National
Fla. Log Cabin members tilt toward Romney
Former Massachusetts governor wins straw poll at ‘gay’ GOP caucus in Miami
MIAMI — Two days before the hotly contested GOP presidential primary in Florida, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney beat his three remaining rivals by a lopsided margin Saturday night in a straw poll of gay Republican activists in the Sunshine State.
The poll of just 34 Log Cabin officers and active members from the Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Tampa areas was billed as an unscientific sample of LGBT Republicans in the state.
It took place at an informal “cocktail caucus” of Log Cabin members at a Miami restaurant. In secret balloting, Romney received 24 votes, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich received 6 votes, Texas Congressman Ron Paul received 4 votes, and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania received no votes.
“It’s a reflection of some of our most active and politically informed members mostly from the Miami-Dade area,” said R. Clarke Cooper, president of the national Log Cabin Republicans organization.
Officials from the group’s Florida chapters said the outcome was consistent with anecdotal information they’ve received from club members and gay and lesbian Republicans across the state – that a majority of Florida’s LGBT Republicans, including those who initially backed former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Texas Congressman Ron Paul, have shifted their support to Romney.
Huntsman has dropped out of the race and most political observers believe Paul has little chance of capturing the Republican nomination for president.
Shortly after Log Cabin’s cocktail caucus adjourned on Saturday evening, the Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, and the Tampa Bay Times released the findings of a joint poll that showed a large majority of the state’s Republican voters were in agreement with the Log Cabin members.
The poll of 800 likely GOP voters showed Romney had a commanding lead of 42 percent, with Gingrich coming in second with 31 percent. Santorum came in third with 14 percent. Paul received 6 percent support from the GOP voter sample.
The Florida primary takes place on Tuesday. Thousands of GOP voters have already cast their bollots under the state’s early voting law.
Mimi Planas, co-director of Log Cabin Republicans of Miami, said her group organized the cocktail caucus in honor of members of the national Log Cabin Republicans board of directors, which met in Miami earlier in the day.
Planas, a Cuban American, was among several Hispanic Log Cabin members and officers that attended the caucus. The other co-director of the Miami chapter, Eddie Sierra, is also Cuban American.
Planas said her perception was that many LGBT Hispanic Republicans were in agreement with a majority of their straight counterparts in believing that Romney would be the best candidate to challenge President Obama in the general election in November.
“I can you tell that I, as a Republican gay voter, will be voting for Romney in the Republican primary and will support his campaign 100 percent,” said Planas, who works as an executive assistant to the president of a Miami company.
She acknowledges that Romney isn’t as supportive on LGBT issues as she would like, especially on the issue of same-sex marriage, which Romney opposes. But Planas and nearly all the others at the cocktail gathering who spoke with the Blade said their decision on which candidate to support for president was based on a wide range of issues in addition to LGBT issues.
“We see many of the LGBT Democrats as being one-issue voters,” said Planas. “We’re multi-issue voters who care a lot about a strong national defense, regulatory reform, and less, not more, government intrusion in the private sector.”
Jim Pease, president of the Tampa Bay Log Cabin Republicans chapter, said he’s developed a “sound bite” answer over the past ten years to the question by gay Democrats and others on why gay Republicans support a party or candidates that oppose LGBT rights.
“If you’re going to be a single-issue voter, than, yes, you’re going to have a problem,” he said. “But you’ve got to look at the whole picture. I’ve never found any candidate whose platform I agree with 100 percent.”
Pease added, “I have to look at what’s best for America. I want to keep America safe, I want a strong defense. I want a strong economy. I want to keep it so we have the liberties and the freedoms that we enjoy so we can be gay Republicans, so that we can be gay Democrats.”
Andy Eddy, president of the Log Cabin Chapter of Broward County, which includes the city of Fort Lauderdale, said he, too, is supporting Romney.
“I was originally supporting Huntsman and I was leaning toward Gingrich,” Eddy said. “But I was disappointed in a couple of things about Gingrich. I decided Romney would be the best person to win the Republican ticket in November 2012.”
Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have each signed a pledge vowing to support a U.S. constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage sent the pledge to all Republican presidential candidates last year. Paul and Huntsman were the only two of the original ‘top tier’ candidates to decline to sign the pledge.
Cooper, who heads the national Log Cabin organization, and several officials with the group’s Florida chapters, including Eddy, said on Saturday that it would be unlikely that the national group would decline to support Romney in November should he win the nomination based on his position on gay marriage.
Cooper said Log Cabin traditionally waits to decide whether to endorse a Republican presidential candidate until the time of the GOP national convention.
In a controversial decision, the national Log Cabin Republicans group chose not to endorse President George W. Bush for re-election in 2004 based on Bush’s support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would add a permanent ban on same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution.
Eddy noted that Log Cabin’s action in 2004 left it open for its chapters throughout the country to endorse Bush, enabling the chapters to avoid sanctions or expulsion from their local or state Republican committees. A number of Log Cabin chapters, including those in Miami-Dade and Broward County in Florida, have been accepted as official arms of the Republican Party Committees in their respective counties or cities.
Cooper said he and other Log Cabin officials believe Romney’s position on gay marriage is more nuanced than that of President Bush in 2004, who actively backed a constitutional ban. Cooper said that Romney, while signing the National Organization for Marriage pledge, refused to sign a “far more extreme” pledge against gay marriage sent to him and other candidates by the Iowa based Christian conservative group The Family Leader.
According to Cooper, Log Cabin’s decision not to endorse Bush in 2004 under group’s then president Patrick Guerriero was also based, in part, on the national Republican Party’s strong backing of referendums in several states seeking to ban gay marriage.
Cooper said the party was using gay marriage as a “wedge issue” to divide the electorate and increase the turnout of conservative voters at the polls.
“Romney has said doing a constitutional amendment is not realistic and that’s not something that’s going to happen,” Cooper said. “So when you have candidates like him and Ron Paul saying that’s not a realistic option, that’s far different than from saying I’m going to push for a federal marriage amendment.”
Eddy said he and other Log Cabin members planned to attend a Romney rally Sunday afternoon in Pompano Beach near Fort Lauderdale.
Jerame Davis, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, an LGBT group aligned with the Democratic Party, disputes Cooper’s view that Romney’s statement that a federal constitutional amendment seeking to ban gay marriage is not likely to be seriously considered offsets Romney’s support for NOM’s federal marriage amendment pledge.
“It’s the height of hypocrisy that Log Cabin would try to excuse Mitt Romney’s adoption of NOM’s insidious hate pledge,” Davis said. “In 2004, LCR took a principled stand and refused to endorse George W. Bush for his misguided push for a federal marriage amendment.”
The White House
Trump’s shocking East Wing amputation—and the painful fallout Americans won’t ignore
Gay Social Secretary Jeremy Bernard talks about importance of civility
Since Jan. 20, 2025, life in Donald Trump’s divided America has been a series of jaw-dropping split-screen scenarios, flashing at an even faster pace since the resounding anti-Trump, pro-affordability Democratic electoral victories on Nov. 4. But while the weeks before Thanksgiving have injected hope that the No Kings marches, the rule of law, and the 2026 midterms will uphold democracy, Trump’s violently oriented MAGA and Christian National base and his committed Project 2025 backers continue remaking the federal government and fighting the culture wars.

