National
Weddings continue, despite congressional scare
D.C. courthouse flooded with requests for marriage licenses
Same-sex marriages, including the March 14 union of Will Knicely and Bob Whitman, continued this week in D.C. despite efforts from one U.S. senator to stop the ceremonies. (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
U.S. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) has backed off pushing an amendment aimed at overturning D.C.’s same-sex marriage law — most likely because his Republican colleagues joined Senate Democrats in opposing his plan to attach it to an aviation bill, according to Capitol Hill insiders.
The amendment, which Bennett filed with the Senate clerk March 11, would have prohibited D.C. from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the city allows voters to decide the issue through a referendum or initiative.
Bennett’s unsuccessful attempt to advance the amendment came as nearly 700 couples have applied for a marriage license at the city’s Marriage Bureau since the same-sex marriage law took effect March 3. Most of those couples have been same-sex couples.
And according to a spokesperson for the D.C. Superior Court, which operates the Marriage Bureau, an unprecedented number of people applying for marriage licenses are requesting to be married in civil ceremonies offered free of charge at the courthouse.
“We have probably close to 400 weddings requested,” said spokesperson Leah Gurowitz. “Between two-thirds and three-quarters [of couples applying for marriage licenses] are requesting a wedding at the Marriage Bureau.
“So we’re getting them scheduled. We’re calling everybody and we’re trying to just use our space and our time as advantageously as possible.”
Gurowitz acknowledged that late last week, the Marriage Bureau’s phone answering system became overloaded, and some callers received messages that the voicemail boxes were full and incoming messages could not be left.
“It’s taking some time — a day or two — to return calls,” she said. “But we are returning all the calls and getting the weddings set as soon as possible.”
Although Bennett filed his D.C. marriage amendment last week, he did not formally introduce it before Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed by unanimous consent to an approved list of amendments for a Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill, the measure to which Benefit intended to attach his amendment.
The bipartisan-approved list doesn’t include his amendment, preventing him from bringing it up at this time.
Bennett’s office did not return calls seeking to determine why he did not offer the amendment before the list restricting new amendments was approved.
“I doubt that he just voluntarily withdrew his amendment,” said Daniel Penchina, a lobbyist with the Raben Group, a political consulting firm that works with LGBT rights groups.
“My guess is they were trying to put together a package of amendments that could be considered and they agreed that his would not be part of it,” Penchina said. “And someone in his party leadership called and said, ‘Why don’t you save this for another day?’ That’s me speculating, but that’s probably what happened.”
Max Gleishman, press secretary for Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate’s majority whip, said Senate Republicans clearly supported a consent agreement that did not include the Bennett amendment.
“So I’m not sure why it wasn’t offered,” Gleischman said. “But it was not. And so therefore we’ve locked in, through a consent agreement, a finite list of amendments. And that’s not one of the ones on the list.”
Bennett’s proposed amendment, which was published in the March 11 Congressional Record, is identical to a freestanding bill that he and seven other Republicans introduced Feb. 2. The bill’s stated purpose is “to protect the democratic process and the right of the people of the District of Columbia to define marriage.”
According to the Congressional Record, Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) joined Bennett in filing the amendment as a proposed attachment to the FAA authorization bill, which is being considered on the Senate floor. The authorization measure is being pushed by Senate Democratic leaders and is considered essential for continued operation of U.S. aviation related programs, including the nation’s air traffic control system.
Both the amendment and Bennett’s free-standing bill say, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, the government of the District of Columbia shall not issue a marriage license to any couple of the same sex until the people of the District of Columbia have the opportunity to hold a referendum or initiative on the question of whether the District of Columbia should issue same-sex marriage licenses.”
Paul Strauss, who lobbies the U.S. Senate as an informal shadow senator on D.C.-related issues, said unconfirmed reports that Bennett was planning to introduce an amendment to block the city’s same-sex marriage law surfaced last week on Capitol Hill.
“It could potentially force an up or down vote on gay marriage,” Strauss said. “This is certainly something that Democrats and at least some Republicans want to avoid.”
D.C. gay activist Bob Summersgill, who has coordinated local efforts to persuade the city government to support same-sex marriage equality, said Bennett and other lawmakers opposed to the marriage law are likely to launch a stronger effort to overturn it later this year.
“What we have to be most worried about is the D.C. appropriations bill,” he said, which usually comes up before Congress in late summer or fall.
