National
Young, gay caucus-goers talk politics, support for GOP
Romney, Paul find support from some gay Iowans

Several young gay Iowa caucus goers discuss which GOP candidates they will support today. (Washington Blade photo by Chris Johnson)
DES MOINES, Iowa — For some gay Iowa Republicans, the 2012 presidential election is about more than just LGBT issues.
Economic issues and a belief in limited government are trumping concerns that the GOP presidential contenders are hostile to LGBT rights.
The Washington Blade interviewed five young gay Des Moines residents who will be among the estimated 120,000 Iowa Republican caucus-goers about why they support the GOP this year.
C.J. Petersen, 21, a customer service representative for Nationwide Insurance, is backing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney because of the candidate’s business background.
Petersen said he became interested in Romney as a high school senior in 2007 when he saw him speak during his last presidential run.
“I think, this year, he’s been a 100 percent better candidate,” Petersen said. “If you compare the YouTube videos from ’08 to now, he seems a lot less robotic and choppy and nervous. I think he seems a lot more relaxed, and almost presidential, ready to be a leader.”
Two other gay Iowa residents interviewed by the Blade said they’re backing Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) because of the candidate’s libertarian views.
Dereck Plagmann, 21, said he’s in the Paul camp because of the candidate’s adherence to the U.S. Constitution.
“I think it’s something that we’ve definitely drifted away from,” Plagmann said. “We need to get back to it basically. Other presidents, everybody’s trying to make changes to it. They’ve lost focus on what really made this country, and what made us who we are.”
Zach Coffin, 22, a collector for Wells Fargo bank, also plans to back Paul.
“I think that’s basically what this country needs right now is someone that will defend the core values and the core principles of the Constitution of the United States,” Coffin said. “That’s one thing that Ron Paul is focusing on well.”
MORE IN THE BLADE: ROMNEY, SANTORUM SHOW NEW STRENGTH IN IOWA POLLS
Two other gay caucus participants interviewed by the Blade had yet to make a decision on a candidate, but intend to support a Republican.
Bryan Pulda, 21, a processor for Wells Fargo Bank, said he still needs to research each of the GOP candidates.
“I come from a farming family, so it’s conservative or Catholic,” Pulda said. “Our personal views are more reflected in the Republican candidates.”
Although he hasn’t made a final choice, Pulda said he’s leaning toward backing Paul because he believes the candidate’s politics “are consistent” and he “hasn’t been in the news with anything controversial.”
Ryan Schrader, 22, who works at a local Casey’s gas station, was also undecided but said he’s leaning toward Paul.
“I come from a very conservative background myself,” Schrader said. “My family is very conservative Baptists. So his views are more towards letting the people, which would be all of us, make the decisions to shape our country.”
The candidates chosen by the five caucus-goers — Romney and Paul — have adopted some anti-gay positions, though they have not been as extreme in their views as other Republican contenders.
Paul supported the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and twice voted against a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Romney backs such an amendment, but expressed doubts that there is enough momentum or interest to pass it. He’s also said he would leave open service in the military as it is.
MORE IN THE BLADE: ANTICIPATING THE WHIRLWIND YEAR AHEAD
Still, neither candidate has the track record or commitment that President Obama has demonstrated in advancing LGBT rights. But the gay Iowa caucus-goers say they’re backing a Republican candidate to address more mainstream issues affecting the country.
Coffin said social issues can motivate people because they’re easy to understand, but if voters take the time to learn about economic issues, they “usually wind up changing their mind and thinking about the big picture what’s really going on here.”
“I don’t know if it’s because I’ve always lived in Iowa, and Iowa is one of the states where you can be married,” Coffin said. “With the amount of rights that gay people have right now, I feel totally comfortable with what we have.”
While Iowa has achieved marriage equality, if a Republican administration succeeds in passing a Federal Marriage Amendment as many of the candidates have promised, the measure would abrogate the 2009 court ruling allowing gay couples to marry in the state.
Pulda similarly said issues like same-sex marriage are on the back burner in comparison to improving economic conditions in the country.
“I would find it almost selfish for me to go out and say, ‘I vote for this person simply because they want same-sex marriage,'” Pulda said. “There are so many more problems in this country affecting more people than just me.”
But there’s a limit to how much these caucus-goers are willing to look the other way. Candidates like former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry or Rep. Michele Bachmann, who make anti-gay rhetoric a foundation of their campaigns, are turn-offs as potential candidates.
Petersen said he wouldn’t support a candidate who would make social issues a “central tenet of their campaign.
“I’m a Republican, but I’m not stupid,” Petersen said. “If they want to use those issues as a wedge to get voters to support them, I’m not really attracted to that.”
