November, 07 2012, 11:18am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Nicole Collins Bronzan
Communications Director, Freedom to Marry
nicole@freedomtomarry.org
646-375-2044
History-Making Night for Freedom to Marry In Ballot Fights, Obama Reelection, and State House Wins
The freedom to marry won resounding victories in lat night's election, including first-ever wins at the ballot as voters supported marriage for same-sex couples in Maine and Maryland. Minnesotans made history with the first vote against a constitutional amendment that would have excluded same-sex couples from marriage. In Washington, where ballots are still being counted, signs are strongly pointing to another imminent victory for the freedom to marry.
NEW YORK
The freedom to marry won resounding victories in lat night's election, including first-ever wins at the ballot as voters supported marriage for same-sex couples in Maine and Maryland. Minnesotans made history with the first vote against a constitutional amendment that would have excluded same-sex couples from marriage. In Washington, where ballots are still being counted, signs are strongly pointing to another imminent victory for the freedom to marry.
"Our huge, happy, and historic wave of wins last night signaled irrefutable momentum for the freedom to marry, with voters joining courts, legislatures, and the reelected president of the United States in moving the country toward the right side of history," said Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry. "The anti-gay opposition kept moving the goalposts and had as their last talking point that we could not win a popular vote on the freedom to marry. Last night, voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and, all signs suggest, Washington proved them wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong."
"Not only did we win the freedom to marry in more states and at the ballot, but Americans also reelected the candidate for president who supports the freedom to marry, rejecting the anti-gay, anti-marriage candidate and party. With the possibility that the Supreme Court may consider a marriage case in the coming months, we are creating the climate that will enable more elected officials, judges, and even justices to embrace the freedom to marry, knowing that their support will stand the test of time and, indeed, be true to where the American people already are."
In 2011-2012, Freedom to Marry raised and invested a total of $7 million into the four ballot states in the 2011-2012 cycle, including infusions of $4.6 million in cash to the campaigns, in-kind contributions of staff and expertise, and securing $2.4 million in funding for separate public education efforts. Freedom to Marry was the largest out-of-state funder of marriage work in three of the four battleground states, and is the largest funder of work to advance the freedom to marry in the nation. In addition to funding, Freedom to Marry's central support of marriage work in the states included political and messaging guidance, new media coordination, and strategic leadership.
In the presidential race, exit polling showed President Obama won with voters aged 18-29, 60% to 37%. And defying conventional wisdom, turnout of voters in that age bracket was up from 18% of the electorate in 2008 to 19% in 2012.
According to a May 2012 CNN/ORC survey, Americans overall support the freedom to marry by 54% to 42% but among voters 18 to 34, support is 73% to 24%. And among Democrats and Independent voters, support is 70% to 28% and 60% to 37%.
"Far from hurting President Obama, his support for the freedom to marry galvanized his base of younger voters and Democrats, as well as independents, delivering the turn-out that carried him to victory. The president's reelection further reflects and accelerates the momentum for marriage, which Freedom to Marry will transform into more victories in 2013."
Other election results also provided good news for the freedom to marry. Iowa and New Hampshire, two states where anti-gay forces have attempted to strip away the freedom to marry, saw crucial victories that will protect their freedom to marry laws. In New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan, a strong supporter of the freedom to marry, was elected governor, defeating anti-marriage candidate Ovide Lamontagne. In addition, both the New Hampshire House and Senate will have strong, pro-freedom to marry majorities. As a result, the freedom to marry is safe for the foreseeable future in New Hampshire.
In Iowa, anti-gay forces failed in their efforts to oust Justice David Wiggins, who joined the unanimous state supreme court ruling in favor of the freedom; voters this time repelled the attacks that had previously targeted three of the other justices. Additionally, Democrats retained narrow control of the Iowa state senate, 26-23, with Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal -- who has vowed to stop any anti-marriage amendment -- winning re-election. If they'd won back the chamber, Republicans had committed to advance an amendment that would undermine the marriage decision.
