National
Romney edges Santorum to win Iowa caucuses
8 votes separate top two; Bachmann drops out

DES MOINES, Iowa — In the closest outcome in the history of the Iowa caucuses, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney edged former Sen. Rick Santorum by just eight votes Tuesday to win the first contest of the 2012 election.
With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Romney had 30,015 votes while Santorum had 30,007, according to Matt Strawn, chair of the Iowa Republican party. In terms of percentages, both Santorum and Romney claimed 24.5 percent of the vote.
The virtual dead heat in the Iowa caucuses, in which a record 122,255 Iowa Republicans participated, raises questions about whether Romney can attract support from the party’s conservative base.
On Monday, Romney reportedly crowed that he was going to win the Iowa caucuses by telling a crowd of supporters, “We’re going to win this thing.” A Romney spokesperson later downplayed the remarks and said the candidate was referring to winning the Republican nomination.
MORE IN THE BLADE: DNC CHAIR: SANTORUM ANTI-GAY ATTACKS ‘UN-AMERICAN’
Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who had enjoyed a lead in the polls just two weeks before the caucuses took place, finished in third place with 21.5 percent of the vote.
Troy Price, executive director of One Iowa, a statewide LGBT group, said the virtual tie demonstrates that social conservatives were unable to dominate the caucuses despite their efforts.
“This extremely close outcome shows that in spite of the millions of dollars and constant campaigning on the backs of loving, committed gay and lesbian couples in Iowa, the attempt by social conservatives to dominate the caucuses simply didn’t work,” Price said. “Rather, this tie between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney shows the deep divisions that exist between social conservatives who want to harm loving and committed couples, and fiscal conservatives who prioritize job creation and a smaller government.”
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, a gay conservative group, congratulated Romney and Paul in a statement for placing in the top three slots — but notably left out any mention of Santorum, who’s known for holding anti-gay views.
“Tonight, we congratulate Governor Romney and Congressman Paul on their strong showings in the Iowa caucuses,” LaSalvia said. “It is clear that the message of economic renewal and limited government is resonating with Republican voters.”
LaSalvia commended Romney and Paul for offering plans that he said contrasted with the “big government approach” of President Obama without resorting to anti-gay rhetoric.
“While there are certainly big differences between Governor Romney and Congressman Paul, especially when it comes to foreign policy, both chose to emphasize issues like the economy and the size of government over demonizing gay people,” LaSalvia said. “We are pleased to see that so many Republicans in Iowa are focused on the issues that unite us as conservatives, instead of the side show issues.”
MORE IN THE BLADE: YOUNG, GAY IOWA GOP CAUCUS GOERS DISCUSS CANDIDATES
Brian Brown, president of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, praised both Santorum and Romney over “their photo-finish” because of the candidates’ opposition to same-sex marriage.
“It’s especially satisfying to see Senator Santorum, a longtime friend and champion for the family, come from behind to mount such a successful campaign,” Brown added.
Santorum and Romney were among the candidates that signed NOM’s pledge to oppose same-sex marriage by backing a Federal Marriage Amendment and defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court if elected president.
“The strong showing by both Santorum and Romney shows that supporting marriage is not only the right thing to do, it is the politically smart thing to do,” Brown said.
But Brown criticized Paul, who twice voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and isn’t among the candidates who signed NOM’s pledge.
“This is a lesson that Ron Paul may be learning the hard way,” Brown said. “Paul suffered a big loss by finishing third in Iowa, a state he was expecting to win.”
Brown said ads NOM aired against the candidate in Iowa in addition to grassroots work “were a factor in Ron Paul’s poor showing.”
The results triggered the end of Rep. Michele Bachmann’s campaign. She won just 5 percent of the vote even though Iowa is her home state. Bachmann announced Wednesday she was leaving the race.
“I have decided to stand aside,” she told reporters in Des Moines on Wednesday morning.
MORE IN THE BLADE: LGBT REACTION TO BACHMANN’S IOWA EXIT
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who also enjoyed the status of GOP presidential frontrunners, had less than optimal finishes. Gingrich took fourth in the caucuses with 13.2 percent of the vote and Perry came in fifth with 10.3 percent.
In a speech after the contest, Perry said he was going to scrap plans to campaign in South Carolina and return to Texas to determine whether a path to victory remains.
The strong showing for Santorum comes on the heels of comments he made that raised the eyebrows of LGBT advocates in an interview Tuesday with ABC News’ Jake Tapper.
The candidate said he opposes the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws throughout the country. He also said he opposes a court decision preventing states from prohibiting the sale of contraceptives.
Santorum said he personally would have voted against the state law in Texas prohibiting consensual sex between two males, but still thinks states should be able to pass such laws.
“I wouldn’t have voted for the Texas sodomy law, but that doesn’t mean the state doesn’t have the right to do that,” Santorum said. “I just didn’t think they should do it. We shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things. We should let the people decide. If the states are doing dumb things, get rid of the legislature and replace them as opposed to creating constitutional laws that have consequences beyond the specific case that was before them.”
As Republicans in Iowa were deciding on the best candidate to represent them, Democrats also held caucuses throughout the state, even though President Obama was the only candidate on the ticket. More than 25,000 Iowa Democrats were estimated to have participated.
Obama delivered a message to supporters attending the caucuses via video and took a couple questions from attendees pledging their support to him. Among the accomplishments that he touted during the video was repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“Because of you, we’ve been able to end the policy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ so that every American who want this country that they love can have that opportunity, regardless of who they love,” Obama said.
In a statement, Sue Dvorksy, chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, said the Democratic Iowa caucus was “a great opportunity to test our campaign organization and expand our volunteer base as we move toward November.”
“In a strong show of support, more than 7,500 Iowans tonight pledged to volunteer for the campaign over the course of the next year, underscoring their commitment to continuing the change the country has seen under President Obama’s leadership,” Dvorsky said.
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
-
The Vatican3 days ago
American cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features3 days ago
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days ago
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved