Connect with us

News

Ill. Republicans who backed gay nuptials triumph in primaries

LGBT advocates say success demonstrates ‘turning point’ in the GOP

Published

on

Republican Party, Illinois, Illinois General Assembly, Ron Sandack, Ed Sullivan Jr., Tom Cross, Judy Baar Topinka, gay news, Washington Blade
Republican Party, Illinois, Illinois General Assembly, Ron Sandack, Ed Sullivan Jr., Tom Cross, Judy Baar Topinka, gay news, Washington Blade

From left, Ill. state Representatives Ron Sandack (R-Bolingbrook), Ed Sullivan, Jr. (R-Libertyville), Tom Cross (R-Plainfield) and Ill. state Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka each won their Republican primaries. (Photos public domain)

Republican officials in Illinois who supported marriage equality won their primaries across the board this week — a development that LGBT rights supporters say demonstrates growing support for marriage equality even within the Republican Party.

Jeff Cook-McCormac, senior adviser to the pro-LGBT American Unity Fund, counted four victories on Tuesday night among Republicans who supported marriage equality and said they represent a “turning point” for the party.

“These victories in Illinois demonstrate that we really are reaching a turning point, not only on the issue nationally, but we’re reaching a turning point within the Republican Party,” Cook-McCormac said. “It’s becoming safer and safer for Republican elected officials to follow their conscience, do the right thing and advance the freedom to marry.”

Each of the three Republicans who voted for marriage equality when it came before the Illinois State House in November — State Reps. Tom Cross, Ed Sullivan and Ron Sandack — faced primary challengers, but came out on top to keep their party’s nomination going into the general election.

Cross and Sullivan beat their competitors by double-digit points in the primary. Sandack scored a narrower win, defeating his opponent by 153 votes.

Additionally, Illinois State Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka, who voiced support for marriage equality, didn’t face a primary challenge. She spoke at rallies in favor of marriage equality, including the ceremony in which Gov. Pat Quinn signed the marriage legislation into law.

Pat Brady, former head of the Illinois Republican Party who helped lobby for the marriage equality legislation for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said the result “puts the issue to rest” over whether Republicans can be politically viable if they support same-sex marriage.

“The people that so loudly proclaimed that they were going to take out anybody in the Republican primary — or Democratic primary, for that matter — that voted for marriage equality turned out to be just what I thought they’d be: a bunch of paper tigers,” Brady said.

Brady, who resigned his position as party chair shortly after he announced his personal support for marriage equality, said the election results demonstrate a shift in the “political reality” of the Republican Party.

“It is a shift,” Brady said. “You can be pro-marriage equality, still be a good Republican and still win. And in a state like Illinois, to win the general election, I think it helps candidates.”

The results of the primary reflect the growing support for marriage equality nationwide — even within the Republican Party. A Washington Post/ABC News poll published earlier this month found record support for same-sex marriage and 40 percent of Republicans favor gay nuptials.

Support is particularly strong among young Republicans. A Pew Research Center poll published March 10 found 61 percent of Republicans under age 30 support same-sex marriage.

But one anti-gay group that worked to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage in Illinois is disputing the notion the wins for Republican who voted for it represents change.

David Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, said the results are “absolutely not” a shift and instead the result of Republicans enlisting the help of Democrats to win primaries.

“It’s a very well-established fact that a lot of Democrats crossed over to vote in the Republican primary because there wasn’t a significant race for governor and for Senate on the Democratic ballot,” Smith said. “There was a quite a lot of union-plus-Democrat crossover.”

Smith also denied that wins for Republicans who voted for same-sex marriage had any wider implication of growing support for same-sex marriage within the GOP.

“I would point to the fact that the two social conservatives running for governor in a Republican primary got 59 percent of the vote together, allowing a more moderate Republican to win,” Smith said. “Obviously, social issues do matter to the majority — 60 percent or more — of Republican voters.”

