Living
Tough questioning for Gallagher at marriage hearing
Democratic lawmakers hammer anti-gay activist
Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Democratic lawmakers on Friday hammered anti-gay activist Maggie Gallagher during a congressional hearing with questions on why same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage and the extent to which the National Organization for Marriage participated in campaigns to rescind state marriage laws.
In testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Gallagher, NOM’s chair and co-founder, said marriage should restricted to one man and one woman because such unions are the only kind that can produce children and because state voters by referenda have affirmed 31 times that marriage shouldn’t be extended to gay couples.
“Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that create new life and connect those children in love to their mother and father,” Gallagher said. “This is not necessarily the reason why individuals marry; this is the great reason, the public reason why government gets involved in the first place.”
The hearing, which was titled “Defending Marriage,” took place on the heels of President Obama’s announcement on Feb. 23 that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that his administration would no longer defend the anti-gay law against litigation in court. Following a 3-2 party-line vote in March by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Council, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) directed the House general counsel to take up defense of DOMA in place of the administration.
Gallagher said the need to raise children by married parents of opposite genders affirms the rationale for having in place DOMA, the 1996 law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage, and criticized the Justice Department for dropping defense of the law.
“This is the rationale for the national definition of marriage proposed by Congress in passing DOMA: ‘civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing,'” Gallagher said. “If we accept, as DOMA explicitly does, that this is a core public purpose of marriage, then treating same-sex unions as marriage makes little sense.”
Following her opening statement, Gallagher bore the brunt of tough questioning from Democratic lawmakers during the question-and-answer session of the hearing.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, asked Gallagher if the children of Jen and Dawn BarbouRouske, a married same-sex couple from Iowa who were present during the hearing, should have parents who can receive the full protections of marriage or if she considers these children “expendable.”
“I think no children are expendable,” Gallagher replied. “Gay people have families that are not marital families, but they are families. I myself was an unwed mother, so I have firsthand experience with being in a family that’s not a marital family. I don’t think you need to have a message of stigmatization and exclusion to protect to an ideal.”
Nadler, sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation in the House, interrupted Gallagher, saying “the whole point” of DOMA is stigmatization and exclusion, and pressed Gallagher further on why the institution of marriage benefits when same-sex couples are excluded.
“Because including same-sex unions as marriages denies at a public level that marriage is about an important way for getting together mothers and fathers and children,” Gallagher said.
Nadler continued to question Gallagher on NOM’s involvement in 2010 Iowa campaign that successfully ousted three justices from the state Supreme Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The lawmaker asked Gallagher, who estimated that NOM contributed between $600,000 and $650,000 to the campaign, why she would criticize the Justice Department for allegedly making a political decision while her organization politicized the judicial process.
“The National Organization of Marriage is political advocacy organization, and so I think it’s appropriate for us to be politically involved in ways that Department of Justice is not,” Gallagher replied.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a co-sponsor of the DOMA repeal bill, asked Gallagher whether reports were true that her organization contributed $1.9 million to the 2009 campaign in Maine to abrogate the states’s same-sex marriage law. Opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in nullifying the marriage law in the state before gay couples could marry there.
“I don’t have those figures in front of me, but we were involved in the [effort],” Gallagher said. “But that’s probably on the order [of our contributions].”
NOM has repeatedly come under fire for failing to disclose their donors during the campaign against the Maine marriage law. State courts have ordered the organization to reveal their donors in accordance with the law, but NOM has yet to do so.
Following the hearing, Dan Fotou, eastern regional field director for GetEQUAL, praised Democratic lawmakers for hammering Gallagher with tough questions after her testimony.
“I think it was good to hear the Democrats standing up and challenging Maggie Gallagher’s position,” Fotou said. “Fifty-two percent of Americans think that marriage equality is OK, so I think today was good in terms of putting a face on hate once again, and Maggie does a really great job of that.”
Democratic lawmakers’ criticisms during the hearing weren’t limited to Gallagher. Conyers questioned Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), chair of the subcommittee, why no witnesses from the Justice Department were present to defend Obama’s decision to drop defense of DOMA.
“What bothers me about this hearing at this subcommittee is that the Department of Justice is not present,” Conyers said. “I was informed that they were not invited. … We have one of the leaders of the country, Ms. Gallagher, who’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars against judges … but there’s nobody here from the Justice Department.”
In response, Franks said the Justice Department would be invited to come during an upcoming hearing in May before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee on the DOMA decision. Upon further questioning, Franks maintained the panel was fair because its makeup included witnesses on both sides of the issue.
