National
Effort to repeal marriage equality fails in N.H.
A tense, sometimes surreal debate
UPDATE: According to sources at national Log Cabin Republicans, the vote split by party in New Hampshire was 119 Republicans voting not to repeal, while 92 Democrats voted against repeal, leaving 13 Democrats not willing to go on the record in favor of preserving same-sex marriage.
An effort to overturn marriage equality in New Hampshire appears to be dead for the year after a Republican-controlled state House of Representatives failed to pass a repeal measure, despite desperate last-minute attempts to make the bill more palatable to moderates by author Rep. David Bates.
In a 211-116 vote, the legislature gave same-sex marriage advocates something to cheer about when, after hours of procedural efforts to keep the bill alive, enough GOP lawmakers voted against the bill to rescind the right to marry from New Hampshire residents.
Several Republicans crossed the aisle to defeat the measure, including Reps. Mike Ball and Jennifer Coffey, who spoke out against the bill last week along with other advocates and Democratic lawmakers at a news conference organized by the marriage equality group Standing Up For New Hampshire Families.
During a long and contentious debate on the bill in which the same amendment was brought back for reconsideration twice, strong statements were made on all sides of the issue.
“God is my judge, this legislative body is not my judge,” Rep. Cameron DeJong proclaimed. “Allow me to have this discussion between my God and me about my decisions.”
Rep. Ball compared the bill to segregation in the South, “Let’s put this dog down, like it deserves to be.”
In a surreal moment during the debate, an amendment to the bill was introduced to also bar marriage between left-handed people. That amendment failed to be considered.
House bill 437, which would have prevented New Hampshire from recognizing any new same-sex marriages and revived the 2007 civil unions law in its place, was introduced last year by GOP Rep. Bates, along with 11 Republican co-sponsors. After the bill lost traction in the House last week, Bates introduced an amendment that would put a nonbinding question on the issue before voters in November, prior to the law’s official repeal date in March 2013, as well as have left intact the 2,000 existing same-sex marriages already recognized by the state, much like California’s post-Proposition 8 law that created, what advocates call 15,000 “limited edition” legally recognized same-sex marriages in that state.
The floor amendment, meant to give the law a better chance of surviving a veto, failed to be adopted after a vote of 162-188, leaving the bill less likely to become law in the long run.
After a failed first vote on returning to civil unions, the legislature voted to divide the combined civil unions-referendum amendment into separate issues, an effort that also failed on a vote of 128 to 222.
During that debate, Rep. David Welch — who at one time opposed same-sex marriage, but is now a vocal opponent of the measure to repeal it on constitutional grounds — called on his colleagues to vote against the amendment containing the call for referendum and for reinstating civil unions. “The legislature has given rights to certain members of our community, and we should not vote to take them away.”
The veteran lawmaker repeatedly called into question the constitutionality of HB 437 throughout the debate.
Also opposing the amendment was Republican Rep. Shawn Jasper, who urged the legislature to drop the bill and send a clean binding referendum to the people, rather than the planned non-binding ballot measure.
He was followed by pro-gay Republican Rep. Jennifer Coffey, who called for an end to the push against committed same-sex couples, saying if a voter opposes same-sex marriage, they’re not obligated to enter into such a marriage.
“This body has set in motion a ping-pong ball with people’s lives,” Coffey told her colleagues.
Countering the call for a ballot initiative, Rep. Steve Murphy (R- Bedford) declared, “The rights of the people are not subject to popular vote.”
Earlier, the initial vote on the civil unions amendment — prior to the multiple votes to reconsider — failed on a vote of 82 to 266.
During the debate of the first civil unions amendment on the floor, Rep. Dan McGuire said he has three lesbians in his life, including his “mother and sister,” but supports the amendment that will end marriage because he supports the “dictionary definition” of marriage, and says that this is an issue of “extreme political correctness.”
Also speaking in favor of the civil unions amendment was Rep. Marilinda Garcia, who argued that allowing couples who have no biological ability to create children would weaken marriage for those that do have that ability.
The bill could still be revived in the overwhelmingly Republican-controlled Senate, where its fate would be in the hands of the handful of moderate Republicans.
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch repeatedly vowed to veto House bill 437.
Recent polls show that respondents oppose ending same-sex marriage by up to 62 percent, however, no state electorate in the country has yet approved full marriage rights for same-sex couples via the ballot.
Five other states, and the District of Columbia, have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New York. Maryland’s Governor Martin O’Malley signed into law a gender neutral marriage bill that will take effect on January 1, pending the result of a likely November ballot measure. Likewise, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire signed into law a bill extending marriage rights to same-sex couples going into effect also pending a voter initiative. In addition, the New Jersey legislature passed a same-sex marriage law in February, but will need to override Gov. Chris Christie’s veto by the end of the legislative session in 2014.
New Hampshire became the fifth state in the nation to expand marriage rights to include same-sex couples, the third to do so without being compelled to by a court, and the second to pass through the legislature with a governor’s signature — current Gov. John Lynch — following Maine’s Gov. John Baldacci earlier that year. The marriage law went into effect in early 2010, and thousands of same-sex couples have taken advantage of the rights.
Federal Government
Gay Venezuelan man ‘forcibly disappeared’ to El Salvador files claim against White House
Andry Hernández Romero had asked for asylum in US
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.”
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.
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.
Florida
Fla. House passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill
Measure could open door to overturning local LGBTQ rights protections
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.”
-
Health5 days agoToo afraid to leave home: ICE’s toll on Latino HIV care
-
Colombia5 days agoClaudia López wins primary in Colombian presidential race
-
The White House4 days agoTrump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
-
Iran4 days agoMan stuck in Lebanon as Iran war escalates

