News
Leahy withholds amendments for gay couples in immigration bill
In tearful speeches, Dems says time is wrong for measures

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) withheld UAFA as a committee amendment. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Tuesday withheld amendments to include gay couples as part of immigration reform in the aftermath of speeches — sometimes tearful — from Democrats on the panel who said they couldn’t support the measures.
After an extended speech on why he believes discrimination against gay couples is wrong — Leahy said “with a heavy heart” he wouldn’t introduce the amendments before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They would have made bi-national same-sex couples equal under the law to straight couples for immigration purposes.
“In the immigration context, if you’re an American and fall in love will someone of the same sex from a different country and you get married legally, your spouse will not be treated like any other immigrant spouse would be by your federal government,” Leahy said. “My amendments would change that. I don’t want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country.”
During his remarks, Leahy asked members of the “Gang of Eight” who produced the base bill and were also members of the Senate Judiciary Committee why they decided to exclude gay couples from the initial legislation.
Under current law, gay Americans are unable to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States — even if they’re married — unlike straight Americans. For couples that are married, that’s because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. LGBT advocates had been pushing Congress to rectify this issue as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
Two amendments were proposed by Leahy. One mirrored the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. The other would have allowed for the approval of marriage-based green card applications for married same-sex couples.
Democrats who are known for being LGBT rights supporters — Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) — said they were torn on the issue, but couldn’t support the amendments out of fear they would lose Republican support and it would kill the legislative package.
Feinstein said the Supreme Court, which is currently considering the constitutionality of DOMA, may make the issue “moot” because a ruling against the anti-gay law in June would end federal discrimination against married same-sex couples.
“We now know that this is going to blow the agreement apart,” Feinstein said. “I don’t want to lose Sen. Graham’s vote because Sen. Graham’s vote can represent and be used as the rationale for dozens of other [lawmakers] who then will not vote for the immigration bill. … I am for what Sen. Leahy is proposing, I would just implore to hold off on this amendment at this time.”
Schumer, a member of the “Gang of Eight,” said he tried to persuade other senators to support the idea and believes current law is “rank discrimination,” but can’t bring himself to support the amendments because of Republican opposition.
“If we make the effort to add it to this bill, they will walk away,” Schumer said. “They’ve said it publicly, they’ve told me privately — I believe them. The result: no equality, no immigration bill. Everyone loses.”
Prior to the vote, Schumer was targeted by LGBT groups for being the only Democrat on the committee to not voice support for including UAFA as part of the larger package.
Durbin was particularly emotional and had tears in his eyes as he explained why they couldn’t support the measures. A member of the “Gang of Eight,” Durbin said he supports UAFA, but doesn’t see immigration reform as the best vehicle for the measure.
“I believe in my heart of hearts that what you’re doing is the right and just thing … but I believe this is the wrong moment, this is the wrong bill,” Durbin said. “There are approximately 250,000 LGBT undocumented immigrants in America that would benefit from passage of immigration reform. I want to make certain they have that chance.”
LGBT rights groups responded to the committee’s exclusion of same-sex couples from immigration reform with vocal disappointment.
Rachel Tiven, executive director of the LGBT group Immigration Equality, attended the markup and — while she said she’s “proud’ of Leahy for his support — expressed frustration with other Democrats.
“I’m very proud of Sen. Leahy; I’m very dismayed that his colleagues did not stand up with him to talk about the dignity of LGBT immigrant families,” Tiven said. “Only Sen. Leahy talked about the LGBT immigrants that he represents who have dreams, too, and who want to see a good bill passed that will help everyone, and who need immigration reform as badly as any other immigrant.”
Tiven named Democrats on the panel with whom she was particularly disappointed because of their previously articulated support for the LGBT community.
“To hear Sen. Durbin say, ‘Well, this is an outside issue like gun control,’ to hear that Sen. Franken didn’t speak up for families like Ginger and Ness Madeiros, whose visa runs out in August — what are they and their eight-month-old son going to do?” Tiven said. “I can’t imagine how they’re feeling right now about Sen. Franken. How could he not say these are immigrant families, too?”
With the exception of Schumer, Tiven maintained the Democrats on the panel expressed support for including same-sex couples in the reform package, which made their statements during the committee markup surprising.
But Republican members of the panel were most opposed to including the measures. They reiterated their opposition to including the measure in the package and said adopting them would break apart the coalition that helped put it together.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Republican member of the “Gang of Eight,” said the legislation would lose support from evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church, who’ve supported the measure, if those protections were included.
