National
Couples make history testifying against DOMA
Senate hears from spouses, activists about burdens of marriage ban; hearing first-ever in Congress on repeal of anti-gay law

‘The time has come for the federal government to recognize that these married couples deserve the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples,’ said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
A Senate hearing Wednesday on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act featured poignant testimony from couples in same-sex marriages, who described how the anti-gay law has harmed them.
The hearing, which took place before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the first ever before Congress on repeal of DOMA, the 1996 law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The hearing was intended to highlight the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation pending before Congress that would repeal DOMA.
Ron Wallen, an Indio. Calif., resident, who married his partner of 55 years in 2008, said he’s unable to make payments on his home following the death of his spouse, Tom Carrollo, four months ago. Had he been in an opposite-sex marriage, he would have been able to receive Social Security benefits to help pay for the cost of living.
“I am selling the last house I shared with my husband in a panic sale because I can’t afford the mortgage and expenses,” Wallen said. “I am spending my days and nights sorting through our possessions, packing boxes to move — even while I am still answering the condolence cards that come in the mail.”
Susan Murray, who lives in Ferrisburgh, Vt., with her spouse, Karen Murray, said she also faces financial inequities as a result of DOMA. Murray was the co-counsel in the lawsuit Baker v. Vermont, which established civil unions in Vermont in 2000.
One issue Murray cited was the additional tax that she and her spouse have to pay on employer-based insurance coverage provided to them through her spouse’s employer, Fletcher Allen Health Care.
“Because of DOMA, I am not considered Karen’s spouse, so the value of that health insurance coverage for me ($6,200 a year) is considered taxable income to Karen,” Murray said. “She therefore has to pay income tax, as well as FICA and Medicare tax, on that ‘phantom’ income — unlike her other married colleagues.”
Andrew Sorbo, a Cheshire, Conn., resident and retired history teacher, also testified about financial troubles he faced after his spouse, Colin Atterbury, died of pancreatic cancer in 2009. Among other things, Sorbo said he was denied the right to be included in his deceased spouse’s medical insurance plan through the federal government.
“When I retired as a teacher in 2005, I had no alternative except to pay for my insurance coverage in full through my former school district, at a much higher cost than if I could have been covered under Colin’s plan as a spouse,” Sorbo said. “Last year, my insurance payments consumed almost a third of my $24,000 teacher pension.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the committee, spoke out in his opening statement for passage of the Respect for Marriage Act and said it would allow same-sex couples married under state law to receive federal benefits.
“Nothing in this bill would obligate any person, religious organization, state, or locality to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex,” Leahy said. “What would change, and what must change, is the federal government’s treatment of state-sanctioned marriage. The time has come for the federal government to recognize that these married couples deserve the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), sponsor of the DOMA repeal legislation, maintained that the anti-gay law should be off the books because marriage, as well as other issues related to family such as adoption and divorce, have been under the jurisdiction of state law.
“Family law has traditionally been the preserve of state law,” Feinstein said. “The single exception is DOMA. Chief Justice [William] Rehnquist once wrote that family law ‘has been left to the states from time immemorial, and not without good reason.’ He was right.”
Passed by Congress in 1996, DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton. Both Clinton and the bill’s sponsor at the time, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr, have come out for repeal of the law.
DOMA has two components: one that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and another that allows states not to recognize such marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
As a result of the component of DOMA known as Section 3, married same-sex couples cannot participate in federal programs. For instance, they can’t file joint federal income taxes, receive spousal benefits under Social Security or obtain exemptions of the estate tax law upon the death of one of the spouses.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who represents a state where same-sex marriage will be available next week, emphasized the fiscal reasons for repealing DOMA and predicted that lifting the anti-gay law from the books “would, on balance, likely increase federal revenue.”
According to Schumer, in 2004 the Congressional Budget Office found that DOMA repeal at the time would have increased revenues by less than $400 million a year from 2005 through 2010, and by $500 million to $700 million annually from 2011 through 2014.
“I think that there are three fundamental principles at stake here,” Schumer continued. “Repealing DOMA makes good fiscal sense, it respects states’ rights to make their own determinations about marriage, and it treats all married people the same. It’s fair, it makes sense, and it’s time.”
The sole committee member to speak out against DOMA repeal during the hearing was Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the committee.
Grassley, who represents a state where same-sex marriage is legal, said he opposes the Respect for Marriage Act because he believes marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.
“The bill before us today is entitled the Respect for Marriage Act,” Grassley said. “George Orwell would have marveled at the time. A bill to restore marriage would restore marriage as it has been known — one man, one woman. That is the view of marriage that I support. This bill would undermine, not restore marriage by repealing it.”
Grassley and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) were the only Republican senators who made an appearance at the DOMA hearing. Grassley was the only GOP committee member who asked questions of the witnesses.
Witnesses who married someone of the same-sex testified about how DOMA negatively affected their relationship or their ability to receive benefits after the death of their spouse.
The hearing took place on the heels of an announcement from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday that President Obama supports the Respect for Marriage Act.
