Connect with us


Will Log Cabin endorse Romney?

Likely GOP nominee hires gay adviser but can’t outrun hostile primary rhetoric



Mitt Romney speaking before attendees at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Mitt Romney swept a series of GOP presidential primaries this week as news surfaced that Newt Gingrich will suspend his campaign on Tuesday.

With Romney poised to wrap up the Republican nomination — and ready to pivot to the general election contest — his campaign announced the appointment of a gay man, Richard Grenell, to serve as national security and foreign policy spokesman.

The developments this week raise questions about whether the Log Cabin Republicans will endorse Romney for president, despite his promise to pursue a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage, among other anti-gay positions he’s articulated during the primary season.

The debate over whether to endorse Romney could prove thorny for Log Cabin. On one hand, the organization is likely to feel pressure from its Republican base to throw its support behind the party’s standard-bearer in the general election. On the other, Romney has backed anti-gay positions during the primary season, including support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country and a pledge to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

Christian Berle, Log Cabin’s deputy executive director, said the board will make the endorsement decision in advance of the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, Fla., this August.

“The endorsement of any candidate is something Log Cabin Republicans takes very seriously, particularly when it comes to a presidential nominee,” Berle said. “Staff and the board of directors will take the next several months to review Gov. Romney’s record and his vision for leading the country. Log Cabin Republicans will maintain its battle focus on building a stronger, more inclusive GOP.”

If history is any guide, then Log Cabin may withhold support for Romney because of his support for the federal amendment. Log Cabin endorsed George W. Bush in 2000. But in 2004, the group created a national stir when it withheld its endorsement of Bush’s re-election due to the president’s support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In a 22-2 vote, the Log Cabin board decided to withhold the endorsement.

Log Cabin’s then-president Patrick Guerriero explained the decision not to endorse Bush in an op-ed piece published in the Los Angeles Times.

“This year, despite our loyalty to the party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln, we have decided, after significant discussion, to withhold our endorsement of President Bush,” Guerriero wrote. “It was a difficult choice, but our integrity requires it, and the Republican Party’s future will be stronger because of it.”

Although other concerns were cited, the primary reason for withholding support for Bush was his call for Congress to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to send to the states for ratification.

“The constitutional amendment would not only ban gay marriage, it would also jeopardize civil unions and domestic partnerships,” Guerriero said. “The president’s support of an unnecessary and discriminatory constitutional amendment ignores the party’s belief in state autonomy and disregards the nation’s reliance on federalism. Using the Constitution as a campaign tool weakens our nation’s founding document and erodes our party’s proud tradition of equality and liberty.”

In many ways, Romney’s views mirror those of Bush in 2004. Romney signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage to back a Federal Marriage Amendment, defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court and establish a commission on “religious liberty” to investigate the alleged harassment of same-sex marriage opponents. NOM has endorsed Romney, whose Free & Strong America political action committee donated $10,000 to the organization as it sought passage of California’s Proposition 8.

Log Cabin has an awkward history with Romney. In 2007, Log Cabin ran an ad against Romney in Iowa attacking him for not being conservative enough. It included footage of Romney running for U.S. Senate and expressing pro-choice views and distancing himself from former Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. A message at the end of the ad says it came from Log Cabin, but the Blade reported in 2008 that it was financed by Gill Action Fund.

“For years, he’s fought conservatives and religious extremists,” a female voice in the ad states. “Mitt Romney opposed the gun lobby, even Ronald Reagan. … A record fighting the religious right, a pro-choice record, Massachusetts values: Mitt Romney.”

But despite his support for a federal amendment, Romney’s anti-gay positions aren’t as extreme as other GOP candidates who competed against him for the Republican nomination. In a December interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Romney said he’s “not planning” on working to reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” unlike the other candidates such as former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Additionally, Romney said that although he backs a Federal Marriage Amendment, he doubts the political wherewithal exists to pass it.

