Connect with us

National

DOMA repeal unlikely to find a single GOP vote in committee

‘Poison pill’ amendments could emerge during panel markup

Published

on

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act is unlikely to win support from a single Republican during an upcoming committee vote on the bill.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin debate leading to a vote on the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the 1996 law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Although the committee action on the legislation is set begin on Thursday, the panel will likely hold off on consideration of the bill for another week. Committee rules allow for any member of the panel to hold bills over when they first appear on the executive committee agenda.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the DOMA repeal bill, told the Washington Blade in a brief exchange on Capitol Hill that she expects the committee to postpone action on the Respect for Marriage Act after the panel convenes.

“Everybody has the right to put it over for one week, so it’ll be put over,” Feinstein said.

Members of the committee may read opening statements on Thursday regarding their views on DOMA, but action will likely be postponed.

All 10 Democrats on the 18-member panel are supporters of DOMA repeal, so the legislation should have no trouble moving out of committee. But LGBT advocates are dubious about finding support from any Republicans on the panel.

Of the eight Republican members of the panel, six received a score of “0” in the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent scorecard of federal legislators. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had a score of 13 out of 100. Another committee member, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), is a newcomer and wasn’t rated during the 111th Congress.

Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign, said he isn’t expecting a single Republican vote during the committee consideration of the Respect for Marriage Act.

“I don’t think they will,” Jacobs said. “They should. We welcome them. … This should be non-partisan because it simply restores the status quo ante. For people who are states’ rights advocates, join the party.”

The Courage Campaign, a progressive grassroots organization, has been working to build the number of Senate co-sponsors for the Respect for Marriage Act by circulating petitions among state residents and sending them to senators. The group is currently focused on adding Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) as supporters.

The Blade placed calls to each of the eight Republican members of the committee to inquire about how the senators would vote when the Respect for Marriage Act comes before them. Only the office of Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the committee, responded immediately.

Beth Levine, a Grassley spokesperson, said the senator “has been very clear how he feels about this bill” and “supports the Defense of Marriage Act.”

During the Senate committee hearing on DOMA in July, Grassley articulated his opposition to lifting DOMA from the books in his opening statement.

“A real bill to restore marriage would restore marriage as it has been known: as between one man and one woman,” Grassley said. “That is the view of marriage that I support. This bill would undermine, not restore marriage, by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.”

The Respect for Marriage Act wouldn’t compel states to recognize same-sex marriages, but would lift the provision preventing federal benefits and responsibilities from flowing to existing married gay couples throughout the country.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said his organization is communicating with GOP members of the committee in conjunction with Freedom to Marry, but added he couldn’t name any Republican who would vote “yes.”

“We’re still working and communicating with them,” Cooper said. “But I’ll leave it at that.”

In addition to voting against the legislation, Republican opponents of the Respect for Marriage Act may offer amendments to force senators to vote on uncomfortable issues or alter the legislation so supporters would no longer back it.

Such amendments are often called “poison pill” amendments because they serve no purpose other than to disrupt the measure at hand.

Feinstein acknowledged that amendments attempting to derail passage of the Respect for Marriage Act could come up, but expressed skepticism that any would move forward.

“That’s certainly a possibility,” Feinstein said. “I don’t know whether it’s a probability or not — there’ll certainly be amendments. Whether they would be poison pill — I would be doubtful of that. But that’s just me.”

LGBT advocates say they’re awaiting Republican amendments aimed at disrupting passage of the Respect for Marriage Act to come up in committee, but don’t want to speculate on the nature of the measures.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, an HRC spokesperson, said Republicans may want to score points with their conservative base by offering disruptive amendments.

“The interesting thing will be to see to degree to which committee Republicans will want to offer amendments or otherwise make political hay out of this issue,” Cole-Schwartz said.

Even if the bill is advanced out of committee, supporters of the legislation will face a stiff challenge in passing the bill on the Senate floor. In addition to Feinstein, the legislation has 30 co-sponsors — all Democrats — far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster on the Senate floor.

The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request for comment on whether the Democratic leadership would bring the bill up for a vote during the 112th Congress.

Feinstein said she hasn’t engaged in talks with Reid on bringing the Respect for Marriage Act to the Senate floor. Asked whether she had conversations with him about the bill, Feinstein replied, “No. Not at this time. Let’s get it out of committee first.”

The California lawmaker said she doesn’t “necessarily” expect a floor vote on the bill before this Congress adjourns at the end of next year, saying “We’d like to win it.”

Cole-Schwartz said the full Senate “remains a challenge” in passing DOMA repeal, but the committee markup would be effective in building momentum for the legislation.

“There’s a lot more work to be done to gain additional co-sponsors, to educate members on the issue,” he said. “It’s important that we get Republican co-sponsors on the bill before we’re really going to be in a position to win 60 votes on the floor.”

Passage in the U.S. House would be even more difficult. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated in July he wouldn’t bring the legislation to a vote on the House floor, telling the Blade that DOMA is “the law of the land, and should remain the law of the land.”

An amendment affirming DOMA sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) passed in July on the House floor by a vote of 248-175.

Despite these challenges, Jacobs said the effort is still worthy and he’s “not going to give up on the idea” the bill could pass this Congress.

“I think it’s really obvious and simple: people didn’t think that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ would move as it did,” Jacobs said. “As a community,  we have to continue to organize with our friends and our allies, and we have this great opportunity with this markup now, and if we keep going we’ll win.”

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story

Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.

Published

on

President Donald Trump at the State of the Union in February 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.

While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.

“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.

“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”

His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.

White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.

Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”

He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.

The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.

Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.

His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.

Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.

Continue Reading

National

Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents

Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community

Published

on

The Trump administration has moved from identifying trans people as as threat to the family to claiming that trans people are a threat to the spiritual health of the nation. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”

The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.” 

This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.

As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.” 

Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation. 

By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents. 

With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”

This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”

And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions. 

While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933. 

In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare. 

Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people. 

The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.” 

As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.” 

In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law

Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure

Published

on

Pennsylvania Capitol Building (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.

House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.

The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.

“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”

Continue Reading

Popular