Connect with us

National

DOMA repeal supporters seek Senate hearings

But Congress unlikely to overturn law anytime soon

Published

on

Sen. Patrick Leahy is being called on to hold hearings on DOMA (Blade photo by Michael Key).

Supporters of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act are calling on the Senate to hold hearings on the impact the denial of the federal benefits and responsibilities of marriage is having on married same-sex couples throughout the United States.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the New York-based Freedom to Marry, said hearings before the Senate could help raise the level of discussion on marriage on Capitol Hill.

“One of Freedom to Marry’s top goals is to take the marriage conversation in Washington, D.C., to a higher level — putting real faces, presenting the real evidence and dispelling the bogus arguments — to give elected officials and other policy makers a better understanding of why marriage matters,” Wolfson said. “Holding hearings is certainly one important opportunity for us to help continue the momentum in support of overturning DOMA and ending marriage discrimination.”

A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also emphasized the importance of hearings as legislative repeal remains unlikely during the 112th Congress.

“One of the key steps that senators can take to build momentum is to have a hearing, or hearings, on the topic,” the aide said. “I think a thorough and perhaps even a dramatic hearing could galvanize opinion in the Senate and hopefully even serve as a galvanizing moment more broadly in the public.”

As a result of DOMA, which was passed by Congress in 1996,  married same-sex couples cannot participate in federal programs. For instance, they can’t file joint federal income taxes, receive spousal benefits under Social Security or obtain exemptions of the estate tax law upon the death of one of the spouses.

Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced legislation in the Senate known as the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the anti-gay statute. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has introduced companion legislation in the House. Neither piece of legislation has any Republican co-sponsors.

Favorable hearings on DOMA repeal are unlikely in the House with Republicans in control of the chamber. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has spoken out in support of maintaining the anti-gay statute.

Consequently, the decision on whether to hold hearings rests with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Known as an LGBT advocate, Leahy is among the co-sponsors of the DOMA repeal legislation.

A Judiciary Committee spokesperson said she couldn’t provide a comment on whether Leahy intends to hold hearings during the 112th Congress because he’s currently serving as part of a congressional delegation overseas.

Even with support growing in the Senate, the repeal legislation faces tremendous odds against reaching President Obama’s desk during the 112th Congress with Republicans in control of the House. Even with Democrats in control of the upper chamber, reaching the 60-vote threshold for passage of the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate would be challenging.

Maggie Gallagher, chair of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, told the Washington Blade via e-mail that she would appreciate the opportunity to speak at a congressional hearing on marriage, but questioned why they would need to take place if DOMA repeal legislation has no chance of passage.

“I certainly would welcome a chance to make the case for DOMA again, personally, however I think it would be rather silly for the Senate to waste its time on hearings on a bill that has exactly zero chance of passage,” she said.

But Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters, said hearings could be part of the plan that would bolster support for passage of the legislation in the Senate.

“If we’re able to get Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, I think the right thing to do would be obvious for a lot of senators,” Socarides said. “It’s possible at some point before the end of this Congress, we could have a majority of senators who understand the importance of repealing this law. … It’s very important to make progress and hearings could be an important part of that.”

Despite the challenges in passing DOMA, a change in administration policy and growing public support for same-sex marriage is changing the landscape for the statute’s repeal.

Last month, President Obama announced he believes DOMA is unconstitutional and that the U.S. Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA in court against litigation. House Speaker John Boehner has directed the House general counsel to take up defense of the statute in court.

Additionally, a Washington Post-ABC News poll published last week found 53 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage and significant gains in support for same-sex marriage in religious communities. The poll indicates a 23-point in support increase among white Catholics, a 16-point increase among nonevangelical white Protestants, and an 11-point increase among evangelicals.

The Senate Democratic aide said both these developments will have a “big impact” on generating support for the eventual overturning of DOMA. Additionally, the aide said the success last year of passing legislation allowing for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal created a climate that could allow for DOMA repeal.