Meanwhile, Romney’s decision to hire Grenell, who’s gay and a former Bush administration official, as his national security and foreign policy spokesman, was viewed as a pivot to the political center now that the primary season is ending. Grenell has come under fire for speaking out on Twitter against women, Democratic officials and the Gingriches. Around 800 tweets were reportedly deleted from his account.

Log Cabin threw its support behind Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008. In a 2008 Q&A with the Washington Blade, McCain said he’d establish a national AIDS strategy and would welcome a review of a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — although the lawmaker was the primary opponent of repeal during the 2010 legislative effort. As a U.S. senator, McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and didn’t run for president supporting the measure.

Many gay Republicans and Log Cabin chapter leaders declined to comment when contacted by the Washington Blade about whether Log Cabin should endorse Romney. In a leaked email dated April 13 obtained by the Blade, Log Cabin’s national staff told its chapter leaders not to speak to the Blade about the endorsement.

“We have been informed that Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade is reaching out to our chapter leaders with questions regarding the potential for Log Cabin Republicans to endorse Mitt Romney,” the email reads. “Please redirect Mr. Johnson to the national staff on this issue. No endorsement decision has been made, and it is in the best interest of our organization to refrain from comment at this time.”

Still, a handful of gay Republicans voiced support for the idea of a Romney endorsement when contacted by the Blade.

Bob Kabel, who’s gay and chair of the D.C. Republican Party, responded favorably when asked if he believes the national gay organization should throw its support behind Romney.

“I do think Log Cabin should endorse Romney,” Kabel said. “Romney has a good track record as governor of Massachusetts on gay issues, including appointing a number of openly gay officials in important positions. Other than on marriage, which we have a strong disagreement about, he is actually quite good on gay issues and, in addition, I think Log Cabin would support him because of his background and proven ability to understand the economy and create jobs. That what’s important to so many people, including gay people.”

Although Kabel touts Romney’s work on gay issues in Massachusetts, many LGBT advocates have criticized him for working to block legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and resurrecting a 1913 law preventing non-residents from marrying in the Bay State. According to MassEquality, Romney abolished the Governor’s Commission on GLBT Youth and rescinded an executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the state workforce. Another Republican, former Gov. William Weld, had put those measures in place.

Jim Driscoll, a gay Nevada-based activist who served on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS during the Bush administration, also called on Log Cabin to endorse Romney. Driscoll is a Romney supporter who donated to his campaign — both in 2008 and 2012 — and supported him during the Nevada caucuses.

“I think they should endorse him,” Driscoll said. “It looks to me as if the only issue there is the marriage amendment. This isn’t something that I’ve followed closely, but it seems to me that there’s very little chance that that marriage amendment can pass. It’s kind of a dead issue. I don’t see that it has any momentum. And I suspect that while [Romney] formally favors it, he’s not going to lift his little finger to do anything to see that it passes.”

Outside groups on the right and left had their own views on whether Log Cabin should get behind Romney.

Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, refrained from directly saying whether Log Cabin should endorse Romney.

“It’s not for me to opine on whether Log Cabin Republicans should or should not endorse Gov. Romney,” LaSalvia said. “It should be noted, however, that in 2004 they emphatically stated that they could not endorse a candidate who supported a Federal Marriage Amendment, and in 2008 they spent more than $100,000 to run television and radio ads attacking Mitt Romney.”

Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said “any credible organization” working for the LGBT community “cannot and should not endorse Mitt Romney,” but noted the question of an endorsement will likely be a difficult one for the organization.

“Log Cabin is in a very precarious situation when it comes to endorsing Mitt Romney,” Davis said. “On the one hand, if they do endorse Romney, they are sending a clear signal to the rest of the LGBT community that being partisan hacks is more important than standing up for LGBT equality. On the other hand, if they don’t endorse Romney they become largely irrelevant in the debate about who will be the next president. Not only would this give their rivals, GOProud, an opening to out flank them on the right, but it would also be problematic for their executive director, who happens to sit on the RNC finance committee.”