But Cook-McCormac pushed back against the assertion that wins for Republicans who voted for marriage equality has no meaning, saying anti-gay groups are “running out of excuses.”

“They can create whatever excuses and draw whatever explanations that they like,” Cook-McCormac said. “The bottom line is they were out campaigned, out worked and they were out-appealed-to. Americans, and Republican voters in particular, are done with the anti-gay politics of the past and they’re ready to move forward based on the issues that unite all of us.”

The two sides nonetheless agree that marriage equality was the major issue for why these Republicans faced primary challenges. For Sandack, the candidate who came the closest to losing, anti-gay groups circulated a flier and aired TV ads displaying two men kissing (much to the consternation of Windy City Times, which has accused the groups of unlawfully stealing a photo of Sandack taken by the gay newspaper for the material).

The wins arguably represent a change from what happened with Republicans in New York who voted to legalize same-sex marriage in 2011. According to The New York Times, one faced a difficult re-election and decided not to run again, another was defeated in a primary, and the other was defeated by a Democrat in the general election because a conservative in the race drew away votes.

“It’s demonstrated that our side has got a lot better at defending our kind,” Cook-McCormac said. “As we’ve seen in Illinois, there are very smart, sophisticated strategies being put in place independently in addition to bundling direct contributions to candidates that are helping to ensure that these legislators who show courage are well-positioned to win re-election.”

The pro-gay Illinois Unity PAC raised $155,000 to assist with independent expenditure efforts on behalf of Ed Sullivan and Ron Sandack, which primarily focused on public opinion research, multiple rounds of direct mail, live operator ID and get-out-the-vote calls, a source familiar with the PAC said. On the other side, the main anti-gay independent expenditure committee, Liberty Principles PAC, spent about $220,000 just attacking Sandack, the source said.

But the wins for pro-gay Republican weren’t across the board. In a bid for the Republican nomination to represent the state’s 9th congressional district in the U.S. House, Susanne Atanus, who has blamed tornadoes and autism on gay rights and abortion, beat out her more moderate competitor, David Earl Williams III, even though the state party called on her to drop out of the race.

“God is angry. We are provoking him with abortions and same-sex marriage and civil unions,” she said during a debate. “Same-sex activity is going to increase AIDS. If it’s in our military it will weaken our military. We need to respect God.”

Cook-McCormac downplayed the significance of Atanus’ win, saying she has “zero chance” in her bid against Rep. Jan Schakowsky in the heavily Democratic district.

“It’s always embarrassing whether it’s Democrats putting up far-left candidates or Republicans putting up far-right to see those people on the ballot,” Cook-McCormac said. “But I hardly believe a candidate like that is really representative of where Republicans are.”

Wins for Illinois Republicans who supported same-sex marriage raises the question of viability in the other two states that legalized same-sex marriage through the legislative process in 2013: Minnesota and Hawaii. Both of the primaries in those states will take place in August.

State Rep. Cynthia Thielen in Hawaii is facing the threat of a primary challenger on Aug. 9, while State Rep. Jenifer Loon in Minnesota is facing the threat of a primary challenger on Aug. 12. The challengers to these lawmakers, who have no political experience, are running single-issue campaigns against the marriage equality votes.

Cook-McCormac spoke generally about the progress made on LGBT issues in the GOP when asked whether the Illinois primary results will predict the outcome of Republican primaries in Hawaii and Minnesota.

“I think that what you’re going to see is that other Republican candidates across the country who are being challenged by an increasingly small group of opponents on this issue, they’re going to have the resources they need to win, as well as the broad-based political support of Republicans who may have a diversity of opinions on the marriage issue, but who recognize that these public servants’ focus on lower taxes, smaller government, and creating more jobs is why they chose them to represent them in the first place,” Cook-McCormac said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Virginia

Woman arrested for anti-gay assault at Alexandria supermarket

Victim recorded video of Christmas Day attack

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

Alexandria police announced on Jan. 12 that a Maryland woman has been arrested for allegedly assaulting a man while shouting anti-gay slurs at him at a Giant supermarket in Alexandria on Christmas Day.