“I can tell you that the president has long called for legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people families, friends and neighbors,” Carney said. “He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act introduced by Sen. Feinstein and Congressman Nadler, which would take DOMA off the books once and for all. This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”
President Obama has previously said he supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but has yet to come out in support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which is the specific measure pending before Congress that would repeal the law.
During the hearing, Grassley erroneously said that Obama until Tuesday “was a supporter of DOMA.” During the 2008 campaign, Obama made full repeal of DOMA one of his campaign promises.
Experts testify before Senate
House members also testified on both sides of the Respect for Marriage Act. Two Democratic members — Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the sponsor of the bill, and John Lewis (D-Ga.) — favored DOMA repeal, while Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a lawmaker known for his anti-gay views, opposed it.
Nadler maintained that not just same-sex couples — but children being raised by LGBT parents — are among those who are affected by the discrimination of DOMA.
“No legitimate federal interest in the welfare of children is ever advanced by withholding protection for some children based on the desire to express mild disapproval of their parents,” Nadler said. “It defies common sense to claim that it’s necessary to harm or exclude the children of married same-sex couples in order to somehow protect the children of opposite-sex couples.”
Similarly, Lewis expressed disbelief that Congress has yet to act on something as fundamental as allowing Americans the right to marry the person they choose.
“I find it hard to believe that in the year 2011, there’s still the need to hold hearings and debate on whether or not to allow people to marry the one they love,” Lewis said.
Lewis said DOMA imposes similar discrimination that blacks endured in the South under segregation and recalled the discrimination he faced as a child growing up in Southern Alabama.
“As a child, I tasted the bitter fruits and racism and discrimination, and I did not like it,” Lewis said. “And in 1996, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, the taste of that old bitter fruit filled my mouth once again.”
King, countering those arguments, based his testimony against repeal of DOMA on the basis that marriage is intended for procreation and thus should be reserved for one man and one woman because the union can produce children.
“The other side argues that you can’t choose who you love and that the union between two men and two women is equal to that of one man and one woman,” King said. “These are the same arguments that are used to promote marriage between fathers and daughters, mothers and sons or even polygamous relationships.”
Expert witnesses on both sides of DOMA testified before lawmakers. LGBT advocates maintained DOMA should be repealed to lift the burden of discrimination against same-sex couples, while supporters of DOMA said the anti-gay law is necessary to keep marriage as between one man and one woman.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, was among the LGBT advocates who testified during the hearing. He addressed the financial burdens DOMA imposes on same-sex couples.
“DOMA means that the many protections the federal government provides for the health and financial security of American families remain out of reach for same-sex couples and their children,” Solmonese said. “Same-sex spouses of federal employees and active members of the military are denied access to health insurance coverage and a host of other benefits. Even when private sector companies voluntarily provide spousal health benefits, they are taxed, making it financially burdensome if not impossible for gay and lesbian couples to make use of these fair-minded policies.”
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said DOMA “carves out a gay exception” in the way the U.S. government traditionally and currently treats married couples.
“DOMA divides those married at the state level into first-class marriages for those the federal government prefers and second-class marriages for those the federal government doesn’t like,” Wolfson said. “But in America, we don’t have second-class citizens, and we shouldn’t have second-class marriages either.”
Arguing in favor of DOMA, anti-gay advocates maintained the importance of keeping marriage between one man and one woman.
Austin Nimrocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the purpose of family and relationships is to procreate and raise children.
“Accordingly, from the lexicographers who have defined marriage, to the eminent scholars in every relevant academic discipline who have explained marriage, to the legislatures and courts that have given legal recognition and effect to marriage, they all demonstrate that an animating purpose of marriage in every society is to increase the likelihood that procreative relationships benefit society,” Nimrocks said. “Marriage between a man and a woman is a long standing, world-wide idea that is a building block of society.”
Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, warned that DOMA repeal could require the federal government to recognize not only same-sex marriages — but also polygamous relationships.
“If the male-female nature of traditional marriage can be dismissed as an artifact and its inherent link to procreation denied, then surely the distinction between a marriage of two persons and a marriage of three or more is all the more arbitrary and irrational,” Whelan said. “It’s doubtful that any further sliding down the slippery slope would be necessary to get to polyamory: unlike the novelty of same-sex marriage, the polygamous version of polyamory has been widely practiced throughout history — and is therefore arguably up the slope from same-sex marriage.”
Whelan previously testified in April against same-sex marriage before the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing on “Defending Marriage.”
The assertion that DOMA would institute same-sex marriage is places where it didn’t exist before didn’t go without criticism from LGBT advocates after the hearing.
Rick Jacobs, chair and co-founder of the Courage Campaign, rebuked the assertion during that DOMA repeal would expand the places where gay couples can marry and maintained the Defense of Marriage Act would simply remove the federal government from the marriage issue.
“They don’t seem to understand what DOMA is,” Jacobs said. “They just keep missing the point that all DOMA is give the states the ability to decide what marriage is.”
Mary Bonauto, civil rights projects director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, also chided anti-gay advocates’ emphasis on marriage as between one man, one woman during the hearing as she said DOMA only affects those who are already married.