In Minnesota, in addition to defeat of the anti-marriage amendment, voters rejected lawmakers who advanced a constitutional amendment to the voters, returning both chambers of the MN State Legislature to Democratic control.
And in Colorado, following the blocking of a civil union law by the Republican-controlled House, voters elected Democrats to take control. This paves the way for approval of a civil union law in 2013.
In the US Senate, three supporters of the freedom to marry replace opponents: In Connecticut, Chris Murphy (D) was elected to replace Senator Joseph Lieberman; In Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren (D) defeated incumbent Scott Brown; In Maine, Angus King (I) was elected to replace Olympia Snowe. Additionally, in Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin (D), an openly lesbian candidate, won a hard-fought race against anti-freedom to marry former Gov. Tommy Thompson, to replace Herb Kohl.
Freedom to Marry is the gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. Headed by Evan Wolfson, one of America's leading civil rights advocates and lawyers, Freedom to Marry brings new resources and a renewed context of urgency and opportunity to this social justice movement.
LATEST NEWS
'Time Is Ticking': GOP Lawmakers Urged to Back Healthcare Tax Credit Extension
"Anything less is a choice to raise healthcare costs, strip millions of people of their coverage, and deepen America’s ongoing healthcare crisis," said one campaigner.
Dec 02, 2025
With less than a month remaining before Affordable Care Act healthcare tax credits are set to expire—which would cause monthly premiums to soar for an estimated 20 million Americans and potentially leave millions without coverage—Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocacy groups on Tuesday implored congressional Republicans to back a three-year extension on the vital subsidies.
While President Donald Trump and Republican legislators have promised lower healthcare costs, prices are soaring and millions of families are facing major premium hikes if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies end as scheduled on December 31. That leaves lawmakers with just 12 legislative days to act.
Trump has expressed openness to extending the ACA subsidies, even teasing a policy framework featuring a two-year extension with income caps and minimum premium payments for enrollees in the program also known as Obamacare.
However, the president has put the brakes on his proposal under pressure from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other congressional Republicans, many of whom are seeking a guarantee that the Hyde Amendment—which prohibits federal Medicaid funding for most abortion services—will be expanded to further restrict reproductive healthcare.
Calling Republicans "a total mess" who "don’t know what to do," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Tuesday: "One day, Trump floats a so-called 'healthcare plan.' The next day, Speaker Johnson forces him to shoot it down. Some Republicans say they want to dismantle the ACA, probably a majority of them in the House and a large number in the Senate want to just dismantle it altogether."
"Other Republicans seem to be more focused on eradicating reproductive care in every state than helping people afford healthcare," Schumer continued. "The bottom line is that Republicans are in total disarray on healthcare."
"And while Republicans continue the infighting, who is paying the price? The American people," he added. "The people whose premiums are going up by $500 to $1,000 a month. These people know that Trump and Republicans are to blame."
Democratic lawmakers are pushing more lawmakers to sign a discharge petition, which would require Johnson to hold a vote on legislation to extend the ACA subsidies for three years. Such a bill is backed by numerous healthcare and economic advocacy groups.
"If Republicans in Congress truly cared about lowering costs for their constituents, they would swallow their pride and sign on to the discharge petition to force a vote on extending healthcare tax credits,” Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal said in a statement Tuesday.
“Republicans in Congress have spent months attacking Americans' access to healthcare while giving tax breaks to billionaires," Tal added. "Now, it is time that they finally put their constituents first, sign on to the discharge petition to extend these healthcare tax credits, and stop voting to undermine access to healthcare for millions of Americans.”
Michelle Sternthal, director of government affairs at Community Catalyst, a national health justice organization, said Tuesday that "Congress should pass a clean extension of the tax credits, repeal the dangerous healthcare provisions of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ and protect the communities who rely on them the most."