A recent anti-gay ad by Rick Perry that has been widely circulated on the Internet was a bridge too far for these caucus-goers. In the ad, Perry accuses Obama of engaging in a war on religion and says, “There’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.”
Pulda said the ad made him think twice about Perry, but still isn’t ruling him out as a potential candidate to back during the caucuses.
“I liked Rick Perry, but the latest ad he put out — I think he used the wrong language,” Pulda said. “That wasn’t the ad to go out.”
Petersen took a dig at Obama, saying he’s been paying lip service to the LGBT community and that one of his major accomplishments — repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — “just kind of came to him.”
“It was basically Senators [Susan Collins] and Joe Lieberman who said they were getting this done at the end of the year,” Petersen said. “What ended up happening is a great victory for us in the sense that LGBT Americans can now serve their country in uniform. That’s a great thing, but I don’t really credit that to President Obama.”
The administration was seen by some as playing a passive role in the legislative effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the Pentagon issued its report on implementing repeal. But after the Pentagon report came out, observers said the White House was active in engaging with senators to push through the legislation.
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said support for the Republican Party among young voters will grow if the GOP steers clear of social issues.
“Younger conservative voters under 30 continue to increasingly poll disinterest over social issues and do not support perceived or real demonization of LGBT Americans,” Cooper said. “If social issues, however, remain a myopic priority for certain candidates, they will find as former [Republican National Committee] Chairman Haley Barbour stated in 2011, ‘Purity is the enemy of victory.'”
Peter Levine, director of Tufts University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, said involvement of young gays in the Iowa caucuses is reflective of the political energy among youth throughout the country.
“I think it’s sort of characteristic of this generation,” Levine said. “Even though the turnout in the end may not be that high, for various reasons, I think there is a lot of energy and enthusiasm.”
It’s not the first time that Petersen and Plagmann have participated in the Iowa caucuses. Petersen backed Romney in 2008, while Plagmann participated in the Democratic caucus and backed Obama’s candidacy.
Plagmann said he might vote for Obama during the general election if the Republican nominee isn’t to his liking, although he’s changing his party affiliation during the Iowa caucuses because he’s disappointed in the administration.
“Back then it was my first election,” Plagmann said. “I was 18. I didn’t really look a whole lot into it. I guess I could relate to him more. But surely now, I don’t think he’s been as effective as what America had hoped.”
Whatever the election results, at least one of the caucus-goers says he’ll keep gay rights in mind as he continues advocating for a Republican agenda.
“I personally would like to see same-sex marriage legalized in all the states, but I don’t think we have to leave the Republican Party in order to stand for most of our principles,” Petersen said. “I’m not going to base my entire vote on one part of my life. I have a financial future as well as a romantic future.”
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.
National
‘They took him!’ Gay married couple torn apart by ICE
As Allan Marrero remains in ICE custody, his husband Matt continues to fight tirelessly for his release.
For 113 days, Allan Marrero has been in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, while his husband, Matthew Marrero, has been using every available avenue to secure his release.
Since Nov. 24, 2025, Allan—originally from the Cayman Islands—has been held at multiple detention facilities across the United States. His detention began after what was meant to be a routine, good-faith marriage-based green card interview at Federal Plaza in New York City, marking two years of marriage with Matthew.
Advocates, including Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, Rev. Dr. Jacqui Lewis, and attorney Alexandra Rizio, have been actively involved in supporting the couple and navigating the legal challenges posed by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The case highlights the Trump-Vance administration’s aggressive use of immigration enforcement to detain and deport individuals, even in circumstances where applicants have established legal claims to remain in the U.S.
Timeline of Allan’s detainment
On Nov. 24, Allan and his husband Matt arrived at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City for what was supposed to be a routine, marriage-based green card interview. They were accompanied by Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, a minister from Middle Church in Manhattan, where the couple attended and Matthew sang in the choir.
They arrived early for their 8 a.m. appointment, prepared and hopeful. Despite growing news coverage about increased immigration enforcement under President Donald Trump, they believed in the process and felt confident they had done everything right.
“They brought with them a three-inch binder documenting their entire life together—photos, letters, legal records, and other evidence,” Ashcraft said.
“From the moment you get to Federal Plaza, the process is extremely traumatic—and that’s by design,” she explained. “There’s nothing warm or intuitive about it. It’s dehumanizing, and parts of it feel barbaric.”
Immediately after meeting the USCIS officer, something felt off.
“We came with a three-inch binder of our entire life—photos, letters, everything,” Matt said. “We were dressed up, ready, confident we had done everything right. The first thing she said was, ‘I don’t want that. Take it all apart.’ That was the moment I knew something wasn’t right.”