Luxuriating in his own narcissism, Trump ordered the clandestine demolition of the East Wing on Oct. 23 to make way for his 90,000 square foot ballroom. He apparently didn’t care about the national shock at the brutal amputation of America’s beloved cultural arm that balanced the hard political arm of the People’s House.
“This isn’t a real estate deal. This is a living, breathing building. It actually hurts, as a citizen. It’s us. It’s our home. This doesn’t belong to anybody except the blood, the sweat and the tears of every president,” new D.C. resident Roseanne Siegel told NPR.
“For historians and for Americans who love their history, this is a big blow,” said ABC News presidential historian Mark Updegrove.

According to an Oct. 30 poll from the Washington Post, ABC News, and Ipsos, 56 percent of respondents disagreed with Trump’s move while 28 percent favored it. An earlier Yahoo/YouGov poll found 61 percent of respondents rejected Trump’s ballroom plan while 25 percent supported it.
Trump lied. “It won’t interfere with the current building,” Trump said last July about his ballroom plans. “It will be near it, but not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of. It’s my favorite He was dishonest about his intent in terms of we’re not going to touch anything, like it’s going to be close, but not touching,” Kevin Wade, a 52-year-old tech tourist from Texas, told Reuters. “And then now we’re completely demolishing it.”

The East Wing emptiness is now a tourist attraction, a PTSD imprint that — with the rapid developments leading up to Thanksgiving — may inspire a turning point in Trump’s presidency.
On Tuesday, Nov. 18, after a 43-day government shutdown to avoid this moment, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 471-1 to compel the Justice Department to release all files on convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Meanwhile at the White House, Trump gleefully hosted Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who US intelligence believes approved the gruesome 2018 murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The president scolded ABC News journalist Mary Bruce for embarrassing “guest” MBS with “a horrible, insubordinate” question about Khashoggi’s murder. “Whether you like [Khashoggi] or didn’t like him, things happen.”
In Bob Woodward’s 2020 book, “Rage,” Trump reportedly bragged about shielding MBS: “I saved his ass,” getting Congress “to leave him alone.”
Meanwhile, after the House vote, Epstein survivors huddled at a news conference, holding up photos of themselves as teenagers and young women, asking if Trump is innocent, what is he hiding? Why won’t he release the files now? Suddenly, thrilled survivors learned that the U.S. Senate had unanimously passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act and sent it to Trump for his signature.

