National
N.J. Senate kills marriage legislation
The New Jersey State Senate on Thursday defeated legislation that would have legalized same-sex marriage in the Garden State, but plans are already brewing to obtain marriage rights for gay couples through litigation.
Senators voted down the measure, 14-20, following a 90-minute debate. After the vote was recorded, opponents of gay nuptials filled the Senate chamber with cheers and applause.
The bill’s failure almost certainly means New Jersey won’t see the legalization of same-sex marriage through legislative means anytime soon. Republican Governor-elect Chris Christie will begin his four-year term Jan. 19, and he’s pledged to veto any marriage bill that comes to his desk.
Outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in a statement Thursday expressed disappointment about the outcome of the vote, although he commended the Senate for having public debate on the issue.
“Most assuredly, this is an issue of civil rights and civil liberties, the foundation of our state and federal constitutions,” he said. “Denying any group of people a fundamental human right because of who they are, or whom they love, is wrong, plain and simple.”
Celebrating the victory was the National Organization for Marriage. In an e-mail blast, Brian Brown, the organization’s executive director, praised followers who “made phone calls, sent e-mails, and prayed” in opposition to same-sex marriage.
“Yet again, we have witnessed a tremendous victory for marriage in a state where just a few months ago, victory seemed unlikely at best,” he said.
Immediately following the vote, Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, announced in a statement plans to pursue the legalization of same-sex marriage in New Jersey through court action.
“The requirement to ensure equality for same-sex couples, established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in its decision in our marriage lawsuit in 2006, has not been met,” he said. “There is enormous, heartbreaking evidence that civil unions are not equal to marriage, and we will be going back to the courts in New Jersey to fight for equality.”
New Jersey won’t ‘go all the way backwards’
In a conference call following the vote, Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, said advocates of same-sex marriage have had “a seamless transition from our legislative phase to our court phase.”
“It’s not a situation where New Jersey will go all the way backwards,” he said. “In New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that same-sex couples must receive equal treatment under the law as a state constitutional matter.”
Goldstein said he didn’t yet know details about the litigation, such as who would become plaintiff couples or when the New Jersey Supreme Court would hear the case.
Reflecting on the vote, Goldstein said the marriage bill didn’t succeed for one reason: the failure of Corzine to win re-election in November.
“We had at minimum 22 votes in the Senate … and we were going to win this clearly in the Assembly,” he said. “At some point immediately after the election, we saw the fortunes change.”
Goldstein said Corzine was “a star supporter of marriage equality” throughout most of 2009, but added “it did take him a while to get there.”
“We were very honest in our statement today in saying that this bill should never have waited until sudden death overtime — the lame duck session,” he said. “And obviously we’re disappointed in that.”
Opposition to the bill also increased, Goldstein said, because Christie visited Republican senators before the debate and urged them to vote against the legislation.
“We understand from impeccable sources that Governor-elect Christie went to the Republican Senate caucus and in the Republican Assembly caucus and told members who were going to vote for marriage equality, ‘I don’t want to see any marriage equality votes coming out of this caucus,’” Goldstein said.
Even though they thought they might not win, Goldstein said advocates held the vote in the Senate because they believed it would bolster the chances of litigation.
“We consulted and spoke with lawyers far and wide who said the New Jersey Legislature has to show its dereliction of duty affirmatively to go back to court — because they said it’s up to the Legislature to act,” he said. “Today the Legislature acted. It defaulted on its constitutional obligation to provide same-sex couples equality.”
Noting that a number of lawmakers who voted against the marriage bill also conceded on the floor civil unions aren’t working, Goldstein said the Senate record will also help persuade the courts that civil unions aren’t adequate in providing protections for same-sex couples.
Passionate flare on Senate floor
Several senators gave emotional speeches on both sides of the marriage issue on the Senate floor before the vote was taken. State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat and sponsor of the marriage legislation, was among those who spoke in favor of the bill.