“I think it’s important to talk about marriage, but I wish there had been that much more delineation between what marriage is about one hand and what DOMA does, which is simply discriminate against people who are already married,” Bonauto said. “But there’s still, particularly in the opposition witnesses, this complete conflation between DOMA and marriage.”
Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family, bore the brunt of the tough questioning from the committee undermining his credibility for his position that children reared by opposite-sex parents are better off than those raised by same-sex parents.

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
“It is a strong and dramatically consistent finding in the social science, psychological and medical literature that children do best when living with their own married mother and father,” Minnery said.
In his testimony, Minnery cites a December 2010 study from the Department of Health & Human Services which he said found “children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never life in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) challenged Minnery’s assertion, saying the HHS report “actually doesn’t say what you said it says.”
“It says that nuclear families — not opposite-sex married families — are associated with those positive outcomes,” Franken said. “Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that married same-sex couple that has or had adopted kids would fall under the definition of the nuclear family in the study that you cite?”
Minnery replied that he would believe the study means nuclear families are families with opposite-sex parents, but Franken denied this speculation, saying, “It doesn’t,” eliciting laugher from those attending the hearing.
“The study defines nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and each biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family,” Franken said. “And I, frankly, don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said following the hearing the testimony of those affected by DOMA compared to apparently misleading testimony of the anti-gay law’s proponents shows why “we’re winning on this issue.”
“The families who spoke — they talked from their human experience,” Carey said. “The other side talked from technical matters, from research that actually didn’t reveal the true, full research. We’re actually — children are doing quite well in our families, thank you very much.”
Time for a markup?
Now that the Respect for Marriage Act has had a hearing in the Senate, one option to move the legislation would be to hold a markup to bring the legislation to the floor. All 10 Democrats on the committee have signaled support for the legislation, so the bill already has sufficient support to move forward.
A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the committee has yet to set a date to report out the legislation to the Senate floor.
“This hearing began to build the record for repealing DOMA, and this is the beginning of the process,” the aide said. “Sen. Leahy will continue to work with Sen. Feinstein and other supporters, and hopes there will be support from both sides of the aisle for this repeal, but I have no announcements to make today concerning any kind of timeline.”
Jacobs said he wants to see more co-sponsors for the Respect for Marriage Act — and maintained he wants “all Democrats on board” — but said the time may be right for a markup on the bill.
“I think that we should move to that pretty quickly,” Jacobs said. “I’d like to see it. I know some people don’t, but I think we need to keep the momentum going.”
Following the hearing, Solmonese expressed caution about moving to a markup and deferred the decision to the Senate Judiciary Committee leadership.
“If we are genuinely committed to a clare path to victory, to ensuring that DOMA is repealed, then I would defer to the chairman in terms of the degree to which he thinks the time is appropriate for a markup — and how that relates to a full Senate vote and the prospects in the House,” Solmonese said. “As was the case with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ as was the case with any legislative victory that we have seen through to the end, we never want to evaluate it on the merits of one action.”
Bonauto, who’s leading several lawsuits against DOMA in the federal courts, said she isn’t sure if a committee vote on DOMA repeal — or a floor vote in the Senate without action in the House — would have any effect on how the courts would evaluate the constitutionality of the anti-gay law. She cautioned that a symbolic victory in the Senate may not have the desired impact on the courts.
“It’s hard to predict,” Bonauto said. “In the 1970’s, when the Congress had approved of the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it up for ratification to the states, the Supreme Court stayed its hand and didn’t declare that gender was a suspect classification because it thought the issue was moving through the political process. I think we’ve all learned through of the failure of ratification of the ERA that because something has been approved by the Congress of even is a constitutional amendment is set forth for ratification, it doesn’t predict future results.”
National
Remembering Barbara ‘Boo’ Price, a pioneering force in women’s music
Key organizer behind Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival
Barbara (“Boo”) Easter Price, a pioneering figure in the women’s music movement, died Tuesday, Aug. 4 in Oakland, Calif. Price produced some of the earliest women’s music concerts as a new lesbian-feminist culture was taking shape, and was a driving force behind the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival which ran from 1976 to 2015 – a flagship event in the movement, and the largest women’s music festival in North America. Price was 82.
“Her vision from the very beginning was how complex and how wide the whole phenomenon of women’s music could be, and how far we could carry it beyond the multi-purpose rooms and church basements into Town Hall and the Palace of Fine Arts and major media,” says singer-songwriter Margie Adam, for whom Price served as manager, agent, producer and attorney from 1975 to 1984, and, for part of that time, her romantic partner.
“I think when she heard Cris Williamson, Vicki Randle and me sing at the Embassy Theater in 1974, she grasped that this thing we were just beginning to call women’s music could actually be a soundtrack for the women’s liberation movement – that it could be an activator and a healing, empowering tool.”
Arguably, nowhere was that emerging culture of music, feminism and community more fully realized than at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival.