Former Log Cabin leaders were reluctant to weigh in on whether the organization should endorse Romney. Guerriero, who after leaving Log Cabin served as head of Gill Action Fund, didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. He’s now a partner at Civitas Public Affairs Group.

Patrick Sammon, who headed Log Cabin during its decision to endorse McCain and is now a filmmaker, declined to comment.

But Rich Tafel, who founded the organization and led it from 1993 to 2003, said in an email to the Blade that the organization, “will probably endorse Mitt Romney.”

“Mitt is a moderate, which is [why] he’s had a tough time this primary,” Tafel said. “He has a history of supporting gays and appointing them, which makes him unique among the GOP candidates. He has a 45 percent chance of winning so LCR has a responsibility to ensure it has a role with him should he win. He’ll need to move back to the middle to win this.”

Continue Reading


  1. Manny

    April 26, 2012 at 8:44 am

    Since Romney kept his 2002 promise to the Log Cabin group to NOT oppose the 2003 gay marriage court ruling — and in fact implemented it without legislative authorization (vs. the Mass. Constitution) — how can they not endorse him?

    • Rens

      April 26, 2012 at 9:40 am

      If he decides to court anti-gay hate groups like NOM and bigots like Bryan Fisher in 2012, how can they not /denounce/ him?


      Romney’s between a rock and a hard place, and if he has to choose between losing support of the Log Cabin Republicans or the support of the fundamentalist christian right, which way do you think he’ll jump? Seriously?

    • BobN

      April 26, 2012 at 4:50 pm

      Care to explain how a governor can disagree with the Supreme Court of his own state?

      Every single gay-related issue over which Romeny had a CHOICE, he voted or acted against us. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

      And he has promised to do so as president. LCR are delusional.

  2. FlexSF

    April 26, 2012 at 9:02 am

    Mr. Magic underwear has won power and money while promising to facilitate a federal ban on gay marriage. May he and his supporters reap what they sow, and more.

  3. LeoMarius

    April 26, 2012 at 10:46 am

    Gay Republicans are turkeys endorsing Butterball.

  4. Peter Rosenstein

    April 26, 2012 at 10:54 am

    This is a great piece and clearly shows what a difficult position Log Cabin is in. Do they maintain credibility as part of the LGBT community or do they go with their Republican leanings. Hard to do both. One indication may be that R. Clarke Cooper, President of Log Cabin, serves on the RNC Finance Committee and is already raising money which among other things will go toward the Romney Campaign. It will also go to a slew of other Republicans who will be working to overturn any gains the LGBT community has made. The RNC has some of the same problems as the DNC. Many people I know now don’t give to either but rather contribute directly to the candidates they support.

    • BobN

      April 26, 2012 at 4:51 pm

      The should just fess up and admit they’re just angling for jobs for their own personal benefit.

    • Ted Hax

      April 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm

      It’s not Mitt Romney that will be the biggest impediment to equality, it’s the Supreme Court Justices he will appoint!

  5. Jim Guinnessey

    April 26, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Of course the Log Cabin Republicans will endorse Romney for President. The more Romney spits on them, the more they love him. It’s called masochism.

  6. Frank Ricchiazzi

    April 26, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Hold on everyone. Log Cabin is being judged to put all their marbles on not endorsing Romney because he is against gay marriage. Let me see if I understand this from the perspective of the party hacks of the Democrat gay clubs. When then State Senator Obama supported gay marriage, that was logical for the Dems in the gay community to support Obama. However, when the “talk out of both sides of his mouth” Presidential candidate Obama was running for President, he did a complete 180 degree turn. Did the gay Democrat hacks have this so called “dilemma” four years ago when they endorsed Obama? And let us then ask our dear brethern on the Democrat side of the aisle: How much money did Log Cabin put up to fight the Obama administration in the courts, when it came to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
    Uncle Frank Ricchiazzi, a co-founder of Log Cabin Republicans

    • Griffin Blake Bradley

      April 27, 2012 at 10:44 am

      Frank – Sorry, but the gay marriage debate is not the only reason why LCR have not decided to endorse Romney. Try again.

