National
Social conservative summit draws anti-gay rhetoric
GOP presidential hopefuls make their case at convention
Anti-gay rhetoric pervaded a social conservative convention over the weekend where Republican presidential candidates brandished their credentials for the religious right.
Remarks against gays and marriage equality came from several speakers — including lawmakers and conservative activists — at the 2011 Value Voters Summit in D.C., which was hosted by the anti-gay Family Research Council.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), known of being one of the most anti-gay members of the U.S. House, had particularly harsh words on Friday for LGBT advocates seeking to advance same-sex marriage.
“Marriage is the essential foundation stone for civilization,” King said. “It’s under assault today, ladies and gentlemen. It’s under assault even though it is a sacrament. They have decided they are going to assault it and they are doing so because — not because there is an alterior value out there. They will just attack everything that we believe in.”
The Iowa lawmaker, who spoke fondly of his involvement with the 2010 campaign that ousted three Iowa justices who ruled in favor of marriage equality, ridiculed pro-LGBT activists who protested the bus tour in the campaign against the judges.
“They were on the verge of militant,” King said. “They would come out and they would stand in there and they would scream and yell and curse with the worst profanity I’ve heard anywhere, and I spent my life in the construction business. They were the most unhappy people I ever met that called themselves ‘gay.'”
According to the Iowa Independent, King’s description of the bus tour isn’t consistent with what reporters from the media outlet saw. At one bus stop in Cedar Rapids, for example, same-sex marriage advocates outnumbered those who attended in support of the campaign and chose to mostly stand silently while holding signs.
Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis for the American Family Association, expressed among the strongest anti-gay views during his summit and said on Saturday he wants a president “who will treat homosexuality not as a political cause at all, but as a threat to public health.”
“Homosexual behavior represents the same threat to human health that injection drug use does,” Fischer said. “I believe we need a president who understands that neither homosexual behavior nor injection drug use represent lifestyles that any responsible government ought to normalize, legitimize, legalize, protect, sanction, or subsidize.”
Criticism from Fischer on Saturday came from one of the GOP presidential hopefuls who spoke before him at the event: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
“We should remember that decency and civility are values too,” Romney said. “One of the speakers who will follow me today has crossed that line I think. Poisonous language doesn’t advance our cause. It has never softened a single heart or changed a single mind.”
Romney didn’t explicitly name anyone in these remarks, but, according to Politico, a Romney campaign official confirmed the former Massachusetts governor was referring to Fischer. It’s unclear whether Romney was chastising Fischer for being anti-gay. Fischer has also had vitriolic words for Islam as well as Mormonism, the religion to which Romney belongs.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of gay conservative group GOProud, said Romney “is absolutely right” about Fischer and said the anti-gay activist’s comments “are what you would expect from a barbarian like Ahmadinejad not from a man who professes to be a Christian.”
“Gov. Romney should be praised for speaking out courageously against this kind of rhetoric,” LaSalvia continued. “We have a country on the edge of fiscal disaster and it is critical that we have a united conservative movement that can make the case to average Americans about why our vision, our values and our policies are right for this country. The last thing we need is a right wing version of Jeremiah Wright, distracting and dividing us, and that’s exactly what Bryan Fisher is.”
Despite his remarks, Romney also reiterated his pledge to defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
“But marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom,” Romney said. “It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it’s so important to preserve traditional marriage — the joining together of one man and one woman. And that’s why I will appoint an attorney general who will defend the bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton — the Defense of Marriage Act.”
The former Massachusetts governor had previously signed a pledge with the National Organization for Marriage promising to defend DOMA against litigation and to back a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Criticism for the Obama administration’s decision to drop the defense of DOMA in court came from several Republican presidential candidates during the Value Voters Summit.
Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, was among those saying he would resume the executive branch’s role in defending the law if elected president. He previously spoke out against Obama for no longer defending DOMA in court, but hasn’t signed the NOM pledge.
“I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Cain said. “And I would not have asked the Department of Justice to not enforce it. I would have asked the Department of Justice to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.”
Cain is wrong is saying that Obama isn’t enforcing DOMA. Although the Justice Department has discontinued defending in DOMA, the administration is still enforcing the law.
House Republican leaders who attended the conference trumpeted their decision to take up defense of DOMA in the Obama administrations. After the administration announced in February it would no longer defend DOMA, the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted on a party-line basis to take up defense of the law.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) restated his position before his audience on Friday that funds should be directed from the Justice Department to the House to pay for the cost of defending DOMA.
“I’ve raised my hand to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws of our country,” Boehner said. “And if the Justice Department was not going to defend this act passed by Congress, well, then we will. And we have defended the law that the Congress passed. We’re going to take the money away from the Justice Department, who’s supposed to enforce it, and we’ll use it to enforce the law.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) echoed praise in his speech for the House’s leadership in taking up defense of DOMA now that the Obama administration isn’t defending the law.