At its peak, 8,000 women, predominantly lesbians, came from around the world to gather for a week in August. Camping, music, dance performances, workshops and the requisite tofu and beans were just a few of the innumerable offerings in this rite of passage for a generation of lesbians in a time when there were few safe and free environments available.
Alicia Davis of Michigan remembers the festival foremost for its sense of community. “The feeling of not having to make myself smaller to fit into the world, but rather the feeling that I could be happy, loud and share my opinions and feel valued, even when there were disagreements among people,” she says. “There was a shared respect that I didn’t feel outside of the festival walls. The festival shaped what I thought women could do in the world, the entire camp was made by women: electricians, plumbers, cooks, carpenters, singers, artists of every stripe… “
The sense of shared experience followed women long after they left “the land.”
In the 1980s, drivers across the U.S. would exchange knowing glances when passing a car with the familiar “See you in August!” bumper sticker. It was the original IYKYK.
The Festival was also an important showcase for emerging and established musicians, including Holly Near, Meg Christian, Tracy Chapman, Indigo Girls and Ani DiFranco. The list of alumni is vast and stretches across genres from classical to Afro-centric percussion. To name just a few: Casselberry-DuPree, Phranc, Heather Bishop, Ubaka Hill, big band Deuce, flutist Kay Gardner, Edwina Lee Tyler, Lynn Breedlove-fronted punk band Tribe 8, pianist Mary Watkins, and Cultural Heritage Choir founder Linda Tillery who remembers Boo as the big sister she never had.
“I could go to her with anything, and she would listen and give counsel. She was always supportive of me and usually right,” the singer and arranger says.
And while Michigan wasn’t the only festival in the country, it inspired people like marriage equality activist and comedian Robin Tyler who attended Michigan because of Price, and went on to produce her own West Coast music and comedy festivals, as well as the main stage for three Marches on Washington.
“My last memory of Boo was not about Boo Price, the producer or the magician that could create everything,” says Tyler who was also Price’s lover for a time. “It was how lucky I was to have had her in my life at all, and that we were able to love each other and share. She was one of the most influential people of my life.”
Price’s talents were evident across the festival’s sprawling operation which relocated several times over its 40-year existence. In 1982, together with one of the original founders, Lisa Vogel, Price purchased the land that would become the festival’s permanent 650-acre home near Hart, Michigan; in 1983, she became a co-owner and co-producer, a role she held until the two parted ways in 1994.
From 1976–1994, Price was involved in many aspects of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival. But her prowess as producer was perhaps most visible at the Night Stage. Her contemporaries have vivid memories of an opening ceremony with an aerialist swinging on a trapeze from an oak tree, while jazz artist Rhiannon performed on vocals.
“Sometimes it started with a parade or a procession and percussion, and sometimes there were stilt walkers – and so there was always this production about you as you were coming to Night Stage,” remembers Sändra Washington, who performed with her twin sister Sharon as the Washington Sisters. As a performer, Washington recalled the wall of energy rushing at her from the audience.
“It was her desire to create a thing, a space, an event that was really magnificent – and that showed in everything she did, whether or not she was organizing a tour, or she was organizing a party, or events at the [Montclair] club,” says Washington. “Boo really specialized in creating a whole vibe around the event, the space, the production, so that you felt something special when you came into a space that Boo had created.”
“There was never a space that felt as positive, overwhelming, and energetic as the crowd at Michigan.”
Kathryn A. Willmore, co-founder of feminist journal Sojourner, remembers how Michigan grew into something bigger than anticipated – and how instrumental Price was in elevating the rudimentary systems needed to support it. One year, Willmore brought copies of Sojourner to the festival, hoping to connect with other people publishing women’s papers. “But there was no system for communicating any of that really. So I just tacked a note on a tree of that location, and there were about 30 of us that came together.”
Price, Willmore says, helped put systems in place, articulate a vision, and bring in people who could then carry it forward.
“Boo really empowered so many women in so many dimensions. I think that is one of the overarching themes of her life, and certainly in music production… and her confidence was infectious. So people who had never done something grew into becoming experts. I think that she inspired and empowered.”
Willmore first met Price in 1961 at Mt. Holyoke just after the women arrived for the start of college. “There were all these girls in this half-empty dorm in the middle of a hurricane, and Boo started going around to everyone’s room to introduce herself. Then she got to my room… and that was the beginning of this lifelong friendship.”
The importance of what Price created cannot be overstated, nor the reach and durability of the connections formed in the space she helped build.
Just last month, a French woman found this writer on Instagram 40 years after the Festival and claimed I invited her into my tent. We have been corresponding since this improbable reconnection (though the question of who did the inviting is under dispute):
Emmanuelle Gachet, now a writer and professor at Université de Nantes, reflects on her experience:
“In 1986, I step onto an island populated by six thousand women. I come from France, from a rural area, and I am twenty years old. Never before have I felt such a powerful energy. Here, lesbianism is the norm. I don’t have to justify my place. For the first time, I am not a minority. At the time, I am broke. The community welcomes me with sisterhood. I take part in artistic and political workshops, without always realizing their significance. I discover music without male voices. Women playing, singing, improvising, taking the stage. A stage of their own. Music becomes a common language, a way of recognizing one another, of celebrating who we are and what we can create together… I leave with the feeling that I am leaving a world that may never exist again… “
Price’s influence extended beyond the festival arena. The MSU Libraries document the breadth of her production work, including the Women on Wheels Tour in 1976; a celebration for the opening of Judy Chicago’s The Dinner Party in 1979; concert closing the ERA Campaign at Constitution Hall with Margie Adam and Sweet Honey in the Rock; and, decades later, the 2008 San Francisco City Hall memorial for lesbian rights pioneer Del Martin. She also established Women in Production in 1976, which hired and trained primarily lesbian technicians and production staff.
