National
Justice Dept. brief against DOMA lauded as ‘watershed moment’
Administration says law ‘unconstitutionally discriminates’
LGBT rights supporters are heralding a recently filed legal brief against the Defense of Marriage Act — the first of its kind against the anti-gay law from the Obama administration — as a landmark document that will aid in bringing about the end of DOMA.
Filed on July 1 by the Justice Department, the 31-page brief argues that Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional because laws related to sexual orientation under precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or must be shown to advance a significant government interest to stay on the books.
“Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act … unconstitutionally discriminates,” the brief states. “It treats married same-sex couples who are legally married under their states’ laws differently than similarly situated opposite-sex couples, denying them the status, recognition and significant federal benefits otherwise available to married persons.”
The Justice Department contends LGBT people are a suspect class, or a group likely subject to differential treatment, because they’ve been subject to a history of discrimination, they exhibit immutable characteristics, and they’re minorities with limited political power. Additionally, the brief contends sexual orientation bears no relation to a person’s ability to contribute to society.
The brief argues that Congress enacted DOMA in 1996 out of motivation “in substantial part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and their intimate relationships” and states Congress advanced no other material interest in passing the law.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that the brief represents “a watershed moment” in the LGBT rights movement.
“Now the federal government has taken that historic stand a step further and put real meat on the bones of why there is no basis for DOMA to stand,” Solmonese said. “This step represents real leadership from the Obama administration and further hastens the day in which we will leave this odious law in the dustbin of history.”
Notably, the brief recalls the U.S. government’s role in discriminating against LGBT people in its description of the ways in which LGBT people have received different treatment over the course of history. The Justice Department recalls that former President Eisenhower signed an executive order adding “sexual perversion” as grounds for dismissal for federal employees.
“The federal government enforced Executive Order 10450 zealously, engaging various agencies in intrusive investigatory techniques to purge gays and lesbians from the civilian workforce,” the brief states. “The State Department, for example, charged ‘”skilled” investigators’ with ‘interrogating every potential male applicant to discover if they had any effeminate tendencies or mannerisms,’ used polygraphs on individuals accused of homosexuality who denied it, and sent inspectors to ‘every embassy, consulate and mission’ to uncover homosexuality.'”
The brief was filed in the case of Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Plaintiff Karen Golinski, a lesbian federal court employee, sought medical coverage for her spouse, but the U.S. government denied this coverage because of DOMA. The Justice Department asks the federal court not to dismiss this claim.
Tara Borelli, a Lambda Legal staff attorney who’s representing Golinski in the litigation, said the “very forthright way” that the brief looks at the history of discrimination against LGBT people from the U.S. government — as well as state and local governments — is particularly striking.
“It is a very honest look at the painful way that the government has discriminated against gay people and the toll that’s taken on our community,” Borelli said.
The Justice Department also responds to an earlier brief that the House, which was filed in defense of the law under the direction of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The brief was written by private attorney Paul Clement, whom Boehner hired to litigate on behalf of DOMA in the lawsuits against the anti-gay law.
At one point, the brief disputes the House’s claim that marriage should be left between one man and one woman because that union is the best situation for child-rearing.
“There is no sound basis for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriages recognized by state law are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing,” the brief states. “To the contrary, many leading medical, psychological and social welfare organizations have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting based on their conclusions, supported by numerous studies, that children raised by gay and parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.”
John Aravosis, the gay editor of AMERICAblog who drew attention to the anti-gay rhetoric in the first brief in supporting DOMA that came out of the Obama administration in 2009, said the language in the most recent Justice Department brief “looked pretty amazing.” Still, he criticized the administration for filing it late on a Friday night before a holiday weekend.
“Why didn’t the president announce the existence of this brief two days earlier when meeting with the community’s leaders in the White House to celebrate the Stonewall anniversary?” Aravosis said. “The brief appears to be quite historic, so why attempt to hide it? It’s hard not to conclude that this brief was intentionally buried by the administration in order to minimize mainstream media coverage.”
The Obama administration notified plaintiffs in a document June 3 that it intended to file a brief against DOMA in the Golinski case. Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the decision to litigate against DOMA is consistent with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement on Feb. 23 that the Obama administration determined that the anti-gay law is unconstitutional.
Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, said the Golinski brief marks the “fullest elaboration of the administration’s new position” on DOMA that Holder announced to Congress in a February letter.
“We had the Holder letter and now we have a whole brief sort of spitting out the arguments that Attorney General Holder made in that letter,” NeJaime said. “It’s a really substantial brief explaining why sexual orientation should get heightened equal protection, and it fits all of the main arguments that gay rights lawyers have been hitting and that are necessary for the court to find that there’s what the administration argues are a quasi-suspect classification.”
NeJaime added he expects similar briefs in other pending lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of DOMA: Gill v. OPM, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States.
Observers say the Justice Department’s decision to take an active role in attacking DOMA in these lawsuits would make the courts more apt to declare the law unconstitutional.
Borelli said the brief from the Justice Department should prompt the courts to “look with even deeper suspicion” at DOMA.
“It should help hasten DOMA’s demise because it’s very powerful that the federal government admits that gay discrimination under the law is simply not suitable,” she said.
Similarly, NeJaime said the brief from the Obama administration gives the argument against the anti-gay law “a more objective and non-advocacy type flavor.”
“It’s not just the adversarial parties before the court, it’s actually the government now saying this is the proper way to analyze this, so I think it carries a lot of weight,” NeJaime said.
But whether the administration’s brief would mean a quicker end to DOMA remains in question. Advocates previously said they expect DOMA litigation to come to the Supreme Court in 2013.
NeJaime added the Obama administration’s position on DOMA may in fact mean the process for striking down DOMA could take longer.
“If anything it may have the effect of delaying the litigation because now we have the House involved as well, and so it actually makes the litigation a little more complicated, but I do think it’s something that favors the courts striking down and eventually getting this up to the Supreme Court,” NeJaime said.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
Justices declined to revisit the Obergefell decision
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Ky., clerk best known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Following the Obergefell ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and has since filed multiple appeals seeking to challenge same-sex marriage protections. The court once again rejected her efforts on Monday.
In this latest appeal, Davis sought to overturn a $100,000 monetary award she was ordered to pay to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Her petition also urged the court to use the case as a vehicle to revisit the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The petition, along with the couple’s brief in opposition, was submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 and considered during the justices’ private conference on Nov. 7. Davis needed at least four votes for the court to take up her case, but Monday’s order shows she fell short.
Cathy Renna, the director of communications for the National LGBTQ Task Force, a non-profit organization that works towards supporting the LGBQ community through grassroots organizing told the Washington Blade:
“Today’s decision is not surprising given the longshot status of Davis’s claim, but it’s a relief that the Supreme Court will not hear it, given the current make up of the court itself. We hope that this settles the matter and marriage equality remains the law of the land for same-sex couples.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement:
“Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone — including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.
Thanks to the hard work of HRC and so many, marriage equality remains the law of the land through Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. Even so, we must remain vigilant.
It’s no secret that there are many in power right now working to undermine our freedoms — including marriage equality — and attack the dignity of our community any chance they get. Last week, voters rejected the politics of fear, division, and hate, and chose leaders who believe in fairness, freedom, and the future. In race after race, the American people rejected anti-transgender attacks and made history electing pro-equality candidates up and down the ballot.
And from California to Virginia to New Jersey to New York City, LGBTQ+ voters and Equality Voters made the winning difference. We will never relent and will not stop fighting until all of us are free.”
The Log Cabin Republicans, a organization dedicated to conservative LGBTQ people, praising the Court’s decision.
“After months of hand-wringing and fear-mongering by Gay Inc., Democrats, and the media, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court sided with the American people and common sense and declined to revisit marriage equality,” Interim Executive Director Ed Williams said in a statement. “Just like Justice Amy Coney Barrett hinted at earlier this year, Obergefell is settled. Marriage equality has been, and will continue to be, the law of the land.”
This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
National
I’m transgender. I’m autistic. And Trump’s SNAP chaos is frightening
Nearly 2.1 million LGBTQ adults rely on food safety net
Uncloseted Media published this article on Nov. 8.