“I support traditional marriage without animosity,” Graham said. “I’m not married; I guess that means maybe I shouldn’t speak at all about it, but I do believe that the people of my state, and the people of other states who have gone different ways than Vermont, believe it would throw the coalition out of balance.”
When Leahy asked Graham if anything in the amendments would require South Carolina to change its state law on marriage, Graham said no, but maintained it would be making him vote in favor of a concept he opposes.
“You got me on immigration; you don’t got me on marriage,” Graham said. “I can’t just tell any more directly; you want to keep me on immigration; let’s stay on immigration.”
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), another GOP member of the “Gang of Eight,” also said he expected the coalition that put the bill together to fall apart if same-sex couples were included.
“This is an issue that is being addressed by the courts right now, I think that it would certainly upset the coalition that we have,” Flake said. “Certainly, we in Arizona, like in South Carolina, have spoken on the issue. It would certainly mean that this bill would not move forward. That would be a real shame, given how far we’ve come and the work that’s gone into this.”
Winnie Stachelberg, vice president of external affairs at the Center for American Progress, pointed at Republicans as the reason why same-sex couples weren’t included in the legislation.
“We’re all disappointed that at this juncture in the process, a small handful of Republicans prevented the provision from being voted on, but we’ve got a long way to go in the process and we’ll continue to work hard to secure the votes on the floor if it comes up,” Stachelberg said.
Following the discussion on the Leahy amendments, the committee reported out the legislation by a 13-5 vote. Supporters of immigration reform in the room — largely members of immigrant community — chanted, “Yes we can! Yes we can!” and embraced senators who voted in favor of the legislation as they snapped photos with them.
According to a report from the Williams Institute, an estimated 275,000 undocumented LGBT Americans would have a path to citizenship as the legislation currently stands if it reaches President Obama’s desk and is signed into law.
In a statement after the vote, Obama, who called for a gay-inclusive bill as part of his vision for reform, commended the committee for completing work on the legislation and urged a floor vote as soon as possible.
“None of the committee members got everything they wanted, and neither did I , but in the end, we all owe it to the American people to get the best possible result over the finish line,” Obama said. “I encourage the full Senate to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor at the earliest possible opportunity and remain hopeful that the amendment process will lead to further improvements.”
Leahy’s announcement came after an Associated Press report saying the White House had asked the Vermont senator to hold off on offering the amendments until the measure goes before the full Senate.
It’s unclear whether Leahy will introduce the amendments once the legislation reaches the Senate floor, which is expected early in June. Passage on the Senate floor would be significantly more difficult than passage would have been in committee if a 60-vote threshold is necessary to overcome a filibuster.
After the committee reported out the bill, the Washington Blade asked Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) whether he wants to see UAFA brought up as an amendment on the Senate floor.
“You’ll have to ask Sen. Leahy about that,” Schumer replied. “As you heard, I believe strongly in UAFA. I don’t think I have to say anything more; I spoke long enough on it.”
Although the amendment for same-sex couples wasn’t included, the committee on Monday rejected an amendment that would have removed a provision supported by LGBT advocates that was included in the base bill.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) offered two amendments that would have eliminated the repeal of the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers. One amendment failed on a vote of 6-12 and the other failed on a vote of 9-9.
LGBT advocates had supported that provision in the base bill because LGBT asylum seekers often don’t know they have a one-year deadline to apply for asylum in the United States, or lack financial resources to make the application.
Senegal
Senegalese president signs bill that further criminalizes homosexuality
Measure passed in National Assembly with near unanimous support
Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye on Tuesday signed into law a bill that further criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual relations in the country.
Lawmakers in the African country on March 11 nearly unanimously passed the measure that increases the penalty for anyone convicted of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations from one to five years in prison to five to 10 years. The bill that Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko introduced also prohibits the “promotion” or “financing” of homosexuality in Senegal.
Reuters on March 16 reported MassResistance, an anti-LGBTQ group based in the U.S., worked with Senegalese groups that support the bill. Volker Türk, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, is among those who urged Faye not to sign it.
The Senegalese National Assembly in 2021 rejected a bill that would have further criminalized homosexuality in the country.
Police in February arrested a dozen men and charged them with committing “unnatural acts.”
Maryland’s legislative caucuses outlined their legislative priorities heading into the final weeks of the 2026 General Assembly during a joint press conference on March 24.
The press conference was titled “We are Maryland,” where a representative for each of the legislative caucuses outlined priorities.
State Del. Kris Fair (D-Frederick County) of the LGBTQ+ Caucus opened the press conference with a statement on the unity of Maryland’s caucus.
