News
Court: Tenn. must recognize gay couples’ marriages
Judge predicts bans on gay nuptials will become ‘footnote’ in history
A federal court has ordered Tennessee to recognize the same-sex marriages of six gay couples (Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons).
A federal judge in Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction ordering the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state — but only for the six plaintiff couples named in the lawsuit.
In a 20-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger, a Clinton appointee, handed down the decision without making a final determination on whether the state’s anti-recognition laws are constitutional, but says they likely won’t stand up in court.
“The plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be granted, and the court will issue an injunction against the defendants, prohibiting them from enforcing the Anti-Recognition Laws against the six plaintiffs in this case,” Trauger writes.
Trauger suggests she’ll wait to issue a final determination after more courts in her circuit issue rulings on same-sex marriage, but adds the trajectory of recent decisions in other jurisdictions bodes well for same-sex couples.
“At some point in the future, likely with the benefit of additional precedent from circuit courts and, perhaps, the Supreme Court, the court will be asked to make a final ruling on the plaintiffs’ claims,” Trauger said. “At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs’ marriages will be placed on an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history.”
The lawsuit, known as Tanco v. Haslam, was filed in October by private attorneys and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Three same-sex couples are named in the lawsuit; each lived and were legally married in another state before moving to Tennessee. The couples filed a motion for preliminary injunction in November 2013 seeking immediate protection while their case proceeds.
The three couples are Dr. Valeria Tanco and Dr. Sophy Jesty of Knoxville; Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and Thom Kostura of Memphis; and Matthew Mansell and Johno Espejo of Franklin. Although the case was originally filed on behalf of four couples, Erik Olvera, an NCLR spokesperson, said one couple dropped out for personal reasons.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the decision “marks yet another recognition” in a string of decisions that determined laws barring same-sex couples from marriage have no reasonable justification.
“The courts’ decisions also reflect a broader societal movement toward respect for same-sex couples and their families,” Minter said. “As people have gotten to know the same-sex couples who are their neighbors, co-workers, relatives, and friends, they have come to see the unfairness of laws that deny protection to loving, stable relationships and stigmatize children being raised by same-sex parents.”
In her decision, Trauger reflects on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision against the Defense of Marriage Act, saying the overwhelming case law following the ruling has led courts to determine state laws barring same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.
“In light of this rising tide of persuasive post-Windsor federal caselaw, it is no leap to conclude that the plaintiffs here are likely to succeed in their challenge to Tennessee’s Anti- Recognition Laws,” Trauger said.
Dave Smith, a spokesperson for Gov. Bill Haslem, said the opinion is “under review” when asked if the decision will be appealed, but conveyed the sense that his boss isn’t happy with the decision.
“The opinion is under review,” Smith said. “The governor is disappointed that the court has stepped in when Tennesseans have voted clearly on this issue. It’s inappropriate to comment further due to the continuing litigation.”
Sharon Curtis-Flair, a spokesperson for Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper, Jr., expressed a similar sentiment.
“We are reviewing the decision and intend to take all necessary steps to defend the law,” Curtis-Flair said.
Although courts in the Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit have issued rulings saying laws related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional, Trauger doesn’t apply that standard because she suspects Tennessee’s marriage ban fails the lower standard of “rational basis” review.
“The court finds that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection challenge, even under a ‘rational basis’ standard of review,” Trauger writes. “For this reason, the court need not address at this stage whether sexual orientation discrimination merits a heightened standard of constitutional review or whether the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their additional due process and right to travel challenges.”
Jesty, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said she and her spouse are “overjoyed with the ruling” because it will enable them to receive protections afforded to other opposite-sex couples in similar situations.
“As a result of this order, our daughter will never know a time when her bonds with her loving parents were not protected or the state saw her family as less worthy than other families,” Jesty said. “We look forward to the resolution of this case so that all married same-sex couples in Tennessee can have the protections that we were granted today.”
State Department
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
April 20 memo outlined anti-transgender rule
Democracy Forward on Tuesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records on the State Department’s new bathroom policy.
A memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms” that the State Department issued on April 20 notes employees can no longer use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal, a conservative news website that first reported on the memo. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”
President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”
Democracy Forward’s FOIA request that the Washington Blade exclusively obtained on Tuesday is specifically seeking a copy of the memo that details the State Department’s new bathroom policy. Democracy Forward has also requested “all” memo-specific communications between the State Department’s Bureau of Global Public Affairs and the Daily Signal from April 1-21.
Federal Government
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools
Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.
Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.
The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is House Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.
The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.
It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”
LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission to use a child’s preferred gender identity, as it raises issues of at-home safety — especially if the home is not LGBTQ-affirming — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.
A follow-up bill, HB 2617, proposed by Owens, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, prevents the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition from President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168, making that an enshrined definition in law of sex rather than just by executive order. There is also a bill making its way through the senate with the same text— Senate Bill 2251.
Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.
David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.
“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”
This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.
The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.
Botswana’s government has repealed a provision of its colonial-era penal code that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations.
The country’s High Court in 2019 struck down the provision. The Batswana government in 2022 said it would abide by the ruling after country’s Court of Appeals upheld it.
The government on March 26 announced the repeal of the penal code’s “unnatural offenses” section that specifically referenced any person who “has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature” and “permits any other person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature.”
Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana, a Batswana advocacy group known by the acronym LEGABIBO, challenged the criminalization law with the support of the Southern Africa Litigation Center. LEGABIBO in a statement it posted to its Facebook on April 25 welcomed the repeal.
“For many, these provisions were not just words on paper — they were lived realities,” said LEGABIBO. “They affected access to healthcare, safety, employment, and the freedom to love and exist openly.”
“LEGABIBO believes that the deletion of these sections is a necessary and long-overdue step toward restoring dignity and aligning our legal framework with constitutional values of equality and human rights,” it added. “It is a clear message that LGBTIQ+ persons are not criminals, and that their lives and relationships deserve protection, not punishment.”
LEGABIBO further stressed that “while this does not erase the harm of the past, it creates space for healing, inclusion, and continued progress toward full equality.”
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Botswana repeals colonial-era sodomy law
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Madonna makes rare club appearance in West Hollywood
Adoption under suspicion
Why we need to recognize and celebrate Lesbian Day of Visibility
Calendar: April 24-30
DC Center marks one year at new location