"Because affordable, accessible care isn’t just good policy—it’s the foundation of a stronger, more resilient nation," she added.
Reproductive rights defenders sounded the alarm over Republican efforts to further restrict abortion care—which has been eviscerated by Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices and GOP-led state legislatures with sometimes deadly results—in any ACA tax credit extension.
Noting previous GOP efforts to strip abortion care from the ACA, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Reproductive Freedom for All said in a joint statement on Monday:
Anti-abortion members of Congress want to create an additional abortion coverage ban on the ACA marketplace by making plans that include abortion coverage prohibitively expensive and unworkable. They want to restrict coverage for more than 20 million enrollees and prohibit people using tax credits from buying plans that cover abortion. This restriction conflicts with decisions some states have made to require coverage of abortion. In states that allow plans to cover abortion, since plans would be significantly more expensive without the availability of tax credits, insurers would likely drop abortion coverage because these plans would be unattractive and onerous to consumers.
The ACA already prohibits federal funding from being used to pay for abortion coverage under marketplace plans except in the very limited circumstances of rape, incest, and life-endangerment. What anti-abortion politicians are calling for would be an expansion of abortion restrictions into the private insurance market. This would only cause more chaos and confusion for those seeking their health insurance through the marketplace. The ACA was passed with the intent of providing affordable coverage, but anti-abortion politicians want to place new and expanded barriers to abortion coverage and push healthcare out of reach for people who rely on the marketplace.
Congressional Democrats echoed the advocacy groups' calls for their Republican colleagues to support the discharge petition.
"Democrats have an active discharge petition, and all we need are a handful of House Republicans to join us and we can trigger an up-or-down vote on a three-year extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits to save the healthcare of the American people in every single state in this country, and protect the healthcare of people who these so-called Republican members allegedly represent, but who have failed to do a single thing to make their life better," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said Monday.
Congresswoman Nikki Budzkinski (D-Ill.) wrote on the social media platform Bluesky, "At the end of this month, the ACA tax credits will expire—plunging millions of Americans even deeper into the affordability crisis as their healthcare costs skyrocket."
"It’s time for President Trump and Republicans in Congress to get serious about saving healthcare," she added.
The healthcare crisis continues to loom and it’s time we extend the healthcare tax credits NOW to ensure folks are able to afford quality healthcare.TIME IS TICKING AND WE CANNOT WAIT ANY LONGER!
— Rep. Frederica Wilson (@repwilson.bsky.social) December 1, 2025 at 7:04 AM
Noting that the GOP spending bill signed by Trump in July "made the biggest Medicaid cuts in history to fund trillions in tax breaks for billionaires," Congresswoman Summer Lee (D-Pa.) warned Tuesday that "when these cuts go into effect, over 17,000 people in my district will lose healthcare."
Other lawmakers argued that Congress should go even further and pass Medicare for All legislation led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
"We must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a cosponsor of the bill, said Monday. "Yes, let's extend the ACA tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions. Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits. We need Medicare for All."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Critics Condemn 'Murder, Plain and Simple,' Hegseth Backs Admiral Order to Kill Boat Attack Survivors
"Making Adm. Bradley the fall guy in the administration's 'Protect Pete' campaign is disgraceful and destructive," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal. "Hegseth must go—resign or be fired."
Dec 02, 2025
As journalists on Tuesday continued to demand answers about the "double-tap" strike that started an illegal US bombing campaign against alleged drug-smuggling boats, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth kept pointing the finger at Adm. Frank M. "Mitch" Bradley while still claiming to support the Navy leader who the Trump administration says ordered the military to take out two survivors of the initial attack.
Sitting beside President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting, Hegseth—who has denied the Washington Post and CNN's reporting that he gave a spoken directive to kill everybody on the boat before the September 2 bombing—told reporters that he left the room after the first strike, and Bradley ordered the second strike.
"I watched that first strike live. As you can imagine, at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do, so I didn't stick around for the hour, and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs," Hegseth said, using Trump's preferred term for his department.