“Together we can show our state and our community a different world, one where we mutually support one another and through that support uplift every Marylander,” he said.
In a press conference on March 5, the LGBTQ+ Caucus outlined its top legislative priorities. Fair highlighted two of those bills again during the “We are Maryland” press conference.
The first of the two highlighted pieces of legislation was Senate Bill 626 and House Bill 1589.
The bills would simplify the process of updating an individual’s birth certificate and align the Department of Health and DMV systems to reflect those changes. The bill is being led by state Sen. Clarence Lam (D-Anne Arundel and Howard Counties) and state Del. Ashanti Martinez (D-Prince George’s County).
The second piece of legislation is Senate Bill 950 and House Bill 1209, which would update and modernize laws and regulations around so-called conversion therapy. The bills have failed to pass either chamber thus far. They are being led by state Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D-Montgomery County) and state Del. Bonnie Cullison (D-Montgomery County).
(The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a Colorado law that bans so-called conversion therapy for minors. Maryland is among the U.S. jurisdictions that prohibit the widely discredited practice for anyone under 18.)
Martinez and Lam have introduced bills in their respective chambers that would expand PrEP access in Maryland. Martinez did not attend the press conference, and Fair did not mention it when he spoke.
State Del. N. Scott Phillips (D-Baltimore County) represented the Black Caucus during the press conference. State Del. Dana Jones (D-Anne Arundel County) spoke on behalf of the Women’s Caucus, State Del. Teresa Woorman (D-Montgomery County) represented the Latino Caucus, and State Del. Lily Qi (D-Montgomery County) represented the Asian-American and Pacific Islander Caucus. State Del. Jared Solomon (D-Montgomery County) represented the Jewish Caucus, and state Del. Sean Stinnett (D-Baltimore County) represented the Muslim Caucus during the press conference.
Solomon ended the press conference by explaining the importance of all the caucuses coming out together.
“We are stronger when we’re together, and many of these issues that we have talked about, again, impact all of us,” said Solomon.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules against Colo. law banning conversion therapy for minors
8-1 decision could have sweeping impact
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a Colorado law that bans so-called conversion therapy for minors.
The justices last October heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar. Today they ruled 8-1 in favor of Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist who challenged the 2019 law.
In the case, which was heard by the justices in October 2025, Chiles successfully argued to the court that the law restricting this type of therapy was unconstitutional, leading to it being struck down.
The Supreme Court ultimately found that lower state and federal courts has “erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny,” ultimately reversing the widely discredited “medical” treatment that has support by a very narrow margin of mental health specialists — specifically religious and socially conservative ones. This is despite the fact that Colorado state officials have never enforced the measure in practice, and included a religious exemption for people “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.” The now moot law carried fines of up to $5,000 for each violation and possible suspension or revocation of a counselor’s license.
In the ruling, the court said the law, that specifically applies to talk therapy “impermissibly” interferes with free speech rights of Americans, and despite it being “regard[ed] its policy as essential to public health and safety, but the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for himself and seven other justices from across the ideological spectrum who overturned the low court’s ruling. He went on to add that the original ban “trains directly on the content of her speech and permits her to express some viewpoints but not others.”
Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, which included an in depth summary of her departure from the other eight justices, explaining her fears about the verdict — and its eventual chilling effect on legislation that could attempts to restrict regulatory speech for religious attitudes— despite that these regulations are often made as a direct creation of years of essentially unanimous research, and are vetted though regulatory boards for specific jobs.
“This decision might make speech-only therapies and other medical treatments involving practitioner speech effectively unregulatable,” Jackson wrote on page 32 of the 35-page opinion issued by court in response to her opposing eight members comments on the bench.
Since the ruling late Tuesday morning, a slew of LGBTQ advocacy groups, as well as groups promoting LGBTQ discrimination, have issued statements on the direct impact this will have across the country for LGBTQ people.
Democratic Senator, running for reelection in Colorado, John Hickenlooper issued a condemnation of the practice on his X (formerly Twitter). “Conversion therapy is cruel and inhumane, plain and simple. This SCOTUS decision is dangerous for LGBTQ+ Americans,” Our LGBTQ+ community deserves safety, acceptance, and love. We won’t ever let up in our fight for a better nation.”
Conversion therapy is cruel and inhumane, plain and simple. This SCOTUS decision is dangerous for LGBTQ+ Americans.,” the former Governor said on the platform. “Our LGBTQ+ community deserves safety, acceptance, and love. We won’t ever let up in our fight for a better nation.”