By ASHERAH BARTON | In July 2022, when I was 18, I was forced to come out as transgender.
I remember the car ride through Oregon, back from the DMV, where my state ID had my deadname and the wrong gender marker on it. My mom started interrogating me when I mentioned offhandedly that I didn’t want to have kids.
“Are you gay? Bi?” she pressed me.
I shook my head no.
“No? Well, then what the hell are you?”
My mom kept questioning me until I told her I was trans. I didn’t want to come out to her. I knew her beliefs as an ex-Catholic, and I had already heard her misgendering her trans coworker and had even found a transphobic book, “Irreversible Damage,” on the kitchen counter.
She dismissed me. She told me it was a phase. When I started using my chosen name publicly, she told me she would never call me by it. Even now, after two years on hormones and my dual top surgery and hysterectomy in September, I’m still saved in her phone as my deadname and she doesn’t use my pronouns.
Since then, life has been hard. I moved out of my mom’s house to a suburb of Portland. I needed space to exist without constant tension.
On top of the familial estrangement, maintaining work has been tough. For a while, I had a seasonal job at a local grocery store, something stable enough to cover rent and bills but not a long-term contract. I worked hard, often taking extra shifts and covering for others, hoping to be kept on. But on Christmas Eve of last year, I got the call that my contract wouldn’t be renewed. It wasn’t about performance, they said, the store just “didn’t have room in the budget” to keep the seasonal hires. It felt like the ground had fallen out from under me.
I needed help, so I applied for SNAP in February and started receiving it the following month.
I am part of the 42 million Americans and the nearly 2.1 million LGBTQ adults in the U.S. who rely on SNAP, the federal safety net that helps low-income Americans like me afford the food they need to stay healthy and independent. I’m also one of the 10 percent of younger recipients with a physical or neurological disability, and one of the nearly 3 million 18‑24 year olds who need it to afford food.
When I was on it, SNAP helped me breathe a bit easier.
But all of that changed on Oct. 30, when I got the notification on my phone: “SNAP benefits are paused starting Nov. 1 because the federal government is closed.”
With the holidays approaching and the weather getting colder, this feels like the worst time to lose my stability. Since the Oct. 30 notification, whether I am going to receive these benefits is still so unclear. Earlier this week, Trump said half of the benefits would be issued. Then, early on Friday, it was reported that we would get them after a federal judge ordered the administration to issue full payments immediately.
While I did get my benefits on Nov 7, I saw headlines later that evening saying that the Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal by the Trump administration to temporarily block the court order for full SNAP funding during the shutdown. So, does this mean I’ll lose the benefits next month?
The past few weeks have been so stressful, uncertain and confusing. It feels like the government is playing chess with my ability to afford food.
Before I got my benefits, I had $77 from picking up bottles from gas stations and recycling containers that weren’t too sticky to clean. I have a tally on the notes app on my phone of how many I collect, but it was not enough for the food I need.
As an autistic person living in a residency with rotating caregivers, I’m grateful that some of them help with bulk trips to Costco. But they can’t cover everything. My independence, my physical and mental health and my ability to live safely in my own body all suddenly felt more fragile than ever before.
Every month without those benefits means $187 less for me to spend on groceries. It means giving up my favorite protein bars and starting to buy in bulk to save money.
I thought about reaching out to my parents for help, but I suspected they will use their financial assistance to reopen the conversation about my trans identity, which they could use as a form of debt if I decide to sever ties with them.
For me, SNAP benefits are more than being able to afford food. They allow me to buy meals that keep me healthy and don’t trigger my eating disorder. I’ve struggled with Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder from a very young age, which makes it hard to eat anything unfamiliar or unsafe.
Without receiving SNAP, I wouldn’t be able to buy the foods that help me live. Just $187 a month may not sound like much, but for LGBTQ young adults like myself — many of whom are estranged from family members and/or living with disabilities — it is a key element to our survival.
For the millions of people on benefits, the uncertainty the Trump administration has brought us is the last thing we need. For the hungry children, for the parents struggling to put food on the table, and for those like me who are searching tirelessly for a job and working hard, we need clear and consistent support. Not a chaotic and confusing back and forth.