But Franks’ response apparently didn’t allay the concerns of Conyers, who said he hopes Congress can hear the Justice Department to respond to the criticisms of Gallagher.
“There’s a political tone in this hearing that I want to diminish as much as possible,” Conyers said. “The fact of the matter is this is not in regular order and I do not approve the way that we’re starting out this subcommittee [hearing].”
Despite the general tone in favor of DOMA during the hearing, several panel members known for having anti-gay views — including Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who’s railed against same-sex marriage in home state, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who’s leading the effort to eliminate gay nuptials in D.C. — didn’t make an appearance. Neither the office for King nor Jordan responded to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on why the lawmakers didn’t attend the hearing.
Ian Thompson, who’s gay and legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the lack of presence by anti-gay lawmakers was telling that the they were uncomfortable with their positions.
“The thing that was particularly striking to me was the fact that so few DOMA supporters on the committee actually were in attendance,” Thompson said. “So, from my perspective, if the hearing was intended to demonstrate the support of the House of Representatives for DOMA, from the attendance alone, it was a complete and total flop.”
Rep. Trent Franks (Blade photo by Michael Key)
But a few anti-gay Republicans did make an appearance to rebuke the notion of extending marriage rights to gay couples and to criticize the Justice Department for dropping defense of DOMA.
Franks called Obama’s decision to discontinue defense of the anti-gay law an “edict” that “failed to show the caution and respect for Congress and the courts.”
“When the President unilaterally declares a duly enacted law unconstitutional, he cuts Congress and the American people out of the lawmaking process,” Franks said. “Such heavy-handed presidential action undermines the separation of powers and the principle that America is a constitutional republic predicated on the rule of law.”
Franks continued that the arguments in favor of DOMA are “reasonable and right” because marriage between one man and one woman is the best union for raising children.
“Traditional marriage has proven to be the most successful institution in humanity’s history for the propagation and preparation of the next generation,” Franks said. “The traditional family has proven to be the best department of welfare, the best department of education, the best department of crime prevention, and the best department of economic security that there has ever been.”
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a lawmaker known for anti-gay views, also made an appearance at the hearing and railed against what he called the government altering the definition of marriage. Smith, chair of the full House Judiciary Committee, offered an opening statement during the hearing even though he’s not a member of the subcommittee.
“If we tamper with the definition of marriage, harmful unintended consequences could follow,” Smith said. “The ability of religious institutions to define marriage for themselves to promote their sincerely held beliefs could be threatened.”
Smith said the will the people is for continued definition of marriage between one man and one woman — noting the 31 successful ballot initiatives that restricted marriage to such unions — and said the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide protections for same-sex couples seeking to marry.
“No one can seriously believe that the Constitution’s founders intended to create a right to same-sex marriage,” Smith said. “By refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act against legal challenges, the administration has allowed the courts to overrule that popular law.”
Franks and Smith’s opening statements were countered by initial remarks from Nadler, who called arguments that Justice Department acted inappropriately by dropping defense of DOMA a “red herring” and said the real question should be whether anyone — either the Obama administration or Congress — should defend the law.
“Far from demeaning, trivializing or destroying the institution of marriage, [gay] couples have embraced this time-honored tradition and the commitment and serious legal duties of marriage,” Nadler said. “Rather than defending DOMA in court, Congress should be working to repeal it.”
Two legal experts on the panel presented opposing views on whether the administration acted within bounds in its decision to discontinue defense of DOMA in court.
Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, said the Justice Department’s decision is in violation of its policy.
“The Obama administration’s decision to abandon defense of DOMA — or more precisely, to abandon its charade of pretending to defend DOMA — departs sharply from the Department of Justice’s long-standing practice,” Whelan said.
Whelan said Obama dropped defense of the anti-gay law to appease a political constituency and to induce the courts to “invent the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
“With the exception of laws that intrude on the executive branch’s power, the long-standing practice of the Department of Justice is to vigorously defend the constitutionality of any law where a reasonable may be made,” Whelan said. “This ‘reasonable standard’ is a very low bar. It basically means that the Department of Justice will defend a federal law against constitutional challenge when it can offer non-frivolous grounds in support of the law.”
Carlos Ball, a gay law professor at Rutgers Law School (Blade photo by Michael Key)
But Carlos Ball, a gay law professor from Rutgers Law School, testified that Obama acted within his authority because another statute exists saying that the attorney general must inform Congress if the administration decides to no longer defend a law.