“We will continue and stand up for the Defense of Marriage Act as we fight for victory in the Supreme Court this term,” Cantor said.
This week, a contract modification became public revealing that House Republicans had raised the cost cap to $1.5 million to pay private attorney Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, to defend DOMA in court.
House Republicans cannot unilaterally redirect congressionally allocated funds from the Justice Department to the House for the purposes of defending DOMA. Both the House and the Senate would have to approve the fund redistribution legislatively through the appropriations process — and such a measure would need Obama’s signature for enactment.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, criticized House Republican leaders for touting their defense of DOMA — as well as the anti-gay tone of the conference in general.
“This is a clarion call for equality supporters and a sign of just how much influence groups like the Family Research Council hold over anti-LGBT lawmakers,” Solmonese said. “This is a reminder that we have real challenges ahead of us — from repealing DOMA once and for all to making our workplaces safer and more equitable with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”
Drew Hammill, spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), also rebuked Boehner for extolling his defense of DOMA and said Americans have other priorities.
“While Speaker Boehner does his best to convince the right-wing that both of his feet are firmly planted on the wrong side of history, the American taxpayers are paying the price,” Hammill said. “It’s time for the Speaker to end the hypocrisy of spending $1.5 million to foster discrimination and make more friends on the right, and get back to Americans’ top priority: creating jobs.”
Federal Government
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
New investigation into the historic, exclusive all-women’s college signals a ramp-up by the Trump administration in rolling back transgender rights.
The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.
Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.
The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.
The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.
This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.
Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.
“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”
“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”
This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.
Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.
Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.
New York
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
Cayman Islands native taken into custody before green card interview
Following nearly half a year in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, Allan Marrero has been released and is back home with his husband in New York.
Marrero spent 150 days in ICE custody, held in multiple detention centers across the U.S. after missing an immigration court hearing while in a rehabilitation program for alcohol addiction — a circumstance widely considered “good cause” for failing to appear.
The Washington Blade first reported on Marrero’s case in March after the Cayman Islands native was detained by ICE officers during what was supposed to be a routine marriage-based green card interview at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City.
Marrero had been married to his husband, Matthew Marrero, for two years at the time of the interview. But almost immediately, the experience turned hostile.
The Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, a minister at Middle Church in Manhattan who accompanied the couple to provide spiritual support, later described the process as “dehumanizing” and “barbaric.”
During the interview, it became clear the couple was facing an uphill battle. At one point, when asked how they met, Matthew Marrero instinctively looked over at his husband and was “snapped at” and told not to look at him. As the interview continued, the outlook only grew more grim.
Unaware that he had a prior removal order tied to the missed court date while he was in rehab, Allan Marrero was detained on the spot.
Over the following months, Allan Marrero was transferred through multiple detention facilities, including centers in Arizona and Texas, the Everglades Detention Facility — also known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” which has been described as having “unsanitary inadequate conditions” — and ultimately a detention center in Mississippi.
While in custody, Allan Marrero was denied access to prescription medication and, according to advocates, was psychologically pressured by ICE agents to self-deport rather than remain detained while his legal case proceeded.
Although a judge later reopened his case and granted bond after Allan Marrero provided proof that he had been in rehab — a valid medical reason for missing his court date — ICE used procedural mechanisms to keep him detained. A separate judge later issued a ruling denying relief, leaving Allan Marrero in custody.
On the outside, Matthew Marrero said his life felt as though it had been put on pause so ICE could meet enforcement quotas.
“[It feels like] somebody came in and kidnapped someone close to you and took away all of your control and power,” Matthew Marrero told the Blade on March 7. “You shouldn’t be able to have this much control over somebody’s life, especially if they are trying to do the right thing … You’re not going after criminals, you’re not going after the worst of the worst. You’re trying to fill a quota.”
Alexandra Rizio, Allan Marrero’s attorney with Make the Road New York, a progressive grassroots immigrant-led organization, told the Blade that “there seems to be an underlying element of cruelty baked into not only this administration, but everything.”
“It didn’t have to go down that way,” Rizio continued. “If someone goes in for a green card interview and their marriage interview, and they learn that they have a removal order, what the USCIS officer could have done is say, ‘Look, you have a removal order in your name. You need to go hire an attorney right away to get this taken care of. I can’t adjudicate your green card…’ And if you hire a lawyer, you know, you might be able to get it straightened out. Of course, that’s not what happened. And so ICE, which was in the building, were called and they did arrest Allan.”
The Marreros are scheduled to hold a press conference on Tuesday at Middle Church, where Allan Marrero will speak publicly for the first time about his detention.
For additional information on the press conference please visit middlechurch.org.
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.

