National
BREAKING: N.C. voters approve anti-gay amendment
Sweeping measure adds marriage ban to state constitution

Voters in North Carolina on Tuesday approved a sweeping anti-gay amendment that made a ban on same-sex marriage part of the state constitution in addition to jeopardizing other rights for gay couples.
The Associated Press called the race in the favor of the anti-gay measure, known as Amendment One, shortly after 9 p.m. Polls closed at 7:30 p.m.
According to early results, 61 percent of voters in North Carolina voted in favor of the amendment while 39 percent voted against it. Amendment One found majority support in the vast majority of counties, although a few counties voted to reject the measure: Wake, Chatham, Durham, Orange, Watauga, Mecklenburg and Buncombe.
Same-sex marriage is already barred by statute in North Carolina. But the amendment not only makes that ban part of the state constitution, it prohibits civil unions, interferes with domestic partner benefits offered by municipalities and threatens contractual arrangements between same-sex partners. The amendment’s restrictions on domestic partner benefits will likely be contested in court.
The vote on the amendment took place on the same day as the North Carolina primary, but the measure drew more attention than the presidential race because Mitt Romney has already become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
National LGBT groups expressed disappointment with the passage of the amendment. The vote makes North Carolina the 30th state with a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, expressed disappointment, but characterized the vote as a temporary setback.
“The passage of Amendment One is a heartbreaking loss for families in North Carolina, but will not stop us in the march toward full equality,” Solmonese said. “As the country continues to move in the direction of marriage equality, our opponents have cynically interrupted the important conversations taking place which lead to increased understanding and acceptance.”
According to HRC, the organization spent just over $500,000 in the effort against Amendment One in three ways: HRC North Carolina PAC has funneled about $240,000 to the campaign; HRC itself gave about $60,000 in cash; and the group contributed about $200,000 in in-kind expenditures that was mostly staff time.
The Obama campaign also weighed in after the passage of the amendment with a statement from an official in North Carolina.
Cameron French, North Carolina press secretary for Obama for America, said the president is “disappointed” by the passage of Amendment One.
“The president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples,” French said. “He believes the North Carolina measure singles out and discriminates against committed gay and lesbian couples, which is why he did not support it. President Obama has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples and is disappointed in the passage of this amendment. On a federal level, he has ended the legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act and extended key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.”
Several other national LGBT groups made no direct contributions to the campaign. Freedom to Marry made no donations to the campaign as it directed $3 million in funds to battles in other states: Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Washington.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, emphasized his organization’s contributions to efforts to block the amendment from coming to the ballot.
“Freedom to Marry contributed to the effort to block the amendment in the legislature and offered messaging strategy and research to the campaign,” Wolfson said. “We also sent several alerts to our supporters urging them to donate directly to the campaign, even as we are deeply engaged in the lift to win ballot battles in three other states, are working to override the veto in New Jersey, and successfully led the fight to hold the freedom to marry in New Hampshire.”
Gill Action Fund also made no direct contributions, according to the most recent campaign disclosure records. The organization didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Prior to the vote, former President Bill Clinton recorded a robocall urging North Carolina residents to oppose Amendment One. According to the campaign against Amendment One, the Clinton robocall went out to 500,000 likely voters in North Carolina.
“If it passes, it won’t change North Carolina’s law on marriage,” Clinton says on the call. “What it will change is North Carolina’s ability to keep good businesses, attract new jobs, and attract and keep talented entrepreneurs. If it passes, your ability to keep those businesses, get those jobs, and get those talented entrepreneurs will be weakened. And losing even one job to Amendment One is too big of a risk.”
On the other side, evangelist Rev. Billy Graham came out in favor of the anti-gay measure and delivered a statement that was set to run in 14 North Carolina newspapers last weekend.
“At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage,” Graham says. “The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment.”
Graham continues, “Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern. I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected.”
The level of involvement of President Obama and the Democratic National Committee has drawn mixed reaction from LGBT activists.
The DNC didn’t make a donation to the campaign against Amendment One, even though the campaign asked for funds to combat the anti-gay measure and the DNC previously made a $25,000 contribution to the fight against California’s Proposition 8 in 2008.
The Obama campaign issued a statement earlier in the month saying the president opposes divisive and discriminatory measures and “does not support” Amendment One. According to the campaign against Amendment One, that statement was the goal that organizers had sought from Obama.