“The existence of that statute seems to be a recognition by the Congress of the reality that the executive branch sometimes, in rare cases, can not defend the constitutionality of a law,” Ball said. “The executive branch, as a co-equal branch of government, has the authority and obligation to make independent assessment’s regarding a law’s constitutionality.”
Ball noted precedent for an administration declaring an existing law unconstitutional and dropping defense of the statute in court — the 1990 case of Metro Broadcasting v. FCC. Then-acting U.S. Solicitor General John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, argued that a law providing for minority preferences in broadcast licensing was unconstitutional. Despite the position of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court later upheld the law.
Advice
How to cope when a partner gives you the silent treatment
Punishing behavior brings up memories of parent’s mistreatment
Michael,
My wife and I met less than two years ago and we were crazy about each other from the start. We wanted to spend life together so we just went for it. Maybe this wasn’t the most well-thought out decision on either of our parts but we thought that love conquers all.
But lately we’ve been arguing. The stuff we’re fighting about is never such a big deal: chores, or spending, or wanting to do different things on the weekend. But when I don’t want to go along with Michelle’s point of view, she gets angry and shuts down. Sometimes she stops talking to me for as long as a few days.
This is painful for me. My mom used to pull this stunt when I was a kid and she was mad at me. She also cut me off when I came out. We’re still estranged.
Michelle has a whole different take on this. She says I am being “mean” to her (when I don’t go along with what she wants) and this is painful, and she has to “take a break” to cool off.
I know she comes from a volatile family. She has told me there was a lot of screaming in her house, and she barely has a relationship with her parents as a result. So I get that she’s sensitive to conflict.
But I don’t think I’m being mean to her by standing up for what I want — certainly not enough to warrant her giving me the silent treatment.
We got married to have a great life together. We often do but I can’t live with someone who just shuts me out when she’s annoyed with me.
If I became a doormat and went along with everything she wants and never pushed back or complained, maybe she wouldn’t shut down. But I don’t want to do that.
I’d appreciate some ideas to improve the situation. I don’t want a divorce but I also don’t want to keep being mistreated.
Michael replies:
You can think of marriage — or any serious relationship — as a gym where you have ongoing opportunities to become an increasingly resilient person in the face of the ongoing challenges that an intimate relationship poses.
Your task here is to shift your focus toward figuring out how to handle yourself well, even in the awful circumstance of getting the silent treatment.
Michelle is not under an obligation to behave as you’d like her to. You can certainly ask her to stop withdrawing when she’s angry at you. But that doesn’t mean she is going to honor your request.
I well understand that Michelle’s punishing behavior is bringing up painful memories of your mother’s mistreatment. But if she doesn’t change her behavior, you have to find a way to live with Michelle as she is, with as much equanimity as you can muster, for as long as you choose to be married to her. If she does not change and you find her behavior to be unbearable, you can leave.
Every time she shuts down, Michelle is handing you an opportunity to figure out how you, yourself, can deal with feeling hurt and let down, rather than depending on someone else to behave as you’d like her to, or not upset you, or soothe you. Being in charge of your own mood rather than letting someone else press your buttons is a great skill to get better at.
I’m not going focus on what techniques you might use to soothe yourself — that’s a different column (or even better, a number of therapy sessions). That said, knowing that Michelle’s behavior comes from her history might help you to take it less personally. And, simply keeping in mind that living with a difficult spouse is unavoidable and worth getting better at may help you to quiet yourself down.
Another challenge that your marriage is pushing you to work on: Discerning when you can be generous, and when it is important to have a boundary. Of course, I understand that you don’t want to be a doormat by going along with whatever Michelle says and wants. But is it possible that she has a point, in that you could stand to lean more in her direction?
None of us get to have everything the way we want when we are in a relationship (much less in life). Figuring out the interplay between generosity and boundary is complicated. It often involves considering what is important to your partner; and deriving joy from her getting some of what is important to her, not only from your getting what you would like. And of course, it also involves figuring out what is most important to you.
If you set a boundary thoughtfully, because something is important to you, and Michelle doesn’t like it, you’re being handed an opportunity to get better at tolerating disappointment. Being a disappointment to your partner, and being disappointed in your partner, are both unavoidable parts of marriage: We’re all different, and at times will make choices that the other person really does not like.
If we make our decisions from a place of integrity rather than whim, entitlement, anger, or “whose turn it is”, and strive to honor the choices that our partners make from a place of integrity, this often makes the disappointment easier to bear.
Of course, it would be great if Michelle would join you in working to become a more solid and resilient spouse. As I mentioned earlier, you can’t persuade her to do so. But you can certainly tell Michelle what you are working on and ask her to consider how she, too, might use your relationship difficulties as a challenge to grow.
