Connect with us

Living

Tough questioning for Gallagher at marriage hearing

Democratic lawmakers hammer anti-gay activist

Published

15 years ago

on

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.

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Autos

Revving up the holidays with auto-themed gifts

Lamps, mugs, headphones, and more for everyone on your list

Published

6 days ago

on

November 23, 2025

By

Here’s how to shift your holidays into high gear.

Bentley Bottle Stopper

Pop your cork—in a good way—with a Bentley bottle stopper ($106), made of zinc alloy with chrome plating and rubber rings. The classy design is inspired by the automaker’s iconic “Flying B” mascot from 1930. 

Subaru Motorsports Counter Stool

Belly up to the bar with the Subaru Motorsports Counter Stool ($175). The 30-inch-tall metal chair—with padded vinyl cover and automaker logo—is lightweight and swivels 360 degrees. 

BMW Luxe Luggage 

You won’t have trouble spotting this chic khaki-green BMW M Boardcase ($307) at airport baggage carousels. The high-performance “M” logo is etched on the durable polycarbonate casing, as well as on the main compartment zipper and all four of the sturdy double wheels. Comes with recycled lining, along with laundry and shoe bags. 

Ford Yoga Gym Bag

The Ford Yoga Gym Bag ($15) has a wide handle and button strap to securely carry a yoga mat, as well as convenient pockets to stow water bottles and shoes. Made of black polyester, with reflective silver Ford logo. (Yoga mat not included.)

Kia Mini Lamp with Speaker/Sound

It doesn’t get much more Zen than a Kia Mini Lamp with Speaker and Sound Machine ($50). Made of bamboo, sturdy plastic and a fabric grill, the tiny wireless lamp has LED lighting with three settings. Pair with your phone to choose from eight soothing sounds: brook noise, bird chirp, forest bird, white bird, ocean wave, rainy day, wind and fireside.  

Lexus Green Pro Set

Practice makes perfect with the Lexus Green Pro Set ($257), a putting mat with “train-track markings” to help improve any golfer’s alignment. Lexus logo on the wood frame with automatic ball return. 

Lamborghini Wireless Headphones

Turn on, tune in, drop out—well, at least at the end of a hectic day—with these Lamborghini Wireless MW75 Headphones by Master & Dynamic ($901). Batteries last up to 32 hours or up to 28 hours in active noise-canceling mode. 

BMW Quatro Slim Travel Tumbler

The BMW Quatro Slim Travel Tumbler ($23) lives up to its name: sleek, smooth and scratch-resistant. Comes with leak-proof lid and non-spill design. 

Ford Vintage Mustang Ceramic Mug

Giddy-up each morning with the Ford Vintage Mustang Ceramic Mug ($29). With cool blue stripes, the 14-ounce mug features a silver handle and iconic pony emblem. 

My First Lamborghini by Clementoni

Proving it’s never too early to drive an exotic car, My First Lamborghini by Clementoni ($62) is for children ages two- to four-years old. Kids can activate the remote-control car by pressing the button on the roof or by using the remote. This Lambo certainly is less expensive than an entry-level Huracan, which starts at $250,000.  

Rolls-Royce Cameo 

For adults looking for their own pint-sized luxury ride, there’s the Rolls-Royce Cameo ($5,500). Touted as a piece of art rather than a toy, this miniature collectible is made from the same solid oak and polished aluminum used in a real Rolls. As with those cars, this one even has self-leveling wheel-center caps (which operate independently of the hubcaps so that the RR logo is always in the upright position). 

Maserati Notebook

For those of us who still love the art of writing, the Maserati MC20 Sketch Note ($11) is an elegant notebook with 48 sheets of high-quality paper. The front and back covers feature stylish sketches of the interior of a Maserati MC20 supercar and the Maserati logo. Comes with saddle-stitched binding using black thread. 