“Men and women do not have a monopoly on loving relationships,” she said. “We all know same-sex couples that enjoy the same love and trust that is shared between a man and a woman, between a husband and a wife.”
Also speaking out in favor of the legislation was State Sen. Raymond Lesniak, another Democrat who sponsored the bill.
Noting that 120 religious leaders sent a letter to the New Jersey Senate in support of same-sex marriage, Lesniak said the failure of the chamber to pass the legislation would amount to religious discrimination.
“Unless we vote for marriage equality, we will be interfering with the religious beliefs of many of our citizens,” he said. “Government is wrong to interfere with religious beliefs. Today, we can right that wrong.”
State Sen. Bill Baroni, the lone Republican to vote in favor of the marriage legislation, said New Jersey’s current system of offering civil unions to same-sex couples amounted to discrimination perpetuated by the government.
“Government says [these couples] are different and segregates from the married couples, and that is textbook, old-fashioned discrimination — where government looks at people and discriminates against them,” he said.
Equally emotional were speeches against same-sex marriage. State Sen. Michael Doherty, a Republican, criticized the process that advocates had chosen to legalize same-sex marriage and called instead for a referendum on the issue.
“Suddenly today, you’re somehow crazy if you want the people of New Jersey to decide this issue like they have in 31 other states,” he said. “This is about the process; this is about letting the residents of New Jersey decide a major redefinition that has been recognized for thousands and thousands of years.”
Also opposed to the legislation was State Sen. Sean Kean, another Republican who said he voted against same-sex marriage even though he had “the gayest senate district in New Jersey” because it has a significant number of LGBT residents.
“Guess … to those proponents of this bill that I am unfortunately going to disagree with today,” he said. “Sometimes people just disagree with you. Maybe they don’t share your perspective, maybe they don’t share your values, maybe they just disagree with you.”
One senator who spoke in favor of the marriage bill and gave a particularly well-received speech among advocates was State Sen. Nia Gill. A black woman, Gill compared to lack of marriage rights for gay couples to previous laws forbidding interracial marriage and suffrage for women.
“This body cannot advocate its responsibility,” she said. “Once we have taken state action, that state action must be constitutional in its protection.”
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.”
National
HIV/AIDS group NMAC is ‘destabilized’ and in financial crisis: sources
Organization disputes allegations of mismanagement by new CEO
A statement sent to the Washington Blade by an anonymous source claiming to be a current staff member at NMAC, formerly known as the National Minority AIDS Council, alleges that the prominent HIV/AIDS advocacy organization is facing “a rapid and systemic collapse of leadership, governance, and ethical standards.”
The three-page detailed statement sent on April 4 by someone identifying himself only as “John Doe” includes multiple specific allegations that NMAC CEO Harold Phillips, who began his position in October 2025, “has destabilized the organization at every level,” including hiring nine new high-level appointees with salaries of $220,000 each who are performing “duplicative and unjustifiable roles.”
The Blade was able to corroborate some of the allegations by talking to two other knowledgable sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. Those sources said they had received the John Doe statement and believed many, if not most, of its allegations were accurate.
With a total staff of about 30 to 35 employees, the John Doe statement claims the high salaries of the nine new staff members have added to financial problems NMAC has been facing in recent years. It says that at least two NMAC staffers who raised concerns about Phillips’s actions were terminated on grounds of insubordination.
One of the two anonymous sources who spoke to the Blade said one of the dismissed staff members was considering filing a lawsuit against NMAC in response to the firing.
“An external firm was recently brought in to assess the organizational health,” the John Doe statement to the Blade says. “The findings were staggering — more than 50% of staff reported they are actively seeking employment elsewhere,” it says.
The Blade sent the John Doe statement to NMAC this week and asked for a response to the allegations.
NMAC spokesperson Jennifer Moore Phillips, who serves as chief strategy officer and who is not related to Harold Phillips, sent the Blade a short statement calling the John Doe allegations “false and purposefully misleading,” but which did not comment on each of the specific allegations.