Price co-founded Pleiades Records with Margie Adam in 1975, producing and promoting Adam’s first four albums. She had an eye for the entire presentation – from press kits and photography to album covers – and for how the emerging women’s music movement projected itself to the world. Price produced a 50-city tour promoting Adam’s first album, culminating at the historic National Women’s Conference in Houston in 1977, where Adam performed “We Shall Go Forth!” as 10,000 women joined in three-part harmony.
“When Boo and I began to work together, both of us were convinced that we should have that phrase, ‘Women’s music by women about women for everyone.’ And that was not a point of view that was agreed upon by everybody in women’s music,” Adam says. “We had wiggle room in there, and we had controversy, and we had continuums.” Ultimately, Price wanted the music “to get out as far as it can go.”
Barbara Easter Price was born on Oct. 8, 1943 in Lafayette, Ind. She received a bachelor’s degree in political science from Mount Holyoke College in 1965, and Juris Doctor from UC Davis in 1976.
She brought her legal background, organizational skills and business acumen to everything she touched – including the justice system, most notably through her work on child custody cases, a focus that grew out of her own experience.
In 1978 she co-authored a law review article on lesbian custody proceedings and how attorneys could best prepare, at a time when lesbians were viewed unfavorably by the courts and “Sexual Orientation Disturbances” remained a psychiatric diagnosis.
“People forget what it was like,” says attorney Diane Gelon, who first met Price in 1977 at the women’s conference in Houston. “The lesbian mother would not have even had what we would look at now as normal access to that child because the fear was that the kids would be gay or lesbian, or there would be some amount of gender confusion, or they would suffer some kind of psychological harm… These are the myths that Boo wrote about and tried to address.”
Earlier in her career, she also worked at the White House for the Food for Peace Program, where she helped organize a Latin American tour for First Lady Lady Bird Johnson. She also worked with the President’s Commission on Civil Disorders. Price later became active in Bay Area Lesbians in Law, the Lesbian Rights Project, Lyon-Martin Clinic, the National Lesbian Feminist Organization, National Organization for Women, the National Women’s Political Caucus, and Women and the Law.
Whether through politics, advocacy or music, much of Price’s work was centered around creating spaces for women.
Following her tenure with the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival and a brief hiatus, Price couldn’t help but create another gathering place. She had been regularly driving past an old building, originally established as a social and literary club in 1928. It still had its projection room, stage and lightboard. She knew she had to have it.
“She just was always producing, even when she had stopped,” says Sharon J. Washington.
Price purchased the building in 1996 and, after a thorough renovation, opened the Montclair Women’s Cultural Arts Club, which became home to the Montclair Women’s Big Band, which she co-founded with trumpeter Ellen Seeling in 1998. Over the next two decades, the predominantly lesbian space became a vital gathering hub, hosting more than 2,000 events – high-toned parties, workshops, theater, dance, concerts, and more.
“Her Valentine’s Day dances were extraordinary,” says Sändra Washington, who remembers four-course plated meals and, like many of Price’s friends, volunteered at the club.
When the club closed in 2015, luminaries of women’s music came together for farewell performances, and the San Francisco Bay Times chronicled the extraordinary range of what had taken place there: more than 500 birthday celebrations, 150 concerts (“which we can attest were fabulous,” the paper wrote), countless workshops, arts and cultural events.
“Whatever Boo had built, whether it was the club or her home – that was our second home,” says Sändra Washington.
“Buying that club was in some ways a transgressive action, but at the same time, it was saying we belong here,” says Margie Adam. “We belong everywhere. Women’s music belongs everywhere, and that was her vision from the moment that I met her.”
“I think of Boo as someone who inspired and empowered women everywhere,” says Kathryn Willmore. “She herself was a fearless explorer, and she instilled that spirit into so many other women who would never imagine themselves doing the things that they did. And it wasn’t just in music.”
Willmore remembers Price’s first foray into scuba diving. “She was a good swimmer, but there she was, completely underwater with this mask on, not being able to see much in front of her. So she just kept her eyes on the fins of the guide in front of her.”
She woke up the next morning and said, “Let’s do that again.”
“And she just fell in love with it, became an expert diver, and then inspired so many other women – including me,” says Willmore, who would never have imagined venturing into the sea’s depths had it not been for Price.
Price soon convinced others to join her, and organized trips over the years to explore earth’s bounteous ocean offerings – women traveling the world from the Caribbean to the Solomon Islands and sharing in the joy that Price found amid the coral reefs of Indonesia.