Cut to Trump hosting a black-tie dinner for MBS with lots of rich men who do business with the Saudis. The next morning, he announced that he had signed the Epstein bill, with a 30-day deadline.
“It was a remarkable turn of events for what was once a far-fetched effort,” AP reported. “Trump did a sharp U-turn on the files once it became clear that congressional action was inevitable.”
Trump needed a distraction.

Early Tuesday morning, Nov. 18, U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) posted a 90-second video on her X account calling on U.S. servicemembers to not obey unlawful orders.
“The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution,” said Slotkin with five other fellow military veterans — U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), and U.S. Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.). “Don’t give up the ship.”
The Uniform Code of Military Justice says troops who disobey a direct order will be punished. But servicemembers and officers also have an obligation to reject any order they deem is unlawful, a reference to the “I was only following orders” Nazi defense during the Nuremberg trials.
There is cause for concern. In his first term, Trump asked about shooting unarmed civilians protesting the murder of George Floyd. In his second term, Trump has threatened to use the Insurrection Act to deploy troops, “unleashed” police, federalized National Guard, and masked and violent ICE and Border Patrol agents in American cities.
“The president was enraged,” Trump’s 1st term Defense Secretary Mark Esper told NPR. “We reached that point in the conversation where he looked frankly at [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and said, ‘Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?’ … It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air.”
Trump found his distraction on Thursday, Nov. 20, reposting a Washington Examiner story about the Democratic lawmakers’ video, adding that it was “really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” In another post he said it was “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH.”
Trump also reposted a @P78 comment: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” Bomb and death threats against the Democratic vets “surged.” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump was ‘lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline.’”

Cut to Friday. 34-year-old New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani met with Trump, who had vilified the Democratic Socialist. But inexplicably, the meeting turned into an Oval Office lovefest, with an almost giddy Trump, 79, saying it was “OK” that Mamdani had called him a fascist. He promised to help the city.
That night, longtime Trump and MAGA loyalist U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) announced she’s resigning from Congress, effective Jan. 5, 2026.
Greene criticized Trump over “America First” and health insurance policies but a major split occurred when she sided with Epstein survivors over him. Trump called her a “traitor” and vowed to back a primary challenger.
“Loyalty should be a two-way street,” Greene said in her 10-minute video. “I refuse to be a battered wife hoping it all goes away and gets better.”
No one knows what’s coming next.

But for the LGBTQ community, there are other important split screens amid Project 2025 erasure – such as U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.)’s key role as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee focused on transparency and justice for Epstein survivors.

And while Trump was threatening Democratic lawmakers with death on Thursday, Pete Williams, a former NBC News correspondent and press secretary for Vice President Dick Cheney, spoke at Cheney’s funeral at the National Cathedral. Williams told the mostly old-fashioned Republicans how he offered to resign in 1991 when the Advocate was about to out him as gay. Cheney — who loved his semi-out lesbian daughter Mary — said no and checked on him after the story was published. During the horrific AIDS crisis in the early 1990s, ANGLE (Access Now for Lesbian and Gay Equality) fundraised and worked to elect pro-gay politicians. In 1991, longtime gay politico David Mixner introduced ANGLE to his friend, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, whom the group helped elect as president.

Gay people were not welcome at the White House until Clinton, other than one historic visit on March 26, 1977. Decades later, when ANGLE’s Jeremy Bernard was being interviewed by first lady Michelle Obama for the job of Social Secretary, he recalled how difficult it was to get through the East Wing visitors’ entrance during Clinton’s administration.

“I said to Mrs. Obama, ‘It takes a lot to get in these doors. And I think it’s very important for people to feel very welcomed,’” Jeremy says during a recent conversation.
The first lady agreed and “wanted to make sure as many people that never had been to the White House and never thought they would be, got the experience to do it.”

Bernard worked for Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, then as White House Liaison to the National Endowment for the Humanities before serving as Senior Advisor to the US Ambassador to France. On Feb. 25, 2011, he became the first male and first openly gay person to serve as Social Secretary.