The arrest came after a video of the assault that the victim captured with his phone and on which the woman can be heard shouting anti-gay slurs went viral on social media.

Police identified the woman as Shibritney Colbert, 34, of Landover, Md. Alexandria Police Chief Tarrick McGuire stated at a news conference that police responded to a 911 call placed by the victim and attempted to apprehend the woman, but she drove off in her car before police could apprehend her.

He said following an investigation, Colbert was apprehended and arrested in Prince Goerge’s County, Md., on Jan. 8. He said arrangements were being made for her to be brought to Alexandria where she was expected to face charges of assault and battery, destruction of property, felony eluding, and driving an unregistered vehicle.

The video of the incident shows Colbert pushing a shopping cart she was using in an aisle at the Giant store, located at 3131 Duke St., into the victim and another woman who was trying to help the victim. She can be seen throwing groceries at the victim while shouting anti-gay names. “Boy, get out of here with your gay ass,” was among the words she yelled at him that could be heard on the video.

The victim, who police identified only as a 24-year-old man, could be heard on the video saying he does not know the woman and urging her to “please back up.”

“Based on the victim’s statement, comments exchanged prior to the assault, and the totality of the circumstances, investigators believe the victim was targeted because of his sexual orientation,” police said in a statement.

Tarrick said Colbert’s arrest came at a time when Alexandria police were completing a strengthened hate crime policy calling for detectives to investigate crimes based on hate and for the department to prepare reports on hate crimes twice a year.

“Hate crimes are not just crimes against individuals, they are offenses that threaten the entire community and undermine the fundamental principles of dignity, equality, and safety,” Tarrick said.

Alexandria police didn’t immediately respond to a request from the Washington Blade for a copy of the official police report on the incident.

A link to the video posted on the social media site Reddit in which an unidentified man provides some details of the attack, can be accessed here:

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

As Supreme Court weighs trans sports bans, advocate and former athlete speaks out

PFLAG staffer Diego Sanchez competed at University of Georgia in 1970s

Published

on

A progress Pride flag and U.S. flags at the U.S. Supreme Court. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday addressing the legality of banning transgender women and girls from participating in sports under the 14th Amendment.

Though the two cases differ slightly in their fact patterns, they ultimately pose the same constitutional question: whether laws that limit participation in women’s sports to only cisgender women and girls violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In both cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — trans girls filed lawsuits against their respective states, Idaho and West Virginia, arguing that the bans violate their right to equal protection under the law by subjecting them to different standards than cisgender girls.

Lindsay Hecox, now 24, filed her lawsuit in 2020 while attending Boise State University. That same year, Idaho enacted the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which barred trans women from participating in any sport in public schools, from kindergarten through college. Although Hecox underwent hormone therapy that significantly lowered her testosterone levels, she was still excluded under the law when she attempted to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams.

The second case centers on B.P.J., a 15-year-old trans girl who has identified as female since third grade and has been on puberty blockers since the onset of puberty. In 2021, West Virginia enacted the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires sports teams to be designated by “biological sex” rather than gender identity. B.P.J.’s mother filed suit on her behalf after her daughter was barred from participating on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams.

A key distinction between the two cases is that attorneys for B.P.J. have argued that because puberty blockers were part of her development, her body is more aligned with that of a cisgender girl than a cisgender boy. Despite these differences, both cases raise the same constitutional issue: whether it is lawful to bar someone from participation in sports based on sex assigned at birth.

The Washington Blade spoke with PFLAG Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez.

Sanchez is a trans elder with firsthand experience as a college athlete at the University of Georgia and later became the first openly trans legislative staff member on Capitol Hill.