Price is survived by her son, Andrés Garcia Price; daughter-in-law, Katie Garcia; granddaughter, Tallulah Katherine Garcia; nieces Melissa Price and her husband, Donal, and Cynthia Price Czabala and her husband, Tom; and an expansive community of chosen family, friends, and beneficiaries of her generous and unstoppable spirit.
“Many of you know that Boo’s health had been in decline for some time,” Kathryn Willmore, Sharon J. Washington, and Margie Adam wrote in announcing their friend’s passing. “Over this past weekend, she had a serious heart attack and was being cared for in the hospital, with her son Andrés and family with her much of the time. Yesterday afternoon, she noticed a partially open door in her room and asked the nurse if that was the exit, because she was ready to leave. A few hours later, she did just that – moving on to another realm, but never out of our hearts.”
Pentagon
Supreme Court ruled Boy Scouts could exclude James Dale. Now he says that same rule protects LGBTQ scouts from Trump
James Dale, the gay former Boy Scout whose landmark Supreme Court case established the organization’s First Amendment right to exclude him, has filed a second federal lawsuit against the Department of Defense over its relationship with Scouting America.
The Aug. 3 lawsuit, which is being exclusively reported by the Blade, seeks records about how the Pentagon is enforcing its ongoing compliance reviews with Scouting America, escalating Dale’s legal challenge to what he and his attorney, Isaac Park, characterize as government pressure on a private organization to change its policies.
The filing, which has not previously been reported, comes months after Dale sued the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the memorandum outlining the department’s agreement with Scouting America. That first lawsuit resulted in the Pentagon releasing the memorandum just three weeks after Dale filed his complaint.
Now, Dale and Park want to know what happened after the memorandum was signed — including how the Pentagon is conducting its 90-day compliance reviews and whether those reviews are being used to pressure Scouting America to make additional changes.
The second lawsuit cites the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in NRA v. Vullo, which addressed when government officials cross the constitutional line by using their authority to pressure private organizations or entities into taking action the government itself could not directly require.
“I find myself in this interesting, ironic place where I’m defending the decision that expelled me,” Dale told The Washington Blade. “That said, Scouts, you have a First Amendment shield to protect yourselves from the DOD.”
Dale’s legal fight comes as Scouting America faces pressure from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has criticized the organization’s embrace of LGBTQ youth, girls and Scouts of color.
In recent years, Scouting America has made significant progress toward becoming a more inclusive organization — from removing its bans on LGBTQ Scouts and leaders, to providing opportunities for women and girls to participate in Scouting, to making Scouts of color feel more supported and visible within the organization.
Those changes angered Hegseth, who has never been a Scout, to the point that he threatened to sever the military’s longstanding ties with the organization.
Such a move would mean that the U.S. military would no longer provide medical and logistical support for the National Jamboree, the massive gathering of Scouts in West Virginia that typically draws about 20,000 participants. It would also prevent Scout troops from meeting on U.S. or overseas military installations, where many bases host active Scouting programs.
In February, before that threat was carried out, Hegseth announced that the Pentagon had reached an agreement with Scouting America that he said would refocus the organization away from diversity initiatives and other policies he characterized as “woke.” He again threatened to end the military’s longstanding support for the organization if it failed to comply within six months.
Hegseth also placed particular emphasis on Scouting America’s policies regarding transgender youth, saying the organization would require members to use their “biological sex at birth and not gender identity.”
But Scouting America President and CEO Roger Krone struck a different tone.
“We have transgender people in our program and we’ll have transgender people in our program going forward,” Krone told The Associated Press in February.
The conflicting messages prompted Dale to dig deeper.
“I wanted to get to the bottom of what deal had been struck with Scouting America under pressure,” Dale said. “What pressure did the Pentagon apply on a private youth organization that had a right to determine their own members?”
Dale filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the memorandum between the Pentagon and Scouting America. When the Defense Department did not provide the document, he turned to Park, a former Supreme Court clerk, and sued the department for its release.
Park said they deliberately took a narrow approach to the FOIA lawsuit, seeking a single document rather than launching a broader fight over thousands of pages of government records.
“We had one document that we really wanted, which was this memorandum, and we were going to ensure that there’s like a lead-pipe, stone-cold case for disclosure,” Park said.
The strategy worked quickly. Three weeks after the lawsuit was filed, the Pentagon released the memorandum.
But the document did not end Dale and Park’s questions. Instead, they said, it raised new ones.
Hegseth had publicly described a six-month window for Scouting America to make changes. But the memorandum provides for an ongoing compliance mechanism, with reviews taking place every 90 days.
For Dale and Park, that raises the possibility that the Pentagon could continue pressing Scouting America to change its policies long after the February agreement was announced.
Park described their concern as “jawboning” — the use of government power or influence to pressure a private organization into changing its policies without the government directly ordering it to do so.