“Jeremy shares our vision for the White House as the People’s House, one that celebrates our history and culture in dynamic and inclusive ways. We look forward to Jeremy continuing to showcase America’s arts and culture to our nation and the world through the many events at the White House,” Obama said in a press release.
“My office was in the East Wing, and I had what I thought was the best office. I looked over toward the South Lawn, but I also had the roof of the East Colonnade below me. I had a window that actually would open like a door, and you could walk out onto the roof as if it was a patio,” Bernard recalls, noting that he was warned to call the Secret Service before going out to avoid getting shot.
“I was so shocked,” Bernard says about the East Wing being demolished. “When I first heard there were bulldozers, I was like, well, what is it they’re knocking down from it?” — finding out later, “the whole thing” was gone.
He felt “some self-sorrow” and “numb” remembering his office. “It really is a part of history, not just for those of us that worked there, but for virtually everyone – whether you were there for a state dinner, a holiday party, or a reception for St. Patrick’s Day, LGBT celebration — whatever it was, everyone came through the East Wing.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said it well, Bernard says. “Compared to what ICE is doing and all that, it may not rank up there, but it’s symbolic of what’s happened in our country.”

Michelle Obama said it well, too. “We always felt it was the people’s house,” she told CBS “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert. “I am confused by what are our norms? What are our standards? What are our traditions? I just feel like, what is important to us as a nation anymore? Because I’m lost.”
And, Michelle Obama continued, “I hope that more Americans feel lost in a way that they want to be found again, because it’s up to us to find what we’re losing.”
“The West Wing was work — sometimes it was sadness, it was problems. It was the guts of the White House,” she said. “The East Wing was where you felt light.”

