News
Fed’l benefits issues linger post-DOMA for gay couples
Questions remain on Social Security, taxes, veterans benefits and family leave
Federal benefit issues for gay couples continue to linger after the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key).
Following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, the extent to which many federal benefits — taxes, Social Security, veterans benefits and family leave — will flow to married same-sex couples remains in question.
The Obama administration has extended certain benefits to married same-sex couples regardless of whether they live in the United States, but other benefits are still in limbo because of law, regulation or policy that determines whether a couple should be considered legally married.
Here’s a breakdown of these benefit categories and where they stand in terms of what’s obstructing their flow to married same-sex couples and what LGBT advocates see as the way forward:
1. SOCIAL SECURITY
Last week, the Social Security Administration announced for the first time it was starting to process retirement claims for married same-sex couples who apply for them in aftermath of the court decision on DOMA. But the extension of these benefits is limited.
On Friday, the agency published guidance indicating these benefits will flow to same-sex married couples living in states that recognize their unions, but couples that apply for these benefits in non-marriage equality states for the time being will have their requests placed on hold.
“Bill (the claimant) and Bob (the NH) marry in MA after MA recognizes same-sex marriage, but are domiciled Texas (TX),” the guidance says. “Bill files for husband’s benefits on Bob’s record. They meet all other factors of entitlement. Hold the claim.”
William “BJ” Jarrett, a Social Security spokesperson, confirmed on Monday the agency is processing some Social Security retirement spouse claims when the individual was married in a state that permits same-sex marriage and lives in a marriage-equality state at the time of application — or while the claim is pending a final determination. Still, he acknowledged other retirement claims are on hold.
“For all other claims, including Social Security survivors benefits, we continue to work with the Department of Justice on the development and implementation of policy and processing instructions,” Jarrett said. “We do, however, encourage individuals who believe they may be eligible for Social Security benefits to apply now to protect against the loss of any potential benefits.”
The reasoning for placing these claims on holds is statutory. Social Security law looks to the state of residence when a couple applies for benefits to determine if they’re married instead of looking to the place of celebration.
Even so, LGBT advocates say it’s possible for the Obama administration to interpret the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA in a broad way that allows them to offer Social Security benefits to a greater number of couples.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, indicated that no final decision has been with the assessment of these benefits as he encouraged the Obama administration to expand the benefits to additional couples.
“We are glad to see some couples getting benefits and that the door is still open for those couples living in non-marriage equality states,” Cole-Schwartz said. “We urge them to take the broadest interpretation to ensure the maximum numbers of same sex couples have access to benefits.”
Susan Sommer, a senior counsel at Lambda Legal, said her organization also believes gay couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships should also be eligible for Social Security benefits.
“We think that the laws reads for sure to includes those people who live in those states that have a civil union or domestic partnership, but waiting to hear from the Obama administration for confirmation on that point,” Sommer said.
But a statutory change may be necessary. In that event, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) has introduced Social Security Equality Act, which would enable gay couples to receive Social Security no matter where they live — even if their union isn’t a marriage, but a civil union or a domestic partnership.
“It is time for our government to stop telling gay and lesbian couples that they are second class citizens,” Sanchez said last week in a statement. “Same-sex couples pay into Social Security over the course of their working lives just like other Americans. They should receive the full benefits they have earned.”
2. TAXES
Another question is whether legally married same-sex couples throughout the country will be eligible for tax benefits — such as the exemption from the estate tax, the ability to jointly file and exemption from taxes on employer-provided spousal health benefits — in the wake of the DOMA decision. These couples are currently not receiving benefits if they live in states that haven’t legalized marriage equality.
That means if DOMA-lawsuit plaintiff Edith Windsor had moved to a non-marriage equality state like Alabama with Thea Spyer after marrying in Canada, she wouldn’t have been eligible for exemption from the estate tax as a result of her own lawsuit.
But what’s different about these benefits is that neither law nor regulation keeps these benefits from flowing to married same-sex couples that live in marriage equality states. It’s simply the policy of the Internal Revenue Service to look to the state of residence as opposed to the state of celebration in determining whether a couple is married.