Polly Crozier, director of family advocacy at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), provided a statement to the Washington Blade on the court’s decision.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling limited Colorado’s statute that preemptively shielded minors from conversion therapy, but it leaves open avenues for states to protect families from harmful, unscrupulous, and misleading practices that divide parents from their children and put LGBTQ+ youth at risk,” Crozier wrote, pointing to the overwhelming evidence on conversion therapy that argues this type of regulatory legislation is helping those suffering rather than harming. “The evidence is clear that conversion practices lead to increased anxiety, depression, and suicidality. This is a dangerous practice that has been condemned by every major medical association in the country. Today’s decision does not change the science, and it does not change the fact that conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences, and that family advocates, mental health practitioners, and all of us who care about the wellbeing of youth will continue working to shield LGBTQ+ young people and their families from this dangerous practice.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, who leads the nation’s largest LGBTQ advocacy group, also provided a statement, calling the courts choice a “reckless decision.” The statement also points out how their own data (from the group’s philanthropic arm of the organization) was cited in Brown Jackson’s dissent in the amicus brief.
“The court has weaponized free-speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children,” her statement reads. “So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is pseudoscience, not real therapy. It has been condemned by every mainstream medical and mental health association and harms families, traumatizes children, and robs people of their faith communities. It is cruel and should never be offered under the guise of legitimate mental healthcare. To undermine protections that keep kids and families safe from these abusive practices is shocking — and our children deserve better.”
Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit, tax-exempt Christian ministry that uses litigation to promote evangelical Christian values and limit LGBTQ protections, which was designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, was also cited in the court’s amicus brief, but in support of overturning the law.
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s resounding decision in Chiles v. Salazar is a major victory for the integrity of the counseling profession,” Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Council said today. “This ruling ensures the government cannot strip the First Amendment away from licensed counselors and dictate a state-mandated ideology between counselor and client. Talk therapy is speech, and the government has no authority to restrict that speech to just one viewpoint. Counseling bans can now be struck down nationwide so that people can get the counseling they need.”
GLAAD, one of the nation’s oldest non-profit organizations focused on LGBTQ advocacy and cultural change issued a statement pon the verdict, emphasizing what multiple advocate groups have said – this decision will impact an already vulnerable youth population at an elevated high risk.
“The Court once again prioritized malice over best practice medicine,” Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO of GLAAD said in a statement. “In the face of this harmful decision, we need to amplify the voices of survivors of this dangerous and disproven practice, and continue to hold anyone who peddles in this junk science liable.”
Truth Wins Out, an organization that works towards “advancing liberty and democracy through protecting the rights of LGBTQ people and other minorities” called out the court’s majority opinion for its potential for religious extremism and spread of disinformation.
“This ruling is a profound failure of both logic and moral responsibility that confuses ‘free speech’ with ‘false speech’,” Wayne Besen, the Executive Director of Truth Wins Out said in a comment. ” It opens the door for quackery to flourish and allows practitioners of a thoroughly debunked practice to continue harming LGBTQ youth under a thin veneer of legitimacy
Adrian Shanker, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Policy at Health and Human Services under President Biden, who also led LGBTQI+ policy at the agency spoke about the detrimental impact this will have on rules and regulations within the healthcare field that are supposed to be inherently secular by nature.
“No matter what the Supreme Court decided today, it is irrefutable that conversion therapy is harmful to the health and wellbeing of LGBTQI+ youth,” Shanker told the Blade, continuing the Trump Administration’s choice to no longer formally support LGBTQ inclusive policy. “That’s why in the Biden administration we advanced policies to safeguard youth from this harmful practice.”
In an consistently updated document started in 2018 that cites the major harms risks conversion therapy poses to LGBTQ people, the Trevor Project, the leading suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ young people, included that the federal government’s own research proved the practice at best questionable and at worst deadly.
In a 2023 report entitled Moving Beyond Change Efforts: Evidence and Action to Support and Affirm LGBTQI+ Youth, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration stressed that “[sexual orientation and gender identity] change efforts are harmful practices that are never appropriate with LGBTQI+
youth, and efforts are needed to end these practices,” the summary of the fight against conversion therapy in the U.S. reads.
More than 20 states and D.C. banned the widely discredited practice for minors prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Blade last October spoke to conversion therapy survivors after the justices heard oral arguments in the Chiles case.
-
Out & About4 days agoCelebrate cherry blossoms the drag way
-
Botswana4 days agoLorato ke Lorato: marriage equality, democracy, and the unfinished work of justice in Botswana
-
Japan4 days agoJapanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
-
Opinions4 days agoThe outrage economy is not the LGBTQ community