Bernard and Lea Berman, social secretary in the George W. Bush White House, have some suggestions in their book “Treating People Well,” subtitled “How to Master Social Skills and Thrive in Everything You Do.”
“It was important to us to see that despite our differences in how we viewed policy, Lea and I and Lea’s husband — who is an operative in the Republican Party — were very close,” Bernard says.
“I think about what this must be like for kids,” Bernard says. “We always looked at these presidents as a certain type of person.”
But now people hear Trump say, “’I hate my enemies. I want revenge.’ What is that teaching kids?” Bernard asks. “The president of the United States is saying that. I think it’s really frightening. We can’t let that stand.”
“I think we’ve got to go back to the way we were brought up about how you treat other people,” Bernard says. “It’s really important that we focus on the more positive characteristics of human beings … Most communities are very different and we celebrate that. But you can only celebrate it with civility.”
Karen Ocamb is a veteran LGBTQ journalist and former news editor for the Los Angeles Blade. This article was originally posted on her Substack LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. Her extended conversation with Jeremy Bernard, who talks more about the East Wing, ANGLE and the Obamas, is embedded in the post.
National
Study shows ‘pervasive mistreatment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement’
Findings claim nationwide police misconduct, including in D.C., Va., Md.
The LGBTQ supportive Williams Institute, an arm of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, released a report last month citing multiple research studies conducted over the past 25 years showing past and “ongoing” mistreatment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement throughout the United States.
“Findings show that LGBTQ communities – particularly LGBTQ people of color, youth, and transgender and gender nonconforming individuals – have faced profiling, entrapment, discrimination, harassment, and violence from law enforcement for decades, and this mistreatment continues to be widespread,” according to a Williams Institute statement.
“Experiences of police mistreatment may discourage LGBTQ people from reporting crimes or engaging with law enforcement,” Joshua Arrayales, the report’s lead author and Williams Institute Law Fellow said in the statement.
“Reporting crimes is essential for accurate crime statistics, proper allocation of crime prevention resources, and support services that address the unique needs of LGBTQ survivors,” he said.
The 59-page report cites the findings of two dozen or more studies and surveys of LGBTQ people’s interaction with police and law agencies for the past 25 years through 2024 conducted by various organizations, including the ACLU, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the Williams Institute, and local government agencies.
But the report does not provide a breakdown of where police abuse against LGBTQ people occurred by specific police departments or locations. Instead it provides survey research findings of large groups of LGBTQ people who responded to a survey in different locations of the U.S.
Among other things, those surveys have found “LGBTQ people are more likely than non-LGBTQ people to report being stopped by police, searched by police, arrested, and falsely accused of an offense,” the Williams Institute statement accompanying the report says. “LGBTQ people also report substantial rates of verbal harassment, physical harassment, sexual harassment, and assault,” it says.
The report itself cites surveys of LGBTQ people’s interactions with police in D.C., Baltimore, and Virginia but does not give specific cases or identify specific police departments or agencies.
“A 2022 study based on interviews with 19 Black transgender women from Baltimore and Washington, D.C. identified a theme of re-victimization while seeking help from police,” the report says. “One participant noted that male officers asked what she did to cause her own abuse,” according to the report.
“Other participants expressed that when a knowledgeable officer was present, such as an LGBTQ+ liaison, they felt more inclined to reach out for help,” it says.
The report also states, “A 2024 study based on interviews with 44 transgender people in Virginia documented two instances of transgender women being pulled over for broken tail lights and then being mistreated once officers discovered they were transgender based on their IDs.” The report does not reveal the specific location in Virginia where this took place.
Other locations the report cites data on anti-LGBTQ conduct by police include New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Newark, N.J., and Austin and San Antonio in Texas.
The full report can be accessed at williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu.
The White House
SPJ calls for take down of Trump’s ‘media offenders’ website
White House launched online database on Monday
The Society for Professional Journalists has called out the White House for creating a website that targets individual journalists and news outlets that publish unfavorable coverage of the Trump-Vance administration.
In a letter to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday, the SPJ — the nation’s most broad-based journalism organization, which works to protect the free practice of journalism with high ethical standards — asked the White House to take down its website singling out journalists for negative coverage of the administration.
“Journalists have a constitutionally protected and societally encouraged duty to hold power to account. They are not political opponents to be tracked, cataloged or punished,” the letter signed by SPJ National President Chris Vaccaro and SPJ Ethics Committee Chair Dan Axelrod.
“By publishing reporters’ names, outlets and specific stories, the White House is naming and shaming members of the press in a highly charged political and social environment. SPJ regards this as a form of online harassment that exposes journalists to potential threats and even violence.”
The website currently lists 23 outlets as “Media Offenders of the Week,” singling out national organizations like CBS News, the Boston Globe, and the Independent. The website says these particular organizations “misrepresents and exaggerates President Trump.”
The letter goes on to explain that there are more civil ways to disagree with published stories without singling out people for doing the only constitutionally protected job in the country.
“There are well-established ways of resolving disagreements over the fairness or accuracy of stories. The White House web page attacking so-called ‘media offenders’ ignores these principles and instead denigrates and attacks reporters.”
It also highlights how Trump often attacks women journalists in particular, noting that two weeks ago he told White House correspondent Catherine Lucey from Bloomberg News to be “quiet piggy” after she asked questions related to Trump’s relationship with sex offender Jeffery Epstein on Air Force One.
“Journalists, particularly women, already face an enormous amount of online harassment, and this can convert into physical violence. As you know, women journalists have also been publicly insulted by the president in recent weeks.”
The letter also explains that attacks like this on the legitimate press can cause tensions between journalists who attempt to hold those in power responsible and the public who consumes the rhetoric.
“This page, which categorizes reporting as ‘lies,’ ‘left-wing lunacy,’ and ‘malpractice,’ has a chilling effect on coverage. It undermines the healthy democratic relationship in which journalists hold power to account.”
The letter also draws a connection to how the Russian authoritarian dictatorship references media it dislikes, saying, “The president’s new ‘media offenders’ list mirrors a 2017 initiative by the Kremlin that labeled independent journalism as ‘fake news.’ The United States should not follow that example.”
“SPJ believes civility must be restored between the media and the Administration. Removing this page would be a vital first step toward lowering the temperature and reinforcing America’s commitment to free expression.”
The SPJ’s code of ethics, widely regarded as the ethical standard for good journalism, has four main pillars: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent. The code was adopted in 1926 from the American Society of Newspaper Editors and has been revised multiple times since then, including in 1984, 1987, 1996, and most recently in 2014.
NLGJA, the The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists is the journalist-led association that works within the news media to advance fair and accurate coverage of LGBTQ+ communities and issues, provided a statement to the Blade on the website and supports the SPJ’s public call for removing the website to restore faith in journalistic freedom in the U.S.
“We stand with SPJ in urging the Trump administration to remove its website targeting so-called “media offenders.” While NLGJA believes that media organizations should be held to the highest standards of accuracy and ethical reporting, this website does nothing to support a healthy press environment,” National Board President Ken Miguel told the Blade via email. “Instead, it undermines public trust in the free press, enables the harassment and targeting of journalists, and hinders their ability to cover the news fairly and accurately. Journalists must be able to do their work without fear of government retaliation.”
The White House has not responded to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on the letter.
-
a&e features5 days agoMeet Mr. Christmas
-
Puerto Rico5 days agoPuerto Rico’s largest LGBTQ organization struggling amid federal funding cuts
-
Opinions4 days agoVictory Fund continues to shun me and my place in LGBTQ history
-
National4 days agoLawmakers warn of HIV crisis as federal support collapses