Lambda’s Sommer pointed out that only policy is keeping the IRS from allowing these couples in non-marriage equality states to receive tax benefits entitled to other married couples.
“We are aware of no statute or even a regulation that prescribes a choice of law rule for determining the marital status for tax purposes,” Sommer said. “There’s no legal impediment to having the administration follow a place of celebration standard. It could so in addition to, say a place of domicile standard, which has been articulated in some tax court rulings, but still, in some circumstances, as a place of celebration rule.”
An IRS spokesperson referred to the statement currently on the agency’s website posted at the time of the Supreme Court in response to inquiry on whether IRS would implement tax benefits for married same-sex couples on the nationwide basis, regardless of their states of residence.
“We are reviewing the important June 26 Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act,” the statement says. “We will be working with the Department of Treasury and Department of Justice, and we will move swiftly to provide revised guidance in the near future.”
3. VETERANS BENEFITS
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on the day the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA that the Pentagon would comply the law to implement benefits for service members with same-sex spouses. But the question of whether veterans will be included as part of the package remains to be seen.
In U.S. Code, the Pentagon was previously unable to provide gay troops spousals benefits under Titles 10 and 32, which govern rights for service members, because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down Section 3 of DOMA, those benefits should begin to flow.
However, the benefits under Title 38, which governs benefits for veterans, define spouse independently of DOMA in opposite-sex terms. Some of the benefits allocated under this law are disability benefits, survivor benefits and joint burial at a veteran’s cemetery. It’s unclear whether these benefits will begin to flow along with these other benefits because of the wording within the law.
Multiple media outlets are reporting that the Pentagon intends to have the benefits issue wrapped up by Aug. 31 along with the extension of benefits that were available under DOMA, such as military IDs, that were announced in February. Additionally, the U.S. Justice Department is required to file in McLaughlin v. Hagel, an ongoing DOMA lawsuit, to provide a status report by Sept. 9 on benefits afforded to gay troops addressing the Title 38 issue. An informed source told the Washington Blade the issue may be resolved as soon as this week.
Alex Nicholson, who’s gay and legislative director for Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America, said his organization has spoken about the issue with the administration and believes it has a “justifiable mandate” to afford these benefits to the legal spouses gay veterans.
“It’s not surprising that they’re taking their time to figure this out and do it right, but I think the mandate from the Supreme Court was clear enough that they could definitely move a little faster,” Nicholson said.
Lambda’s Sommer said the issue for gay veterans isn’t so much Title 38 because Title 1 of the U.S. Code should allow for a gender-neutral construction of this law. Still, she said other portions of the law related to veterans benefits could impact gay veterans seeking claims.
“In the veterans benefits area, there is also a statute kind of like what’s seen in the Social Security context that looks to the place of domicile at the time of celebration or when the right to the benefit has accrued,” Sommer said. “We’ll have to await guidance for how the administration will treat veterans who resided at the time of their marriage, and continue to live, in states that don’t respect their marriages.”
Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen, a Pentagon spokesperson, said the Defense Department is working on the issue, but unable to provide additional information.
“The Department of Defense is working alongside the Department of Justice to implement the Court’s decision as quickly as possible,” Christensen said. “At this time no decisions have been made.”
In a statement provided to the Blade, the Department of Veterans Affairs similarly said the department was working to implement the benefits without providing anything conclusive on the extent to which they would flow.
“Our commitment to our Veterans and their families will continue to be our focus as we work to comply with recent Supreme Court decisions,” the statement says. “We are working closely with the Department of Justice to review relevant statutes and policies to implement any necessary changes to Federal benefits and obligations swiftly and smoothly in order to deliver the best services to all our nation’s Veterans.”
Here a change in the law may be required as well. The Charlie Morgan Act, introduced by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), would enable spousal benefits to flow to gay veterans. It was reported out of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs just prior to August recess.
4. FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
Yet another issue that related to family leave still persists a few days after the Labor Department issued guidance stating the Family & Medical Leave Act will apply to married same-sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court decision against DOMA: Will the change apply to married same-sex couples in non-marriage equality states?