It isn’t easy to have such a conversation without sounding condescending. You are better positioned to do so when you are walking the walk, not just talking the talk. One good rule of thumb is to put you and your partner in the same boat, making it clear that you see the two of you as facing the same challenges, rather than positioning yourself in a superior position. Another is to initiate the conversation when you are both calm, rather than in the middle of a fight or when you’re getting the silent treatment.
One more point: If Michelle is willing, I’d suggest that you propose couples therapy as an opportunity for you two to collaborate on building a consistently loving relationship where neither of you lets your reactivity run the show.
Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].
Electric-vehicle tax credits may have faded earlier this year, but EVs themselves are far from losing their spark. There are more charging stations than ever, battery ranges are longer and more realistic, and automakers have finally figured out that EVs don’t all need to look like geeky science projects or feel like failed beta tests.
Just look at these two compact electrics, which are futuristic, fun and flexible enough for work or play.
HYUNDAI IONIQ 5
$37,000 to $48,000
Range: 245 to 318 miles
0 to 60 mph: 4.5 to 7.4 seconds
Cargo space: 26.3 cu. ft.
PROS: Fast charging. Roomy cabin. Silky-smooth suspension.
CONS: Wide turning radius. Rear wiper not on all trims. Price creep.
After being introduced three years ago, what’s new for the latest Hyundai Ioniq 5? Mostly refinement. Charging is quicker, software is smarter and Hyundai continues to quietly listen to feedback, tweaking ride comfort and usability. Think of it as switching from messy eyeliner to a perfectly sharp wing.
Exterior styling remains one of this EV’s biggest conversation starters. Those pixel-inspired lights, crisp lines and slick hatchback-meets-crossover proportions exude refreshing confidence. There’s no trying to blend in, and that’s the point. Park this Hyundai anywhere and heads will turn.
On the road, the Ioniq 5 prioritizes calm over chaos. Steering is light, the suspension smooths out rough pavement and acceleration feels brisk without being aggressive. Safety tech is plentiful and well-calibrated—adaptive cruise control, lane-centering, blind-spot monitoring—all working together without seeming like a nervous backseat driver. IOW, this ride is supportive, not clingy.
Inside, the user-friendly cabin shines. The flat floor and long wheelbase create a lounge-like atmosphere, with excellent legroom and airy visibility. Seats are well-bolstered and available with eco-friendly materials, and the sliding center console adds flexibility. Cargo space is generous, and the wide windshield makes city driving stress-free. Alas, the rear wiper is only available on select models. Overall, though, I appreciated how everything looks modern without feeling cold.
What makes this Hyundai special is its vibe. An EV that embraces individuality without shouting about it.
Fun fact: The Ioniq’s ultra-fast charging can add hundreds of miles in under 20 minutes—perfect for those who hate waiting almost as much as they hate small talk on awkward first dates.
VOLKSWAGEN ID.4
$46,000 to $59,130
Range: 206 to 291 miles
0 to 60 mph: 4.4 to 7.7 seconds
Cargo space: 30.3 cu. ft.
PROS: Sure handling. Decent range. Good storage.
CONS: Body roll in curves. Fussy infotainment. No frunk.
The latest VW ID.4 focuses on polish. Software updates have fixed earlier frustrations, and overall drivability feels more cohesive. Less “learning curve” and more “hop in and go,” like a dependable bestie who doesn’t overthink things.
Styling-wise, this EV is intentionally inoffensive. Soft curves, friendly lighting and a familiar crossover shape make it approachable. While the ID.4 won’t turn heads like the Ioniq 5, that’s OK. It’s more akin to a classic outfit that always works—timeless, not trendy.
Driving the ID.4 is relaxed and predictable. This SUV prioritizes comfort over thrills, with a suspension tuned for daily commuting and long highway drives. Safety features are comprehensive and reassuring, including excellent lane assistance and collision-prevention systems. It’s the kind of car that quietly has your back, no drama required.
Inside, the ID.4 offers a calm, uncluttered cabin with good space for passengers and cargo alike. Rear-seat legroom is especially strong, making it a solid road-trip companion. The seats are plush, visibility is good and while the infotainment system isn’t the most intuitive, it’s improved enough to be more than tolerable.
The ID.4’s special sauce is balance. It doesn’t try to reinvent the wheel—it just electrifies it.
Fun fact: This is one of the most globally popular EVs, proving that sometimes being universally liked is a strength, not a personality flaw. Think, gold star gay who still surprises you.
