Living

Tough questioning for Gallagher at marriage hearing

Democratic lawmakers hammer anti-gay activist

Published

15 years ago

April 18, 2011

Chris Johnson

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.

Up Next

Boehner: Cut DOJ funds to pay for House DOMA defense

Don't Miss

Another shot for UAFA in House, Senate

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

Advice

My family voted for Trump and I cut off contact

Now my father is ill and I don’t know what to do

Published

2 days ago

April 16, 2026

Michael Radkowsky

How should you react when family members support Trump? (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Dear Michael,

I stopped talking to my family last year because they all voted for Trump. It’s not like they didn’t know whom they were voting for — they’d already had four years of seeing him in action.

I decided that I couldn’t remain in contact with people whom I felt wanted to take away my rights as a gay man. That is what they essentially did by voting for Trump.

They had come to my wedding in 2012, they had welcomed my husband and me into their homes for the holidays for our entire relationship, so I couldn’t believe how little they actually cared about me and my community. I was profoundly hurt.

They’ve reached out but I have been too angry at their hypocrisy to engage in more than a perfunctory way. I miss them, sure, but as I’ve watched our community be attacked, I just get so angry that I don’t want to talk. I certainly don’t want to hear them justify bigotry and hatred.

Now one of my siblings has reached out to let me know that my father’s health is rapidly declining. I’m wondering if I should rethink my decision and reach out to him, maybe even visit, before he dies.

But then I think of ICE’s attack on our country and the removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall and I don’t want to talk to people who support what is happening to vulnerable, marginalized people and the LGBTQ community.

My father was a good father to me. Even when I first came out to him, he was loving and supportive. I can’t square his behavior personally toward me with his support of this regime. The hypocrisy makes me so angry. How could he purport to love me and then vote against my freedoms?

I would love some suggestions about how to square my two opposing viewpoints.

Michael replies:

Many years ago, a great mentor taught me that the one thing you can count on in a relationship is learning to tolerate disappointment: Both being a disappointment, and being disappointed in the other person. This is true for love relationships and it’s also true for other significant relationships. All of us are different in some major ways and so we are bound at times to disappoint our loved ones in major ways, and to be disappointed by them in major ways.

That is why I’m not a fan of purity tests. To expect that someone must think like you (much less vote like you) in order for you to have a relationship with them is unrealistic, impractical, and sometimes damaging.

Of course, a person may hold some beliefs that give you reason not to want to have any connection to them. But is that the case here?

From your description, your family has always been loving and supportive of you as a gay man. That is no small thing. They seem to care about you enough to have continued to reach out, even though you have stopped talking to them.

Perhaps they had some other reasons for voting as they did, other than to roll back LGBTQ rights and to attack immigrants.

Instead of wondering how they could be so hypocritical, how about talking with them and striving to understand their choices? I don’t know what they will say, and you may hear different answers from your various family members. But at least you will get some clarity, rather than presuming that they made their voting choices from a place of malice. Then you will be in a better position to decide if you want a relationship going forward.

Another point to consider: Very few things are set in stone. Even if your family made their voting choices based on holding positions that you neither like nor respect, they may be open to shifting their views over time. One way to perhaps influence their thinking is by engaging with them, sharing your thoughts, and asking them to consider the possible consequences of their actions. If you choose to re-engage with them, two points to consider:

First, don’t expect that you will change their minds. You can advocate for what you want, but you have to let go of the results.

Second, they are more likely to consider your points if you do not approach them from a judgmental, self-righteous stance.

Many years ago, when I was newly a vegetarian, I was eager to challenge and “educate” friends who weren’t following my dietary ideas. Guess what? It didn’t work. Then I got some great advice: A great way to influence others to consider eating fewer animals was to serve them delicious vegetarian food.

The same point is true here. We can’t beat people over the head to agree with us. But if we approach them with some kindness, rather than with the certainty that we hold the moral high ground, we may help them see a bigger picture.

And sometimes, we too may see a bigger picture.

Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. 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].

Real Estate

How to navigate shifting tenant expectations

Remote work driving many changes

Published

5 days ago

April 12, 2026

Scott Bloom

D.C., is one of the top 10 U.S. cities where remote work is most popular. (Photo by dolgachov/Bigstock)

Are you prepared to meet the changing expectations of tenants? Tenant priorities are continuously shifting. As professional property managers, my team has witnessed firsthand the evolving demands of tenants over the last few years.

