National
Gingrich: Media has anti-Christian bias on marriage
At N.H. debate, GOP candidates tout opposition to gay nuptials
Republican presidential candidates stood firm in their opposition to same-sex marriage during a debate Saturday night as Newt Gingrich rebuked the media for what he said was asking the wrong question on the issue.
The former U.S. House speaker said he wanted to “raise a point about the news media bias” and accused the media of not asking about same-sex marriage in terms of what it means for religious groups.
“Should the Catholic Church be forced to closed its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done?” Gingrich said. “Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration in key delivery of services because of the bias of the bigotry of the administration?”
Gingrich added, “The bigotry question goes both ways and there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is a concern of the other side, and none of it gets covered by the media.” The audience erupted in applause following Gingrich’s response.
The debate at St. Anselm’s College in Manchester, N.H., took place just days before New Hampshire Republican voters go to the polls on Tuesday to decide on their preferred candidate to win the GOP nomination.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he agrees with Gingrich on his position, adding that the events in Massachusetts following the 2003 State Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage were “exactly as Speaker Gingrich indicated.”
“What happened was Catholic charities that placed almost half of all the adoptive children in our state was forced to step out of being able to provide adoptive services,” Romney said. “And the state tried to find other places to help children. We have to recognize that this decision about what we call marriage has consequences, goes far beyond a loving couple who want to form a loving relationship.”
But one LGBT advocate accused Gingrich and Romney of misstating the facts on the Catholic Church abandoning charitable services because the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, said via e-mail the church voluntarily withdrew services in Massachusetts and wasn’t forced to do so.
“I was running MassEquality during the Catholic Charities debacle in Massachusetts, and I have to say it is extremely distressing that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich just repeated the lie that the freedom to marry in Massachusetts had ANYTHING to do with Catholic Charities ceasing to perform adoptions,” Solomon said. “That unfortunate result was because the Catholic hierarchy in [Massachusetts] wanted an exemption from civil rights laws.”
Solomon added the local board of Catholic Charities voted unanimously to continue performing adoptions and to comply with civil rights laws, but was overruled by the Catholic hierarchy.
“Romney was governor at the time — he KNOWS it’s not true,” Solomon said.
Gingrich made the comments after a debate moderator, ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, posed a question submitted via email by “Phil” of Virginia asking what candidates want same-sex couples to do if they want legal protections for their families.
“Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed long-term relationships,” the question read. “What is your solution?”
Despite his opposition to marriage equality, Gingrich said he wants to “make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends occur.”
“For example, you’re in a hospital, if there are visitation hours should you be allowed to stay,” Gingrich said. “There ought to be ways to designate that. You want to have somebody in your will. There ought to ways to designate that.”
Still, Gingrich called it “a huge jump” going being understanding of same-sex couples “to saying we’re, therefore, going to institute of marriage as if it has no basis.”
“The sacrament of marriage was based on a man and a woman, has been for 3,000 years, is at the core of our civilization, and is something worth protecting and upholding,” Gingrich said. “And, I think, protecting and upholding that doesn’t mean you have to go out and make life miserable for others, but it does mean you make a distinction between a historic sacrament of enormous importance in our civilization and simply deciding it applies every way and is just a civil right.”
Romney expressed a similar sentiment in favor of relationship recognition while maintaing opposition to same-sex marriage, saying “there can be domestic partner benefits or a contractual relationship” between two people that can include hospital visitation rights.
“There’s every right in this country for people to form long-term committed relationship with one another,” Romney said. “That doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage.”
Romney added recognizing same-sex marriage is a “mistake,” not because he wants to discriminate against people, but because the country “will be better off if children are raised in a setting where there’s a male and a female.”
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr., was distinct among other candidates on state. The candidate stated his position in favor of civil unions, saying they’re “fair” and “there’s such a thing as equality under the law.” Still, he said he doesn’t support same-sex marriage.
“I don’t feel that my relationship is at threatened by civil unions,” Huntsman said. “On marriage, I’m a traditionalist. I think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman, but I believe that civil unions are fair and I believes it brings a level of dignity to relationships.”
Huntsman added “reciprocal beneficiary rights” should be part of civil unions and said states “should be able to talk about” the marriage issue.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry took the opportunity to reiterate his support for a Federal Marriage Amendment and his belief that the Obama administration is conducting a war against people of faith.
Among the policies changes to which Perry took exception was the Obama administration’s decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
“That is a war against religion, and it’s going to stop under a Perry administration,” the candidate said, receiving applause from the audience.
In response to a different question, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum revealed a distinction in his position on same-sex marriage, and that on adoption by same-sex couples.
Josh McElveen, a reporter for a local news affiliate WMUR, asked Santorum about adoption by same-sex parents, noting New Hampshire is one of the state where same-sex marriage is legal.