His dual experience — as a former athlete and a longtime policy expert deeply familiar with constitutional law — gives him a unique perspective on the questions now before the Supreme Court. Sanchez will also be one of the featured speakers at a rally on the steps of the court as the justices hear arguments.

When asked how attitudes toward trans athletes differ from when he competed at the University of Georgia from 1976-1980 to today — when 29 states have passed laws restricting trans participation in sports — Sanchez said the contrast is stark.

“I had the good experience of being supported by my teammates and my coach,” Sanchez said. “The thing that’s so different today is that these [trans] kids are able to go home and get kisses and hugs from their parents, being lauded in the stands by their families, and then being told that who they are doesn’t necessarily fit with who they’re allowed to be in their expression at the moment, and that to me, seems a terrible injustice.”

Sanchez emphasized that sports offer lessons that extend far beyond competition.

“When you’re an athlete, you learn an awful lot of things about life,” he said. “You learn about leadership, but you also learn that your best effort becomes part of a team effort … how you feel as an individual contributor is affected by what ends up being part of how you live your life as an adult.”

After his time as an athlete, Sanchez began working in government, eventually serving as senior policy advisor to then-U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) until Frank’s retirement in 2013. Sanchez said that one of the most important aspects of his role was simply being visible as a trans person in spaces where many lawmakers had never knowingly met one before.

“My job was to make sure that no one, no legislator, could say that they had never met a trans person,” Sanchez said.

Sanchez also addressed the broader implications the Supreme Court’s decision could have on how gender is treated within institutional systems.

“I don’t think it affects how people perceive their own gender or express their own gender, but I do think that it could create barriers if it doesn’t welcome the way that community and society actually are,” he said. “The most important thing for people to know … is to remember that every person is an individual, and that the right to contribute to society should be something that is supported by the government, not hindered.”

He added that the court’s role must be understood within the framework of checks and balances established by the Constitution.

“The risk, of course, here is always remembering that we have three branches of government, so that this action by the judiciary branch may or may not have implications on whether or how things can be perceived or executed at other branches,” Sanchez said. “I would hope that our government is interested in letting the future generations and current generations be the best that they can be as well.”

“Do people get to live their lives as they are, or is the government an obstruction or a support?”

When asked what message he would share with young trans athletes watching the Supreme Court take up these cases, Sanchez said community support remains critical, regardless of how the justices rule.

“Make sure that the environment that you put yourself in is something that honors who you know you are and supports you becoming the best person you can be, and that anything that takes away from that is purely dissonance,” he said.

“What we do with dissonance is what distinguishes us as whether we excel or doubt.”

That same sense of community, Sanchez said, is what rallies — like the one planned outside the Supreme Court — are meant to reinforce, even as decisions are made inside the building.

“Rallies, including tomorrow’s, are about people knowing they’re not alone, and hearing from other people who support who they are,” he said. “There is support across the country … I wish that I had had someone my age now that I could have looked to, but I am the role model, but I didn’t have any.”

Looking ahead to the possibility that the court could uphold bans on trans athletes, Sanchez said the immediate challenge will be ensuring that families and communities continue to affirm trans youth amid legal uncertainty.

“Having the endorsement of being supported who you are, it helps you so much,” he said. “You cannot put the issue of rights back into the genie’s bottle once people experience what freedom and welcoming is.”

For Sanchez, whose life has spanned decades of change in both sports and government, the cases before the Supreme Court represent a pivotal moment — not just legally, but culturally.