Frankly, today’s D.C. residents have high standards. Many have shifted to remote work, and they are placing a growing emphasis on sustainability. And these expectations are poised to evolve even further, with factors like affordability, technology integration, and community-driven amenities taking center stage.

Understanding these changes and adapting your rental to meet the growing demands of tenants and their evolving preferences will not only help you attract high-quality residents but also settle into long-term success in a competitive market. Let’s look at key tenant trends for 2026 in Washington, D.C. by providing practical strategies that help owners and investors navigate this shifting landscape, ensuring your property remains desirable and profitable in an increasingly growing rental market.

According to Buildium’s 2025 Industry Report, tenant retention is rising, and that’s due to a number of factors. It’s expensive to move, so if residents are enjoying a peaceful and pleasant rental experience and they appreciate where they live, it’s unlikely they will spend more money to live somewhere else.

The “2026 State of the Property Management Industry Report” also noted the rise of “Resident Benefit Packages,” which has contributed to retaining good residents. When landlords and property managers offer benefits such as protection against late payment fees, online conveniences, credit monitoring, air filter drop shipments, preventative maintenance services, and even concierge amenities, they increase tenant satisfaction and retention.

By investing in resident benefits, you can increase the likelihood of keeping your tenants satisfied. They’re more likely to renew their lease agreements and contribute to the care and upkeep of their home.

Provide smart home tech

According to data gathered by Nasdaq, Washington, D.C., is one of the top 10 U.S. cities where remote work is most popular, with more than one-third of the population working from home at least part of the time. Even with the federal government calling many people back into the office over the last year, remote work continues to be normalized. Tenants are working and studying from home, and they need their home to support that lifestyle shift.

They’re looking for technology, and that factor provides you the opportunity for you to attract remote workers as residents. While smart home technology was once a fairly niche amenity, it’s now becoming the standard. It’s an expectation of most tenants in Washington, D.C., that at the very least they’ll be able to:

Connect to fast Wi-Fi at their home
Enjoy online rental payment platforms that are secure and convenient.
Make routine maintenance requests through resident portals

It was also recommended considering installing keyless entry systems, offering upgraded security such as video doorbells, investing in smart thermostats, and making it as easy as possible for tenants to integrate their own digital platforms and apps into their home life, whether that’s Alexa or Siri or their own personal AI-driven digital assistant.

Community-Driven Amenities in Washington, D.C., Rentals

Are you renting out units in a multi-family building or an apartment? Washington, D.C., tenants are focused on community and social connection, and so the demand for community-driven amenities is on the rise.

In 2026, renters are looking beyond traditional features like gyms or pools, seeking spaces that allow for interaction, well-being, and a sense of belonging. Co-working spaces, communal kitchens, and rooftop gardens are now more popular in buildings that are working to attract tenants who prioritize shared experiences. A recent report from Ronco Construction reports that these are the emerging trends in multi-family housing amenities:

Rooftop decks
Outdoor lounges
Community gardens
Fitness studios
Dog parks and pet spas
Co-working space

Know your tenant pool

If you rent out single-family homes, you’re dealing with tenants who prefer privacy and space. In those multi-family buildings and condo communities, however, tenants are likely looking for opportunities to connect with their neighbors and make friends. We have seen tenants drawn to properties that offer event programming, such as fitness classes, happy hours, or cultural gatherings, helping create a sense of community in a neighborhood atmosphere.

As an owner, investing in these types of amenities can increase tenant satisfaction, encourage long-term leases, and set your property apart in a competitive market where residents crave more than just a place to live, but also a place to connect.

‘Green Renting’ in D.C.

Tenants want to save money on energy and utilities. Most of them would also rather do whatever they can to be more conscious of their effect on the planet. The city of Washington, D.C., actively encourages this. According to Building Innovation Hub, Washington, D.C., wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2032. More efficient building standards and energy incentives are making that possible.

Rental property owners can meet tenant expectations around sustainable living and environmental-friendly features by providing LED lighting, energy-efficient appliances, low-flow plumbing fixtures, and modern programs for managing waste and recycling.