“Are you going to tell someone they belong as a ward of the state or in foster care rather than have two parents who want them?” McElveen asked.
Santorum responded that adoption by gay couples isn’t a federal issue and should be resolved by the states.
“I’m certainly not going to have a federal law that bans adoption for gay couples when there are only gay couples in certain states, so this is a state issue, not a federal issue,” Santorum said.
Contrary to Santorum’s assertion, the Williams Institute has found based on 2010 U.S. Census data that gay couples exist in every state in the country.
But Santorum said his position on adoption by same-sex marriage contrasts with his position on marriage.
“I believe the issue of marriage itself is a federal issue — that we can’t different laws with respect to marriage,” Santorum said. “We have to have one law. Marriage is, as Newt said, a foundational institution of our country, and we have to have a singular law with respect to that. We can’t have somebody married in one state, and not married in another.”
In response a follow-up question on what happens to existing same-sex couples if a Federal Marriage Amendment is passed, Santorum invoked his previously stated belief that such marriages would be invalid.
“If the Constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman, then marriage is between a man and a woman,” Santorum said. “And therefore, that’s what marriage is, and would be in this country, and those who are not men and women who are married would not be married. That’s what the Constitution would say.”
Wayne Besen, executive director of the pro-LGBT group Truth Wins Out, rebuked Santorum in a statement for advocating for the invalidation of existing same-sex marriages and predicted the position would end Santorum’s campaign.
“I think the radical idea of destroying families and invalidating their marriages is so preposterous that it will cost Rick Santorum any chance of ever becoming President of the United States,” Besen said. “Santorum is just too extreme and the cruel position he took on this issue will lead to the unraveling of his campaign.”
Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was the only candidate on stage who didn’t respond to the marriage issue. He’s said government should get out of the marriage business, but he personally believe marriage is between one man, one woman.
The presidential primary comes to New Hampshire as the state is likely to vote this month on repeal of the same-sex marriage, which was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch (D) in 2009. Perry and Romney have expressed support for repeal of the marriage law there. Each of the candidates who support a Federal Marriage Amendment — Romney, Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich — implicitly support repeal of the state law because the federal measure would end same-sex marriages there.
Federal Government
Markwayne Mullin confirmed as next DHS secretary
Okla. senator to succeed Kristi Noem
The U.S. Senate confirmed Markwayne Mullin as the next secretary of Homeland Security on Monday, as the agency continues to grapple with what lawmakers have described as a “never-ending” funding standoff, with Democrats attempting to withhold funding from one of the nation’s largest and most costly agencies.
Mullin — a Republican senator from Oklahoma, former mixed martial arts fighter, and plumbing business owner — was confirmed in a 54–45 vote. Two Democrats — U.S. Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) — sided with Republicans in supporting his confirmation.
The new agency head is expected to follow the policy direction set by President Donald Trump, emphasizing stricter immigration enforcement. This includes proposals to support immigration agents at polling sites and to cut funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.”
Mullin replaces Kristi Noem, who was fired earlier this month following a widely scrutinized 2-day congressional hearing on Capitol Hill.
During the hearing, Noem faced intense questioning over her response to several crises, including the fatal shooting of two American citizens in Minneapolis by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, a $220 million border security advertising campaign that featured her on horseback near Mount Rushmore amid one of the largest federal workforce reductions in U.S. history, and the federal response to major natural disasters such as the July 2025 Texas floods and Hurricane Helene in 2024.
Noem had previously drawn criticism for a series of policy decisions in South Dakota that broadly focused on restricting the rights of LGBTQ individuals. In 2023, she signed House Bill 1080, banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. She also signed legislation and executive orders restricting trans athletes’ participation in women’s sports, as well as the state’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which critics argued enabled discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. Additionally, the state canceled contracts related to LGBTQ support services — including suicide prevention and health care navigation programs‚ and later agreed to a $300,000 settlement with trans advocacy group, The Transformation Project.
Despite her removal from DHS, Noem will remain in the Trump-Vance administration as a special envoy for the “Shield of the Americas,” an initiative aimed at promoting U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere, including efforts to counter cartel networks, reduce Chinese influence, and manage migration.
The new head of DHS has served in Congress since 2013, in both houses of the federal legislature. While in the Senate and a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion. He led a group of lawmakers in urging the Administration for Community Living to reverse a rule requiring states to prioritize Older Americans Act services based on sexual orientation and gender identity, arguing the policy could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security. He was also among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the U.S. House of Representatives chamber on Jan. 6.
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
Markwayne Mullin confirmed as next DHS secretary
Gay man murdered in Va.
Trans Day of Visibility events planned
Virginia General Assembly’s 2026 legislative session ends
Polish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
Queer American in Israel discusses Iran war’s impact
‘How We Survived’ panel set for March 25
Calendar: March 21-26
Small is beautiful: subcompact SUVs