On Friday, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez issued guidance to department staff notifying them the Wage & Hour Division made the change as the result of the work with the Justice Department and calling the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA “a historic step toward equality for all American families.”
“As part of this process, the Department of Labor updated several guidance documents today to remove references to DOMA and to affirm the availability of spousal leave based on same-sex marriages under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),” Perez said. “This is one of many steps the Department will be taking over the coming months to implement the Supreme Court’s decision.”
The Family & Medical Leave Act entitles employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. Eligible employees are entitled to 12 work weeks of leave in a year-long period for the birth of a child or to care for spouse and up to 26 work weeks of leave to care for a service member with a serious injury.
But under current policy, this post-DOMA application of the Family & Medical Leave Act won’t apply to married same-sex couples if they place of residence doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. A Labor Department official said the Wage & Hour Division’s Family & Medical Leave Act regulations define “spouse” for purposes of marriage as recognized under the state law where an employee resides. All that would be required for to change this policy is a change in regulation.
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, called on the Labor Department to update the regulations so same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of celebration for family and medical leave purposes.
“The couple that lives in Alabama, flies to New York City for the weekend to get married and returns to Alabama deserves to have the same FMLA rights as the gay and lesbian couples that live in New York City,” Almeida said. “We want a 50-state solution, and that means recognizing same-sex marriages by the state of celebration, even though current FMLA regulations recognize marriage by the state of residency.”
District of Columbia
Eleanor Holmes Norton ends 2026 reelection campaign
Longtime LGBTQ rights supporter introduced, backed LGBTQ-supportive legislation
The reelection campaign for D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been an outspoken supporter of LGBTQ rights since first taking office in 1991, filed a termination report on Jan. 25 with the Federal Elections Commission, indicating she will not run for a 19th term in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Norton’s decision not to run again, which was first reported by the online news publication NOTUS, comes at a time when many of her longtime supporters questioned her ability to continue in office at the age of 88.
NORTUS cited local political observers who pointed out that Norton has in the past year or two curtailed public appearances and, according to critics, has not taken sufficient action to oppose efforts by the Trump-Vance administration and Republican members of Congress to curtail D.C.’s limited home rule government.
Those same critics, however, have praised Norton for her 35-year tenure as the city’s non-voting delegate in the House and as a champion for a wide range of issues of interest to D.C. LGBTQ rights advocates have also praised her longstanding support for LGBTQ rights issues both locally and nationally.
D.C. gay Democratic Party activist Cartwright Moore, who has worked on Norton’s congressional staff from the time she first took office in 1991 until his retirement in 2021, points out that Norton’s role as a staunch LGBTQ ally dates back to the 1970s when she served as head of the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
“The congresswoman is a great person,” Moore told the Washington Blade in recounting his 30 years working on her staff, most recently as senior case worker dealing with local constituent issues.
Norton has been among the lead co-sponsors and outspoken supporters of LGBTQ rights legislation introduced in Congress since first taking office, including the currently pending Equality Act, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
She has introduced multiple LGBTQ supportive bills, including her most recent bill introduced in June 2025, the District of Columbia Local Juror Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban D.C. residents from being disqualified from jury service in D.C. Superior Court based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
For many years, Norton has marched in the city’s annual Pride parade.
Her decision not to run for another term in office also comes at a time when, for the first time in many years, several prominent candidates emerged to run against her in the June 2026 D.C. Democratic primary. Among them are D.C. Council members Robert White (D-At-Large) and Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2).
Others who have announced their candidacy for Norton’s seat include Jacque Patterson, president of the D.C. State Board of Education; Kinney Zalesne, a local Democratic party activist; and Trent Holbrook, who until recently served as Norton’s senior legislative counsel.
“For more than three decades, Congresswoman Norton has been Washington, D.C.’s steadfast warrior on Capitol Hill, a relentless advocate for our city’s right to self-determination, full democracy, and statehood,” said Oye Owolewa, the city’s elected U.S. shadow representative in a statement. “At every pivotal moment, she has stood firm on behalf of D.C. residents, never wavering in her pursuit of justice, equity, and meaningful representation for a city too often denied its rightful voice,” he said.