    • I'm Just Sayin'

      April 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm

      You’re a gay republican legend Uncle Frank of that there is no dispute, but this is not the LCR of your day and these are not the politics of your time.

      LCR has their DADT laurels to rest on, but it’s the seem to have forgotten how the DADT victory was achieved that frustrates me the most about them. DADT like all other major advances in nationwide equality emanated not in Congress or from the electorate but through the courts, and generally the Supreme Court. Congress did not end DADT. They simply affirmed what they had been ordered to do by a judge ironically nominated by the same Democratic President who signed it into law. And it wasn’t a white male judge, but a woman. In fact even LCR concedes that it was the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, not some shift in republican ideology, that opened the door for the DADT lawsuit that led to repeal. Considering that Scalia and Thomas vigorously dissented, do you think that if Lawrence were tried before the current court we would have gotten a 6-3 or even a 5-4 decision to overturn?

      So Uncle Frank, you are right about one thing, this election is not about gay marriage. It is about control plain and simple. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have their eye on the same prize and that is who will shape the ideology of the Supreme Court for the next two to three decades. LCR doesn’t seem to get that, but you know who does? Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, an organization whose sole purpose is to defeat Barack Obama.

      In fact, Mr. Barber is no fan of Mitt Romney yet he is more than willing to put aside his reservations because according to Barber the person elected in 2012 will likely name two or three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

      “For that reason alone, to have Barack Obama re-elected is simply not an option. He has already appointed two radical, secular, socialist justices,” Barber said. When asked if he was enthusiastic about Romney, though, Barber laughed. “That’s a good question. I will work with every fiber of my being to see that Barack Obama is not re-elected, and to the extent there is a collateral benefit to Mitt Romney, so be it.”

      So spin it any way your want Uncle Frank, but LCR is not working in the best interest of gay americans with their efforts to defeat Barack Obama. However I’m sure Matt Barber will pen Clarke Cooper a thank you note. You’re known by the company you keep.

  7. Jayson

    April 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    As an American who is Gay, not a Gay American, I do not let my sexuality define me. I am an out, mainstream, successful person who sees the multifaceted aspect of supporting a candidate. I will gladly, wholeheartedly and financially support Mr. Romney, as I do not feel I have suffered at all. Perhaps because I allow people to see all aspects of my life, not just those by which we differ.

    • Griffin Blake Bradley

      April 27, 2012 at 10:41 am

      Jayson – You sound silly. Who cares how out, mainstream, and successful you are. Obviously, you are a Republican, therefore, you will support Romney. There are plenty of out, mainstream, and successful American’s who are gay that will NOT support Romney.

    • LaFrae

      May 3, 2012 at 5:05 pm

      Wondering if you feel the same about Romney since openly gay advisor was dismissed. Not saying that you should, just wondering if his actions sway you.

  8. Christopher di Spirito

    April 26, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    The Log Cabin Repugs have never met a Republican they won’t endorse.

  9. Rebecca Juro

    April 26, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    Gay Republicans suffer from a form of Battered Wife Syndrome. The more the GOP abuses, denigrates, and beats the crap out of them by running for office campaigning against their interests and then working against their interests once elected, the more they just keep going back for more, apparently thinking “Oh, it’ll be better this time.”. Of course, it won’t be, and it will never be, but logic and common sense never seem to have an impact on such people. Masochism indeed.

  10. BobN

    April 26, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    Could a LCR please point out ONE pro-gay position Romney has taken? Not more of that “lower taxes for everyone including gay people” stuff. A concrete, pro-gay act or position that was not merely the carrying out of his constitutional duty as governor of a state whose Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was constitutionally required.

    Just one. It can’t be THAT hard.