Summersgill noted that while many lawmakers object to attaching a D.C. gay marriage amendment to an aviation measure or other unrelated bills, they would likely go along with attaching such an amendment to the city’s annual appropriations bill, which specifically addresses D.C. issues.
“It will be germane on that bill,” he said.
But as Bennett backed down on his marriage amendment, the National Organization for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex marriage laws throughout the country, appeared to inject the gay marriage issue into the city’s upcoming mayoral election campaign.
Several local activists reported being contacted by an automated telephone poll on the D.C. gay marriage law that identified NOM as its sponsor. The activists said a recorded message stated that Mayor Adrian Fenty supports “gay marriage” and at least one of his lesser-known opponents in the 2010 mayoral race, former D.C. television news reporter Leo Alexander, opposes it.
D.C. resident Kevin Keller, who was among the people contacted for the phone poll, said it was obvious to him that the call was intended to stir up opposition to same-sex marriage rather than obtain an impartial assessment of how residents feel about the issue.
“I called Alexander’s campaign office, and we spoke,” Keller told DC Agenda. “He told me he opposes gay marriage on religious grounds, but he said he is not directly associated with the NOM.”
NOM executive director Brian Brown did not immediately return DC Agenda’s call on the matter. Local same-sex marriage opponents have vowed to work to defeat Fenty, who signed the same-sex marriage bill, and 11 of the 13-member City Council who voted for the bill when it passed in December.
But political observers say no serious candidates opposing gay marriage have surfaced so far to run against Fenty. And just a few people, whose chances are viewed as questionable, have emerged to run against Council members who voted for the marriage measure.
Alexander, who announced his candidacy in September, has raised less than $4,000 for his mayoral campaign, according to records filed with the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance. Records from the office also show that Fenty has raised more than $3 million for his re-election campaign.
D.C. Council Chair Vincent Gray (D-At Large), who has said he is considering running for mayor and is considered a viable candidate, voted for the marriage bill and, like Fenty, has been an outspoken supporter of same-sex marriage equality.
Another possible candidate for mayor, millionaire developer R. Donahue Peebles, has vowed to spend $5 million of his own money should he enter the mayoral race, making him a potentially serious contender. A Peebles spokesperson did not immediately return a DC Agenda call seeking to learn Peebles’ position on same-sex marriage.
Some reports have surfaced that he supports same-sex marriage but also favors a referendum or initiative to allow voters to decide the issue, but the reports could not be confirmed.
As developments surrounding the D.C. marriage law continue to unfold, many activists have said the joy experienced by the dozens of same-sex couples who have married or obtained marriage licenses so far has overshadowed the controversial aspects of the law.
Rev. Dwayne Johnson, pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church of Washington, which has a mostly gay congregation, said the church’s first same-sex wedding held March 14 had a profound impact on the more than 250 people in attendance.
Will Knicely and Bob Whitman, who have been together for more than 10 years and are MCC members, exchanged wedding vows as the church’s highly acclaimed chorus sang “Oh Happy Day,” said Johnson, who co-performed the wedding.
“I don’t think any of us were prepared for the emotion we witnessed,” he said. “It was like 39 years of hope culminating at that moment. People were applauding and applauding. We just let it go.”
National
HRC report: LGBTQ students face ‘far greater challenges’ in non-supportive states
Survey finds anti-LGBTQ school harassment, bullying highest in 17 states
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the national LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, has released a report showing LGBTQ public school students are more likely to face bullying, harassment, and “other barriers” in states that have less overall supportive LGBTQ laws and policies.
The report is based on the HRC Foundation’s National Educator Survey of School Climate and Bullying, which was released on Sept. 17.
“The report finds that harassment, bullying, and other barriers to LGBTQ+ inclusion are more prevalent in states with limiting policies, where educators report widespread restrictions on LGBTQ+ resources, visible expressions of support, and assistance for transgender students,” a statement released by HRC says.
“As just one example,” the statement adds, “while 59 percent of educators in states with limiting policies report restrictions on supporting their transgender students, just 6 percent to 8 percent of educators in states with supportive policies report the same, underscoring the impact of these policies on school climate, student well-being, and the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections for LGBTQ+ youth and inclusive classrooms.”
The report says the survey consisted of responses by 826 educators in 42 states who worked as teachers, principals, counselors, administrators, and others who worked in support services. All worked at schools with students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, most being public schools and a smaller number being charter schools, the report says.