I’m not lazy, I’m not doing this for my own benefit, nor to cheat the system. Being an autistic, transgender, and low-income young adult means navigating a triple whammy.
As many as 85 percent of college-educated autistic adults are unemployed or underemployed. At the same time, transgender workers experience unemployment at twice the national rate and are frequently passed over for promotions or fired through no fault of their own.
This week, I was terrified of what the uncertainty meant. Is the eating disorder that I’ve lived with since early childhood going to get worse again now that I have to go to food banks to get meals that I may not be comfortable eating? Will I have benefits over the holidays? What will Trump do next?
For those reading this who don’t have to think about where their next meal will come from and when, I would like you to know that these funding cuts are not merely abstract numbers. For myself, for other young LGBTQ adults, and for disabled people of any age, they are empty fridges. They are anxious thoughts before every meal. They are fears of what will come next. November is now here, and I feel more scared. I am worried not just for myself, but for the millions of LGBTQ and disabled people like me who rely on this lifeline to eat and survive in a world that often feels unsafe.
Uncloseted Media reached out to Asherah’s mom for comment but she did not respond.
Sam Donndelinger assisted with the writing and reporting in this story.
Erica Deuso will become the first openly transgender mayor in Pennsylvania.
Voters in Downingtown elected Deuso on Tuesday with 64 percent of the vote, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. The Democrat ran against Republican Richard Bryant.
Deuso, 45, currently works at Johnson & Johnson and has lived in Downingtown since 2007. The mayor-elect is originally from Vermont and graduated from Drexel University.
Deuso released a statement following her election, noting that “history was made.”
“Voters chose hope, decency, and a vision of community where every neighbor matters,” Deuso stated. “I am deeply honored to be elected as Pennsylvania’s first openly transgender mayor, and I don’t take that responsibility lightly.”
According to a LGBTQ+ Victory Institute report released in June, the U.S. has seen a 12.5 percent increase in trans elected officials from 2024 to 2025. Still, Deuso’s campaign did not heavily focus on LGBTQ policy or her identity. She instead prioritized public safety, environmental resilience, and town infrastructure, according to Deuso’s campaign website.
Deuso has served on the boards of the Pennsylvania Equality Project, PFLAG West Chester/Chester County, and Emerge Pennsylvania, according to the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund. She is also an executive member of the Chester County Democratic Committee.
“This victory isn’t about one person, it’s about what happens when people come together to choose progress over fear. It’s about showing that leadership can be compassionate, practical, and focused on results. Now the real work begins, building a Downingtown that is safe, sustainable, and strong for everyone who calls it home,” Deuso said.
Downingtown has a population of more than 8,000 people and is a suburb of Philadelphia. The town’s current mayor, Democrat Phil Dague, did not seek a second term.
Janelle Perez, the executive director of LPAC, celebrated Deuso’s victory. The super PAC endorses LGBTQ women and nonbinary candidates with a commitment to women’s equality and social justice, including Deuso.
“Downingtown voters delivered a resounding message today, affirming that Erica represents the inclusive, forward-looking leadership their community deserves, while rejecting the transphobic rhetoric that has become far too common across the country,” Perez said. “Throughout her campaign, Erica demonstrated an unwavering commitment to her future constituents and the issues that matter most to them. LPAC is proud to have supported her from the beginning of this historic campaign, and we look forward to the positive impact she will have as mayor of Downingtown.”
Deuso will be sworn in as mayor on Jan. 7.
El Salvador: el costo del silencio oficial ante la violencia contra la comunidad LGBTQ
Spark Social House to start serving alcohol
PHOTOS: Miss Gay Mid-Atlantic America
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
I’m transgender. I’m autistic. And Trump’s SNAP chaos is frightening
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
Gay speedskater racing toward a more inclusive future in sports
Beginning of the end for Trump
Pelosi won’t seek re-election next year
-
U.S. Supreme Court16 hours agoSupreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
-
Sports5 days ago
Gay speedskater racing toward a more inclusive future in sports
-
Opinions5 days ago
Beginning of the end for Trump
