Barney Frank's decades-long House career has come to a close, but the gay firebrand is far from retiring
Interview by Justin Snow Photography by Todd Franson
January 17, 2013
Barney Frank
(Photo by Todd Franson)
MW:Has the atmosphere here changed since you first arrived in Washington?
FRANK: It mostly changed in 2010 when the tea party people won. I understand it’s very poisonous, but if you go back, from 2003 to 2007 I was the ranking minority member of the Financial Services Committee, the chairman was Mike Oxley (R-Ohio), and we worked together. He was in charge, but I had a real influence and it was a civil relationship.
And then I became chairman in 2007 when George Bush was president and we cooperated with the Bush administration. The secretary of the treasury, Hank Paulson, who was there during the financial crisis, asked me to write the foreward to his book about his experiences. We had differences and we argued – partisanship is a good thing – but we could come to a deal. Now, the deal was never 50-50.
Then the Democrats did pretty well when we had Obama as president and the House and the Senate. Things broke down in 2011 after this right-wing group took over the Republican Party and won the House in 2010. Now they’re starting to come apart and I have some optimism that people in the Republican Party are now understanding how much damage they are doing to themselves by having this right-wing group in power.
MW:Many people described this past election as a ”watershed moment” for gay rights because of the marriage wins and President Obama’s re-election.
FRANK: And not just because the president came out for marriage. As early as May, you had liberal political analysts saying, ”Oh, this is going to be a big problem for Obama. It’s going to hurt him in North Carolina.” Instead, Romney was complaining that it became a big political plus for Obama. Yes, it was a watershed year because this issue that everybody has been afraid of turned out to be a big winner for the Democrats.
MW:Do you think the game has changed forever on these issues?
FRANK: Yes. I think we have broken the back of anti-LGBT prejudices. We have to still keep working, but I think within 10 years we’ll have pretty full legal equality; that is, a fully trans-inclusive bill banning employment discrimination. We couldn’t get that done the last time. Next time the Democrats have the House, Senate and the president, we will get that.
I think the Supreme Court will do away with DOMA. But if it doesn’t, again, the next time the Democrats control the presidency, the House and the Senate, we’ll get rid of DOMA. And I don’t see a Supreme Court decision coming yet that says everybody has a right to same-sex marriage, but I believe in well over half the country people will have that right state by state.
MW:A lot of people think the Supreme Court will rule against DOMA, but the Proposition 8 case seems to raise a lot of questions as to whether the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the Constitution.
FRANK: I think it was a mistake to have brought the Prop. 8 case. I wish that some of the people out there and [Ted] Olson and [David] Boies paid more attention to Mary Bonauto, the lawyer for [Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders]. She is our Thurgood Marshall. She is a brilliant lawyer, a brilliant political strategist. She’s the one who developed the DOMA cases and the equal-protection argument. And then in California, some people came in and saved us because there’s a Supreme Court precedent against same-sex marriage. What they did was adopt the Colorado precedent, because remember the Prop. 8 decision didn’t say there’s a right constitutionally to same-sex marriage everywhere in America. It said that if a state has once allowed everybody in that state to be married — same sex or opposite sex — and then takes it away only for the same-sex people, that’s illegitimate. It’s what they did in Colorado with regards to antidiscrimination.
My guess is the Supreme Court will affirm the Prop. 8 decision, not go into the broader ”Everybody has the right to marry.” That’ll mean, by the way, in the Ninth Circuit Court people will have a right to same-sex marriage in California, but not in Oregon, Washington or Hawaii. Those both are based on existing Supreme Court doctrine.
MW:For the Republican Party going forward, do you think they have a future if they don’t catch up to some of these issues?
FRANK: Sure they have a future, and particularly because they gerrymandered in 2010 and it’s going to be harder for us to take the House back. On the other hand, one of the things I want to do and I am optimistic about the presidency with young people and Hispanics, but we should be doing better among white men. And that’s one of the things I want to talk about in my book is how to do that.
But I think they have a real crisis. If they do not break the grip of the tea party they will be very much a minority party. In the short term, they have a real problem because breaking that is going to be messy.
I was talking to a Republican senator the other night at the airport when I was waiting for Jim, my husband. I mentioned to him that the House Republicans were now thinking about changing the [fiscal cliff] deal, and he said, ”Boy, I went over a couple weeks ago to talk to the Republicans from my state to try to get them to be more reasonable. They’re fucking nuts. We get the shit pounded out of us for being too much for the rich and they don’t understand that.”
Yeah, they’ll survive. The question is how long will it take them and at what price. But they’ll have minority status for a while.
MW:How long do you think it will take them?
FRANK: They’re getting so pounded and I think what’s happening too is some of their supporters and funders are saying this is crazy. I believe, for example, that when the debt limit comes up that’s a real problem for them because their fundamentalists are saying, ”We won’t allow the debt limit to go up unless they cut Social Security and Medicare,” which is an insane political position, as well as being immoral.
And I think they’re going to have to crack. I think they’re going to have to give in. I think what’s going to happen is there’s going to be a battle from now until the next presidential election between crazy people and mainstream conservatives.
A new Pew Research Center survey finds that 59% of LGBTQ U.S. adults under age 50 who have never been married say they want to marry someday -- nearly the same as the 63% of non-LGBTQ adults who do. About 12% of each group say they never want to marry, while more than one-quarter are unsure of their future marriage plans.
By age, younger Americans who have never been married are more eager to wed than older peers, who are less certain and more doubtful about ever marrying.
Among those aged 18 to 29 who have never married, 67% of LGBTQ adults and 73% of non-LGBTQ adults say they want to marry someday. By contrast, just 48% of LGBTQ adults and 49% of non-LGBTQ adults aged 30 to 49 say the same, with nearly one-third in each group unsure.
The former Kentucky clerk -- and anti-LGBTQ culture warrior -- who went to jail rather than issue licenses to same-sex couples is now targeting the landmark 2015 ruling.
A decade after catapulting to right-wing stardom, Kim Davis -- the former Rowan County, Kentucky county clerk who chose jail over issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 2015 decision that legalized marriage equality nationwide.
Represented by the anti-LGBTQ Liberty Counsel, Davis has formally asked the nation’s highest court to strip away the right of same-sex couples to marry.
A Mike Huckabee acolyte and four-time married fundamentalist zealot, Davis rose to fame in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to any couple -- gay or straight -- after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision struck down all state-level bans on same-sex marriage, including Kentucky’s. Ordered to comply, she instead spent six days in jail for contempt of court.
With Obergefell at risk and 32 states poised to restrict same-sex marriage, LGBTQ advocates push to enshrine protections at the state level.
By Maximilian Sandefer
August 6, 2025
On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Abortion rights were now no longer guaranteed nationwide as the issue was left up to the states. This shock reversal of over 49 years of precedent left reproductive rights activists scrambling as anti-choice state laws stemming from as far back as 1864 were revived and reinstituted.
As people's ability to access to reproductive care dwindled in conservative-led states, activists also found their footing. The 2024 election saw abortion rights ballot measures win in seven out of ten states. As we navigate a landscape where it will likely be a long time before we see any form of successful federal legislation protecting a woman's right to choose, state-by-state activism seems to be the driving force behind change.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