It says the survey was conducted between April 15 and May 21, 2026, and included a survey questionnaire with about 55 questions covering a wide range of LGBTQ related school issues.
According to the report, its classification of LGBTQ supportive and non-LGBTQ supportive states is based on a detailed analysis of the LGBTQ related laws and policies of all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories conducted by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, which describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit thinktank.”
The report includes a chart consisting of 51 boxes representing the 50 states and D.C., with 32 plus D.C. colored as blue and said to have overall LGBTQ supportive policies. The 17 boxes colored in red are said to have overall non-LGBTQ supportive policies and laws, Each of the boxes has the initial of a state or D.C. printed inside it.
In addition to D.C., the chart shows Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts as among the supportive states. Florida, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio are among the states shown to be non-LGBTQ supportive.
The HRC statement includes these “key” findings from the survey:
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 59 percent of educators report restrictions on supporting transgender students, compared to just 6-8 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive policies, nearly 50 percent of educators reported restrictions on LGBTQ+ books or resources, compared to just 7 percent of educators in states with supportive policies.
- Roughly 32 percent of educators in states with restrictive policies reported anti-LGBTQ+ harassment was a moderate or serious problem, compared with 11 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 29 percent of educators were very worried about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, compared to 15 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 36 percent of educators witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying, compared to 27 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 75 percent of educators reported no restrictions on LGBTQ+-supportive displays, highlighting a substantially more supportive school environment than in states with restrictive policies.
- Educators in states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies also reported significant harassment of students based on appearance (57 percent), race or ethnicity (43 percent), sexual orientation (42 percent), and gender identity or expression (39 percent). (No direct comparison figure from supportive-policy states is provided in the data above.)
“Every young person deserves to feel safe and supportive at school, but this report makes clear that for too many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender youth, are being failed by policies designed to exclude them,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in the HRC statement.
“We know that when students feel seen, supported, and affirmed, they are more likely to thrive, but when schools become places of exclusion or hostility, young people pay the price through lower engagement, missed opportunities to learn, and poorer mental and physical health,” Robinson said.
The HRC statement notes that the survey findings come at a time when a growing number of states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ students and the school officials and teachers who support them. It says that for the first time, the survey found that “educators themselves are also experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, highlighting the growing impact of these policies on school staff as well as students.”
The full survey findings and report can be accessed here:
U.S. Supreme Court
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons
SCOTUS could further restrict rights of trans inmates
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow its policy limiting gender-affirming treatment for federal inmates to take effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy, which had become policy nearly a decade ago for inmates who were transitioning.
The Trump administration argues in its application that its policy restricting transgender rights was properly adopted and that the judge overstepped, posing nationwide “security and prison-administrative concerns.”
If allowed, the policy would halt surgeries, hormones and social accommodations such as wigs while allowing mental health therapy to continue as the legality of the policy reversal is litigated.
The government also argues in the application that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for the inmates said the policy is “a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” and said withholding necessary gender-affirming healthcare constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Blade has covered the ongoing developments surrounding changes to Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate policy that went into effect earlier in Trump’s term. The changes primarily focus on rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates.
Earlier this year, the Blade published a joint letter from multiple senators in response to the rollback of the policy. Multiple senators — including Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) — sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall III calling for them to reverse the policy change, saying it endangers inmates’ health and safety.
The senators described how the policy shift, along with President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is forcing policy changes they argued are rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
Federal Bureau of Prisons responded to the Blade’s request for comment in May, declining to reconsider its transgender inmate policy.
The Blade reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons once again over the application to the Supreme Court, but did not hear back before publication.
Federal Government
Education Department rolls back protections for LGBTQ students under Title IX
The DoE policy rescinds Biden-era protections
The Department of Education rolled back a Biden-era Title IX interpretation on Monday that secured sex-based discrimination protections for students on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Title IX was established in 1972 as landmark civil rights law. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke about the revision of the policy, claiming the decision would explicitly help “women and girls.”
“Thanks to today’s action, the published Title IX regulations faithfully reflect court orders and congressional intent — reducing confusion for parents, students, and educational institutions. We will continue to relentlessly champion equal opportunity for all Americans and hold accountable any school or college that violates the rights, privacy, or athletic opportunities of our women and girls,” McMahon said via press release.
Prior to her work under the Trump-Vance administration, McMahon was a World Wrestling Federation/World Wrestling Entertainment executive before resigning to pursue a career in politics. She was appointed to the Connecticut State Board of Education by then-Gov. Jodi Rell in January 2009, but resigned from her role shortly afterward to run what ultimately became two failed campaigns for Connecticut’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010 and 2012.
