National
Judge lifts stay on Prop 8 ruling
Same-sex marriages could resume in Calif. next week

Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies (front) are waging the case against Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. (Photo courtesy of Equal Rights Foundation)
A federal judge in California has lifted his self-imposed stay on the ruling he handed down overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, but he ordered that the stay must remain in effect until Aug. 18.
The action by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker came as crowds of same-sex couples waited anxiously on the steps of San Francisco’s city hall, hoping to be able to obtain marriage licenses within minutes of any decision to lift the stay.
“Because proponents [of Proposition 8] fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner,” Walker wrote in an 11-page ruling released Thursday.
Walker’s ruling came eight days after he issued a strongly worded decision overturning California’s Prop 8 on grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses. Same-sex marriage opponents who defended Prop 8 were expected to immediately challenge Walker’s lifting of the stay before the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where they are appealing the case.
Activists on both sides of the marriage issue were unsure whether the appeals court would have time to issue its own stay on Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 by Aug. 18 or whether the appeals court would reject a stay and allow same-sex marriage to resume in California. Both sides plan to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose on the appeals court level.
Jennifer Pizer, senior attorney for Lambda Legal, an LGBT litigation group, said all federal appeals courts have a standard process in place for hearing emergency motions for stays on lower court rulings.
She said it’s “quite possible” that a required three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would be ready to hear arguments for a stay and rule on it before Walker’s Aug. 18 deadline.
“The evidence presented at trial and the position of the representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest,” Vaughn said in Thursday’s ruling. “Accordingly, the court concludes that the public interest counsels against entry of the stay proponents seek.”
Pizer noted that Walker raised a potentially explosive issue in his ruling Thursday lifting the stay when he cited legal precedent indicating Prop 8 supporters may no longer have legal standing to appeal the case to the Ninth Circuit.
Walker noted that legal precedent suggests that the state may have sole legal standing to appeal a case like the one involving Prop 8. This could sideline private parties seeking an appeal.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state’s attorney general, Jerry Brown, filed papers last week that sought to immediately reinstate same-sex marriage in the Golden State. Last year, when same-sex couples filed their lawsuit seeking to overturn Prop 8, Brown refused to defend the same-sex marriage ban law and Schwarzenegger did not challenge Brown’s decision.
That meant California effectively chose not to defend a state law, forcing private groups and legal activists supportive of Prop 8 to fill in for the state in defending the law in court.
Walker said in his ruling Thursday that the private groups did have standing in the U.S. District Court, but a lack of support for an appeal by the state makes it doubtful that Prop 8 backers can file the appeal.
“If, however, no state defendant appeals, proponents will need to show standing in the court of appeals,” he said in his ruling. “Proponents’ intervention in the district court does not provide them with standing to appeal.”
California voters passed Prop 8 in November 2008 in the form of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The vote came less than a year after California’s Supreme Court overturned an earlier ban on same-sex marriage, enabling gay and lesbian couples to marry up until the enactment of Prop 8.
Vaughn’s decision Thursday to lift his stay on his own ruling came on the same day that CNN released a public opinion poll showing for the first time that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.
According to CNN, 52 percent of the respondents to the poll replied “yes” when asked, “Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?”
Forty-six percent of the respondents replied “no” to the question and 2 percent had no opinion, CNN reported. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percent, CNN said.
Vaughn’s action also came two days after the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates approved a resolution supporting legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The ABA is considered the nation’s preeminent membership organization of legal professionals, including lawyers and judges.
Upon issuing his Aug. 4 ruling overturning Prop 8, Vaughn placed an indefinite stay on the ruling, while giving the opposing parties in the case until Aug. 6 to file motions on whether they would like the hold to be lifted or remain in place until the Ninth Circle appeals court acts on the case.
Attorneys for the group that defended Prop 8 filed papers calling for retaining the stay. But in a development that surprised some political observers, Schwarzenegger, a Republican, filed papers asking Vaughn to lift the stay so same-sex couples could begin marrying immediately. The state attorney general also filed papers seeking the lifting of the stay.
The White House
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.
President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.
While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.
“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.
“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”
His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.
White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.
Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”
He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.
The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.
Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.
His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.
Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.
National
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”
The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.”
This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.
As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.”
Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation.
By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents.
With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”
This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions.
While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933.
In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare.
Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people.
The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.
The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.”
As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.”
In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.
Pennsylvania
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.
House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.
The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.
“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”
BREAKING: The Pennsylvania House just passed @RepKenyatta's bill to codify marriage equality into law in PA — and they did it with broad bipartisan support.
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) March 25, 2026
Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love. Today, the House has stepped up to protect that…
-
Photos4 days agoPHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
-
Poland4 days agoPolish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
-
District of Columbia4 days agoCapital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary gala draws sold out crowd
-
District of Columbia3 days agoTrans Day of Visibility events planned