  11. Jeff4Justice

    April 27, 2012 at 1:30 am

    Enough of the LGBT blogs and major LGBT groups force-feeding us Obama and the 2party system.

    Obama is GWB’s 3rd term in the assault on civil liberties, war, the drug war, drones, environmental destruction, and government secrecy + killing US citizens, supporting indefinite detention, and the attack on the internet.

    Obama was never a 100% pro-equality candidate – the only candidates who were back in 2008 were Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

    If we can elect a black President and openly-gay candidates then we can certainly use the power of Occupy to overturn the 2party tyranny.

    Stop Voting For Democrats & Republicans

    2012 Presidential Debate Of Alternative Parties

  12. I'm Just Sayin'

    April 27, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    I think there is little doubt that a majority of LCR Board members blinded by their own sense of self-importance, will vote to endorse Romney. We need to remember, but for sexual orientation, they for the most part mirror the GOP demographic of aging white males living in fear of their bank accounts being pillaged, lamenting the diminishment of their influence.

    #GRNDR “Gay Republicans Naively Disregarding Reality”

  13. Adrian Salsgiver

    April 27, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    The Log Cabin Republicans should have long ago endorsed Ron Paul. The Human Rights Campaign also should have endorsed Ron Paul. When asked if gays should be allowed to marry Ron Paul said “Sure. They can do what they want and call it whatever they want.” I wish we would call it gay liberation (freedom from government coercion) instead of gay pride.

  14. Jim Driscoll

    April 27, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    On gay rights the Ds make a point of staying one or two steps ahead of the Rs, yet usually remain two or three steps behind public sentiment. Resting in a political sweet spot is not leadership. It does not deserve the knee-jerk support gay Ds give their party. The Ds have shown that the only way they move ahead is if the public moves first and the Rs are moving as well. Being a gay R requires the courage to stand up to bullying group think by gay libs. Being a gay D involves only comfortable conformity. Over two decades LCR has quietly but determinedly advanced gay rights by edging the Rs forward; it has not sacrificed convictions for a place at the table. Most gay Rs believe Mitt Romney is not biased personally and opposes discrimination on principle. Most are seriously disappointed with Obama’s deficient leadership on gay rights, AIDS, and the economy. We support Romney because we value what we believe is best for America, including in the long run GLBT America, over being in with the in crowd or securing a place at the table.

  15. Marc Paige

    April 28, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    I hope the Log Cabin Republicans do not endorse Mitt Romney – not after his $10,000 donation to NOM and his endorsement of writing discrimination into our Constitution. I hope they can muster enough courage to reject Romney, and show their fellow Republicans that gays do indeed have self-respect, and deserve and demand respect from others.

  16. tristram

    April 29, 2012 at 1:25 am

    The critical issue is not so much marriage equality as the direction of the Supreme Court over the next half century. In the next 4 years, the President will most likely be able to nominate two, possibly three, new justices. Romney has essentially promised the religious right wing (NOM, in particular) a veto over his SC nominations. A Romney presidency coupled with a Republican-controlled Senate might well produce a Supreme Court that would reverse the Griswold and Lawrence decisions, thus reinstating the anti-sodomy laws that a number of states still have in place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Does a potential overturn of Roe imperil LGBTQ rights?

Some fear that Obergefell marriage decision could fall



Protests outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1. (Photo by Cathy Renna)

The oral arguments before the justices of the United States Supreme Court had barely ended in the case brought by the state of Mississippi defending its law banning abortion after 15 weeks, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, when alarms were set off in legal circles as some argued that Obergefell v. Hodges — the same-sex marriage decision — would be in danger should the high court rule to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler, appearing on NPR’s ‘Heard on All Things Considered,’ told host Mary Louise Kelly that there was a basis for concern over whether the court would actually overrule its precedents in other cases based on the questions and statements raised during the hearing by the conservative members of the court.

Asked by Kelly if she saw a legal door opening Ziegler affirmed that she did. Kelly then asked her, “Them taking up cases to do with that. What about same-sex marriage?”