“We saw in the weeks after the announcement of the memorandum changes being made to Scouting America’s policies,” Park said. “Them saying one thing, the department saying a slightly different thing, and our first question then was, of course, like, what is actually in this memorandum? Is this how they kind of got what they wanted?”
The memorandum, Park said, “clarified certain questions, but definitely also didn’t contain other changes” that Scouting America had made.
“That naturally arises: Well then, how did those changes come about?” he said.
Dale points to changes at Scouting America’s National Jamboree as an example of what he believes could be the result of the pressure.
The organization removed dedicated spaces for girls, Scouts of color and LGBTQ Scouts at the flagship event, which concluded last week.
“We see spaces for girls being eradicated, spaces for kids of color, spaces for gay people, for trans kids,” Dale said. “It happened at the flagship event of scouting, the jamboree.”
Dale said he fears similar changes could occur at the local level, including at Scout meetings and council events.
“All this document is empowering the government to keep pressing, keep putting pressure on Scouting America,” Dale said. “And what is that doing to American kids?”
The dispute is particularly striking because of Dale’s own history with the organization.
Dale had a long history with Scouting before the organization expelled him in 1990. At the time, he was a 19-year-old student at Rutgers University in New Jersey and was serving as an assistant Scoutmaster for Troop 73.
While attending Rutgers, Dale became co-president of the university’s Lesbian/Gay Student Alliance and was interviewed by The Star-Ledger about the health and well-being of LGBTQ students.
The interview made its way to Boy Scouts officials. The organization subsequently expelled Dale after learning that he was gay, describing him as an “active sodomite.”
Dale sued the Boy Scouts under New Jersey’s public accommodations law and initially won. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in his favor, finding that the state’s interest in preventing discrimination outweighed the organization’s claimed right to exclude him.
The Boy Scouts appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 decision in 2000, the Supreme Court reversed the New Jersey ruling, holding that forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an openly gay assistant scoutmaster would violate the organization’s First Amendment right to freedom of expressive association.
The Scouts had argued that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it sought to instill in young people.
Dale was devastated by the ruling.
“I thought it was the wrong decision at the time,” he said.
But the constitutional protection the Supreme Court recognized in his case is now at the center of Dale’s argument against the Pentagon.
The Boy Scouts’ policies have changed dramatically since Dale’s case. The organization began allowing openly gay youth in 2013 and gay adult leaders in 2015. It later expanded its policies to include transgender youth and adults.
The Boy Scouts of America formally changed its name to Scouting America in 2025.
Dale said those changes were made voluntarily — precisely the kind of private organizational decision that the Supreme Court’s ruling in his case protected.
“They did it voluntarily,” Dale said. “They won the Supreme Court case against me.”
Now, he argues, Scouting America should invoke that same protection against the government.
Park said that is the central constitutional question behind their efforts.
“In 1990, when he was expelled from the Scouts for being gay, and in 2000, after a narrow 5-4 loss at the court, we were told that a private entity, an organization like Scouting, are allowed to set their own membership policies,” Park said.
Over the following two decades, Park said, Scouting America changed those policies on its own.
“We won the culture war,” Park said. “Organizations like Scouting America decided on their own, of their own free will, that actually what they want is to be inclusive with respect to gay youth, with respect to trans youth.”
The question now, Park said, is whether the government can pressure an organization to reverse those voluntary decisions.
“I think that the story here is that of jawboning,” Park said. “Our question has always been the how of how this administration is achieving whatever policy goals, whatever ideological outcomes that they want.”
Dale sees the issue as extending well beyond Scouting America.
“It’s not even about the scouting program,” Dale said. “It is, but it’s much bigger than that. It’s about really what the executive branch is doing to private organizations that have a right to set their own policies for membership.”
Park said the argument could appeal to people across the political spectrum.
“During the Biden administration, it was COVID policy, and it was the NRA that the right was screaming about jawboning,” Park said. “This is a bipartisan issue in the sense that no one thinks the government is allowed to do this.”
For now, Dale and Park are seeking more information.
Park said their review of the memorandum left them with additional questions about the Pentagon’s relationship with Scouting America and whether the 90-day compliance mechanism is being used to continue influencing the organization.
“Disclosure or transparency is the right remedy for this,” Park said.
Dale’s interest in Scouting is not merely legal.
He said he still believes deeply in the organization and had returned to involvement with Scouting only recently, after years away.
“I love scouting,” Dale said. “I fought for a decade to get back in scouting.”
That makes his current position all the more unusual.
The organization that once fought him in court is now the organization he is trying to defend from government interference.
“I never thought that would be the case,” Dale said. “That would be saving queer kids.”
Dale said he hopes Scouting America will ultimately stand up for the policies it adopted after his Supreme Court case.
“They didn’t want gay people in the ’90s. Fine, I thought that was wrong,” Dale said. “But now they want to have trans kids. They want to have girls. They want to have kids of color.”
“But Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth don’t want them to,” he said.
The Pentagon declined to comment on Dale’s allegations or the ongoing litigation.
“As a matter of policy, we do not comment on ongoing litigation,” a Pentagon spokesperson told The Washington Blade via email.
