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.
At my stage of life — “somewhere between 40 and death,” as the iconic line goes in the musical “Mame” — I want some pampering. A lot of pampering.
Luckily, for anyone who constantly craves a soothing spa, steam room or sauna, there’s the completely updated Mercedes S-Class. This flagship sedan is now so full of glitz, glamour, and gee-whiz gadgetry, it gives new meaning to the term “auto erotica.”
Does this make the S-Class a “gay” ride? For me, any vehicle that pushes my buttons like this one is a Kinsey 6.
MERCEDES S-CLASS
$122,000 (est.)
MPG: 21 city/31 highway
0 to 60 mph: 4.3 seconds
Trunk space: 19 cu. ft.
PROS: Exceptional comfort. Ultra-quiet cabin. Cutting-edge safety.
CONS: Price climbs fast. Tech learning curve. Sportier competitors.
The S-Class continues to define what luxury really means, with a bolder silhouette, larger grille, and striking, next-gen LED headlights. There’s also an optional illuminated Mercedes star on the hood. Overall, nearly 2,700 parts are new or improved, so more than 50 percent of this vehicle has been updated. An extreme makeover, to be sure.
At the same time, this latest S-Class leans harder into intelligence and electrification than ever before. Under the hood, a range of turbocharged inline-six and V8 engines — paired with mild-hybrid systems — deliver power in a way that seems almost edited for smoothness. Braking is solid and strong, too, but never abrupt. All the engineering is fine-tuned and intentional.
Yes, the top-of-the line S580 version is more expensive, almost $140,000. But it’s also blisteringly fast, zipping from 0 to 60 mph in just 3.9 seconds. That’s as lickety-split swift as a Lamborghini Revuelto supercar, which has a starting MSRP of $610,000 and can easily exceed — yowza! — $800,000.
Colors? There are 150 to choose from for the exterior and 400 for the interior. You can even customize the illuminated door sills, interior stitching and wheel accents.
And the ride quality? Sublime. Adaptive air suspension reads the road constantly, leveling out imperfections before they even register. Rear-axle steering enhances maneuverability, making this full-sized sedan feel surprisingly nimble in tight spaces. On the highway, the S-Class simply glides like a private yacht on the calmest of seas — extremely quiet, composed and completely unbothered.
Whenever you slide inside, the cabin immediately sets the tone. A massive OLED digital display — the same high-def technology used for cinematic viewing and gaming monitors — anchors the dashboard, running the latest MBUX infotainment interface. Highly customizable, this software allows for advanced voice commands that feel natural, not forced. And an augmented-reality navigation system takes your route and overlays it onto live camera feeds. It’s intuitive — mostly, as there is a learning curve for all this cutting-edge gear. Overall, though, such amenities make older setups feel like dial-up internet.
A Burmester surround-sound stereo is available in 3D or 4D, with up to 31 speakers, 1,690 watts and tactile transducers in the seats that vibrate and pulse with the music. Those seats are, of course, extremely comfortable. And the seatbelts? These are now heated.
Let’s not forget the latest cabin air-filtration system, which can remove ultra-fine particles to deliver air quality that rivals medical environments. Clean air, yes, but even this seems like a special treat. It’s like being swaddled in couture, not ready-to-wear.
And lastly, there’s the rear-seat area, which — to be honest — is where the S-Class really shines. Executive packages offer multi-contour reclining seats with rapid heating and ventilating, heated armrests and massage functions. You can opt for a footrest, which ups the glam factor to give you a calf massage. Dual 13.1-inch display screens come with their own remote controls. There’s also a video-conferencing feature, to help transform the rear cabin into a fully connected mobile office. For me, it feels less “back seat” and more “private lounge.”
Even in fiction, high-tech luxury carries weight. Tony Stark helped cement the idea that state-of-the art vehicles can be aspirational, not just practical. The magical S-Class fits right into that narrative — minus the flying suit (for now).
Advice
I’m a 64-year-old single gay man and I hate my life
How can I turn things around before it’s too late?
Dear Michael,
I’m a 64-year-old single gay man and I hate my life.
I’ve never had a relationship that lasted more than a few months. I can’t say why. I don’t think I’m defective. I wasn’t unattractive when I was younger (still not bad looking), I think I’m an interesting person to spend time with, but everything always seemed to fizzle out.
Thankfully, I missed AIDS because I came out after people knew what to do. Sometimes I wonder if fear of contracting the virus metastasized into a fear of getting close. I don’t know. I don’t think I’ve consciously kept people away. Consciously I have wanted someone to share my life with, very much.
With my 65th birthday and official senior citizen status approaching, I’ve been taking stock of my life and am coming to the hard realization that I’m never going to find that elusive partner.
I don’t go out anymore because people look right through me, except the ones who have a fetish for older guys. No one’s actually interested in me as me, a unique person rather than what they see on the surface.