"So I moved on to my next meeting," the Fox News host-turned-Pentagon chief said. "Couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the—which he had the complete authority to do, and by the way—Adm. Bradley made the correct decision, to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat... And it was the right call. We have his back."
Asked whether he saw the survivors after that first strike, Hegseth said: "I did not personally see survivors... The thing was on fire."
"This is called the fog of war," he added. "This is what you in the press don't understand. You sit in your air-conditioned offices or up on Capitol Hill, and you nitpick, and you plant fake stories in the Washington Post about 'kill everybody' phases on anonymous sources not based in anything, not based in any truth at all, and then you want to throw out really irresponsible terms about American heroes."
On Sunday, US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said during an ABC News appearance that the second strike on September 2 was either "plain murder," or a war crime—if you accept the Trump administration's contested argument that the United States is "in armed conflict, at war... with the drug gangs," which many lawmakers and experts reject.
Responding to Hegseth's Tuesday remarks on the social media platform X, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee member said that "Secretary Talk Show Host may have been experiencing the 'fog of war,' but that doesn't change the fact that this was an extrajudicial killing amounting to murder or a war crime. One thing is clear: Pete Hegseth is unfit to serve. He must resign."
Calls for Hegseth's resignation or firing have mounted since Friday's reporting, exacerbated by his Monday X post in which the defense secretary said Bradley "has my 100% support" and "I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made—on the September 2 mission and all others since."
Replying to that post, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said that "making Adm. Bradley the fall guy in the administration's 'Protect Pete' campaign is disgraceful and destructive. It signals to military professionals down the ranks they'll be thrown under the bus for lawbreaking by Hegseth and other political leaders."
Despite recent bipartisan vows of "vigorous oversight" for the September 2 attack, Blumenthal said that "Republicans have shown no clear sign they'll buck the administration's blame gaming and begin a prompt investigation with subpoenas, witness depositions, hearings, and more. One immediate imperative: Demand that evidence be preserved—like all videos, emails, correspondence."
"Hegseth must go—resign or be fired," the senator added. "No question that murders or war crimes were committed on his watch. His criminal culpability may be contested, but no question that he's ultimately accountable. He directed the strikes be lethal and total. The buck stops with him."
Blumenthal is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which, alongside the relevant House panel, is set to hold a classified briefing on Thursday with testimony from Bradley. Critics in Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have also called on Hegseth to testify under oath about the 22 boat bombings in the Caribbean and Pacific—which have killed at least 83 people—and potential US attacks within Venezuela, which the defense secretary and Trump teased again on Tuesday.
Ryan Goodman, a former Pentagon special counsel who’s now a New York University law professor and Just Security coeditor-in-chief, offered some potential questions lawmakers could ask based on Hegseth and Trump's Cabinet meeting comments.
The first: "Mr. Secretary, do you hereby testify—under penalty of perjury—that all your public statements about your involvement in the September 2 strike are true? We provided you a copy of all your statements before this hearing."
Noting Trump's claim that "Pete didn't know about [the] second attack having to do with two people," Goodman suggested that lawmakers inquire: "Oh. Well then, when did Pete know about it, and what did he do about it? When he found out about it, did he know the second attack was in order to kill the shipwrecked?"
Goodman and other experts argued in a Monday analysis for Just Security that "the United States is not in an armed conflict with any drug trafficking cartel or criminal gang anywhere in the Western Hemisphere," so "the individuals involved have not committed war crimes," but "the alleged Hegseth order and special forces' lethal operation amounted to unlawful 'extrajudicial killing' under human rights law," and "the federal murder statute would also apply."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Republicans Suddenly Care About US Airstrike Massacres—But Only Obama's
House Speaker Mike Johnson falsely claimed that "nobody ever questioned" Obama's hundreds of drone strikes, while defending the Trump administration's high seas murder spree.
