National
N.J. Senate kills marriage legislation
The New Jersey State Senate on Thursday defeated legislation that would have legalized same-sex marriage in the Garden State, but plans are already brewing to obtain marriage rights for gay couples through litigation.
Senators voted down the measure, 14-20, following a 90-minute debate. After the vote was recorded, opponents of gay nuptials filled the Senate chamber with cheers and applause.
The bill’s failure almost certainly means New Jersey won’t see the legalization of same-sex marriage through legislative means anytime soon. Republican Governor-elect Chris Christie will begin his four-year term Jan. 19, and he’s pledged to veto any marriage bill that comes to his desk.
Outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in a statement Thursday expressed disappointment about the outcome of the vote, although he commended the Senate for having public debate on the issue.
“Most assuredly, this is an issue of civil rights and civil liberties, the foundation of our state and federal constitutions,” he said. “Denying any group of people a fundamental human right because of who they are, or whom they love, is wrong, plain and simple.”
Celebrating the victory was the National Organization for Marriage. In an e-mail blast, Brian Brown, the organization’s executive director, praised followers who “made phone calls, sent e-mails, and prayed” in opposition to same-sex marriage.
“Yet again, we have witnessed a tremendous victory for marriage in a state where just a few months ago, victory seemed unlikely at best,” he said.
Immediately following the vote, Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, announced in a statement plans to pursue the legalization of same-sex marriage in New Jersey through court action.
“The requirement to ensure equality for same-sex couples, established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in its decision in our marriage lawsuit in 2006, has not been met,” he said. “There is enormous, heartbreaking evidence that civil unions are not equal to marriage, and we will be going back to the courts in New Jersey to fight for equality.”
New Jersey won’t ‘go all the way backwards’
In a conference call following the vote, Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, said advocates of same-sex marriage have had “a seamless transition from our legislative phase to our court phase.”
“It’s not a situation where New Jersey will go all the way backwards,” he said. “In New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that same-sex couples must receive equal treatment under the law as a state constitutional matter.”
Goldstein said he didn’t yet know details about the litigation, such as who would become plaintiff couples or when the New Jersey Supreme Court would hear the case.
Reflecting on the vote, Goldstein said the marriage bill didn’t succeed for one reason: the failure of Corzine to win re-election in November.
“We had at minimum 22 votes in the Senate … and we were going to win this clearly in the Assembly,” he said. “At some point immediately after the election, we saw the fortunes change.”
Goldstein said Corzine was “a star supporter of marriage equality” throughout most of 2009, but added “it did take him a while to get there.”
“We were very honest in our statement today in saying that this bill should never have waited until sudden death overtime — the lame duck session,” he said. “And obviously we’re disappointed in that.”
Opposition to the bill also increased, Goldstein said, because Christie visited Republican senators before the debate and urged them to vote against the legislation.
“We understand from impeccable sources that Governor-elect Christie went to the Republican Senate caucus and in the Republican Assembly caucus and told members who were going to vote for marriage equality, ‘I don’t want to see any marriage equality votes coming out of this caucus,’” Goldstein said.
Even though they thought they might not win, Goldstein said advocates held the vote in the Senate because they believed it would bolster the chances of litigation.
“We consulted and spoke with lawyers far and wide who said the New Jersey Legislature has to show its dereliction of duty affirmatively to go back to court — because they said it’s up to the Legislature to act,” he said. “Today the Legislature acted. It defaulted on its constitutional obligation to provide same-sex couples equality.”
Noting that a number of lawmakers who voted against the marriage bill also conceded on the floor civil unions aren’t working, Goldstein said the Senate record will also help persuade the courts that civil unions aren’t adequate in providing protections for same-sex couples.
Passionate flare on Senate floor
Several senators gave emotional speeches on both sides of the marriage issue on the Senate floor before the vote was taken. State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat and sponsor of the marriage legislation, was among those who spoke in favor of the bill.
“Men and women do not have a monopoly on loving relationships,” she said. “We all know same-sex couples that enjoy the same love and trust that is shared between a man and a woman, between a husband and a wife.”
Also speaking out in favor of the legislation was State Sen. Raymond Lesniak, another Democrat who sponsored the bill.
Noting that 120 religious leaders sent a letter to the New Jersey Senate in support of same-sex marriage, Lesniak said the failure of the chamber to pass the legislation would amount to religious discrimination.
“Unless we vote for marriage equality, we will be interfering with the religious beliefs of many of our citizens,” he said. “Government is wrong to interfere with religious beliefs. Today, we can right that wrong.”
State Sen. Bill Baroni, the lone Republican to vote in favor of the marriage legislation, said New Jersey’s current system of offering civil unions to same-sex couples amounted to discrimination perpetuated by the government.
“Government says [these couples] are different and segregates from the married couples, and that is textbook, old-fashioned discrimination — where government looks at people and discriminates against them,” he said.
Equally emotional were speeches against same-sex marriage. State Sen. Michael Doherty, a Republican, criticized the process that advocates had chosen to legalize same-sex marriage and called instead for a referendum on the issue.
“Suddenly today, you’re somehow crazy if you want the people of New Jersey to decide this issue like they have in 31 other states,” he said. “This is about the process; this is about letting the residents of New Jersey decide a major redefinition that has been recognized for thousands and thousands of years.”
Also opposed to the legislation was State Sen. Sean Kean, another Republican who said he voted against same-sex marriage even though he had “the gayest senate district in New Jersey” because it has a significant number of LGBT residents.
“Guess … to those proponents of this bill that I am unfortunately going to disagree with today,” he said. “Sometimes people just disagree with you. Maybe they don’t share your perspective, maybe they don’t share your values, maybe they just disagree with you.”
One senator who spoke in favor of the marriage bill and gave a particularly well-received speech among advocates was State Sen. Nia Gill. A black woman, Gill compared to lack of marriage rights for gay couples to previous laws forbidding interracial marriage and suffrage for women.
“This body cannot advocate its responsibility,” she said. “Once we have taken state action, that state action must be constitutional in its protection.”
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Cuban lawmakers to consider simplifying process for trans people to change IDs
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
