Connect with us

National

Cicilline fends off challenger in R.I. primary

Election results yield mixed bag for marriage equality prospects

Published

on

Gay Rep. David Cicilline defeated his challenger in the Rhode Island Democratic primary on Tuesday. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Gay Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) defeated his challenger, businessman Anthony Gemma, to win the Democratic nomination to continue to represent Rhode Island’s 1st congressional district in the U.S. House in Tuesday’s primary.

Local media outlets called the race for Cicilline about an hour after polls closed at 8 p.m. in Rhode Island. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Cicilline held 61 percent of the vote, compared to the 31 percent claimed by Gemma and 8 percent won by another candidate, Chris Young.

Cicilline faced criticism during the race — even though he’s running in a overwhelmingly “blue” state — as a result of financial difficulties facing the city of Providence, R.I., where Cicilline served as mayor before running for Congress.

A report commissioned by the City Council last year blamed Cicilline’s administration for a lack of transparency and for making a series of moves – like tapping into Providence’s rainy-day fund – without councilors’ approval. The lawmaker apologized in April, saying he should have been more forthright about the financial condition of the city.

Still, Cicilline retained support heading into the primary. The lawmaker was once again endorsed by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. In new campaign ads, former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who once held the seat now held by Cicilline, vouched for the out lawmaker’s commitment to public service.

Sexual orientation did come into play during the Democratic primary. According to the Associated Press, Anthony Sionni, an unpaid campaign staffer for the Gemma campaign, compared the openly gay lawmaker on Twitter to convicted child molester and former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, saying there’s “nothing wrong with smearing a liar, thief, crook, Sandusky copy cat.” The state Democratic Party had called for Gemma to fire Anthony Sionni, apologize to Cicilline and disavow the message. In response, a Gemma campaign spokesperson reportedly said the tweet was “inappropriate” and Sionni agreed to leave the campaign.

Cicilline was running against a primary opponent who largely self-financed his campaign. According to Federal Election Commission reports, 80 percent of the $315,000 that Gemma raised was from him contributing or lending his money to his own campaign. In comparison, all the $1.7 million that Cicilline raised for his campaign was the result of outside contributions.

But Cicilline isn’t out of the woods in his bid to retain his U.S. House seat. He’s facing a challenge in the general election from Republican Brendan Doherty, a retired high-ranking police officer and former superintendent of Rhode Island’s Department of Public Safety.

According to a poll published by Rhode Island’s WPRI late last month, 52 percent of Gemma supporters said they’d back Doherty in the general election if the Democratic challenger lost the primary. Compared to the $1.7 million that Cicilline has raised, Doherty has $1.1 million in total net receipts. About five percent, or $50,000, of Doherty’s net receipts are from self-financing.

Chuck Wolfe, the Victory Fund’s CEO, said the choice is clear on LGBT issues heading into the general election because Doherty supports the Defense of Marriage Act, an anti-gay law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

“We’re pleased that Rhode Island Democrats have once again chosen David Cicilline to represent them in Congress,” Wolfe said. “Now voters will face a clear choice this November between a persistent champion for LGBT equality, and an opponent who supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which makes life harder for so many American families.”

The Victory Fund is citing the website Electful.com, which keeps track of candidates’ positions on issues, as the source for Doherty’s support for DOMA. On the other hand, Cicilline is an original co-sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation known as the Respect for Marriage Act.

The Democratic primary produced mixed results in terms of electing candidates who support marriage equality. One lesbian candidate, Laura Pisaturo, narrowly lost her bid to unseat a Democratic lawmaker who opposes same-sex marriage.

Many incumbent Democrats who support marriage equality fended off challenges from candidates who oppose it. Among those incumbents were State Sen. Ryan Pearson, State Rep. Arthur Handy, State Rep. Greg Amore, State Rep. Joseph Almeida, and State House Majority Whip Patrick O’Neill.