Every tenant in Washington, D.C., is different of course, but there are common expectations that come with residents when they’re looking for a new home. Those highlighted here are even more important to tenants in 2026.

Find out how to make your Washington, D.C., rental property more competitive on the market. Engage a professional property manager for the advice you need.

Scott Bloom is owner and senior property manager of Columbia Property Management.

Real Estate

Surviving spring cleaning

Create a space that feels comfortable, welcoming, and easy to maintain

Published

2 weeks ago

April 4, 2026

Valerie Blake

It’s that time of year: spring cleaning!

Whether or not you are getting ready to sell your home, spring is finally upon us — you know, the time of year when you can open the windows to a warm breeze and commit to decluttering and thoroughly cleaning your home.

While decluttering, you will be faced with the challenge of what to keep and what to discard. Mysterious items may appear: the missing charger, the set of keys that open nothing, or, with any luck, that one important document you know you put “in a safe place.” The journey often turns into an archaeological dig through the layers of your daily life. Along the way, you will likely encounter objects that have been misplaced or are no longer needed, and you’ll wonder why you kept them in the first place.

The kitchen junk drawer, for example, is a universal catch-all that defies categorization. You might open it looking for a rubber band and instead discover a lone screw of unknown origin, a tube of hardened Super Glue, and at least four pens that no longer work.

Closets offer another layer of surprises, where you can find things that don’t seem to belong at all: cash in a coat pocket, a single glove, a book you meant to read, or a box filled with cables for devices you no longer own.

It’s guaranteed that if you only have one of a pair of something, its mate will appear shortly after you have thrown away the one you had. And, if you were intentionally searching for an item, it will turn up in the last place you look, simply because once you found it, you stopped looking.

Linen closets and bathroom cabinets can also harbor oddities. Now is the time to discard half-used or duplicate products you don’t remember buying, travel-sized toiletries from trips long past, or expired medications.

Under furniture is where things get truly mysterious. Reaching beneath a couch or bed in search of a dropped item often yields a collection of the unexpected: assorted coins, dust-covered pet toys, a missing sock, and perhaps something that makes you pause, like a long-lost piece of jewelry or an object you were convinced had disappeared forever.

Organizing garages and basements takes the experience to another level, where consolidating tools or seasonal decorations stored there can quickly turn into an encounter with objects that defy explanation. Why is there a box of tiles from a renovation that happened a decade ago? Do you really need the instruction manuals for appliances you no longer own? What could possibly be in the box that hasn’t been opened since you moved in?

Even searches within a home office – looking through files, drawers of old electronics, or stacks of paperwork—can yield similarly strange results. I recently found several flash drives with client files from 2014, a cache of notebooks containing names and phone numbers of prospects who left the area 15 years ago, and Turbo Tax installation CDs from as far back as 1997.

If decluttering hasn’t defeated you, then thoroughly cleaning your house may not be as overwhelming as you might think. Breaking it into manageable steps makes the process far simpler and even satisfying. A consistent method is the key to success.

Before you reach for cleaning supplies, take one last walk through each room and gather items that belong elsewhere for return to their proper place. Put away clothing and take out trash. This step instantly makes your home look better and clears the way for more effective cleaning. Working from top to bottom, dust ceiling fans, light fixtures, shelves, and blinds first so that any debris falls to the floor for addressing later. Use a microfiber cloth or handheld Swiffer to trap dust rather than spreading it around. Don’t forget overlooked areas like the tops of door frames, windowsills, and baseboards.

Move on to surfaces. Wipe down countertops and furniture with appropriate cleaners. Squeegee windows to let the sun shine in. Pay special attention to kitchen appliances. Stovetops, microwaves, and refrigerator handles tend to collect grime quickly, as do the tops of upper cabinets. In bathrooms, disinfect sinks, toilets, tubs, and showers.

Lastly, vacuum carpets, rugs, draperies, and upholstered surfaces thoroughly, including along edges and under furniture where dust accumulates. For hard floors, sweep first, then mop using a cleaner suitable for the surface type. This final step pulls the whole cleaning effort together and leaves your home feeling and smelling fresh.

Ultimately, cleaning your house doesn’t have to be a daunting chore. With a clear plan and a little consistency, you can create a space that feels comfortable, welcoming, and easy to maintain – at least until this time next year.

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.