National
Nadler pushes DOMA repeal, despite recent court rulings
Says legislative action needed to fully fix inequities
Rep. Jerrold Nadler is calling for legislative repeal of DOMA in the wake of court rulings against the law. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
A New York Democrat leading the charge against the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress is stressing the need for legislative action against the anti-gay law despite a string of victories in the courts.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told the Washington Blade on Monday that legislation to repeal DOMA — the Respect for Marriage Act, which he sponsors in the U.S. House — may offer married same-sex couples greater flexibility with federal benefits as opposed to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the statute.
“The recent series of affirmative rulings in federal court give us a clear indication of where DOMA is ultimately headed, but we don’t know if a Supreme Court decision would be enough to ensure federal recognition of same-sex marriages,” Nadler said. “We need to pass the Respect for Marriage Act because its certainty provision would enable legally married same-sex couples to receive federal recognition no matter which state they move.”
In addition to repealing DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act, has a “certainty provision” that would allow married same-sex couples to retain federal benefits of marriage — including certain Social Security benefits, immunity from the estate tax and the ability to jointly file income taxes — even if these couples marry in one state and to move to another that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.
Nadler added the need to pass the Respect for Marriage Act “is one of the many reasons” why LGBT rights supporters need to work to re-elect President Obama, who’s endorsed the legislation, and put Democrats back in control of the House. The latter will be a tall order to fill because political observers expect Democrats may make some gains, but will likely fall short of the 25 seats needed for them to regain a majority.
The New York lawmaker spoke to the Washington Blade following a New York City meeting at Gay Men’s Health Crisis with LGBT advocates — including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and lesbian New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn — in which participants discussed ways to advance marriage equality and federal benefits for gay couples.
That meeting took place just days after the U.S. Second Circuit of Appeals became the second federal appellate court to rule against DOMA in the case of Windsor v. United States and the first appellate court to apply heightened scrutiny in determining the law is unconstitutional. The Windsor lawsuit — along with three others — is pending review before the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices haven’t yet made an announcement on whether they’ll take up the lawsuits, but are expected to take up at least one of the cases to make a nationwide ruling on DOMA.
Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, concurred that passage of the Respect for Marriage Act would afford greater certainty for married same-sex couples that wouldn’t necessarily be granted after a court ruling.
“Even if the court upholds one or more of the four holdings that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional in the four DOMA cases the court already has been asked to hear, Rep. Nadler is correct that the bill would help bring certainty to many same-sex couples that it may otherwise take years to sort out,” Davidson said.
Davidson said many federal laws aside from DOMA consider a couple legally married based on the state where the couple wed, but others such as tax law generally look to the state where the couple resides.
“The Respect for Marriage Act would solve this potentially confusing situation by making clear that the federal government would treat same-sex couples who got married in a jurisdiction that allowed it to be considered married for all federal purposes,” Davidson said.
Davidson, whose organization is responsible for one of the DOMA challenges called Golinksi v. Office of Personnel Management, added the legislation is also important in case the Supreme Court reaffirms DOMA because in that event, legislative repeal of the law would be “the only recourse” for opponents of the law.
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said a Supreme Court ruling overturning DOMA would be “historic and huge,” but Nadler is right that Congress must move forward with the Respect for Marriage Act — largely because the law originated in Congress.
“The act will ensure that the federal government cannot treat same-sex couples as second-class citizens regardless of where they live in the country,” Sainz said. “It was Congress that enacted the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, and it is Congress that should take the step to guarantee that gay and lesbian families will no longer be denied recognition by the federal government.
Mary Bonauto, civil rights attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which is responsible for the Gill v. Office of Personnel Management case against DOMA, said via email she appreciates Nadler’s work to repeal DOMA in Congress, but litigation can afford more immediate relief.
“If we win in court, that would return us to the ordinary rules by which the federal government respects state determinations of marital status,” Bonauto said. “I would be happy to have Congress eliminate the problems it created in 1996, but in the meantime, the courts provide the most direct route to relief.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams
In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition
On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Community comes together to repair WorldPride history exhibition
Va. court allows conversion therapy despite law banning it
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
Longtime DC resident Thomas Walsh dies at 87
Upwards of 100K people march in Budapest Pride
Two new books on dining out LGBTQ-style
‘Andy Warhol in Iran’ a charming look at intersection of art, politics
Pragmatic presidents invest in America