The officer then asked the couple for their passports—something neither of them had on hand. That seemed to be strike two, signaling that, just as with previous steps in this process, the interview was already off course because of the woman behind the desk.
As the couple was told to move to a new room for their interview, Ashcraft was denied entry with them. This struck all three as odd; Ashcraft had attended immigration and green card interviews before to provide spiritual guidance and bolster claims of legitimacy, with no issues. Coupled with the initial hostility over the binder, it was a clear sign that the day would not go as hoped.
“There’s no real policy—it’s whoever is in front of you deciding what the rules are at that moment,” Ashcraft added. “Whatever they say goes. That’s what makes it so dangerous.”
Inside the tightly controlled interview, tensions escalated.
“I looked over at my husband when she asked how we met—just instinct. He’s the love of my life,” Matt said. “She snapped her fingers in my face and said, ‘Don’t look at him.’ We’re telling our love story, and I’m not even allowed to look at my husband.”
The officer then raised questions about a missed immigration hearing for Allan in 2022.
Allan had lived in the United States since 2013 and had been diligent about maintaining his legal status and personal growth. During that time, he had entered a rehabilitation program for alcohol addiction—a commitment that, coincidentally, caused him to miss the scheduled court hearing. Medical records explained by Alexandra Rizio, Allan’s attorney, corroborate this.
Because the judge did not know Allan was in rehab, a removal order was issued in his absence.
“He didn’t realize that he had a removal order in his name,” Rizio, the Make the Road New York attorney, explained. “When you have a removal order, it means ICE can pick you up at any moment. He walked into that interview completely unaware that he was at risk of being arrested on the spot.”

The officer acknowledged that their marriage was legitimate but denied Allan’s green card application. She told them they would need to appear before an immigration judge, signaling that his journey to legal status was far from over and still subject to the whims of others.
“She told us, ‘Out of the goodness of my heart, I’ll let you leave today. I could have called ICE, but I won’t,’” Matt recalled. “My husband started crying, I was a wreck.”
Despite that comment, the couple was escorted through a series of back hallways. Allan’s file was handed off to ICE officers, and the supervisor walked away.
“They walked us down this long hallway, took his file, handed it to ICE agents, and just left. No explanation, no warning. Suddenly they’re telling him to put his hands behind his back, and I’m standing there asking, ‘What is happening?’”
The gravity of the situation escalated.
“He was crying, I was crying, we were hugging, and I kept saying, ‘It’s going to be okay,’” Matt said. “And then they just pulled him away into an elevator and left me there. It happened so fast it didn’t even feel real.”
A supervisor entered briefly to distinguish between what could be controlled inside the office and what could not be controlled outside. Rizio called this a deliberate choice to intensify the emotional pressure.
“What the officer could have done was say, ‘You have a removal order—go hire a lawyer,’” Rizio said. “That would have been the humane and reasonable response. Instead, ICE was called, and they arrested him.”
Outside the room, Ashcraft heard the chaos unfold.
“The next thing I heard was Matthew screaming down the hallway: ‘Amanda! Amanda! They took him!’” she recounted. “That’s how it happened—just like that, after everything they had prepared.”
For the next 36 hours, Matt had no information about his husband’s whereabouts.
“For 36 hours, I had no idea where my husband was,” he said. “No phone call, no information, nothing. It felt like he had just disappeared.”
The following morning, Matt’s mother and sister drove down from Connecticut to help. They returned to Federal Plaza with Allan’s anxiety medication and contact information, only to be told minutes later that Allan was no longer there. The couple could not locate him through the ICE online system. Only after contacting an attorney did they learn he had been transferred to Delaney Hall, a detention facility in New Jersey.
Matt and Allan’s mother drove to Delaney Hall in Newark, an industrial area where families—including children—waited in the rain. Inside, staff initially insisted Allan was not present, despite documentation proving otherwise. After long delays, they were finally allowed to see him.
This was the first time Matt felt the point-blank homophobia of the detention system.
“When I finally saw him, they told us we couldn’t touch,” Matt said. “I’m watching straight couples kiss and hold each other, but I can’t even hold my husband’s hand.”
“You ripped my husband away, didn’t tell me where he was for 36 hours, and now I’m not allowed to console him?” he added. “It was so cold—it felt completely inhuman.”
Conditions inside detention quickly became grueling.
“He was moved in the middle of the night, chained at his wrists and ankles, not told where he was going,” Matt said. “They kept the cuffs on for days—he had cuts and bruises.”
“The worst part isn’t even the facilities—it’s the transport,” Matt continued. “You’re chained like an animal, trying to eat a bologna sandwich and drink water while shackled. You can barely move your body.”
Allan remained at Delaney Hall for approximately two weeks. One night, he told Matt that groups of detainees were being taken out in the middle of the night without warning. Shortly afterward, he was among them.