I’m tired of my coupled friends. They’re always talking about “we.” Yes, I have become resentful that they have what I want and will never get. I know that’s not admirable but it’s how I feel, secretly, and I am sick of feeling like this when I am around them. So why be around them?
And I’m tired of my friends who are focused on sex all the time. It just all feels like a waste of time. I don’t get anything from a hookup anymore, they’ve been feeling increasingly meaningless. I feel like I’m someone’s momentary opportunity to get off, rather than any kind of real connection.
I’m just sick of the whole chase I’ve been doing for the last 40+ years.
I’m realizing that the whole thing has been pointless, a quest for a partner who is never going to materialize and a lot of diversions along the way that have added up to a despairing feeling that I’ve wasted my life trying to get something that will never happen.
Gay life hasn’t been so gay for me. And I’m officially old, maybe even nearing the finish line. Yes, if you haven’t noticed, I’m getting bitter.
What do I do with this dead end?
Michael replies:
How about looking for a different road to go down?
I’m not going to challenge your belief that you aren’t going to find a partner. I think it’s possible that you could, because there are other guys out there, in your age range, who are looking. But you have no guarantee, especially if you have decided to take it off the table.
So what else can you do with your life? How can you make your remaining time on this earth well-lived?
From your letter, it’s clear what you don’t want to do: Look for a boyfriend, hook up, or spend time with your current friends. Surely there must be more possibilities for your life than those options.
So my advice is to figure out some things you care about and start doing them. Travel? Volunteering? Getting a companion animal? Taking classes? Finding a new career? Those are just a few of the ideas I can come up with, but I don’t know you. What ideas can you generate, that you suspect you’d like to pursue?
In other words, start putting one foot in front of the other and go in some new directions that intrigue you enough to explore.
Sitting around feeling miserable does not help you to get anywhere. It keeps you feeling miserable. Sitting around waiting to feel better does not lead you to feel better. What would help you get to a better place would be to start taking action on your own behalf. Always keep in mind that while you are alive, with your faculties intact, you do have the choice to take this step, over and over and over again.
If you give yourself something (or some things) worthwhile to put your focus on, and do your best to shift your focus there whenever you notice that you are lamenting, I’m hopeful you will create a more fulfilling and meaningful life.
I’m also hopeful that if you are spending time doing things that you actually enjoy and that enrich your life, you may find more satisfying companionship than you are experiencing with your current friend group. (And yes, this could include a romantic relationship if you decide to be open to this possibility.)
A brief reply in an advice column can point you in the right direction, but it is likely not enough to sustain and motivate you through a major life overhaul.
Therefore, I suggest that you find a therapist to help you figure out how to move forward and what to move toward; and also to grieve, and put to rest as best you can, the loss of the life you hoped you would have.
I know that transcending the loss of a huge lifelong dream may seem impossible. But working toward this, as best you are able, would help you.
Relatedly, one more thing that I hope you can address with a therapist is your bitterness. I do understand why you feel so bitter, and I also think that it is torquing your life in a downhill direction.
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
Honey, have we been priced out of gay paradise?
Rehoboth remains more accessible than many queer beach destinations
Let’s set the scene, darlings. It’s a scorching July Saturday. You’ve got a trunk full of rosé, a playlist that slaps harder than a “RuPaul’s Drag Race” elimination, and a group chat blowing up with your people en route to Rehoboth Beach — the Delaware beach town that has been the LGBTQ community’s summer headquarters for decades. Sun, sand, Poodle Beach, drag shows, and the kind of easy, breezy freedom that only comes from being surrounded by your tribe.
Now imagine pulling up to a “FOR SALE” sign on that charming two-bedroom cottage two blocks from the boardwalk — the one you’ve been eyeing for years — and seeing the price tag: $1.97 million. Honey, put the rosé down. We need to talk.
Nation’s Summer Capital Has a Spending Problem
Rehoboth Beach has long worn the nickname “The Nation’s Summer Capital” like a crown, owing to the annual migration of Washingtonians — and increasingly, Philadelphians and New Yorkers — who descend on its 27 miles of Atlantic coastline every summer. For the LGBTQ community in particular, Rehoboth has never been just a beach town. It has been a sanctuary, a second home, a place where you can hold your partner’s hand on the boardwalk without a second thought. But the real estate market? She is not reading the room.
According to Redfin data, the median sale price of a home in Rehoboth Beach recently hit $1.96 million — a jaw-dropping 106% increase year over year, and a figure that sits 127% above the national median. The price per square foot has climbed to $1,160, up nearly 27% in the same period. Gag.
So Who IS Buying Right Now?
Let’s not be dramatic — people are still buying in Rehoboth. They’re just a specific kind of people. According to neighborhood data, the per capita income in Rehoboth Beach runs around $118,239, equating to a household income of nearly $473,000 for a family of four. About a third of the workforce telecommutes, many in high-earning, white-collar professions. And more than 68% of residents hold a college degree, compared to a national average of under 22%.