“We saw these unexpected Republicans like Richard Burr and John Ensign voting for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal and I think that part of the message that I’m hearing from people who are pushing DOMA repeal along is that if a gay person is good enough to fight and die for their country now openly, then why should they also have the right to marry?” the aide said. “I think that’s a powerful sort of one-two punch.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Judge temporarily blocks executive orders targeting LGBTQ, HIV groups

Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in federal court

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A federal judge on Monday blocked the enforcement of three of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that would have threatened to defund nonprofit organizations providing health care and services for LGBTQ people and those living with HIV.

The preliminary injunction was awarded by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a case, San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal and eight other organizations.

Implementation of the executive orders — two aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion along with one targeting the transgender community — will be halted pending the outcome of the litigation challenging them.

“This is a critical win — not only for the nine organizations we represent, but for LGBTQ communities and people living with HIV across the country,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project director and senior counsel on the case. 

“The court blocked anti-equity and anti-LGBTQ executive orders that seek to erase transgender people from public life, dismantle DEI efforts, and silence nonprofits delivering life-saving services,” Abrigo said. “Today’s ruling acknowledges the immense harm these policies inflict on these organizations and the people they serve and stops Trump’s orders in their tracks.”

Tigar wrote, in his 52-page decision, “While the Executive requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the constitution.”

“And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous,” he said.

Without the preliminary injunction, the judge wrote, “Plaintiffs face the imminent loss of federal funding critical to their ability to provide lifesaving healthcare and support services to marginalized LGBTQ populations,” a loss that “not only threatens the survival of critical programs but also forces plaintiffs to choose between their constitutional rights and their continued existence.”

The organizations in the lawsuit are located in California (San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Los Angeles LGBT Center, GLBT Historical Society, and San Francisco Community Health Center), Arizona (Prisma Community Care), New York (The NYC LGBT Community Center), Pennsylvania (Bradbury-Sullivan Community Center), Maryland (Baltimore Safe Haven), and Wisconsin (FORGE).

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Activists rally for Andry Hernández Romero in front of Supreme Court

Gay asylum seeker ‘forcibly deported’ to El Salvador, described as political prisoner

Published

on

Immigrant Defenders Law Center President Lindsay Toczylowski, on right, speaks in support of her client, Andry Hernández Romero, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 6, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

More than 200 people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday and demanded the Trump-Vance administration return to the U.S. a gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who it “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador.

Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based organization that represents Andry Hernández Romero, is among those who spoke alongside U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Human Rights Campaign Campaigns and Communications Vice President Jonathan Lovitz. Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark, Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, and Tim Miller are among those who also participated in the rally.

“Andry is a son, a brother. He’s an actor, a makeup artist,” said Toczylowski. “He is a gay man who fled Venezuela because it was not safe for him to live there as his authentic self.”

(Video by Michael K. Lavers)

The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”

President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The Trump-Vance administration subsequently “forcibly removed” Hernández and hundreds of other Venezuelans to El Salvador.

Toczylowski said she believes Hernández remains at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT. Toczylowski also disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.

“Andry fled persecution in Venezuela and came to the U.S. to seek protection. He has no criminal history. He is not a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. Yet because of his crown tattoos, we believe at this moment that he sits in a torture prison, a gulag, in El Salvador,” said Toczylowski. “I say we believe because we have not had any proof of life for him since the day he was put on a U.S. government-funded plane and forcibly disappeared to El Salvador.”

“Andry is not alone,” she added.

Takano noted the federal government sent his parents, grandparents, and other Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II under the Alien Enemies Act. The gay California Democrat also described Hernández as “a political prisoner, denied basic rights under a law that should have stayed in the past.”

“He is not a case number,” said Takano. “He is a person.”

Hernández had been pursuing his asylum case while at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.

A hearing had been scheduled to take place on May 30, but an immigration judge the day before dismissed his case. Immigrant Defenders Law Center has said it will appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the Justice Department oversees.

“We will not stop fighting for Andry, and I know neither will you,” said Toczylowski.

Friday’s rally took place hours after Attorney General Pam Bondi said Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump-Vance administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador, had returned to the U.S. Abrego will face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee.