“Living your life, for me, does not require bravery,” he said. “It’s just taking one step and then another.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Military/Pentagon

HRC holds retirement ceremony for ousted transgender servicemembers 

White House executive order bans openly trans military personnel

Published

on

From left: Colonel Bree B. Fram from the U.S. Space Force, Commander Blake Dremann from the U.S. Navy, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Erin Krizek from the Air Force, Chief Petty Officer (Ret.) Jaida McGuire from the Coast Guard, and Sgt. First Class (Ret.) Catherine Schmid from the Army at the Human Rights Campaign on Jan. 8, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

When retirement celebrations are planned — especially military ones — crowded rooms are usually filled with joyous energy: smiling people celebrating over glasses of champagne and stories of “the good old days,” marking the moment when service members decide it is the right time to step back from work. This retirement event, however, felt more like a funeral than a major life milestone.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation hosted an event on Jan. 8 in D.C. to commemorate the forced retirement of transgender servicemembers. The event was a direct result of President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which directed the Pentagon to adopt policies prohibiting trans, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.

In the heart of the nation’s capital, mere blocks from where the president signed that executive order, five military members followed the traditional pomp and circumstance that military retirement celebrations demand — the U.S. Army’s passing of the NCO sword, the U.S. Navy’s reading of “The Watch,” speeches from colleagues and bells ringing, flags folded tightly while family members, and bosses talk about the peaks of their careers and sacrifices made to protect the Constitution. But the tears that could be heard and seen were not bittersweet, as they often are for the millions of Americans who came before them. They were tears of sadness, fear, and ultimately of acceptance — not agreement — that they were removed from their posts because of their gender identity.

Thousands of trans servicemembers were forced out of all six branches of the military after Executive Order 14183, joined by a February memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stating that trans and nonbinary individuals would no longer be eligible to join the military. The memo also directed that all trans people currently serving be separated from service because their gender identity supposedly goes against the military’s accession requirements and that, as a collective group, they “lack the selflessness and humility” required for military service.

For many trans servicemembers, their careers had suddenly come to an end. Unlike the five on stage on Jan. 8, they would not have a ceremony, the ability to say goodbye to a job they didn’t want to leave, or a packed room of supporters clapping and crying alongside them.

Colonel Bree B. Fram from the U.S. Space Force, Commander Blake Dremann from the U.S. Navy, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Erin Krizek from the U.S. Air Force, Chief Petty Officer (Ret.) Jaida McGuire U.S. from the Coast Guard, and Sgt. First Class (Ret.) Catherine Schmid from the Army were granted the chance to say goodbye to more than 100 years of combined service to the country.

“This ceremony is unprecedented — not because their careers fell short in any way, but because they shined so brightly in a military that cast them aside as unworthy,” said Maj. Gen. Tammy Smith (Ret.), who was the master of ceremonies for the roughly 5-hour event. “For every one of them, there are thousands of other transgender service members who were denied the opportunity to even reach this moment of retirement, despite records that mark them as among the best of the best.”

Shawn Skelly, former assistant secretary of defense for readiness under President Joe Biden and member of HRC’s board of directors, also spoke at the event. She emphasized that this is not a result of anything a trans servicemember did — or didn’t do — but rather a country trying to villainize them.

“Trans service members … are on the front lines, canaries in the coal mine of our democracy as to who can be seen as not just American, but among the best that America has to offer,” Skelly said.

Two members of Congress who have been at the heart of the fight for ensuring LGBTQ rights for Americans also addressed the crowd and the retiring officers: the first openly gay non-white member of the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), and the first openly trans member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.).

“I want to begin by apologizing to our [trans] servicemembers and reiterating that your service and commitment to our nation does not go unnoticed,” Takano said. “I am sorry this administration has chosen to target you for no reason other than cruelty.”

“Each of you answered the call to serve. Each of you met the standards. And each of you served and led with integrity, professionalism, and courage,” said McBride. “Each of you are brave, honorable, and committed patriots who also dared to have the courage to say out loud that you’re transgender.”

Former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall also gave a speech, noting that there was no reason for thousands of trans military members to lose their jobs and for the country to lose invaluable personnel that make the Armed Forces the best in the world.

“As I read the biographies of each of our retirees today, one thing came across to me,” former Kendall said. “It was how similar these read to those of all other retirees, and to others still serving. … It is a huge injustice, and an enormous loss to our nation that [they] … are not being allowed to continue to serve their country in uniform.”