If you want to buy a median-priced home in Rehoboth today with a standard 25% down payment, you’d need to bring nearly half a million dollars to closing — and then cover about $4,000 a month in ongoing expenses.
Still, the market isn’t quite the frenzy it was at peak pandemic frenzy. Homes are sitting on the market for an average of 88 days as of early 2026 — up significantly from the frantic bidding wars of a few years ago, when a listing might vanish before you could refresh Zillow a second time. Sellers are (slowly) getting the memo that buyers have limits.
Have Your Beach House (and Airbnb It, Too)
Many LGBTQ buyers have discovered a savvy workaround to Rehoboth’s sticker shock: buy a property, rent it during peak season, and let your summer visitors essentially pay your mortgage.
The numbers surprisingly support this strategy. The Rehoboth Beach short-term rental market currently has around 928 active listings, with hosts averaging $400 per night and annual revenues of approximately $39,689. The busiest month, predictably, is July — when guests book an average of 96 days in advance (so yes, those summer reservations your friends keep missing out on are being snapped up in April).
The key is making your property stand out in a crowded market. Properties accommodating eight or more guests dominate the Rehoboth STR market (nearly half of all listings), so that five-bedroom house with a game room suddenly starts to look like a business plan. At the same time – keep in mind that location, location, location honey – that is also so valuable. Even a two-bedroom condo close to the beach will also rent favorably well and get those numbers needed to make the most sense to your pockets.
This method allows you to have a second home, enjoy it, have friends enjoy it, and also helps recoup some of the overhead so the overhead and increase in overall purchase price is a bit more manageable.
What It All Means for Our Community
Rehoboth has always been more than real estate. It is one of the few places on the East Coast where LGBTQ people have, for decades, built an actual physical community — businesses, organizations, gathering spaces, neighborhoods — not just a social scene. CAMP Rehoboth, Poodle Beach, the Blue Moon (which, after some drama, was recently sold to new owners who pledged to keep it a queer-affirming space — phew), and countless gay-owned restaurants and shops form an ecosystem that attracts our community every summer precisely because the roots run deep.
But ecosystems require people — year-round residents, small business owners, artists, service workers — not just wealthy second-home owners. When prices rise to the degree they have in Rehoboth, the people who sustain that community can no longer afford to stay. It’s a pattern playing out in LGBTQ neighborhoods from San Francisco’s Castro to New York’s Chelsea, and it’s worth watching closely here.
The good news? Rehoboth remains more accessible than many comparable queer beach destinations. Provincetown, Mass. — the other iconic LGBTQ beach town on the Eastern seaboard — regularly sees median home prices north of $1.5 million with far less inventory and a significantly smaller footprint.
And Delaware’s tax structure does the community a quiet but important favor: no state sales tax, among the lowest property tax rates in the country, and relatively favorable income tax treatment for retirees. These aren’t glamorous talking points, but they matter when you’re running the numbers on whether your beach house dream can actually pencil out.
The Bottom Line, Babe
Can our community still afford Rehoboth? The honest answer is: it depends on what you mean by Rehoboth.
If you mean a single-family home within walking distance of Poodle Beach with an ocean view and a wraparound porch — prepare to spend north of $1.5 million, need a household income pushing six figures annually, and move fast when something comes to market.
If you mean a condo or townhome in the greater Rehoboth area – or a property you plan to rent out in peak season to offset costs — there are still real pathways in.
And if you mean belonging to a community, showing up every summer, taking up space on that beach, supporting LGBTQ-owned businesses, and making sure Rehoboth’s queer identity doesn’t get washed away by the luxury market tide — well, that part doesn’t have a price tag.
It just requires showing up. So pack the car. Bring the rosé. The beach is still ours.
Have a real estate question or Rehoboth market tip? Reach out to [email protected] for LGBTQ-friendly real estate resources in the Rehoboth area.
PHOTOS: Black Pride Pageant and Unity Ball
PHOTOS: Helen Hayes Awards
A magical Mercedes
When impunity meets history
Comings & Goings
Cuba marks IDAHOBiT amid heightened tensions with U.S.
Texas Children’s Hospital reaches $10 million settlement with DOJ over gender-affirming care
Anti-LGBTQ commentator Tyler O’Neil to testify in Southern Poverty Law Center probe
Vt. lawmaker equates transgender identity with bestiality
PHOTOS: Equality Prince William Pride
-
Cuba5 days agoCuba marks IDAHOBiT amid heightened tensions with U.S.
-
Federal Government4 days ago
Texas Children’s Hospital reaches $10 million settlement with DOJ over gender-affirming care
-
LGBTQ Non-Profit Organizations4 days ago
Anti-LGBTQ commentator Tyler O’Neil to testify in Southern Poverty Law Center probe
-
Vermont3 days ago
Vt. lawmaker equates transgender identity with bestiality