“A recent anonymous letter containing unfounded allegations about NMAC makes claims that are simply false and purposefully misleading,” the NMAC statement says. “Evidenced by our new strategic plan and recent successful Biomedical HIV Prevention Summit in Chicago, NMAC’s new leadership is laser focused on delivering on our mission serving the HIV community with renewed energy and vision,” the statement concludes.
The Biomedical HIV Prevention Summit referred to in the statement, which took place in Chicago April 8-10 of this year, is one of the two largest HIV/AIDS related conferences that NMAC organizes each year. Jennifer Phillips said more than 1,400 people attended the event.
The largest NMAC event, the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS, the most recent of which was held in D.C. Sept. 4-7, drew more than 2,400 participants and was hailed by AIDS activists as a highly successful gathering of a diverse group of experts seeking to push for the end to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
One of the keynote speakers at that conference was Paul Kawata, who served as executive director and CEO of NMAC for 36 years and who delivered his farewell address at the conference following the announcement that he would retire on Oct. 7, 2025.
Many of the conference speakers praised Kawata, who became NMAC’s leader two years after its founding in 1987, as the leading force behind its growth and evolution into one of the nation’s leading HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations with a special outreach to people of color.
It was at that time that Harold Phillips, who served as director of the White House Office of AIDS Policy under then-President Joe Biden and who later joined NMAC as deputy director before the NMAC board named him Kawata’s successor as CEO, emerged as NMAC’s next leader.
“The Board has exuberantly elected Harold Phillips as our new CEO,” said Lance Toma, chair of the NMAC Board of Directors at the time Phillips’s appointment was announced. “In this unprecedented moment, there is no one more strategically positioned and experienced to lead our movement through what we know will be some of the most tumultuous and complicated times ahead,” the statement said.
The John Doe statement raising questions about Phillips’s actions and leadership says NMAC staff members formally appealed to the board of directors to intervene.
“The Board has remained silent, while Harold arrogantly told the staff that ‘the board has my back,’” the statement says.
The Blade has also attempted to reach out to Kawata by email for comment on how he feels NMAC is doing six months after his retirement. As of April 14, Kawata had not responded to the Blade’s inquiry.
According to the John Doe statement, NMAC officials have recently “sought external financial rescue,” including a visit by an NMAC official to California to request assistance from the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences. “Without such intervention, layoffs seem imminent,” the statement says.
“This is not a functioning nonprofit,” the John Doe statement concludes. “It is an organization in crisis – bleeding resources, hemorrhaging staff, and operating without transparency, accountability, or governance,” it says, adding, “The communities NMAC serves, the donors who fund its mission, and the public at large deserve to know what is happening behind closed doors.”
By contrast, the NMAC website describes the organization as a highly functioning nonprofit continuing to lead the fight against HIV/AIDS.
“Launched in 1987 during the early years of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the United States, NMAC is a national HIV organization that offers capacity building, leadership development, policy education, and public engagement to end the HIV epidemic among communities most impacted in the United States,” a statement on the NMAC website says.
“In 2026, we mark 45 years of the HIV movement,” the statement adds. “NMAC continues to pivot to center the needs of people of color impacted by HIV by responding to political challenges that threaten federal funding and programs that have provided an essential survival safety net,” it says. “Simultaneously, as HIV treatment allows people to age with HIV, our whole-person approach extends to achieving optimal quality of life beyond attaining viral suppression.”
In its most recent action, NMAC issued a detailed press release on April 14 criticizing President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2027 budget provisions that call for cutting more than $1.5 billion in HIV prevention, substance use, housing and other programs. The release provides details on how the cuts would negatively impact important HIV prevention programs and urges Congress to reject the proposed cuts.
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
Charlie Kirk Act advances in Tenn.
Belarusian president signs bill to allow LGBTQ rights crackdown
‘The Pitt’ stars discuss what season two gets right about queer representation
My family voted for Trump and I cut off contact
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Viktor Orbán ousted in Hungarian elections
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