But many LGBT advocates asked Obama to denounce the measure himself publicly and were disappointed that he made no mention of the measure in a speech to college students on April 24 in Chapel Hill, N.C.
Pam Spaulding, a lesbian blogger for Pam’s House Blend, expressed disappointment in the president’s failure to speak out against Amendment One publicly in an email to the Washington Blade following the speech.
“This president hasn’t exactly been known to be bold about weighing in on the Amendment; after all, his statement against Amendment One came from a NC spokesperson, not from the man himself,” Spaulding said. “It was no surprise, given the administration’s predilection for succumbing to political homophobia, or fear that being outspoken in speeches or on camera regarding LGBT issues — even on a subject he has a clear position on, such as opposing discriminatory ballot initiatives like this — usually rules the day.”
A campaign mailing dated May 7 makes no mention of Amendment One — even though it came out the day before the measure came before voters — as it called on followers to show support for Obama.
“The primary is a great opportunity to come out, meet other supporters in your area, and make your voice heard,” the mailing states. “And even though we already know that President Obama will be our nominee, it’s important that we let him know we’re standing with him, now and in November.”

The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected].
The Comings & Goings column also invites LGBTQ college students to share their successes with us. If you have been elected to a student government position, gotten an exciting internship, or are graduating and beginning your career with a great job, let us know so we can share your success.
Congratulations to Ted Lewis M.ED. on being named executive director of Rainbow Families. On their appointment they said, “Right now, when we are facing tremendous opposition to our very existence, is the time to build up our community and our community resources. LGBTQ+ families are innovative, supportive, loving, and resilient and we will need all those tools and more in this moment. My hope as Rainbow Families’ Executive Director is to expand our membership and welcome the vast community resources, expertise, and lived experiences to support new family formation and new parents. I hope to bring education, advocacy and support to LGBTQ+ families, parents, and prospective parents when we are worried about our rights disappearing. I’m also excited to join the joyous and thriving community at Rainbow Families and expand on fun events that bring families together from our weekend camping trip, to picking pumpkins at Cox Farms, and dancing at family parties. It is within a beloved community that we can both prepare for challenges ahead and celebrate our fabulousness together.”
Prior to this, Lewis served as director of Youth Well-Being for the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Lewis served as project manager for Project THRIVE, a multi-year campaign with 30+ national organizations committed to the thriving of LGBTQ youth resulting in industry specific resources and professional development on LGBTQ best practices. Lewis was also founder and CEO of Ted Lewis Consulting, advising K-12 school districts, Fortune 500 companies, higher education institutions, and non-profits on LGBTQ inclusive practices. They also served as assistant director for Sexual/Gender Diversity, UNC Charlotte, responsible for LGBTQ student programming as well as Men’s & Women’s programming for the institution. Lewis has presented on numerous panels including: “Othermuvas: How Black LGBTQ+ Chosen Families Provide Support to Black LGBTQ+ Youth” National Mentoring Summit, 2025; “Addressing the Issues of LGBTQ+ Cultural Competency, Parity and Inconsistency” Richmond Bench-Bar Conference, 2019; and “The Unmasking: Race & Reality in Richmond” Richmond Magazine Panel, 2017. Lewis was named in Style Weekly’s 40 Under 40, in 2018; and received the VA Pride Firework Award in 2019.
Lewis earned a bachelor’s degree in English and History, University of Mary Washington; Master of Education, University of South Carolina, and an Education Master Certificate in Women & Gender Studies, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
Federal Government
Garcia writes to HHS Secretary about the dismantling of HIV programs in Trump’s second term
Out congressman was elected top Democrat on House Oversight on June 24

U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter on Thursday to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. demanding answers about the Trump-Vance administration’s “systematic” elimination of programs to fight HIV in the U.S. and around the world.
Also signed by Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, the letter requests information about cuts to federal support for HIV research, including vaccine development efforts, the shuttering of the HIV prevention division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the defunding of programs providing HIV treatment and prevention services since President Donald Trump returned to the White House.
The lawmakers requested responses by or before the end of July.
“It is shameful that HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and the Trump Administration are working to dismantle our HIV research, care, and prevention programs aimed at eradicating the disease across the world,” Garcia said. “This decision is absolutely reckless and puts millions of lives at risk. Oversight Democrats refuse to let Secretary Kennedy’s reliance on conspiracy theories and misinformation threaten the health and safety of our public health.”