Dodge Demon Dog Collar

If your pooch is more Fluffy-kins and less the guard dog you sometimes need it to be, then there’s the Dodge Demon Seatbelt Buckle Dog Collar ($30). Made of steel and high-density polyester with a tiny seatbelt-buckle clasp, the collar is emblazoned with devilish Dodge Demon logos. 

Continue Reading

Real Estate

In real estate, it’s déjà vu all over again

1970s and ‘80s volatility led to creative financing options

Published

6 days ago

on

November 23, 2025

By

In the 1970s and ‘80s, sellers used creative mortgage options to entice buyers. Some of those trends are appearing again now.

In the 1970s and 1980s, mortgage interest rates climbed into the double digits and peaked above 18%. With rates like that, you needed more than a steady job and a down payment to buy a home — you needed creative financing ideas. 

Today’s market challenges may look different, but the response has been surprisingly familiar: unusual financing methods are making a comeback, along with some new ones that didn’t exist decades ago. Here is a brief overview of the most popular tools from that era. 

Assumable Mortgages were available with FHA, VA, and USDA loans and, until 1982, even Conventional mortgages. They allowed a buyer to take over the seller’s existing mortgage, including its interest rate, rather than getting a brand-new loan, while compensating the seller for the difference between the assumed loan balance and the contract price.

Often, a seller played a substantial role in a purchase. With Seller Financing (Owner Carry) the seller became the bank, letting the buyer make payments directly to them instead of to a traditional lender.

One variation on Seller Financing was the Land Contract. The seller was still the lender, but the buyer made loan payments to the seller, who then paid his own mortgage and pocketed the difference. The buyer would receive equitable title (the right to use and occupy the property), while the seller kept the title or deed until the contract was paid off or the property sold.

With Wraparound Mortgages, the seller created a new, larger loan for the buyer that “wrapped” around the existing mortgage at an agreed-upon rate. The buyer would then pay the seller, who would continue making mortgage payments on the existing balance, collecting payments and pocketing the spread. Whether title conveyed to the buyer or remained with the seller was negotiated between the parties. 

Unlike an assumption, when buying a home Subject To an existing mortgage, the buyer took title to the property and agreed to pay the seller’s mortgage directly to the lender plus any equity to the seller; the mortgage stayed in the seller’s name. Now, most mortgages have a Due on Sale clause that prohibits this kind of transaction without the expressed consent of the lender. 

Rent-to-Own was also a popular way to get into a home. While a potential buyer rented a property, the seller would offer an option to purchase for a set amount to be exercised at a later date (lease option) or allow a portion of the rent collected to be considered as a downpayment once accrued (lease purchase).

Graduated Payment Mortgage (GPM) loans were authorized by the banking industry in the mid-1970s and Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM) surfaced in the early 1980s. Both featured low initial payments that gradually increased over time. 

With the GPM, although lower than market to start, the interest rate was fixed and payment increases were scheduled. A buyer could rely on the payment amount and save accordingly. 

ARMs, on the other hand, had interest rates that could change based on the market index, with less predictability and a higher risk of rate shocks, as we saw during the Great Recession from 2007-2009.

While mortgage rates today aren’t anywhere near the extremes of the 1980s, buyers still face a tough environment: higher prices, limited inventory, and stricter lending standards. That combination has pushed people to explore tried and true alternatives and add new ones. 

Assumable mortgages and ARMs are on the table again and seller financing is still worth exploring. Just last week, I overheard a colleague asking about a land contract.

Lenders are beginning to use Alternative Credit Evaluation indicators, like rental payment history or bank cash-flow analysis, to assess borrower strength when making mortgage loan decisions.

There are Shared Equity Programs, where companies or nonprofits contribute part of a down payment in exchange for a share of the home’s future appreciation. With Crowdfunding Platforms, investors pool money online to finance real estate purchases or developments.

Another unconventional idea being debated today is the 50-year mortgage, designed to help buyers manage high home prices. Such a mortgage would have a 50-year repayment term, rather than the standard 30 years, lowering monthly payments by stretching them over a longer period.

