who must continue asking for permission.
That is not neutral.
It is political.
And when a right depends on where you live, who evaluates you, or how hard you are willing to fight for it, that right is already being weakened.
Opinions
ROSENSTEIN: Chavous for Democratic D.C. Council-at-Large
Committed to fighting for statehood for our 700,000 residents
Kevin Chavous said, “I’m running for D.C. Council At-Large because Washingtonians deserve leadership focused on improving their everyday quality of life. Throughout my career, I’ve worked on the practical business of city government, and public policy, focused on solving real problems, and making government work better for the people it serves.”
Kevin’s experience spans safer streets, affordable housing, early education and school readiness, workforce and economic opportunity, support for seniors, and the day-to-day operations of city government. The knowledge he brings to the office is grounded in experience, clear-eyed oversight, and a commitment to delivering results. His platform outlines his priorities and approach, but as he has said, “it’s not the end of the conversation. I believe the best solutions come from listening and working together.”
Kevin believes safe streets are the foundation of strong neighborhoods. He is committed to having Washingtonians feel secure in their neighborhoods, and working to ensure all public safety efforts are smart, fair, and effective. To Kevin that means an approach focusing on enforcement that works, prevention that matters, and a range of services to stop crime before it happens. Kevin supports smart, effective policing, with a focus on violent crime, and getting repeat offenders off the streets. To do this he will work to strengthen community policing with the aim of rebuilding trust in every community, which will improve neighborhood-level safety. He will introduce legislation to expand targeted mental health and crisis-response services. The goal again, to prevent violence before it occurs. He will work to see government coordinates youth diversion, workforce, and support programs, which can intervene early, and reduce recidivism.
Kevin understands housing stability is essential for families, seniors, and workers, to stay and thrive in D.C. His housing priorities focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing, helping people build long-term stability in the neighborhoods they call home. He will work to increase the affordable housing supply through zoning updates, ADUs, and adaptive reuse of vacant properties. He will submit legislation to strengthen programs that help first-time, and longtime homeowners, buy and then stay in their homes. He will work to expand permanent supportive housing and targeted rental assistance for vulnerable residents, and protect tenants ensuring housing laws are enforced clearly, and consistently.
Kevin believes “every child should enter school ready to learn, with the support needed to succeed from day one. Early investment pays lifelong dividends – for families and for the District.” He will work on the Council to expand early childhood education, and school-readiness programs, citywide. He supports quality and affordable childcare for all children, birth to three, including seeing students begin the school year healthy, by supporting access to medical and dental screenings for all children.
Kevin knows economic opportunity allows families and communities to thrive. He will fight to see D.C.’s growth creates real pathways to good jobs, strong local businesses, and long-term stability for residents in every ward. His approach connects workforce training, worker protections, and neighborhood investment, so that growth benefits the people who live here. He will work to expand job training, apprenticeships, and career pipelines tied to high-demand fields, including construction, healthcare, and infrastructure. He will fight to strengthen First Source and local hiring requirements, so D.C. residents benefit directly from major development projects such as the new RFK site. He will demand the government protect workers by enforcing wage, safety, and labor standards, and holding bad actors accountable. He will introduce legislation to invest more in neighborhood-based economic development, including small businesses, BIDs, and commercial-to-residential revitalization.
Kevin has spoken out for the seniors in our city saying, “seniors built this city – and D.C. must ensure they can age with dignity, security, and independence.” Kevin will work to expand property tax relief and housing supports, so seniors can age in place. He will work with the AG to strengthen protections against fraud, exploitation, and predatory practices targeting seniors. He will support and work to expand nutrition, transportation, and community-based programs, that reduce the isolation many seniors face.
Kevin’s experience working for the Council, in the oversight role he had, gives him a practical understanding of what works, what doesn’t, and how to fix it – without delay. He will use that experience as he works to strengthen agency oversight to ensure laws are implemented as intended, and to improve service delivery by fixing bottlenecks, and outdated processes. Ensuring clear standards and accountability in inspections, enforcement, and permitting. Kevin will demand government use technology responsibly to improve efficiency, while protecting residents from fraud and abuse.
For all these reasons and more, I support Kevin Chavous. The more includes the fact Kevin has spoken out clearly, about the need to fight the antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism and homophobia, all once again rearing their ugly heads in our society. He will fight to keep ICE out of our city, and to keep immigrants safe. He is committed to fighting for statehood for the 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, while fighting for budget and legislative autonomy as we work toward statehood.
Again, I urge the voters of D.C. to cast their ballot for Kevin Chavous for DC Council-at-Large.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
The state of Tennessee has a long history of political discrimination against its 225,000 LGBTQ citizens. In 2019, a district attorney remarked that gay people should not receive domestic violence protections, and in 2023, for five months in Murfreesboro, homosexual acts in public were illegal, prompting a federal judge to have the ordinance removed.
In 2022, I briefly lived in Tennessee and played rugby with the LGBTQ-inclusive Nashville Grizzlies, who welcomed me with open arms as an ally, teaching me that rugby isn’t always about winning or losing – it’s about creating a safe, inclusive, and joyful space for people looking to feel welcome.
In Tennessee, where 87% of the LGBTQ community has experienced workplace discrimination, and where, each year, countless bills that target their identities are introduced, it can be difficult to feel welcome. The Nashville Grizzlies played rugby with the exuberance of newly liberated people who were finally able to be their authentic selves. I was inspired by their brotherhood.
When I read about the Charlie Kirk Act being passed last week, I felt a visceral need to write about it.
While the bill is presented as legislation that strengthens free speech and encourages greater public discourse on campuses, it would effectively allow a school to expel a student who felt compelled to walk out on a speaker with hateful views, forcing marginalized groups to sit through existentially harmful rhetoric.
And ironically, it doesn’t seem like free speech goes both ways — a Tennessee University administrator lost their job last year for sharing negative views on Charlie Kirk, and countless LGBTQ books have been banned not only in schools, but even in adult libraries.
We like to think that as time moves forward, progress is inevitable, but this isn’t always the case. In a 2023 study, 27% of LGBTQ Tennesseans and 43% of transgender people in the state have considered relocating, forcing them to reckon with leaving home in pursuit of a better life. Nashville Grizzlies Captain Ethan Thatcher told me, “I’ve thought about leaving Tennessee. Hard not to when the government does not want you here. What has kept me here is the Grizzlies community, and the thought that existence is resistance.”
Everybody in our country deserves to feel safe. I thought that was a core value of the American ethos, but apparently, in some states, certain groups are welcome while others are ostracized.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee should reject the Charlie Kirk Act.
Tyler Kania is a 2025 IAN Book of the Year nominated author and civil rights activist from Columbia, Conn.
Adoption under suspicion
Second trans member announces plans to resign from Capital Pride board
State Department implements anti-trans bathroom policy
I’m telling the scared little girl I once was it’s okay to feel free
Memorial for groundbreaking bisexual activist set for May 2
Inside the lonely world of MAGA gay men
PHOTOS: Night of Champions
PHOTOS: National Champagne Brunch
‘Big Mistakes’ an uneven – but worthy – comedic showcase
