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.”
National
LGBTQ Catholic groups slam Trump over pope criticism
‘Moral truth and compassion always overcome ignorant hate’
LGBTQ Catholic groups have sharply criticized President Donald Trump over his criticisms of Pope Leo XIV.
Leo on April 13 told reporters while traveling to Algeria that he had “no fear of the Trump administration” after the president described him as “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy” in response to his opposition to the Iran war. (Trump on the same day posted to Truth Social an image that appeared to show him as Jesus Christ. He removed it on April 13 amid backlash from religious leaders.)
Vice President JD Vance, who is Catholic, during a Fox News Channel interview on the same day said “in some cases, it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of what’s going on with the Catholic church, and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy.” Vance on April 14 once again discussed Leo during an appearance at a Turning Point USA event in Athens, Ga., saying he should “be careful when he talks about matters of theology.”
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni; former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Miguel Díaz; and Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are among those who have criticized Trump over his comments. The president, for his part, has said he will not apologize to Leo.
“The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants,” said Leo on Thursday at a cathedral in Bamenda, Cameroon.
Francis DeBernardo is the executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based LGBTQ Catholic organization. He told the Washington Blade on Thursday that Trump’s comments about Leo “are one more example of the ridiculous hubris of this leader (Trump) whose entire record shows that he is nothing more than a middle-school bully.”
“LGBTQ+ adults were often bullied as children, and they have learned the lesson that bullies act when they feel frightened or threatened,” said DeBernardo. “But secular power does not threaten the Vicar of Christ, and Pope Leo’s response illustrates this truth perfectly.”
DeBernardo added Trump “is obviously frightened that Pope Leo, an American, has more power and influence than the president on the world stage.”
“Like most Trumpian bullying, this strategy will backfire,” DeBernardo told the Blade. “Moral truth and compassion always overcome ignorant hate. Trump’s actions are not an example of his power, but of his impotence.”
Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, an LGBTQ Catholic organization, echoed DeBernardo.
“He [Trump] has demonstrated throughout both presidencies that he doesn’t understand the basic concepts of any faith system that is founded on the dignity of human beings, the importance of common good,” Duddy-Burke told the Blade on Thursday during a telephone interview. “It’s just appalling.”
Duddy-Burke praised Leo and the American cardinals who have publicly criticized Trump.
“The pope’s popularity — given how much more respect Pope Leo has than the man sitting in the White House — is a blow to his ego,” Duddy-Burke told the Blade. “That seems to be a sore sport for him.”
“It’s such an imperialistic world view,” she added.
Leo ‘is the real peacemaker’
The College of Cardinals last May elected Leo to succeed Pope Francis after his death.
Leo, who was born in Chicago, is the first American pope. He was the bishop of the Diocese of Chiclayo in Peru from 2015-2023.
Francis made him a cardinal in 2023.
Juan Carlos Cruz — a gay Chilean man and clergy sex abuse survivor who Francis appointed to the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors — has traveled to Ukraine several times with Dominican Sister Lucía Caram since Russia launched its war against the country in 2022. Cruz on Thursday responded to Trump’s criticism of Leo in a text message he sent to the Blade from Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital.
“I am in Ukraine under many attacks,” said Cruz. “Trump is an asshole and has zero right to criticize the Pope who is the real peacemaker.”
Tennessee
Charlie Kirk Act advances in Tenn.
Bill would limit protests, protects speakers opposing ‘transgender’ identities
The Tennessee legislature has passed Senate Bill 1741 / House Bill 1476, dubbed the “Charlie Kirk Act,” which, if signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, would reshape how public colleges and universities regulate speech on campus.
The measure targets all public higher education institutions and requires them to adopt a “free expression” policy modeled on the University of Chicago’s framework. That framework emphasizes that universities should not shield students from controversial or offensive ideas and requires state schools to formally embrace institutional neutrality — meaning they do not publicly take a stance on political or social issues.