The Blade also contacted Scouting America seeking clarification about its agreement with the Pentagon, including whether Hegseth or other Defense Department officials had pressured the organization to remove or alter policies protecting LGBTQ Scouts, girls, or Scouts of color.
Scouting America did not respond to a request for comment.
For Dale, the fight has brought his long-running legal battle with the Scouts full circle.
He spent the 1990s arguing that the organization should not be permitted to exclude him because he was gay. The Supreme Court ultimately said the Scouts had a constitutional right to make that choice.
Now Dale is arguing that the government cannot force the organization to make a different choice.
“I realized over the course of my life that I expected the institution to save me,” Dale said. “I expected the Boy Scouts of America to do the right thing. I expected the legal system, the Supreme Court, to do the right thing.”
“Neither one did,” he said. “You got to fight for yourselves.”
Minnesota
Flanagan beats Craig in Minn. Senate primary after winning key LGBTQ endorsements
The race highlights a growing ideological shift within the Democratic Party, as Democrats increasingly seek a more robust pushback against Trump.
Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan won the Democratic primary for the Senate in Minnesota, as progressive Democrats continue to clinch nominations across the country.
On Tuesday night, NBC News called the race for Flanagan, who received 59.0% of the state’s Democratic primary vote, while her opponent, Rep. Angie Craig, received 39.4%. Flanagan ran against Craig for retiring Sen. Tina Smith’s seat.
Smith, along with Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., endorsed Flanagan, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., backed Craig.
Flanagan also received the endorsement of the Christopher Street Project, a transgender rights organization that has been at the center of efforts to counter the Republican Party’s push against transgender rights. The group chose Flanagan over Craig in part because Craig has not co-sponsored the Trans Bill of Rights, legislation that has been introduced multiple times in Congress and seeks to establish federal protections for transgender Americans.
The endorsement underscored a key difference between the two Democrats on LGBTQ issues. While Craig is the first openly lesbian mother in Congress, the Christopher Street Project said LGBTQ identity alone is not enough without a strong commitment to transgender rights as they are increasingly debated in legislative offices around the country.
In 2022, the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., endorsed Flanagan’s re-election campaign for lieutenant governor alongside Tim Walz, calling the duo “Champions of Equality.”
Flanagan called the race an expensive fight of the “many versus the money,” Flanagan told NBC News’ “Meet the Press Now.” Craig and her allies combined to spend nearly $20 million on the airwaves, while Flanagan and her allies spent $4.7 million, according to AdImpact and NBC.
“I’m running to make sure that people can afford the lives they want to live,” Flanagan said. “I want to get big money out of our politics, and I want to fight for things like ‘Medicare for All’ so that people aren’t just paying for health insurance but actually have access to health care.”
Flanagan criticized Craig, who is in her fourth term, for not standing up enough to President Donald Trump’s administration, a characterization Craig disputed. Craig flipped a competitive House seat in the Twin Cities metro area and had argued that she was the best candidate to win in November.
Craig faced criticism for voting for the Laken Riley Act, an immigration detention measure that Trump signed into law shortly after he started his second term in January 2025. Craig said she later regretted that vote.
Flanagan has been vocal about her stance on abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In a recent Minnesota Public Radio debate she said that ICE “has to be ripped apart.” Flanagan said she does support immigration enforcement to ensure secure borders.
Immigration and ICE debates are especially pertinent in the Twin Cities, as ICE agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis during an enforcement crackdown at the behest of President Trump.
Despite the contested race, Craig made it clear that Democrats are committed to unifying.
“We have an existential crisis in our nation with Trump and Republicans, and so I would be right by the lieutenant governor’s side asking my supporters to support her,” Craig said. “The most important thing in this election is that we beat Republicans. That’s what matters.”
On the Republican side, former NFL sideline reporter Michele Tafoya won the Senate primary. Considered an outsider to the Republican Party structure, she did not win the state GOP’s endorsement at the May convention, where delegates instead backed retired Navy SEAL Adam Schwarze.
She has run her campaign on a slew of issues Republicans have deemed worthy — including transgender sports participation, corruption, and minimizing illegal immigrants in the area.
This recent pattern of moderate and centrist Democrats raising huge funds — in many instances backed by major PACs — only to lose to more progressive and less experienced candidates is growing as more people grow disillusioned with the Democratic Party’s inability to push back against Trump and Republicans. A similar outcome happened in Michigan’s Democratic primary last week when progressive physician Abdul El-Sayed won over incumbent U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.).
Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who decided not to run for re-election, stayed neutral in the Senate primary but his wife, Gwen, backed Craig over Flanagan, the governor’s ticketmate.
The Senate seat will be determined in the election on Tuesday, November 3, later this year.
-
Pentagon5 days agoSupreme Court ruled Boy Scouts could exclude James Dale. Now he says that same rule protects LGBTQ scouts from Trump
-
Obituary4 days agoBeloved pastor, AIDS activist Rainey Cheeks dies at 74
-
Out & About4 days agoLive music drag cabaret set for Shaw’s Tavern
-
District of Columbia4 days agoComings & Goings