But in primaries in which pro-marriage equality challengers were running against incumbent Democrats who oppose it, the pro-LGBT side only won a single primary. Democrat Adam Satchell, a teacher and proponent of marriage equality, beat an incumbent Democrat who opposes same-sex marriage, State Sen. Michael Pinga.

Still, the outcome means a net gain of one vote in the State Senate at a time when legislation to enact same-sex marriage in the Ocean State is expected to advance next year.

In a competitive primary in State Senate District 29, incumbent State Sen. Michael McCaffrey, an opponent of marriage equality, won against Pisaturo, who was endorsed by the Victory Fund. McCaffrey had a narrow win against Pisaturo, taking 53 percent of the vote compared to Pisaturo’s 47 percent.

McCaffrey, chairs Rhode Island’s Senate Judiciary Committee, and, even though he’s a Democrat, has never allowed pending same-sex marriage legislation to advance in his committee. During a TV debate last month, McCaffrey said he “believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Ray Sullivan, campaign director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said his organization is “incredibly proud” of the campaign Pisaturo waged despite her loss.

“We’re proud to have been a part of it,” Sullivan added. “She talked about issues that were important to people in that district, and if we had it to do all over again, we would absolutely stand with her.”

Asked whether marriage equality legislation can still advance, Sullivan said he intends to take McCaffrey “at his word” when the Democrat said during an earlier debate he’ll allow a vote on same-sex legislation in his committee despite his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“When we win a number of these races in the general election and we elect a pro-equality majority in the Senate in the general election, we expect Sen. McCaffrey to honor that commitment, and we look forward to scheduling a committee vote on marriage equality in the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Sullivan said.

In an interview with Washington Blade last week during the Democratic National Convention, Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, a supporter of marriage equality, said the election of Pisaturo would be “pivotal” in determining whether same-sex marriage legislation would be able to advance in the Rhode Island legislature.

Other Senate races had disappointing outcomes for marriage equality proponents. Same-sex marriage opponent State Sen. Marc Cote won his primary against challenger Lewis Pryeor, who supports same-sex marriage. Similarly, marriage equality opponent State Sen. Daniel DaPonte won over challenger and marriage equality supporter Roberto DaSilva.

One race in which there was no incumbent also yielded a loss for marriage equality supporters. In State Senate District 26, Gene Dyszlewski, who supports marriage equality, lost to Frank Lombardi, who opposes same-sex marriage.

In State Senate District 33, David Gorman, a Democratic supporter of marriage equality, lost to Leonidas Raptakis, a Democratic opponent of gay nuptials. But the result in that race is a wash in that district because the incumbent Republican, State Sen. Glenford Shibley, opposes marriage equality.

According to WPRI, a group known as People for Rhode Island’s Future spent $26,500 earlier this month to elect six pro-marriage equality candidates in the Democratic primary. That group reportedly received a $20,000 donation to make that happen from Tim Gill, a gay Denver-based entrepreneur and philanthropist known for working to advance marriage equality, as well as $15,000 from Esmond Harmsworth, a Newport, R.I., resident and founding partner of Boston literary agency Zachary Shuster Harmsworth Literary Agency.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits

Administration criticizes National Museum of American History

Published

on

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum is expected to install warning signs outside the National Museum of American History warning visitors of supposedly anti-American content. (Photo courtesy of the Office of the Governor of North Dakota)

The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.

According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”

Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.

Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.

“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.

The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.

The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.

The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”

The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.

It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”

Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”

On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.

In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.

House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”

In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.

Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.

“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.

Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.

It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.

Continue Reading

National

Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups

Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs

Published

on

The Trump administration will discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations that provide HIV prevention services. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.

 News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.

Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.

Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.

Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.

A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.

 Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.

“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.” 

Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.  

 Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.

“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,”  Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.

Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.

In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.  

 “Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.

It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end. 

“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.

“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes. 

Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.

Continue Reading

National

At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers

Published

on

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.

By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.

They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”

Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.

In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”

That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.

After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.

At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.

“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.

Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.

All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.

The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.

I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.

In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.

It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.

Continue Reading

Popular