National
Anti-gay activists speak out against marriage equality
Speakers attack Obama over marriage endorsement
Bishop Harry Jackson of the Hope Christian Church (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Anti-gay activists took to Capitol Hill on Thursday to speak out against LGBT rights as they condemned President Obama’s recent endorsement of marriage equality.
Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of the Hope Christian Church and among the leaders in the fight against the legalization of same-sex marriage in D.C. and Maryland, led a news conference, which was sponsored by the anti-gay Family Research Council.
Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage was a particular point of consternation for Jackson, who wondered aloud whether Obama intended to employ the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to “absolutely erase the image of biblical marriage from the face of the earth.”
“Voters need to know whether they have a friend or … an enemy to an institution that God has ordained,” Jackson said. “Some of us have taken his statements as a declaration of political war against the venerable institution of marriage.”
Jackson drew attention to a letter that he said social conservative leaders sent to President Obama expressing their disapproval of his support for same-sex marriage as well as his other work in LGBT advocacy.
“The undersigned pastors and Christian leaders write to raise serious concerns over your recent declaration of support for same-sex ‘marriage,'” the letter states. “This declaration follows a long trail of actions by your administration that subvert the law of the land as well as the good of society. From permitting open homosexuality behavior in Armed Forces, to opposing state marriage amendments, to refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, to giving taxpayer-funded marriage benefits to same-sex couples, you have undermined the spirit if not the letter of the DOMA law.”
A White House spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment on the letter.
Jackson assserted the president’s support for same-sex marriage was particularly troublesome for racial minority communities, whom he contended held the view that marriage is between one man and one woman.
“What was most concerning about the president’s comments was it seemed to be a slap in the face of black clergy,” Jackson said. “They seem to say I know that you hold these views, and that in the marriage amendment battle in the great State of California, 70 percent voted for marriage, while nearly 95 percent voted for President Obama. … Given those kinds of statistics, it seemed and felt to some of us who happened to be African-American; it felt like an insult, or a gauntlet was laid down.”
But numbers that Jackson cited from California in 2008 have been debunked by studies of the exit polls on which they are based, and a new poll suggests that a growing number of black Americans support same-sex marriage in the wake of President Obama’s announcement. A Washington Post/ABC News poll published on Wednesday found that 59 percent of African Americans now support same-sex marriage, with 65 percent approving of President Obama’s position.
Jackson threatened “political consequences” for Obama as a result of his announcement in support of same-sex marriage and said he’d continue to oppose same-sex marriage, eliciting applause from participants at the news conference.
As part of efforts to protest Obama’s support for same-sex marriage, Jackson called on churches to participate in a 40-day fast; asked church leaders to read a statement on Father’s Day affirming marriage as one man, one woman; and called on voters across racial groups and religious denominations to cast their votes based on moral conscience whether they identify as Democrat or Republican.
Tony Perkins, the Family Research Council’s president, also spoke at the news conference and argued that LGBT advocates have to win same-sex marriage through legislative or court action because they can’t achieve it through a vote of the populace.
“The president has said that he’s OK with states defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman,” Perkins said. “I guess that’s pretty good, since the 32 states that have voted, have voted in favor of traditional marriage. If you can do the math, that’s more than half the states.”
That may change in November when voters in as many as four states — Maine, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington — will decide at the polls the issue of same-sex marriage. In Maine, the support for same-sex marriage is promising. A poll from April found that support for same-sex marriage has reached 58 percent among the electorate.
Those who took part in the event appeared to largely consist of conservative religious leaders. Participants seemed to have been taking part in a lobby day and wore badges saying “Defense of Marriage.” The Family Research Council didn’t respond to a request for comment on more information on the event, but Perkins said the news conference took place after an annual pastors conference where nearly 600 people gathered from 46 states.
Other social conservatives who spoke at the news conference also had harsh words for Obama in the wake of his support for same-sex marriage.
Bishop Joseph Mattera, overseeing bishop of the New York-based Christ Covenant Coalition, accused Obama of subverting the family. Mattera said he’s been a senior pastor for 29 years and that his grandmother was the first ordained female Hispanic minister in New York City.
“It would be like saying it’s OK for us to counterfeit American dollars and have no consequences,” Mattera said. “When you counterfeit something, you cheapen the value of it, and by counterfeiting marriage with alternate definition of it, you actually weaken it. As a Hispanic leader, I want to say that my community needs strong marriages.”
Mattera said he thinks Obama endorsed same-sex marriage to drew attention away from the economy as the general election approaches. suggesting the economic conditions of the country don’t warrant Obama’s re-election.