Ziegler answered, “Yeah, same-sex marriage is definitely a candidate. Justices Alito and Thomas have in passing mentioned in dicta that they think it might be worth revisiting Obergefell v. Hodges – the same-sex marriage decision.

“And I think it’s fair to say that in the sort of panoply of culture war issues, that rights for same-sex couples and sexual orientation are still among the most contested, even though certainly same-sex marriage is more subtle than it was and than abortion was.

“I think that certainly the sort of balance between LGBTIQ rights and religious liberty writ large is a very much alive issue, and I think some states may try to test the boundaries with Obergefell, particularly knowing that they have a few justices potentially willing to go there with them.”

As almost if to underscore the point raised by Ziegler during the hearing, Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor pointed out that the high court has taken and “discerned” certain rights in cases from the Constitution.

Along with abortion, the court has “recognized them in terms of the religion parents will teach their children. We’ve recognized it in their ability to educate at home if they choose,” Sotomayor said. “We have recognized that sense of privacy in people’s choices about whether to use contraception or not. We’ve recognized it in their right to choose who they’re going to marry.”

In following up the cases cited by Justice Sotomayor, Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, who was defending the state’s abortion law, whether a decision in his favor would affect the legal precedents in those cases cited by Justice Sotomayor.

In his answer to Justice Barrett, the state’s Solicitor General said cases involving contraception, same-sex marriage and sodomy wouldn’t be called into question because they involve “clear rules that have engendered strong reliance interests and that have not produced negative consequences or all the many other negative stare decisis considerations we pointed out.”

However, Lambda Legal Chief Strategy Officer and Legal Director, Sharon McGowan had a different take and interpreted remarks by Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to mean that the decisions in Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized private sexual intimacy between same-sex couples, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down remaining bans on the freedom of same-sex couples to marry, would actually justify overturning Roe v. Wade.

In a publicly released media statement McGowan noted: “During today’s argument, Justice Kavanaugh suggested that two key Supreme Court decisions protecting LGBTQ civil rights—Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges—support overruling Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

‘To that we say, NOT IN OUR NAME. LGBTQ people need abortions. Just as important, those landmark LGBTQ decisions EXPANDED individual liberty, not the opposite. They reflected the growing societal understanding of our common humanity and equality under law.

“Just as the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education rejected the lie of ‘separate but equal,’ the Supreme Court’s decisions in Lawrence and Obergefell appropriately overruled precedent where it was clear that, as was true with regard to race, our ancestors failed properly to acknowledge that gender and sexual orientation must not be barriers to our ability to live, love, and thrive free of governmental oppression. … 

“These landmark LGBTQ cases, which Lambda Legal litigated and won, and on which we rely today to protect our community’s civil rights, were built directly on the foundation of Casey and Roe. Our interests in equal dignity, autonomy, and liberty are shared, intertwined, and fundamental.” 

On Sunday, the Blade spoke with Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a national LGBTQ+ legal organization that represented three same-sex couples from Tennessee, whose case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court along with Obergefell and two other cases.

Minter is urging caution in how people interpret the court arguments and remarks made by the justices.

“We should be cautious about taking the bait from anti-LGBTQ groups who falsely argue that if the Supreme Court reverses or undermines Roe v. Wade, they are likely to reverse or undermine Obergefell or Lawrence. In fact, that is highly unlikely, as the argument in Dobbs itself showed,” he said.

“The only reason Justice Kavanaugh mentioned Obergefell and Lawrence, along with Brown v. Board of Education, was to cite them as examples of cases in which the Supreme Court clearly did the right thing. All of those decisions rely at least as strongly on equal protection as on fundamental rights, and even this extremely conservative Supreme Court has not questioned the foundational role of equal protection in our nation’s constitutional law,” Minter stressed.

During an interview with Bloomberg magazine, David Cortman, of the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based anti-LGBTQ legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an extremist hate group, said “two things in particular distinguish abortion from those other privacy rights: the right to life and the states’ interest in protecting a child.”