Dec 02, 2025
Republicans on Tuesday invoked drone strikes during then-President Barack Obama's tenure in a dubious effort to justify what experts say is the Trump administration's illegal boat bombing campaign against alleged drug traffickers, while falsely claiming that Democrats and the media ignored airstrikes ordered by the former president.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was asked during a Tuesday press conference about a so-called "double-tap" airstrike—military parlance for follow-up strikes on survivors and first responders after initial bombings—that killed two men who survived a September 2 attack on a boat in the southern Caribbean Sea.
Although US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has denied it, he reportedly gave a spoken order to “kill everybody” in the boat, which was supposedly interpreted by Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley as a green light for launching a second strike after the discovery that two of the 11 men aboard the vessel were alive and clinging to its burning wreckage.
Responding to the question concerning the strike's legality, Johnson pointed to upcoming congressional consultations on the matter and said that such attacks are "not an unprecedented thing."
“Secondary strikes are not unusual,” he noted. “It has to happen if a mission is going to be completed.”
“It’s something Congress will look at, and we’ll do that in the regular process and order," Johnson continued, referring to a classified briefing with Bradley and some lawmakers scheduled for Thursday. "I think it’s very important for everybody to reserve judgment and not leap to conclusions until you have all the facts."
“One of the things I was reminded of this morning is that under Barack Obama... I think there were 550 drone strikes on people who were targeted as enemies of the country, and nobody ever questioned it," he said.
RAJU: If defenseless survivors were killed, would that constitute a violation of the laws of war?
MIKE JOHNSON: I'm not going to prejudge any of that. I was pretty busy yesterday. I didn't follow a lot of the news. pic.twitter.com/v38JWhNx0k
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 2, 2025
The lack of attention to Obama's strikes claimed by Johnson is belied by congressional hearings, lawsuits, and copious coverage—and condemnation—of such attacks in media outlets including Common Dreams.
Progressive lawmakers and Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky were among the numerous US officials who criticized Obama-era drone strikes.
Trump administration officials have reportedly cited the Obama administration's legal rationale for bombing Libya to justify the boat strikes to members of Congress.
Other Republican lawmakers and right-wing media figures noted on Tuesday that Obama—who bombed more countries than his predecessor, former President George W. Bush and was called the "drone warrior-in-chief"—ordered strikes that resulted in massacres of civilians at events including funerals and at least one wedding.
At least hundreds of civilians were killed in such strikes, including 16-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who according to an Obama administration official was in the wrong place at the wrong time when he was slain in Yemen in 2011. This, after al-Awlaki's father—an accused terrorist who was also American—was assassinated by a drone strike ordered by Obama.
Asked by a reporter about the legality of assassinating US citizens without charge or trial, then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs infamously asserted in October 2012 that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki should have had "a far more responsible father."
Buried deep in a New York Times article published earlier that year was the revelation that Obama's secret "kill list" authorized the assassination of US citizens, and that his administration was counting all military-age males in a strike zone as "combatants" regardless of their actual status in an effort to artificially lower the reported number of civilian casualties.
“Turns out I’m really good at killing people,” Obama once boasted, according to the 2013 Mark Halperin and John Heilemann book Double Down. “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”
A third member of the al-Awlaki family, 8-year-old Nawar al-Awlaki—also an American citizen—was killed in a US commando raid in Yemen ordered by President Donald Trump in early 2017.
Tens of thousands of civilians were killed by US airstrikes in Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen during the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations as part of the decadeslong so-called Global War on Terror, in which more than 900,000 people were slain, according to the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
At least thousands of civilians have been killed or wounded by US bombs and bullets in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen during Trump's first and second terms, during which rules of engagement aimed at protecting noncombatants have been loosened.
At least 83 people have been killed in 21 strikes on alleged drug-running boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since early September, according to Trump administration figures. Officials in Venezuela and Colombia, as well as relatives of victims, claim that some of them were civilians uninvolved in narcotrafficking.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular