National
Lawyers cite procreation in defending Prop 8
Judges grill marriage ban supporters in televised court case
A lawyer defending California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage told a three-judge federal appeals court panel Monday that the ban must be upheld to protect the institution of marriage, which he said is essential for procreation and child rearing.
In a hearing that lasted more than two hours, the panel of judges for the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals fired sharp questions at lawyers backing and opposing Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that repealed the state’s same-sex marriage law.
But two of the three judges appeared to subject the lawyers defending Proposition 8 to greater scrutiny and a stronger challenge of their arguments. That led some legal observers to predict the liberal-leaning court would likely uphold a decision in August by a U.S. District Court judge declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, is considered one of the court’s strongest liberals and is expected to act favorably toward the two same-sex couples challenging Prop 8 in a case known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Judge Michael Hawkins, a Clinton appointee, is also considered a liberal with a likely favorable leaning toward the gay plaintiffs in the case. The third judge on the panel, N. Randy Smith, was appointed by President George W. Bush and served as chair of the Idaho Republican Party. Legal observers expect him to vote to uphold Prop 8.
Smith is a graduate of Brigham Young University and media reports identified him as a Mormon. The Mormon Church supported the passage of Prop 8 and received criticism from gay activists for encouraging church members to contribute millions of dollars into the Prop 8 election campaign.
Both the plaintiffs in the case — two same-sex couples who are challenging the gay marriage ban — and supporters of Prop 8 have said they would appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if the Ninth Circuit appeals court rules against them. That would bring the question of whether gay marriage is protected by the Constitution before the high court for the first time.
“The key reason that marriage has existed at all in any society and at any time is that sexual relationships between men and women naturally produce children,” said Charles Cooper, one of two attorneys defending Proposition 8 before the appeals court hearing Monday.
Cooper sought to use the procreation element of traditional heterosexual marriage as one of several “rational” reasons why California could ban same-sex marriage without violating the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in August that Proposition 8 violated the federal Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses, in part, because there was no rational reason to deny marital rights to same-sex couples.
In his arguments, Cooper told the judges that when a relationship between a man and a woman becomes a sexual one, “society immediately has a vital interest in that.” Among other things, “society needs the creation of new life for the next generation,” he said.
Society’s vital interests are also threatened by the possibility of “unintentional and unwanted pregnancy” and single parent households in which children have “poorer outcomes,” he said.
“That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce,” Judge Hawkins said, drawing laughter from the courtroom audience.
“But how does it relate to having two males or two females marry each other and raise children as they can in California and form a family unit where children have a happy, healthy home?” Hawkins asked. “I don’t understand how that argument says we ought to prohibit that.”
Cooper responded by reiterating his procreation argument. “The point and the question is whether or not the State of California has a rational reason for drawing a distinction between same-sex couples who cannot, without the intervention of a third party of the opposite sex, procreate, and opposite-sex couples who … can procreate.”
Theodore Olson, a prominent Republican attorney and constitutional law expert who surprised his GOP colleagues by joining the legal team challenging Proposition 8, strongly disputed claims that same-sex marriage would harm or inhibit procreation or the institution of marriage.
“Same-sex marriage is not going to discourage heterosexual people with heterosexual marriage,” he told the judges Monday. “It is not going to keep them from getting divorced. It is not going to have an effect at all on their choice about having children. On the other hand, the elimination of Proposition 8 cannot possibly hurt the heterosexual relationship at all,” he said.
While Olson argued the merits of why the appeals court should uphold the lower court’s finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, attorney David Boies, a prominent Democrat who teamed up with Olsen in the legal challenge of Prop 8, argued that Prop 8 supporters lacked legal standing to appeal the lower court ruling.
At the time he issued his ruling in August overturning Prop 8 on constitutional grounds, Judge Walker said a decision by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state’s attorney general, Jerry Brown, not to appeal his ruling meant it was unlikely that another party could emerge with legal standing to challenge Walker’s decision.
Walker issued a stay on his own ruling so that the appeals court would have a chance to determine whether the same-sex marriage ban should remain in effect during the appeals process. The Ninth Circuit court extended the stay until it issues its own decision in the case.
But at Monday’s hearing, the judges appeared sympathetic to Boies’ arguments that the conservative political advocacy groups that organized the election campaign for passage of Prop 8 in 2008 did not have legal standing to appeal the lower court ruling.
Boies noted that Prop 8 was a state law in the form of a state constitutional amendment that could only be defended in court at the appeals level by the state or an agent of the state.
A second attorney defending Prop 8 before the Ninth Circuit appeals court Monday argued that a deputy clerk who processes marriage licenses in California’s conservative leaning Imperial County had joined the defense team for the proposition. The attorney, Robert Tyler, told the judges that the deputy clerk was a legitimate representative of the state and thus had legal standing to appeal the case.
But Judge Hawkins appeared to join Boies in expressing strong doubt that the deputy clerk had such standing.
Hawkins and the other appeals court judges said Monday that they would issue a decision on the legal standing matter before they consider the case on its merits. If they determine the Prop 8 supporters and their legal team don’t have standing, they will send the case back to Judge Walker, who likely would order state officials to cease enforcing Prop 8.
However, Prop 8 backers would then be expected to immediately appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and ask the high court to reinstate a stay to keep Prop 8 on the books until the Supreme Court issues its own decision in the case.
“I think the arguments made even clearer to all of us that the judges are wrestling with whether this litigation even can continue with the only party seeking to appeal being those who do not appear to have legally recognizable interests in this case,” said Jennifer Pizer, an attorney with Lambda Legal.
“So I would not be at all surprised if they decide that the appeal should not proceed” based on a lack of legal standing, Pizer said.
Meanwhile, one of the leading groups supporting Prop 8 issued a statement Monday denouncing Ninth Circuit Judge Reinhardt for refusing to recuse himself from the case because his wife is a prominent attorney with the ACLU who has worked to oppose Prop 8.
“This hearing makes a mockery of the federal judiciary,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “Citizens are entitled to a guarantee of impartiality from their judiciary,” he said. “Yet here we have the spectacle of a federal appeals court justice ruling on a case in which his wife represents a group that is a participant.”
Reinhardt issued his own statement last month saying his wife’s views on the case would not detract from his ability to be fair and impartial in his ruling on the case.
Minnesota
Tim Walz drops out of Minn. governor’s race
The longtime LGBTQ ally and Democratic party figure blames ongoing fraud investigations supported by Trump and the GOP for his withdrawal.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced Monday that he is withdrawing from the 2026 Minnesota governor’s race, citing what he described as political interference and attacks from Republican Party leaders.
Walz made the announcement on social media, where the post quickly gained traction, drawing more than 30,000 likes on Instagram and 23,000 reactions on Facebook.
In his statement, the incumbent governor directly blamed former President Donald Trump and his allies, both in Washington and in Minnesota, for fueling what he characterized as politically motivated accusations of widespread fraud tied to federal nutrition programs in the state.
According to a 2024 ABC News story, more than 70 people have been charged as part of a “wide-ranging criminal conspiracy” that allegedly exploited two federally funded nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in more than $250 million in fraudulent claims.
“I won’t mince words here,” Walz wrote. “Donald Trump and his allies — in Washington, in St. Paul, and online — want to make our state a colder, meaner place. They want to poison our people against each other by attacking our neighbors. And, ultimately, they want to take away much of what makes Minnesota the best place in America to raise a family.”
In his announcement, Walz also cited recent reports from Somali American child care center operators in Minnesota who said they have faced violent threats and vandalism after right-wing YouTuber Nick Shirley posted a video alleging fraud at their facilities. Following the video’s release, the Trump-Vance administration cut federal child care funding nationwide.
Walz also criticized the federal government’s decision to withhold child care funding from states amid the allegations.
“They’ve already begun by taking our tax dollars that were meant to help families afford child care,” he added. “And they have no intention of stopping there.”
Last week, a Department of Health and Human Services official confirmed that the Trump administration is pausing child care funding to all states following the Minnesota allegations, stating that funds will be released “only when states prove they are being spent legitimately.”
“Republicans are playing politics with the future of our state,” Walz said. “And it’s shameful.”
Walz previously served as the Democratic vice presidential nominee alongside then–Vice President Kamala Harris during her unsuccessful 2024 presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, longtime Trump ally and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell announced in December that he is running for Minnesota governor and has already received Trump’s endorsement.
Walz has been a longtime ally of the LGBTQ community, dating back to 1999, when he served as a football coach and teacher at Mankato West High School in Mankato, Minnesota, about 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis.
It is also possible that U. S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is considering entering the race to succeed him.
National
Top 10 LGBTQ national news stories of 2025
Trump, Supreme Court mount cruel attacks against trans community
President Trump’s anti-LGBTQ agenda dominated national news in 2025, particularly his cruel attacks on trans Americans. Here are our picks for the top 10 LGBTQ news stories the Blade covered in 2025.
10. Trump grants clemency to George Santos
President Donald Trump granted clemency to disgraced former Long Island Rep. George Santos. Santos was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft and had served just 84 days of his more than seven-year sentence. He lied to both the DOJ and the House Ethics Committee, including about his work and education history, and committed campaign finance fraud.
9. U.S. Olympics bans trans women athletes
The United States Supreme Court decided in 2025 to take up two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.— both of which concern the rights of transgender athletes to participate on sports teams. The cases challenge state laws under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which prevents states from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. Both cases are set to be heard in January 2026. The developments follow a decision by the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee to change eligibility rules to prohibit transgender women from competing in women’s sporting events on behalf of the United States, following Trump’s Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”
8. FDA approves new twice-yearly HIV prevention drug
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 18 approved a newly developed HIV/AIDS prevention drug that needs to be taken only twice a year, with one injection every six months. The new drug, lenacapavir, is being sold under the brand name Yeztugo by pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences. According to trial data, 99.9 percent of participants who received Yeztugo remained HIV negative. This emerging technology comes amid direct cuts to HIV/AIDS research measures by the Trump–Vance administration, particularly targeting international HIV efforts such as PEPFAR.
7. LGBTQ people ‘erased’ from gov’t reports
Politico reported in March that the Trump–Vance administration is slashing the State Department’s annual human rights report, cutting sections related to the rights of women, people with disabilities, the LGBTQ+ community, and more. Members of Congress objected to the removal of the subsection on “Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC)” from the State Department’s Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
In a Sept. 9 letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), and Sarah McBride (D-Del.) urged the department to restore the information or ensure it is integrated throughout each report, noting that the reports serve as key evidence for asylum seekers, attorneys, judges, and advocates assessing human rights conditions and protection claims worldwide.
6. Trump admin redefines ‘sex’ in all HHS programs
The Trump administration canceled more than $800 million in research into the health of sexual and gender minority groups. More than half of the National Institutes of Health grants scrapped through early May involved studies of cancers and viruses that disproportionately affect LGBTQ people.
The administration is also pushing to end gender-affirming care for transgender youth, according to a new proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services, NPR reported. The administration is considering blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding for services at hospitals that provide pediatric gender-affirming care. “These rules would be a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s attack on access to transgender health care,” said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Georgetown University.
5. FBI plans to label trans people as ‘violent extremists’
The Human Rights Campaign, Transgender Law Center, Equality Federation, GLAAD, PFLAG, and the Southern Poverty Law Center condemned reports that the FBI, in coordination with the Heritage Foundation, may be working to designate transgender people as “violent extremists.” The concerns followed a report earlier this month by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, who cited two anonymous national security officials saying the FBI is considering treating transgender subjects as a subset of a new threat category.
That classification—originally created under the Biden administration as “Anti-Authority and Anti-Government Violent Extremists” (AGAAVE) — was first applied to Jan. 6 rioters and other right-wing extremists. Advocates said the proposal appears to stem from the false claim that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was committed by a transgender person.
4. Pentagon targets LGBTQ service members
Acting in agreement with the growing anti-LGBTQ sentiment from the Trump administration, during a televised speech to U.S. military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in late September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denounced past military leadership for being too “woke,” citing DEI initiatives and LGBTQ inclusion within the Department of Defense. During the 45-minute address, Hegseth criticized inclusive policies and announced forthcoming directives, saying they would ensure combat requirements “return to the highest male standard only.”
Since 2016, a Navy replenishment oiler had borne the name of gay rights icon Harvey Milk, who served in the Navy during the Korean War and was separated from service under other than honorable conditions due to his sexuality before later becoming one of the first openly LGBTQ candidates elected to public office. In June 2025, the ship was renamed USNS Oscar V. Peterson.
The U.S. Air Force also announced that transgender service members who have served between 15 and 18 years would be denied early retirement and instead separated from the military without benefits. Transgender troops will be given the option of accepting a lump-sum payout offered to junior service members or being removed from service.
In February, the Pentagon said it would draft and submit procedures to identify transgender service members and begin discharging them from the military within 30 days.
3. Trump blames Democrats, trans people for gov’t shutdown
Republicans failed to reach an agreement with Democrats and blamed them for the government shutdown, while Democrats pointed to Republicans for cutting health care tax credits, a move they said would result in millions of people paying significantly higher monthly insurance premiums next year. In the White House press briefing room, a video of Democrats discussing past government shutdowns played on a loop as the president continued to blame the Democratic Party and “woke” issues, including transgender people.
“A lot of good can come from shutdowns. We can get rid of a lot of things. They’d be Democrat things,” Trump said the night before the shutdown. “They want open borders. Men playing in women’s sports. They want transgender for everybody.”
2. Supreme Court joins attacks on LGBTQ Americans
The U.S. Supreme Court issued multiple rulings this year affecting LGBTQ people. In Mahmoud v. Taylor (6–3), it ruled that public schools must give parents advance notice and the option to opt children out of lessons on gender or sexuality that conflict with their religious beliefs. The case arose after Montgomery County, Md., schools added LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks to the elementary curriculum.
In June, the court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, protecting similar laws in more than 20 states. Lawmakers and advocates criticized the ruling, and a coalition of seven medical associations warned it strips families of the right to direct their own health care.
The Court also allowed the Trump administration to enforce a ban on transgender military personnel and to implement a policy blocking passports with “X” gender markers, with the federal government recognizing only male and female designations.
1. Trump inaugurated for second time
President Donald Trump became the 47th president after winning Wisconsin, securing 277 of the 270 electoral votes needed. His guidebook, Project 2025, outlined the Republican Party’s goals under his new leadership, with a particular focus on opposing transgender rights.
Trump nominated openly gay hedge fund executive Scott Bessent as U.S. Treasury Secretary, a role he eventually assumed. Bessent became the highest-ranking openly gay U.S. government official in American history.
Honorable mention: The war on rainbow crosswalks escalates around the country
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) ordered state transportation officials to remove a rainbow-colored crosswalk in Orlando next to the Pulse gay nightclub, where 49 mostly LGBTQ people were killed in a 2016 mass shooting. The move follows a July 1, 2025, announcement by U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy that, with support from President Trump, the department adopted a “nationwide roadway safety initiative” that political observers say could be used to require cities and states to remove rainbow street crosswalks.
Federal Government
Holiday week brings setbacks for Trump-Vance trans agenda
Federal courts begin to deliver end-of-year responses to lawsuits involving federal transgender healthcare policy.
While many Americans took the week of Christmas to rest and relax, LGBTQ politics in the U.S. continued to shift. This week’s short recap of federal updates highlights two major blows to the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
19 states sue RFK Jr. to end gender-affirming care ban
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced on Tuesday that the NYAG’s office, along with 18 other states (and the District of Columbia), filed a lawsuit to stop U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from restricting gender-affirming care for minors.
In the press release, Attorney General James stressed that the push by the Trump-Vance administration’s crusade against the transgender community — specifically transgender youth — is a “clear overreach by the federal government” and relies on conservative and medically unvalidated practices to “punish providers who adhere to well-established, evidence-based care” that support gender-affirming care.
“At the core of this so-called declaration are real people: young people who need care, parents trying to support their children, and doctors who are simply following the best medical evidence available,” said Attorney General James. “Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online, and no one should lose access to medically necessary health care because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors’ offices. My office will always stand up for New Yorkers’ health, dignity, and right to make medical decisions free from intimidation.”
The lawsuit is a direct response to HHS’ Dec. 18 announcement that it will pursue regulatory changes that would make gender-affirming health care for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible, to access. It would also restrict federal funding for any hospital that does not comply with the directive. KFF, an independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism, found that in 2023 federal funding covered nearly 45% of total spending on hospital care in the U.S.
The HHS directive stems directly from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 Executive Order, Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, which formally establishes U.S. opposition to gender-affirming care and pledges to end federal funding for such treatments.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest and most influential physician organization, has repeatedly opposed measures like the one pushed by President Trump’s administration that restrict access to trans health care.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” a statement on the AMA’s website reads. “Improving access to gender-affirming care is an important means of improving health outcomes for the transgender population.”
The lawsuit also names Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin as having joined New York in the push against restricting gender-affirming care.
At the HHS news conference last Thursday, Jim O’Neill, deputy secretary of the department, asserted, “Men are men. Men can never become women. Women are women. Women can never become men.”
DOJ stopped from gaining health care records of trans youth
U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon blocked an attempt by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to gain “personally identifiable information about those minor transgender patients” from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), saying the DOJ’s efforts “fly in the face of the Supreme Court.”
Journalist Chris Geidner originally reported the news on Dec. 25, highlighting that the Western District of Pennsylvania judge’s decision is a major blow to the Trump-Vance administration’s agenda to curtail transgender rights.
“[T]his Court joins the others in finding that the government’s demand for deeply private and personal patient information carries more than a whiff of ill intent,” Bissoon wrote in her ruling. “This is apparent from its rhetoric.”
Bissoon cited the DOJ’s “incendiary characterization” of trans youth care on the DOJ website as proof, which calls the practice politically motivated rather than medically sound and seeks to “…mutilate children in the service of a warped ideology.” This is despite the fact that a majority of gender-affirming care has nothing to do with surgery.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court ruled along party lines that states — namely Tennessee — have the right to pass legislation that can prohibit certain medical treatments for transgender minors, saying the law is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not involve suspect categories like race, national origin, alienage, and religion, which would require the government to show the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored, sending decision-making power back to the states.
“The government cannot pick and choose the aspects of Skrmetti to honor, and which to ignore,” Judge Bissoon added.
The government argued unsuccessfully that the parents of the children whose records would have been made available to the DOJ “lacked standing” because the subpoena was directed at UPMC and that they did not respond in a timely manner. Bissoon rejected the timeliness argument in particular as “disingenuous.”
Bissoon, who was nominated to the bench by then-President Obama, is at least the fourth judge to reject the DOJ’s attempted intrusion into the health care of trans youth according to Geidner.
Claudia López criticizes Trump over threats against Colombian president
Tim Walz drops out of Minn. governor’s race
Blade travels to Colombia after U.S. forces seize Maduro in Venezuela
LGBTQ groups to join Spanberger inaugural parade
Queer highlights of the 2026 Critics Choice Awards: Aunt Gladys, that ‘Heated Rivalry’ shoutout and more
A look back at the best books of 2025
D.C.’s 10 best theater productions of 2025
Safer Ways to Pay for Online Performances and Queer Events
The year in photos