Sharon Nichols, who serves as press spokesperson for Norton’s congressional office, couldn’t immediately be reached for a comment by Norton on her decision not to seek another term in office.
Uganda
LGBTQ Ugandans targeted ahead of country’s elections
President Yoweri Museveni won 7th term in disputed Jan. 15 vote
Barely a week after Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni secured a 7th term in an election marred by state violence, intimidation, and allegations of fraud, the country’s queer community spoke about how the election environment impacted it.
The LGBTQ lobby groups who spoke with the Washington Blade noted that, besides government institutions’ failure to create a safe and inclusive environment for civic participation by all Ugandans, authorities weaponized the Anti-Homosexuality Act to silence dissent and discourage queer voter engagement.
The rights groups note that candidates aligned with Museveni’s ruling National Resistance Movement — including Parliament Speaker Anita Among — during the campaigns accused their rivals of “promoting homosexuality” to discredit them while wooing conservative voters.
Queer people and LGBTQ rights organizations as a result were largely excluded from the formal political processes for the election as voters, mobilizers, or civic actors due to fear of exposure, stigma, violence, and legal reprisals.
“This homophobic rhetoric fueled public hostility and emboldened vigilante violence, forcing many queer Ugandans into deeper hiding during the election period,” Uganda Minority Shelters Consortium Coordinator John Grace stated.
Some queer people had expressed an interest in running for local council seats, but none of them formally registered as candidates or campaigned openly because of safety concerns and local electoral bodies’ discriminatory vetting of candidates.
“UMSC documented at least three incidents of election-related violence or intimidation targeting LGBTQ+ individuals and activists,” Grace noted. “These included harassment, arbitrary detentions, extortions by state and non-state actors, digital cat-fishing, and threats of outing.”
Amid such a militarized and repressive election environment, Let’s Walk Uganda Executive Director Edward Mutebi noted queer-led and allied organizations engaged in the election process through restricted informal voter education, community discussions, and documenting human rights violations.
“Fear of backlash limited visibility and direct participation throughout the election cycle,” Mutebi said. “But despite the hostile environment of work, Let’s Walk Uganda was able to organize a successful transgender and gender diverse youth training on electoral security and safety.”
Museveni’s government escalated its repressive actions during the Jan. 15 elections by shutting down the internet and suspending nine civil society organizations, including Chapter Four Uganda and the National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders, for allegedly engaging in activities that are prejudicial to the security and laws of the country.
The suspension of the rights organizations remains in force, an action both Mutebi and Grace condemn. They say it prevents queer Ugandans from accessing urgent services from the affected groups.
“For the LGBTQ community, the impact has been immediate and deeply harmful. Many of the suspended organizations, like Chapter Four Uganda, were critical partners in providing legal representation, emergency response, and documentation of rights violations,” Grace said.
This has compelled UMSC and its other partners to handle increased caseloads with limited resources, while navigating heightened scrutiny and operational risk.
“The suspension has disrupted referral pathways, delayed urgent interventions, and weakened collective advocacy for marginalized groups and minority rights defenders, which calls for urgent international solidarity, flexible funding, and protection mechanisms to safeguard the work of grassroots organizations operating under threat,” Grace stated.
Mutebi warned that such repressive actions are tyrannical and are indicative of shrinking civic space, which undermines democratic accountability as the promotion and protection of human rights is ignored.
With Museveni, 81, extending his tenure at State House from a landslide win of 72 percent, UMSC and LWU consider a bleak future in the protection of rights for queer Ugandans and other minority groups.
“Without significant political and legal shifts, LGBTQ persons will face continued criminalization, reduced civic space, and heightened insecurity, making sustained advocacy and international solidarity more critical than ever,” Mutebi said. “ It is unimaginable how it feels to live in a country with no hope.”
Grace, however, affirmed the resistance by local queer lobby groups will continue through underground networks, regional solidarity, and digital organizing.
The duo noted that a win by Museveni’s main challenger and rapper, Bobi Wine, who only managed 24 percent of the total votes cast, could have enabled the opening up of civil space and human rights protections in Uganda.
Wine, for his part, spoke in favor of the respect for the rule of law and human rights during his campaign.
“While Bobi Wine’s past stance on LGBTQ rights was inconsistent, his recent shift toward more inclusive rhetoric and international engagement suggested a potential opening for dialogue,” Grace said. “A win might have created space for policy reform or at least reduced state-sponsored homophobia, though structural change would still require sustained pressure and coalition-building.”
Mutebi stated that a change in Uganda’s leadership to a youthful leader like Wine could have offered an opening, but not a guarantee for progress on inclusion and human rights. Mutebi added existing institutionalized and societal homophobia remain in place.
Federal Government
Trump-appointed EEOC leadership rescinds LGBTQ worker guidance
The EEOC voted to rescind its 2024 guidance, minimizing formally expanded protections for LGBTQ workers.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted 2–1 to repeal its 2024 guidance, rolling back formally expanded protections for LGBTQ workers.
The EEOC, which is composed of five commissioners, is tasked with enforcing federal laws that make workplace discrimination illegal. Since President Donald Trump appointed two Republican commissioners last year — Andrea R. Lucas as chair in January and Brittany Panuccio in October — the commission’s majority has increasingly aligned its work with conservative priorities.
The commission updated its guidance in 2024 under then-President Joe Biden to expand protections to LGBTQ workers, particularly transgender workers — the most significant change to the agency’s harassment guidance in 25 years.
The directive, which spanned nearly 200 pages, outlined how employers may not discriminate against workers based on protected characteristics, including race, sex, religion, age, and disability as defined under federal law.
One issue of particular focus for Republicans was the guidance’s new section on gender identity and sexual orientation. Citing the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision and other cases, the guidance included examples of prohibited conduct, such as the repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun an individual no longer uses, and the denial of access to bathrooms consistent with a person’s gender identity.
Last year a federal judge in Texas had blocked that portion of the guidance, saying that finding was novel and was beyond the scope of the EEOC’s powers in issuing guidance.
The dissenting vote came from the commission’s sole Democratic member, Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal.
“There’s no reason to rescind the harassment guidance in its entirety,” Kotagal said Thursday. “Instead of adopting a thoughtful and surgical approach to excise the sections the majority disagrees with or suggest an alternative, the commission is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Worse, it is doing so without public input.”
While this now rescinded EEOC guidance is not legally binding, it is widely considered a blueprint for how the commission will enforce anti-discrimination laws and is often cited by judges deciding novel legal issues.
Multiple members of Congress released a joint statement condemning the agency’s decision to minimize worker protections, including U.S. Reps. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), and Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) The rescission follows the EEOC’s failure to respond to or engage with a November letter from Democratic Caucus leaders urging the agency to retain the guidance and protect women and vulnerable workers.
“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is supposed to protect vulnerable workers, including women, people of color, and LGBTQI+ workers, from discrimination on the job. Yet, since the start of her tenure, the EEOC chair has consistently undermined protections for women, people of color, and LGBTQI+ workers. Now, she is taking away guidance intended to protect workers from harassment on the job, including instructions on anti-harassment policies, training, and complaint processes — and doing so outside of the established rule-making process. When workers are sexually harassed, called racist slurs, or discriminated against at work, it harms our workforce and ultimately our economy. Workers can’t afford this — especially at a time of high costs, chaotic tariffs, and economic uncertainty. Women and vulnerable workers deserve so much better.”
Eleanor Holmes Norton ends 2026 reelection campaign
Convert rent check into an automatic investment, Marjorie!
Swing actor Thomas Netter covers five principal parts in ‘Clue’
Queer liberation is your liberation
A ‘Battle’ we can’t avoid
Faith programming remains key part of Creating Change Conference
McPike prevails in ‘firehouse’ Dem primary for Va. House of Delegates
LGBTQ Iranians join anti-government protests
The power of no