Around 12:30 a.m., Allan called to say he was being moved. He and others were gathered in a visitation room and held for hours without food or beds. By midday, they were shackled again, loaded onto transport, and flown out of state. His location once again disappeared from the ICE tracking system.
Over the next several days, Allan was moved through multiple locations, including a holding area near an airport in Phoenix, where detainees were kept in overcrowded, tent-like enclosures without seating. He remained in restraints for extended periods and was denied access to his medication.
From there, he was transferred through facilities in Texas and Louisiana before ultimately being sent to a remote detention site in the Florida Everglades, informally known as “Alligator Alcatraz.”
Conditions there were severe. Detainees were held in cages with dozens of men in each enclosure. Sanitation was poor, with overflowing toilets near sleeping areas. Exposure to the elements and limited access to medical care caused Allan’s health to deteriorate. Phone calls were limited to short, scheduled windows.
“He told me about being in a cage in the Everglades—30 men, toilets overflowing next to where they sleep,” Matt said. “There were signs about poisonous snakes, and he said, ‘If one shows up, I’m going to die—there’s nobody here.’”
“ICE officers would tell them, ‘You’re a burden to your family. Just sign your self-deportation papers,’” Matt added. “He would call me crying, saying, ‘Just let me go, forget about me.’ That’s psychological warfare.”
Ashcraft reflected on the system’s cruelty.
“At every step, it feels designed to be as insular, as cruel, and as impenetrable as possible,” she said. “At every turn, we’re seeing a new kind of cruelty…Someone will say, ‘They can’t do that,’ and we have to say, ‘Actually, they are.’”
Eventually, Allan was transferred to a detention facility in Natchez, Miss., where conditions were more stable and he was finally able to receive his prescribed medications. Around this time, his legal case began to shift.
His attorney submitted documentation showing that the missed 2022 hearing had occurred while he was in a verified rehabilitation program. The same immigration judge who had issued the original removal order agreed to reopen the case and rescinded that order, restoring Allan’s standing.
“The judge agreed with us and granted bond. At that point, we thought he would be released and we could move forward. That’s how the system is supposed to work,” Rizio said.
In early February, a bond hearing was scheduled. Matt traveled to Mississippi in anticipation of Allan’s release. The legal team presented extensive documentation, including letters of support from members of Congress, as well as evidence of Allan’s marriage and community ties.
Instead of releasing him, ICE exercised its authority to place a 10-day hold while considering an appeal. During that time, Matt remained in Mississippi, visiting Allan regularly.
“ICE decided to just ignore that and not release him. They used something called the ‘auto stay’ provision to keep him locked up anyway,” Rizio said. “It’s essentially them saying, ‘We don’t like the judge’s order, so we’re not going to follow it….That feels crazy—because it is crazy. There’s no real statutory basis for it. It’s a regulation that allows them to operate outside the bounds of what the law actually says.”
Before the hold period ended, a second immigration judge became involved. Without reviewing the full evidence or receiving a newly filed green card application, the judge issued a decision in advance.
“A completely different judge—who isn’t even an immigration specialist—stepped in and denied an application that wasn’t even before him,” Rizio explained. “I have never seen anything like that in 14 years of practice.”
She has argued that the decision was procedurally improper and legally flawed.
“He decided, based on rehab records showing recovery and sobriety, to label Allan a ‘habitual drunkard.’ He cherry-picked information and ignored the evidence that he had successfully completed treatment.”
When the 10-day hold expired, Allan’s legal team attempted to secure his release again, but ICE cited the new ruling to continue detaining him. By that point, Allan had been in detention for more than 100 days.
“He could have walked out of detention with a green card,” Rizio said. “Instead, he’s still sitting in detention because of actions that simply shouldn’t have happened.”
“None of what I just described reflects a system that cares about justice,” she said. “It feels like punishment. I feel very confident these actions are designed to make people give up… Allan has already lost over three months of his life. He’s never going to get that time back.”
“We did everything right,” Matt said. “We followed the law, built a life, got married, had a clear pathway to citizenship. And now my whole life is on pause. If someone wants to understand this, imagine someone coming in and kidnapping the person you love most—taking away all your control. That’s what this feels like.”
Allan remains in detention in Natchez while legal challenges move forward. Throughout his time in custody, detainees have reported being pressured to accept voluntary deportation, often being told they are burdens to their families. Despite the mounting legal and emotional toll, Allan continues to fight his case from inside detention, while his family and community advocate for his release on the outside.
The couple has set up a Go-Fund-Me to help with the financial costs of this ongoing situation.
The Blade contacted ICE and DHS for comment but did not receive a response.

