National
DOMA repeal bills introduced in House, Senate
Respect for Marriage Act introduced for first time ever in Senate

House and Senate lawmakers on Wednesday pledged to lift the Defense of Marriage Act from the books upon the introduction of legislation that would repeal the anti-gay law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
In the House, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the legislation, known as the Respect for Marriage Act, along with 108 co-sponsors. Among the supporters are the four openly gay members of Congress: Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.).
On the same day, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), among the 14 senators who voted against DOMA in 1996, introduced companion legislation in the Senate. Among the 18 co-sponsors of the Senate bill are Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).
Feinstein’s introduction of the bill in the Senate marks the first time that DOMA repeal legislation has been put forward in the upper chamber of Congress since the law’s passage 15 years ago.
At a news conference on Wednesday, Nadler denounced DOMA for treating married same-sex couples as “complete strangers” under federal law.
“This defies common sense and harms thousands of married couples who are denied federal responsibilities and rights, including access to programs like Social Security, that other couples can count on when getting married,” Nadler said.
Baldwin said those who have been fighting DOMA since it became law have always known fairness and justice were on their side.
“Repealing DOMA is important symbolically and substantively,” Baldwin said. “Now that we have repealed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the Defense of Marriage Act remains the only example of overt discrimination against gays and lesbians written into our federal statutes.”
In a separate conference later in the day, Feinstein noted that DOMA bars married same-sex couples from obtaining access to government programs that straight couples enjoy for economic stability.
“Right now, because of DOMA, these couples cannot take advantage of federal protections available to every other married couple in this country,” she said.
Gillibrand said the fight to repeal DOMA is about fairness and called the ability to get married and start a family “a basic human right.”
“Every loving couple in America deserves this right, and no politician should stand in their way,” Gillibrand said. “Marriage is the foundation for strong families; it gives couples the base they need to build a long-lasting life together, start a family, raise children and put their children on the successful path for their future.”
Gillibrand commended states throughout the country for legalizing same-sex marriage and added she “looks forward to the day … when marriage equality is the law of the land from coast to coast.”
Passed by Congress in 1996, DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton. Both Clinton and the bill’s sponsor at the time, former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, have come out for repeal of the legislation.
DOMA has two components: one that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and another that allows states not to recognize such marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
As a result of the component of DOMA known as Section 3, married same-sex couples cannot participate in federal programs. For instance, they can’t file joint federal income faxes, receive spousal benefits under Social Security or obtain exemptions of the estate tax law upon the death of one of the spouses.
At the House news conference, Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, said repeal of DOMA is important because “we do not have second-class citizens, and we should not have second-class marriages.”
“To be excluded from marriage … is personal and a real hardship,” Wolfson said. “It is an indignity and it is manifest injustice when it is discrimination practiced by the government.”
In addition to repealing DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act contains a “certainty provision” that would allow same-sex couples married in one juridiction to continue to receive the federal benefits of marriage even if they move to a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.
But the proposed legislation wouldn’t cover all relationship recognition that same-sex couples can access throughout the United States. Gay couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships aren’t covered under the legislation.
Married same-sex couples that claim they’ve experienced hardship under DOMA were present at the news conferences to advocate for the law’s repeal.
Pali Cooper, a chiropractor from Corte Madera, Calif., who married her spouse, Jeanne Rizzo, executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund, in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal in California, said DOMA prevented her and her spouse from receiving full rights under the law.
“We’re married in California, but we’re single with the government, and it’s confusing, cumbersome and it’s simply unnecessary,” Cooper said.
Rizzo recalled that when returning from a trip abroad, U.S. Customs forced she and her spouse to re-enter into the United States in separate waiting lines because they weren’t legally married in the eyes of the federal government.
“Right at that moment, it really, really hit me — the difference between, ‘Yes, we were all celebrating being married in California,’ but in the eyes of our government, we were not,'” Rizzo said.
Several lawsuits seeking to overturn the part of DOMA prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex couples are making their way through the courts. Last month, President Obama declared the law unconstitutional and said he would no longer defend the statute against litigation in court, although House Speaker John Boehner has directed counsel to defend the law.
Nadler said opponents of the law shouldn’t wait for the lawsuits to end before moving ahead legislatively.
“Rather than delegating the issue to the court, Congress should repeal DOMA now and bring an end to the harm it causes gay and lesbian families each and every day,” Nadler said.
The House version of the DOMA repeal legislation has new co-sponsors that weren’t seen in the 111th Congress when the bill was first introduced in that chamber, including Frank, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
In the previous Congress, Frank said he wasn’t a co-sponsor of the legislation because he thought the certainty provision of the bill would cause political problems. Frank said he changed his mind because of the importance of educating House members.
“It just seemed to me that that was the more important message to get across at this point,” Frank said. “I’m less worried about the distraction on the question of the recognition by one state violating another state’s right.”
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, explained that Pelosi rarely co-sponsored any legislation during the time when Democrats held a majority in the chamber.
“She sponsored bills very rarely as speaker, and she has fought against discrimination her entire congressional career, regardless of what bills she has sponsored as speaker or leader,” Hammill said.
Despite the new support for the legislation in Congress, passage of DOMA repeal legislation remains an uphill battle to say the least — especially with a Republican majority in the House. A spokesperson for Boehner declined to comment on the Respect for Marriage Act.
Nadler said the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee is “uncommitted at this point” on whether to take up the Respect for Marriage Act.
“We’re going to ask for that,” Nadler added. “The fact that 108 people put their names on the bill initially before it’s introduced shows a considerable amount of support for it, obviously.”
In the Democratic-controlled Senate, passage would be difficult even if all 53 Democrats in the chamber voted to approve the repeal legislation. A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) didn’t respond on short notice to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on the bill.
A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said leadership from the Obama administration and education of members of Congress has to happen before DOMA repeal moves forward.
“What is on everyone’s radar is budget: Budget 1, Budget 2, Budget 3,” the aide said. “That’s what everyone is thinking about right now in the Senate. The problem is you’re going to have to get 60 votes in the Senate for this thing, and that’s a high hurdle, especially with 53 Democrats.”
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said the president is committed to DOMA repeal and will work with Congress to move ahead on the issue.
“The president has long said that DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress,” Inouye said. “We welcome the introduction of bills that would legislatively repeal DOMA, and look forward to working with lawmakers to achieve that goal.”
Even if proponents of DOMA repeal don’t pass the legislation in this Congress, Feinstein said the bill’s supporters will continue working for the bill in the years ahead.
“It’s a long road; we have undertaken to go on that road and make those changes,” Feinstein said. “As has been said, whether it takes one year, or two years, or three years, or four years, we are committed to it.”
Feinstein said she thinks the legislation could pass out of the Senate Judiciary Committee after the panel holds hearings on the issue, although she said she doesn’t have a timeline for when she thinks the legislation would progress in the Senate.
“I tend to think we’ll be successful at that stage and then will come the time for floor consideration,” Feinstein said. “When the hearings are held, nobody can say we pushed anything through, but everybody has the chance to express themselves.”
One major obstacle for passing the legislation is lack of Republican co-sponsors on either the House or the Senate bill.
In the House. Nadler said he’s hoping Republican co-sponsors will sign on to the bill, noting that members of the GOP, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney and gay former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman have endorsed same-sex marriage.
“The political factors that made for less Republican support are going down,” Nadler said. “I’m confident we will have Republican support over time, and the sooner the better obviously.”
Even though the Senate is under Democratic control, Republican support would be needed to reach the 60-vote threshold to pass the legislation out of the chamber.
Feinstein expressed confidence that Republican support will grow for the Senate version of the bill.
“I think as the community gets to talk with Republicans, and people from Republican areas talk with Republicans, there is growing … support,” Feinstein said.
Christian Berle, deputy executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said his organization will work to obtain more Republican support for the Respect for Marriage Act.
“We are confident that there will be a Republican on the House bill, and potentially the Senate bill, and we will be one step closer to ending this failed policy,” Berle said. “We look forward to help building a broad, bipartisan majority that will get repeal of DOMA to the president’s desk, and get the federal government out of the marriage business.”
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
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.