A “fact sheet” provided by the Department of Education also called the inclusive sexual assault and gender identity protections expanded under the Biden-Harris unlawful, saying, “This change is necessary to provide clarity in the Code of Federal Regulations so that institutions, administrations, students, and families can see the rules that are actually in force and to help eliminate public confusion about the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to stretch Title IX’s legal protections to cover ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.’”
This is not the first time this policy has faced judicial hurdles. While Biden was still in office, the plan was struck down in multiple courts in Republican states.
Opponents of the move say it will harm transgender athletes and weaken protections for sexual assault victims.
“Sexual harassment and assault continue to be pervasive in schools and, to the fullest extent possible, we should be working to enforce the laws that protect student survivors of sexual violence. Yet, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Trump administration have decided to ignore what survivors need, instead weaponizing Title IX to attack trans students,” said Shiwali Patel, senior director of education justice at the National Women’s Law Center.
This is a return to a first Trump term policy after Biden issued an executive order to attempt to curb discrimination for all — especially those with different sexual orientations and gender identities — that had been given a pass during Trump’s first term. Much of Title IX’s policy has a narrow vision of what sex protections look like that often and enthusiastically leave gender-diverse and non-heterosexual people out.
In March 2021, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14021, “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,” to attempt to undo some of the flagrantly anti-LGBTQ policy the Trump-Pence administration had set forth relating to Title IX protections for LGBTQ students and sexual assault survivors.
The secretary focused this “win” for the administration as one more step toward restricting transgender students from competing in women’s sports, but the 2020 rule, completed under former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, didn’t explicitly ban trans students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity. It did limit the types of sexual harassment and assault complaints that schools had to investigate and required live hearings so male students could respond to accusations.
McMahon didn’t discuss those aspects in her statement or in requests for comment. The 2020 rule drew praise from conservatives and intense opposition from advocates who said it downplayed sexual abuse and left victims unprotected.
In a statement, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Education Committee, said, “Returning to the 2020 regulations restores longstanding protections for women and girls that the Biden-Harris administration attempted to dismantle and realigns Title IX policy with court precedents.”
LGBTQ activists have called this decision a direct attack on LGBTQ safety — particularly for trans students who continue to face a barrage of legislative, executive, and judicial attacks in recent years from the Trump-Vance administration.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the world, released a statement following the DoE’s announcement.
“Title IX is, quite simply, about protecting students and ensuring that they are safe from abuse, harassment, and discrimination while they pursue their education. But Donald Trump and his cronies aren’t interested in any of that,” Robinson said. “Donald Trump’s Department of Education has completely lost sight of that mission. Instead of enforcing protections for students, they’re rescinding them. They don’t care if sexual harassment and assault go unaddressed. And they’re happy to strip funding away from school districts and states that are actually trying to keep students safe.
“We know who will be hurt: women, girls, and others who are vulnerable to sexual harassment, assault and abuse — including LGBTQ+ students. The fact that they’re dropping this rule into place abruptly, without a comment period, denying families, educators, loved ones, and the students themselves a say in how they should be treated, shows how little they care about the safety of our students.
“This is a monstrous injustice, and it drives home how essential it is that we take action at the polls this November to start bringing some accountability to an administration that has turned its back on the very students Title IX was written to protect,” she added.
The Washington Blade reached out to the DoE for comment and questions on whether Title IX protections still included LGBTQ students, and received this email response from Education Spokesman Sabin Sidney:
“Your questions indicate you are clearly missing the entire point of this Final Rule. The Biden Administration illegally rewrote Title IX to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identification’ in the definition of sex-based discrimination. The Trump Administration is rescinding this rule—only after every federal court that heard legal challenges rejected it as unlawful.
“Since January 2025, the Department has been enforcing Title IX consistent with the President’s Executive Order grounded in biological truth that there are only two sexes. The Trump Administration is restoring the original promise of Title IX and providing clarity to students, parents, and educational institutions. We will vigorously defend equal opportunity consistent with the law’s intended purpose.”
Vote now! Best Of LGBTQ DC readers’ choice awards
Meet the LGBTQ candidates running for U.S. House, Senate
Ana Brnabić becomes world’s first openly lesbian head of state
529 openly LGBTQ candidates running in Brazilian election