Supporters argue that a 50-year mortgage could make monthly payments significantly more affordable for first-time buyers who feel priced out of the market. Critics, however, warn that while the monthly payment may be lower, the lifetime interest cost would be much higher.

What ties the past and present together is necessity. As long as affordability remains strained, creative financing – old and new – will continue to shape the way real estate gets bought and sold. As with everything real estate, my question will always be, “What’s next?”


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.

Continue Reading

Real Estate

Could lower rates, lagging condo sales lure buyers to the table?

With pandemic behind us, many are making moves

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 17, 2025

By

Condo sellers may offer buyers incentives to purchase their home. (Photo by Grand Warszawski/Bigstock)

Before the interest rates shot up around 2022, many buyers were making moves due to a sense of confinement, a sudden need to work from home, desire for space of their own, or just a general desire to shake up their lives.  In large metro areas like NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, Miami and other markets where rents could be above $2k-$3k, people did the math and started thinking, “I could take the $30,000 a year I spend in rent and put that in an investment somewhere.”  

Then rates went up, people started staying put and decided to nest in the new home where they had just received a near 3% interest rate.  For others, the higher rates and inflation meant that dollars were just stretching less than they used to.  

Now – it’s been five  years since the onset of the pandemic, people who bought four years ago may be feeling the “itch” to move again, and the rates have started dropping down closer to 5% from almost 7% a few years ago.  

This could be a good opportunity for first time buyers to get into the market.  Rents have not shown much of a downward trend. There may be some condo sellers who are ready to move up into a larger home, or they may be finding that the job they have had for the last several years has “squeezed all the juice out of the fruit” and want to start over in a new city.  

Let’s review how renting a home and buying can be very different experiences:

  • The monthly payment stays (mostly) the same.  P.I.T.I. – Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance – those are the four main components of a home payment.  The taxes and insurance can change, but not as much or as frequently as a rent payment. These also may depend on where you buy, and how simple or complex a condo building is.
  • Condo fees help pay for the amenities in the building, put money in the building’s reserve funds account (an account used for savings for capital improvement projects, maintenance, and upkeep or additions to amenities)
  • Condos have restrictions on rental types and usage – AirBnB and may not be an option, and there could be a wait list to rent.  Most condo associations and lenders don’t like to see more than 50% of a building rented out to non-owner occupants.  Why?  Owners tend to take better care of their own building. 
  • A homeowner needs to keep a short list of available plumbers, electricians, maintenance people, HVAC service providers, painters, etc.
  • Condo owners usually attend their condo association meetings or at least read the notices or minutes to keep abreast of planned maintenance in the building, usage of facilities, and rules and regulations.  

Moving from renting to homeownership can be well worth the investment of time and energy.  After living in a home for five years, a condo owner might decide to sell, and find that when they close out the contract and turn the keys over to the new owner, they have participated in a “forced savings plan” and frequently receive tens of thousands of dollars for their investment that might have otherwise gone into the hands of a landlord.  

In addition, condo sellers may offer buyers incentives to purchase their home, if a condo has been sitting on the market for some time. A seller could offer such items as:

  • A pre-paid home warranty on the major appliances or systems of the house for the first year or two – that way if something breaks, it might be covered under the warranty.
  • Closing cost incentives – some sellers will help a cash strapped buyer with their closing costs.  One fun “trick” realtors suggest can be offering above the sales price of the condo, with a credit BACK to the buyer toward their closing costs.  *there are caveats to this plan
  • Flexible closing dates – some buyers need to wait until a lease is finished.
  • A seller may have already had the home “pre-inspected” and leave a copy of the report for the buyer to see, to give them peace of mind that a 3rd party has already looked at the major appliances and systems in the house. 

If the idea of perpetual renting is getting old, ask a Realtor or a lender what they can do to help you get into investing your money today. There are lots of ways to invest, but one popular way to do so is to put it where your rent check would normally go. And like any kind of seedling, that investment will grow over time. 


Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with Metro Referrals. He can be reached at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].

Continue Reading

Popular