Continue Reading

National

A husband’s story: Michael Carroll reflects on life with Edmund White

Iconic author died this week; ‘no sunnier human in the world’

Published

on

Michael Carroll spoke to the Blade after the death his husband Edmund White this week. (Photo by Michael Carroll)

Unlike most gay men of my generation, I’ve only been to Fire Island twice. Even so, the memory of my first visit has never left me. The scenery was lovely, and the boys were sublime — but what stood out wasn’t the beach or the parties. It was a quiet afternoon spent sipping gin and tonics in a mid-century modern cottage tucked away from the sand and sun.

Despite Fire Island’s reputation for hedonism, our meeting was more accident than escapade. Michael Carroll — a Facebook friend I’d chatted with but never met — mentioned that he and his husband, Ed, would be there that weekend, too. We agreed to meet for a drink. On a whim, I checked his profile and froze. Ed was author Edmund White.

I packed a signed copy of Carroll’s “Little Reef” and a dog-eared hardback of “A Boy’s Own Story,” its spine nearly broken from rereads. I was excited to meet both men and talk about writing, even briefly.

Yesterday, I woke to the news that Ed had passed away. Ironically, my first thought was of Michael.

This week, tributes to Edmund White are everywhere — rightly celebrating his towering legacy as a novelist, essayist, and cultural icon. I’ve read all of his books, and I could never do justice to the scope of a career that defined and chronicled queer life for more than half a century. I’ll leave that to better-prepared journalists.

But in those many memorials, I’ve noticed something missing. When Michael Carroll is mentioned, it’s usually just a passing reference: “White’s partner of thirty years, twenty-five years his junior.” And yet, in the brief time I spent with this couple on Fire Island, it was clear to me that Michael was more than a footnote — he was Ed’s anchor, editor, companion, and champion. He was the one who knew his husband best.

They met in 1995 after Michael wrote Ed a fan letter to tell him he was coming to Paris. “He’d lost the great love of his life a year before,” Michael told me. “In one way, I filled a space. Understand, I worshiped this man and still do.”

When I asked whether there was a version of Ed only he knew, Michael answered without hesitation: “No sunnier human in the world, obvious to us and to people who’ve only just or never met him. No dark side. Psychology had helped erase that, I think, or buffed it smooth.”

Despite the age difference and divergent career arcs, their relationship was intellectually and emotionally symbiotic. “He made me want to be elegant and brainy; I didn’t quite reach that, so it led me to a slightly pastel minimalism,” Michael said. “He made me question my received ideas. He set me free to have sex with whoever I wanted. He vouchsafed my moods when they didn’t wobble off axis. Ultimately, I encouraged him to write more minimalistically, keep up the emotional complexity, and sleep with anyone he wanted to — partly because I wanted to do that too.”

Fully open, it was a committed relationship that defied conventional categories. Ed once described it as “probably like an 18th-century marriage in France.” Michael elaborated: “It means marriage with strong emotion — or at least a tolerance for one another — but no sex; sex with others. I think.”

That freedom, though, was always anchored in deep devotion and care — and a mutual understanding that went far beyond art, philosophy, or sex. “He believed in freedom and desire,” Michael said, “and the two’s relationship.”

When I asked what all the essays and articles hadn’t yet captured, Michael paused. “Maybe that his writing was tightly knotted, but that his true personality was vulnerable, and that he had the defense mechanisms of cheer and optimism to conceal that vulnerability. But it was in his eyes.”

The moment that captured who Ed was to him came at the end. “When he was dying, his second-to-last sentence (garbled then repeated) was, ‘Don’t forget to pay Merci,’ the cleaning lady coming the next day. We had had a rough day, and I was popping off like a coach or dad about getting angry at his weakness and pushing through it. He took it almost like a pack mule.” 

Edmund White’s work shaped generations — it gave us language for desire, shame, wit, and liberation. But what lingers just as powerfully is the extraordinary life Ed lived with a man who saw him not only as a literary giant but as a real person: sunny, complex, vulnerable, generous.

In the end, Ed’s final words to his husband weren’t about his books or his legacy. They were about care, decency, and love. “You’re good,” he told Michael—a benediction, a farewell, maybe even a thank-you.

And now, as the world celebrates the prolific writer and cultural icon Edmund White, it feels just as important to remember the man and the person who knew him best. Not just the story but the characters who stayed to see it through to the end.

Continue Reading

Popular