Each service member had an introducer highlight their accomplishments before they gave their own heartfelt and pointed speeches, all of which can be watched in full on HRC’s YouTube page.

“I joined the military to be part of the solution … I learned that living authentically proved far more truthful and beneficial to not only myself but also my units than pretending to be someone else,” McGuire told the audience of family members, friends, LGBTQ rights activists, and former military personnel. “Being transgender never kept me from deploying, and I never failed to fulfill my duties.”

Despite the circumstances, McGuire said she would use this moment as an opportunity to continue serving.

“Even when it was forced upon you with no choice or discussion, [retirement] is still a new chapter … I’ll keep advocating for the rights and freedoms we all cherish,” McGuire said.

Schmid from the Army spoke about accepting the feeling of institutional betrayal after giving so much of herself to the service.

“The Army taught me what honor and integrity meant, and that integrity cost me the only thing I’ve ever really known how to do — it cost me being a soldier,” Schmid said. “Institutions fail people, but institutions are made of people, and that’s what I keep going back to … the soldiers, the people — that’s the Army that matters.”

Presik from the Air Force went next.

“Over my career, I’ve been called a hero and thanked for my service … I did all those things for the hope that I was making this country a better place for my three children and for your children and your families and your hopes as well,” Presik said, emphasizing that this was a fundamental policy failure, not a personal failure. “Now I have been separated from the Air Force, not because my performance, commitment, or ideals were found lacking, but because the policy changed on who could serve — and that reality is difficult to say out loud.”

“You matter. Your service matters, and you are not alone … transgender airmen are surrounded daily by so many fellow Americans who serve quietly and professionally,” Presik added, acknowledging that some trans people will continue to serve their country, even if it means hiding a piece of themselves until this policy is remedied.

Draiman from the Navy was fourth, emphasizing that his work serving the American people would continue despite retirement.

“I have spent my entire career pushing back against systems that too often treated my sex, my sexuality, or my gender as a measure of my capability under the guise of readiness,” Draiman told the crowd. “The work of dismantling hate and building better systems is far from over, and I still have more to give as I step out of uniform.”

Fram from the Space Force went last.

“My service was real. My dedication was real, and the years I gave to this country were given fully, honorably, and especially at the end with great pride,” she said with tears welling in her eyes — as did most of those in the audience. “Transgender service members are persons of character, not caricatures, and a society that justifies exclusion by denying our humanity needs to learn its lesson better from the Civil Rights Movement.”

“The uniform may come off, but the values it represents never will.”

Across the five branches of the military represented, each retiree carried countless honors and awards, evidence of their strength and dedication to protecting a country that elected a president who has now attempted to strip them of their service in both of his terms in office.

After the ceremony, the Washington Blade sat down with HRC Senior Vice President of Campaigns and Communications Jonathan Lovitz, to discuss why HRC decided to honor these five servicemembers.

“Why do this? Because they deserve nothing less. These are our heroes. These are our fellow Americans who have done more to serve this country than anyone who has been attacking them for that service,” Lovitz said. “These five are stand-ins for the thousands more, many of whose stories we’re never going to know, but it’s our obligation to find and uplift every single one of them.”

Multiple times during the ceremony, it was noted that military members vow to protect the Constitution rather than any individual in the White House. For Lovitz, that is the crux of why HRC felt the need to act.

“Civil rights protect all of us — or at least they’re supposed to. That’s at the heart of the Constitution … and that includes, and especially includes, our heroes who fight, sometimes die, to protect even those who would try to erase them.”

He ended the conversation by sharing a private moment with one of the retirees.

“I just hugged one of the honorees, and she said to me, ‘We never should have had to do this, but if we had to do it, this was the way.’ So I feel great that they feel loved and honored and seen and celebrated, and that so many leaders in the community were able to be here to lift them up.”

Continue Reading

Popular