“The Trump Administration’s reckless decision to gut HIV prevention and research programs is not only scientifically indefensible—it’s morally unconscionable. These cuts jeopardize the health of millions, both at home and abroad, and reverse decades of bipartisan progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” Krishnamoorthi said. “We’re demanding answers because the American people, and the global community, deserve better than politically motivated neglect of public health.”
Echoing warnings from HIV and public health experts, the congressmen in their letter stressed that backsliding in efforts to fight the disease at home and abroad come just as advancements in treatment and prevention have finally put some of the most ambitious goals to end the epidemic within reach.
The letter suggests that Kennedy’s embrace of misinformation about HIV might explain, to some extent, his dismantling of programs to end the epidemic at home and abroad, specifically, pointing to the secretary’s history of challenging the overwhelming and longstanding scientific and medical consensus about the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS.
The congressmen also detailed many of the real-world consequences of health policy concerning HIV in Trump’s second term. For example, they note experts anticipate there will be millions of excess new HIV infections and hundreds of thousands of excess HIV-related deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa in just one year.
The letter also warns that “President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request for domestic HIV program calls for a $1.5 billion reduction in funding,” which “could lead to more than 143,000 additional HIV cases in the United States within five years and about 127,000 additional deaths from HIV and AIDS-related causes.”
Garcia’s leadership of Oversight Dems will be closely watched
If Democrats recapture a majority of seats in the House next year, Garcia becomes chair of the committee and has access to far more powerful tools to exercise oversight — like the authority to issue subpoenas (unilaterally or by majority vote) compelling witnesses to testify or requiring officials to turn over documents.
Leadership positions, especially coveted spots leading the most powerful committees in Congress, are typically awarded based on seniority. When the House Democratic caucus elected Garcia on June 24, it marked the first first time in more than a century that a second-term member was selected for the role.
During his brief time in Washington, the congressman, who is openly gay and formerly served as mayor of Long Beach, has emerged as arguably one of the strongest communicators in the House Democratic caucus and one of his party’s most vocal critics of the second Trump administration.
Thursday’s letter, which comes less than a month after his election as ranking member, may signal how Garcia will approach fact finding missions and investigations, or where he will focus the committee’s work, under the vastly expanded powers that might be available to him after the midterms.
National
Trump threatens Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship
Comedian responds with post linking him to Epstein

Donald Trump threatened to revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s U.S. citizenship last weekend amid his administration’s pattern of targeting people with whom he has publicly disagreed.
The actress and comedian, known for her roles in major motion pictures like “A League of Their Own” and “Harriet the Spy,” was singled out by the president on his social media app Truth Social, where he called the lesbian entertainer a “Threat to Humanity.”
“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,” Trump also posted. “[She] should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”
In response to the post—which reignites a decade-old feud between the two—O’Donnell shared a collage of photos from her time in Ireland, along with an old photo of Trump with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
“The president of the usa has always hated the fact that i see him for who he is – a criminal con man sexual abusing liar out to harm our nation to serve himself,” the former talk show host posted on Instagram. She continued, “this is why i moved to ireland – he is a dangerous old soulless man with dementia who lacks empathy compassion and basic humanity – i stand in direct opposition [to] all he represents – so do millions of others – u gonna deport all who stand against ur evil tendencies – ur a bad joke who cant form a coherent sentence.”
Trump’s threat is both irregular and constitutionally unsound. The Supreme Court has ruled over multiple decades that stripping someone of their citizenship violates the Constitution—and the 14th Amendment.
Three Supreme Court cases in particular—Trop v. Dulles (1958), Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)—have all affirmed that once legally obtained, citizenship is not something that can simply be revoked, even if the president disagrees with what a person says or does. In Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court wrote: “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.”
This authoritarian threat echoes Trump’s broader efforts to undermine birthright citizenship, which has been a foundational part of the U.S. Constitution since the ratification of the 14th amendment.
-
Obituary2 days ago
Cassandra Mary Ake-Duvall, 36, passed away on July 2, 2025.
-
District of Columbia3 days ago
Trans woman attacked, beaten near Lincoln Memorial
-
Delaware3 days ago
Delaware church to protest Rehoboth restaurant’s drag brunch
-
Movies4 days ago
‘Superman’ is here to to save us, despite MAGA backlash