Cortman, whose group urged the justices to allow states to ban same-sex marriages, said those other rights may be just as wrong as the right to an abortion. “But the fundamental interest in life that’s at issue in abortion means those other rights are probably not in any real danger of being overturned.”

But Cortman is of the opinion that there is little impetus among the court’s conservatives to take up challenges to those cases.

However, the fact that the six to three makeup of the high court with a conservative majority has progressives clamoring for the public to pay closer attention and be more proactively engaged.

Kierra Johnson, executive director of the National LGBTQ Task Force, in an emailed statement to the Blade underscored those concerns:

“Reports and analysis coming out of Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization are extremely disturbing and represent a threat to our individual constitutional rights to privacy and autonomy. There is no ‘middle ground’ on what the Constitution guarantees and what was decided decades ago with the Roe v Wade decision. 

“This is about liberty, equality, and the rule of law, not the political or partisan views of those sitting on the bench. The unprecedented decision to remove a constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court 50 years ago would set back civil rights by decades. ….

“Abortion access is essential, and a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. Bans on abortion are deeply racist and profoundly sexist – the harshest impacts fall on Black and Brown women and pregnant people and on our families and communities.

“If you think this decision will not affect you, think again: a wrong decision by the Supreme Court means you, too, will lose your bodily autonomy, your ability to own your own personal and community power. This is not just about abortion; it is about controlling bodies based on someone else determining your worthiness. This is a racial justice issue. This is a women’s issue. It is an LGBTQ issue. It is a civil rights issue. These are our fundamental rights that are at stake.”

Continue Reading


Minnesota middle school principal ousted for displaying Pride flag

Critics ramped up attacks on the career educator- some compared her to the Devil after publicly associating with LGBTQ+ people and students



Screenshot via Marshall Public Schools, YouTube Channel

MARSHALL, Mn. — A former middle school principal in Minnesota who lost her job after displaying a Pride flag alleges in a federal lawsuit that the school system retaliated against her for supporting LGBTQ+ students.

Mary Kay Thomas filed the complaint against Marshall Public Schools in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota Tuesday after anti-LGBTQ+ middle school staff, parents, students and local clergy began efforts to remove the Pride flag that she put up in her middle school’s cafeteria in 2020 as a part of an inclusiveness effort.

According to the lawsuit, Thomas has been a teacher and principal for more than three decades with a long track record of success. She held the principal position at Marshall Middle School for 15 years, receiving contract renewals, pay raises and praise for her performance.

“But when Thomas decided to display an LGBTQ Pride Flag in the school cafeteria in early 2020, everything changed,” reads the complaint. 

Thomas refused to take down the Pride flag as critics ramped up attacks on the career educator. The lawsuit alleges that some even compared her to the Devil after publicly associating with LGBTQ+ people and students. 

“Sadly, the Marshall School District has sided with these critics,” her lawyers wrote. 

What followed was an “escalating series of adverse actions” taken by the Marshall School District, said the lawsuit. She claims that the school targeted her by threatening her employment, conducting a “bad-faith” investigation, putting her on indefinite involuntary leave, suspending her without pay and putting a notice of deficiency in her personnel file. 

The complaint says that the deficiencies were “false, distorted, and/or related to Thomas’s association with members of the LGBTQ community.”

Thomas also claims that the District attempted to get her to quit by removing her as principal and assigning her to a “demeaning ‘special projects’ position.”

At one point, Marshall Public Schools Superintendent Jeremy Williams, who is named as a defendant in the case, told Thomas he could “make this all go away” if she stepped down, according to the complaint. 

The school removed the Pride flag in August 2021 after settling a lawsuit brought by residents who opposed it. 

The Blade reached out to Williams for comment but did not receive a response. However, according to the Marshall Independent, Williams did release a statement on the matter. 