Real Estate
Child- and pet-proofing your home for the holidays
It isn’t about being perfect but about being prepared
The holidays are meant to be joyful, cozy, and full of laughter — but if you have young children or pets, they can also feel a little chaotic. Twinkling lights, shiny decorations, guests coming and going, and tables full of tempting food can turn your home into a wonderland of curiosity and mischief. The good news? With a little thoughtful planning, you can keep the holiday magic alive while making your home safer for everyone who lives there.
There’s something oddly comforting about movies where animals go to war with holiday decorations, turning carefully strung lights and perfectly placed ornaments into chaos. Whether it’s a mischievous dog tangled in tinsel or a curious cat launching a full-scale assault on a Christmas tree, these scenes tap into a universal experience for pet owners.
The humor comes from the contrast: the human characters are trying to create warmth, tradition, and picture-perfect cheer, while the animals see the decorations as toys, obstacles, or personal enemies. The resulting destruction — trees tipping over, ornaments shattering, lights blinking out—feels exaggerated but relatable, especially during the already hectic holiday season.
Let’s start with decorations because they tend to be the biggest attraction. Ornaments sparkle, garlands dangle, and everything seems designed to be touched, pulled, or tasted. If you have little ones or pets, consider placing your most fragile ornaments higher on the tree and using shatterproof options on the lower branches. Tinsel and ribbon may look festive, but they can be dangerous if swallowed, so skipping them or keeping them well out of reach is a simple way to reduce risk without sacrificing style.
Holiday lights are another favorite fascination. Before hanging them, take a few minutes to inspect each strand for frayed wires or broken bulbs. Secure cords along walls or behind furniture so they’re harder to grab or chew and unplug them when you leave the house or head to bed. Not only does this help prevent accidents, but it also gives you one less thing to worry about during a busy season.
The Christmas tree itself can become a focal point for exploration. Make sure it’s sturdy and well-anchored so it doesn’t tip if a toddler tugs on a branch or a pet decides to investigate. If you use a real tree, cover the water base since tree water can contain additives that aren’t safe if consumed. For artificial trees, keep an eye out for loose pieces or needles that could become choking hazards.
Food is a big part of holiday celebrations, and it’s also one of the most common sources of trouble. Many traditional treats—like chocolate, grapes, raisins, alcohol, and foods containing xylitol—are dangerous for pets. Keep plates and serving dishes up high, secure the trash can, and gently remind guests not to slip pets or kids “just a little bite” without checking first. For children, be mindful of hard candies, nuts, and small treats that could pose choking risks.
Candles and fireplaces add warmth and charm, but they deserve extra caution. Flameless candles are a wonderful alternative if you want ambiance without worry. If you do use real candles, place them well out of reach and never leave them unattended. Fireplaces should always have a sturdy screen or gate, especially with crawling babies or curious pets nearby.
Holiday gatherings bring wonderful energy into your home, but they can also create new challenges. Doors opening frequently make it easier for pets to slip outside, so consider setting up a quiet, comfortable space where they can relax during busy get-togethers. This can help reduce stress for them and give you peace of mind. For children, stair gates, locked cabinets, and clear boundaries can help prevent accidents when there’s extra excitement in the air.
New toys and gifts are another thing to watch closely. Packaging, twist ties, plastic wrap, and especially button batteries should be cleaned up promptly. These items are easy to overlook in the excitement of gift-opening but can be dangerous if swallowed. Taking a few minutes to tidy up as you go can make a big difference.
Lastly, try to keep routines as steady as possible. The holidays naturally disrupt schedules, but familiar mealtimes, naps, walks, and bedtime rituals help children and pets feel secure. A calmer household often means fewer accidents and a happier experience for everyone.
At the end of the day, child- and pet-proofing your home for the holidays isn’t about being perfect but about being prepared. A few small adjustments can help you relax, enjoy your guests, and focus on what truly matters: creating warm, happy memories with the ones you love. When your home feels safe, the holidays feel even sweeter.
Valerie M. Blake is a licensed Associate Broker in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia with RLAH @properties. Call or text her at 202-246-8602, email her at [email protected] or follow her on Facebook at TheRealst8ofAffairs.
How to cope when a partner gives you the silent treatment
Out actor talks lead role in ‘Fiddler on the Roof’
This gay author sees dead people
Holiday week brings setbacks for Trump-Vance trans agenda
Your guide to D.C.’s queer New Year’s Eve parties
Your guide to D.C.’s queer New Year’s Eve parties
Holiday week brings setbacks for Trump-Vance trans agenda
Out actor talks lead role in ‘Fiddler on the Roof’
This gay author sees dead people