Jim Garlow, chair of Renewing American Leadership (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Jim Garlow, chair of Renewing American Leadership, said Obama’s support for marriage equality undermines the definition of the union — even within the president’s own family.
“I would pose the question to the president: which one is unimportant — father or mother?” Garlow said. “By his redefinition, one will have to go. Is your wife so unimportant, sir, that she can be replaced by simply any other male? Or is there value in the fact that one man and one woman, a father and a mother, the person who contributes the egg and the sperm as they come together are best in the position to protect and nourish and care for that child?”
Garlow also took issue with Obama asserting that he and first lady Michelle Obama are “practicing Christians” and invoking his belief in Jesus.
“We didn’t ask for this argument,” Garlow said. “He moved to our arena and declared it in those words. That being the case, maybe a basic ‘101’ of Christianity. It would be wise for him to know that throughout historic, orthodox, authentic, biblical Christianity — and there’s no other kind of Christianity other than Biblical Christianity — marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman.”
Fernando Carbrera, a Democratic member of the New York City Council, also took issue with Obama’s support for same-sex marriage and said it troubled his constituents in his district that has heavy presence of racial minorities.
“I represent a district of about 160,000 people mainly made up of Latinos and African Americans, constituents that have said to me over and over again that they support traditional marriage,” Carbrera said. “I’m here to say to my president, to my Democratic president, ‘Do not take the Latino and African-American vote for granted.'”
Carbrera said marriage should remain one man, one woman because only that union enables the creation of children. Responding to arguments that some opposite-sex couples are unable to have children, Carbrera asserted, “But they have the potentiality for it.”
Anne Gimenez, a pastor for the Rock City Churches in Virginia Beach, Va., noted the various backgrounds of individuals who oppose same-sex marriage at the conference.
“We’re here from so many various backgrounds and differences,” Gimenez said. “But those differences don’t matter to us today because we stand here — we’re the church. And we’re united, and we’re united over this issue. And I call upon every believer, every Christian across the nation to take the biblical stand for marriage.”
Gimenez said her granddaughter was present at the news conference and wanted her to know that her grandmother took a stand “because it’s important for our families, and our children, and our great grandchildren.”
Speakers at the news conference also decried comments from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) during a news conference earlier this month when the Democratic leader said he’d be open to repealing the Defense of Marriage Act legislatively.
“If it gets on the floor, we’ll be happy to take a look at it,” Reid was quoted as saying in Politico. “It’s an important piece of legislation.”
LGBT advocates countered the statements from anti-gay activists at the news conference by saying their views amounted to an attack on the LGBT community and misrepresent the views of religious and minority groups.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, called their words “extremist, insulting, and just plain nasty comments” that stand in stark contrast to Obama’s description of his evolution in coming to support marriage rights for gay couples.
“Happily, the values embraced by the president — the Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated, fidelity to the bedrock American commitment to liberty and justice for all, respect for the love and commitment of real families — resonate much more deeply with most people than the divisive attacks, political red-meat, and reckless disregard for evidence, truth, and logic that we saw on display at the right-wing’s latest show,” Wolfson said.
Paul Guequierre, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said views expressed by the activists placed them “on the wrong side of history and are in the minority on the issue of marriage equality” and cited the recent polls showing growing support for marriage equality — even among religious groups and racial minorities.
“People of faith in this country support marriage equality and support among African Americans is on the rise,” Guequierre said. “The myth that religious people don’t support LGBT equality has been debunked.”
Asked by the Washington Blade at the news conference how the legalization of same-sex marriage affects opposite-sex marriage, Jackson replied, “It’s the change in the definition of an institution in this time of shifting morals and values, the changing of that definition is significant. Young people don’t have role models; they have no idea how to be an appropriate father or a mother, and really at the very heart of the church, and the very heart of a nation, a free democracy, strong families need to be there, so it’s about the definition.”
In a follow-up inquiry, the Blade asked whether it’s true that opposite-sex couples can still marry in places where same-sex marriage is legal. Jackson wouldn’t take the question during the conference, but responded to the Blade afterward.
“I don’t think anyone was implying that traditional marriage would be destroyed in terms of the opportunity for people to enter into it,” Jackson said. “What I’m talking about — the structure if you want to call it that — of traditional, biblical marriage is that the terms, the roles the way people conduct in day-to-day life right now is hanging by a thread.”
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a Tea Party favorite, was scheduled to speak alongside other anti-gay activists at the news conference, but didn’t make an appearance. His office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on why he was absent.
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
The frightening rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia
Thomas A. Decker of Arlington dies at 73
BMA celebrates enduring influence of Henri Matisse
Ensuring safer drinking water
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