Under the legislation, publicly funded schools cannot disinvite or cancel invited speakers based on their viewpoints or in response to protests from students or faculty. Student organizations, however — like Turning Point USA, an American nonprofit that advocates for conservative politics on high school, college, and university campuses, founded by Charlie Kirk, and often lack widely represented liberal counterparts — would retain broad authority to bring speakers to campus regardless of controversy.
The law includes broad protections for individuals and organizations expressing religious or ideological beliefs, including opposition to abortion, homosexuality, or transgender identity, regardless of whether those views are rooted in religious or secular beliefs. It further prohibits public institutions from retaliating against faculty for protected speech or scholarly work.
The bill, which has been hailed by supporters as an effort to “preserve campus free speech,” ironically also limits protest activity. Shouting down speakers, blocking sightlines, staging disruptive walkouts, or physically preventing entry to events are now considered “substantial interference” under the legislation, making those who engage in such actions subject to discipline.
Some of those disciplinary consequences include probation, suspension, and even expulsion for students, while faculty who protest in ways deemed to violate the policy could face unpaid suspensions and termination after repeated violations.
Supporters of the bill argue it strengthens free expression on campus. State Rep. Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood), the bill’s sponsor, said it reinforces a commitment to “civil and robust” debate at public universities.
“The Charlie Kirk Act creates critical safeguards for students and faculty and renews the idea that our higher education institutions should be centers of intellectual debate,” Bulso told Fox 17. “This legislation honors the legacy of Charlie Kirk by promoting thoughtful engagement and defending religious freedom.”
Critics, including Democratic lawmakers, have raised concerns that the legislation effectively elevates certain ideological viewpoints — particularly those tied to religious objections to LGBTQ identities — while exposing students and faculty to punishment for protest or dissent.
“It’s ironic that this body is talking about free speech when we had professors in Tennessee schools expelled and suspended when they did not mourn the death of Charlie Kirk — when they said that his statements were problematic and that the way he died did not redeem the way he lived,” state Rep. Justin Jones (D-Nashville) told WKRN.
Kirk, the right-wing activist and founder of Turning Point USA, for whom the bill is named, was assassinated in September 2025 at a public event at Utah Valley University. His legacy and rhetoric remain deeply polarizing, particularly among LGBTQ advocates, who have cited his history of anti-LGBTQ statements in opposing his campus appearances.
The bill now heads to Lee’s desk for his signature.
National
Demonstrators disrupt OMB director hearing over PEPFAR
Capitol Police arrested five protesters
A group of protesters interrupted Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought during his testimony before Congress on Wednesday.
Vought was at the Cannon House Office Building to give testimony to the House Budget Committee.
Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) began the hearing by touting what he described as economic accomplishments of the Trump-Vance administration’s economic accomplishments. Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) disputed those claims in his opening statement.
Boyle went on to admonish Vought for not attending a committee hearing in the previous year.
Vought, the “Project 2025” architect, was invited to speak after Arrington and Boyle made their statements.

Shortly after Vought began reading his statement, Housing Works CEO Charles King stood up in the gallery and began shouting, “PEPFAR saves lives: spend the money!”
The U.S. Capitol Police moved quickly to escort King from the room. Other activists began chanting with King as they unfolded signs bearing a picture of Vought’s face and statements such as, “Vought’s cuts kill people with AIDS,” and “Protect PEPFAR from Vought.”
The group of HIV/AIDS activists included independent activists, former U.S. Agency for International Development and PEPFAR staff, members of Health GAP, Housing Works, and the Treatment Action Group. Six activists were escorted from the hearing and the U.S. Capitol Police detained five of them.

The HIV/AIDS treatment activists protested at the hearing in response to the dismantling of global health programs, including PEPFAR, a federally-funded program credited with saving millions of lives from HIV/AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
“Russell Vought is directly responsible for illegally withholding Congressionally appropriated funds for PEPFAR and related global health initiative,” King said in a statement provided to the Washington Blade. “These funding disruptions have already contributed to preventable deaths and threaten to reverse decades of progress in the fight against HIV worldwide. Enough is enough. Congress must ensure Vought stops this deadly sabotage.”



