National
Santorum denounced as ‘bigot’ at N.H. rally
Anti-gay candidate compares his views on marriage to Obama’s
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Rick Santorum faced a noisy reception from protesters over his anti-gay views at a Monday campaign stop in New Hampshire.
The former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania was jeered Monday night just before a campaign rally at Jillian’s Billiards Club in Manchester, N.H., where he was about to begin his final campaign event in New Hampshire before the primary vote Tuesday.
As Santorum made his way from his campaign van to the club entrance, a group of about a dozen demonstrators associated with the Occupy movement began chanting “Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!”
Brett Chamberlin, a straight 20-year-old college student, led others in a chant, assailing Santorum for his opposition to gay rights and marriage equality. Chamberlin shouted, “He says gay marriage … is a slippery slope … but we say that regulation … is a slippery slope, too!”
The protesters held signs expressing discontent with the current state of campaign finance laws. The bottom of the sign showed a Democratic donkey with three dollar signs and text reading, “MONEY OUT OF POLITICS #OCCUPY.”
Chamberlin, who is from Durham, N.H., concluded his chant by crying, “Rick Santorum! We don’t like bigots in New Hampshire!”
The protesters continued their chant of “Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!” after Santorum entered the building and pounded the signs on the ground.
Speaking to reporters, Chamberlin, who has participated in both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy New Hampshire protests, said problems with the election system prompted him to demonstrate.
“I’m here tonight because we believe that our system really is run by who can raise and spend the most money, which means that they pander to corporate contributions and anonymous PACs instead of responding to the constituents that they allege to represent,” Chamberlin said.
Chamberlin continued that voters “shouldn’t have to settle for the lesser of two evils” when selecting presidential candidates and “the bane of democracy is settling for the person whom you find the least deplorable.”
Asked by the Washington Blade whether Santorum’s opposition to same-sex marriage was also a source of discontent, Chamberlin replied, “I think that I was picking on that because it’s simply the issue about which Rick Santorum is the most deplorable.”
Chamberlin said Santorum “uses that slippery slope argument” in arguments against same-sex marriage by suggesting it will lead to the legalization of bestiality and polygamy. Last week, Santorum said during a town hall if marriage was an inalienable right, one “could imagine all the different types of marriages that would happen.”
But Chamberlin identified several reasons why the senator was mistaken in predicting marriage equality would lead to adverse consequences.
“First of all, that slippery slope argument doesn’t hold,” Chamberlin said. “We’ve legalize gay marriage here in New Hampshire and nothing really happened. Everything is the exact same, except more people have the civil right of marriage. No. 2, that slippery slope argument was used by people who were against interracial marriage. There’s a long history of it being used by people that want to fight against progressive change.”
Chamberlin, a student of politics and journalism at New York University, said the slippery slope argument cuts both ways.
“When he says that you can use the government to justify the overwhelming morality of America — which is not true because an overwhelming majority of people do support gay marriage — well then where does the government interruption stop?” Chamberlin said. “Can they come into your house or tell you you can’t cut your sideburns or wear mixed-fabric clothing, which are also commandants that appear side-by-side with the anti-gay comments in Leviticus. So, it’s not founded in logic; it’s not founded in a knowledge of history or a knowledge of American civics.”
Asked how well he thinks Santorum will fare in the New Hampshire primary in the wake of his anti-gay comments, Chamberlin declined to handicap the candidate’s chances, but speculated the senator may do better in later contests.
“I learned after years of following politics not to make predictions,” Chamberlin said. “I think that as long he does better than expected, that’s a win for him. … He’ll certainly do well in South Carolina, though. It’s a far more conservative state and he can really push anti-gay [views] that he’s had to keep a little bit suppressed here in New Hampshire, where we’ve legalized gay marriage.”
Santorum has a notoriously anti-LGBT record, which he’s made known over the course of his candidacy for president by expressing opposition to same-sex marriage and, most recently, saying a child would be better off having parents in prison as opposed to parents of the same gender.
The hostile reception he received before his evening rally comes on the heels of a response regarding his opposition to same-sex marriage during a morning event at Derry-Salem Elks Lodge in Salem, N.H.
Asked whether his opposition to gay rights makes him an electable candidate, Santorum invoked an unlikely person whom he says shares his views as a reason why he could be a viable contender.
“Everyone on the stage yesterday and the day before has pretty much has the same exact position I have on those issues,” Santorum said. “President Obama says he has the same position I have on gay marriage.”
Santorum has been enduring questions for days on his opposition to marriage equality in town halls and has been criticized in the libertarian-leaning state for expressing those views. He enjoyed third place status in New Hampshire polls coming off his virtual tie with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses, but despite his strong showing there, hasn’t seen much traction in the state.
Santorum suggested that criticism over his position on marriage is unfair because he’s the only candidate that’s facing heat over the issue.
“The only difference is between myself and any of them is that when somebody asks me a question I answer it,” Santorum said.
It’s true that Obama doesn’t support same-sex marriage — much to the consternation of many LGBT advocates. But Obama and Santorum diverge tremendously on LGBT rights and government-recognition of same-sex couples.
Obama opposes a Federal Marriage Amendment and voted against it as a U.S. senator, while Santorum has pledged to back it as president and credits himself with being an architect of the measure while in the Senate. Obama has declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and refused to defend it in court, but Santorum has criticized the president and has pledged to defend the anti-gay law. Santorum has compared relationships of people of the same sex to bestiality.
Clo Ewing, an Obama campaign spokesperson, articulated the differences between Obama and Santorum on LGBT issues in a statement to the Blade.
“President Obama has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same legal protections as straight couples,” Ewing said. “That’s why he has called for repeal of the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ and has taken steps to weaken this discriminatory law until the time it can be repealed legislatively.”
Ewing also noted that Santorum — as well as Romney — has signed a pledge from an anti-gay organization promising to oppose same-sex marriage if elected president.
“Meanwhile, both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum signed the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge, which defends DOMA and pushes for a federal marriage amendment,” Ewing said.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, also rebuked Santorum for suggesting his positions on LGBT issues are anything like Obama’s.
“Rick Santorum has made a career out of opposing LGBT equality so it’s laughable that he would even attempt a comparison to President Obama’s record of progress,” Cole-Schwartz said. “Rick Santorum wants to do anything he can to stop marriage equality — including supporting DOMA, promising to appoint anti-gay judges and even advocating for a constitutional amendment to ban rights for gay couples, all diametrically opposed to President Obama’s positions.”
The White House
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.
President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.
While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.
“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.
“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”
His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.
White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.
Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”
He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.
The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.
Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.
His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.
Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.
National
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”
The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.”
This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.
As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.”
Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation.
By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents.
With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”
This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions.
While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933.
In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare.
Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people.
The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.
The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.”
As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.”
In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.
Pennsylvania
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.
House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.
The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.
“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”
BREAKING: The Pennsylvania House just passed @RepKenyatta's bill to codify marriage equality into law in PA — and they did it with broad bipartisan support.
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) March 25, 2026
Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love. Today, the House has stepped up to protect that…
-
Photos4 days agoPHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
-
Poland4 days agoPolish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
-
District of Columbia4 days agoCapital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary gala draws sold out crowd
-
District of Columbia3 days agoTrans Day of Visibility events planned