“Marshall Public Schools is committed to the education of every child and has strong policies and practices in place against discrimination, against both students and staff members. The school district is committed to creating a respectful, inclusive, and safe learning and working environment for students, staff and our families,” Williams said. “While the school cannot comment about the specific allegations made in the complaint, the school district strongly denies any allegation of discriminatory conduct. The school will vigorously defend itself against these allegations.”

In addition, Thomas alleges that she resisted unwanted sexual advancements from school board member Bill Swope. She claims she told Williams about the sexual harassment.

As of Thursday, the school has not filed a response, and no hearing has been scheduled yet. 

Thomas is seeking a jury trial, damages and reinstatement as principal of Marshall Middle School.

Continue Reading


Matthew Shepard honored at National Cathedral

Daylong services held to mark his 45th birthday



Matthew Shepard, gay news, Washington Blade
Matthew Shepard Thanksgiving and Celebration at the National Cathedral in 2018. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The parents of gay University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard, who was murdered in a 1998 hate crime that drew international attention to anti-LGBTQ violence, were among those attending a day of religious services commemorating Shepard’s 45th birthday on Wednesday at the Washington National Cathedral.

The services, which the Cathedral organized in partnership with the Matthew Shepard Foundation, included tributes to Shepard at the Cathedral’s St. Joseph’s Chapel, where his remains were interred in a ceremony in 2018.  

“Matthew Shepard’s death is an enduring tragedy affecting all people and should serve as an ongoing call to the nation to reject anti-LGBTQ bigotry and instead embrace each of our neighbors for who they are,” the Very Rev. Randolph Marshall Hollerith, Dean of Washington National Cathedral, said at the time of Shepard’s interment.

“In the years since Matthew’s death, the Shepard family has shown extraordinary courage and grace in keeping his spirit and memory alive, and the Cathedral is honored and humbled to serve as his final resting place,” Hollerith said.

The first of the Cathedral’s Dec. 1 services for Shepard began at 7 a.m. with prayers, scripture readings, and music led by the Cathedral’s Rev. Canon Rosemarie Logan Duncan. The service was live streamed on YouTube.

An online, all-day service was also held from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. that Cathedral officials said was intended to “connect people around the world to honor Shepard and the LGBTQ community and pray for a more just world.”

The Shepard services concluded with a 5:30 p.m. in-person remembrance of Shepard in the Cathedral’s Nave, its main worship space. Among those attending were Shepard’s parents, Dennis and Judy Shepard, who have said they created the Matthew Shepard Foundation to continue their son’s support for equality for all.

A statement released by the Cathedral says a bronze plaque honoring Matthew Shepard was installed in St. Joseph’s Chapel to mark his final resting place at the time Shepard was interred there in 2018. 
Following the Cathedral’s Dec. 1 services for Shepard, the Adams Morgan gay bar Pitchers hosted a reception for Dennis and Judy Shepard, according to Pitchers’ owner David Perruzza.

One of the two men charged with Shepard’s murder, Russell Henderson, pleaded guilty to the charge after prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty for him. The second of the two men charged, Aaron McKinney, was convicted of the murder following a lengthy jury trial.

Prosecutors said McKinney repeatedly and fatally struck Shepard in the head with the barrel of a handgun after he and Henderson tied Shepard to a wooden fence in a remote field outside Laramie, Wy., on Oct. 6, 1998. Police and prosecutors presented evidence at McKinney’s trial that McKinney and Henderson met Shepard at a bar in Laramie on that day and lured him into their car, where they drove him to the field where authorities said McKinney fatally assaulted him.

Shepard died six days later at a hospital in Ft. Collins, Colo., where he was taken after being found unconscious while still tied to the fence.

In a dramatic courtroom scene following the jury’s guilty verdict for McKinney, Dennis Shepard urged the judge to spare McKinney’s life by not handing down a death sentence. He said that out of compassion and in honor of his son’s life, McKinney should be allowed to live. The judge sentenced McKinney to two consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole, the same sentence given to Henderson.

Continue Reading

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts