National
DOMA repeal bills introduced in House, Senate
Respect for Marriage Act introduced for first time ever in Senate
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (Blade photo by Michael Key)
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 “Now that we have repealed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the Defense of Marriage Act remains the only example of overt discrimination against gays and lesbians written into our federal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.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Blade photo by Michael Key)
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.”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Minimal version of ‘Streetcar Named Desire’ heading to Dupont Underground
Comings & Goings
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
Cuba under pressure and without answers
Vance speaks at Orbán rally in Hungary
Amendments to India’s transgender rights law criticized
