National
Feinstein on DOMA repeal: ‘We’re in this for the long march’
Calif. senator says no time set for committee to report out repeal bill
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) maintained on Tuesday that backers of legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act are in the fight “for the long march” and will continue pushing for the bill’s passage even it doesn’t make it through this Congress.
Feinstein, the sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation known as the Respect for Marriage Act, asserted supporters will continue to press on with the measure at the National Press Club during a news conference intended to highlight the bill and a Senate hearing set to take place Wednesday on the measure.
“I want to assure you that this isn’t a cause which we are going to drop,” Feinstein said. “We are not faint hearts about this. If we don’t succeed this session, we will try again next session. If we don’t succeed next session, we will try again the following session, but, believe me, we will continue this effort until the battle is won.”
Among the 14 senators who voted against DOMA when it came before the Senate in 1996, Feinstein said she opposed the measure at the time because she thought it was “unconstitutional” and continues to believe that to this day about the anti-gay law.
Following the news conference — which was organized by the Courage Campaign, a progressive organization working to build support in the Senate for DOMA repeal — reporters questioned Feinstein about the prospects for passing repeal legislation during the 112th Congress. Observers have said passage of any pro-LGBT bill — including DOMA repeal — wouldn’t happen as long as Republicans remain in control of the House.
Asked whether she thinks DOMA repeal would pass the Republican-controlled House, Feinstein acknowledged passage in that chamber remains a challenge, but reiterated “we’re in this for the long march, not just for the short haul.”
Observing litigation is making its way through the federal courts that could strike down DOMA, Feinstein said she wants legislative repeal of DOMA in addition to having the judiciary rule against the law. Asked whether she had a preference for legislative or judicial action, the California Democrat replied, “I think we should do both, so that we secure the arena forever.”
The necessary 10 votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee are present to report out the legislation to the floor. Each of the Democrats on the committee have signaled — through co-sponsorship or on-the-record comments — they would support the bill. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the panel, could report out the legislation to the floor, if he so chose, following the hearing on Wednesday.
However, Feinstein said a timeframe hasn’t yet been established for when the legislation would proceed to the floor — or even if it would happen this Congress — as she acknowledged that the votes are present in committee to move forward.
“There’s no timeframe right now and this is — I believe we have votes from all Democrats, so whether we’ll pass it out on a majority basis, I don’t know,” Feinstein said.
Feinstein maintained that the purpose of the upcoming hearing would be to demonstrate the hardship that DOMA has on married same-sex couples.
“I think it’s very important that we achieve a level of understanding of what this is — that it’s not affording any special rights,” Feinstein said. “It is simply saying that if you’re legally married in a state, the federal government can’t prevent your spouse, for example, from getting Social Security benefits — those kinds of things that are afforded to married couples.”
Under questioning from the Washington Blade, Feinstein also responded to criticism about the scheduled witnesses for the hearing being all white and the lack of representation of bi-national couples at the hearing. Gay activist Dan Choi has spoken out against the selection of the witnesses for being what he called “exclusively white and privileged,” even though the hearing notice indicates the same-sex couples set to testify have suffered economic hardship because of DOMA.
Feinstein said she believes the selection of witnesses accurately represents the issues LGBT couples face under DOMA.
“Every couple has a different story to tell,” Feinstein said. “That’s for sure. The point is, these are all legally married people. And the point is marriage is the preserve of the state, not the federal government. Just as all family matters, abortion, adoption, inheritance are really state law. That’s why one state is different from another state.”
A transcript of the exchange between Feinstein and reporters on DOMA repeal legislation follows:
Reporter: When will the bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee? Is there a timeframe?
Dianne Feinstein: Oh, it’s before the Judiciary Committee. The hearing is tomorrow.
Reporter: But a vote in committee? A markup?
Feinstein: No. There’s no timeframe right now and this is — I believe we have votes from all Democrats, so whether we’ll pass it out on a majority basis, I don’t know. I think it’s very important that we achieve a level of understanding of what this is — that it’s not affording any special rights. It is simply saying that if you’re legally married in a state, the federal government can’t prevent your spouse, for example, from getting Social Security benefits — those kinds of things that are afforded to married couples.
Reporter: Senator, is there any Republican support from your bill?
Feinstein: Not at this time. I think it’s a hard time because of the Tea Party and the sort of ideological bent right now. But that’s going to change.
Reporter: You said that the president’s opinion on marriage equality — should he come out in favor of it — would certainly be welcome. You’re hoping he endorses repeal. Have you had any talks with the administration on the bill?
Feinstein: No. I haven’t precisely. I was very heartened when the administration came out with their belief that it was unconstitutional, and I think that’s a major step forward. The issue will go to the Supreme Court. That’s one way of the issue being solved and the other way is legislatively.
Reporter: Do you have a preference?
Feinstein: Oh, I think we should do both, so that we secure the arena forever.
Reporter: Do you think you’ll have any trouble getting it through the House?
Feinstein: Right now I think it will, but as I said, we’re in this for the long march, not just for the short haul.
Reporter: Senator, the selection of witnesses for tomorrow’s hearing has come under criticism. There are no racial minorities who will be testifying about how DOMA affects them. Also, there’s no bi-national couples who will be testifying —
Feinstein: I can’t answer that because the chairman usually puts together the witnesses. I think we were asked to submit one couple, is that right? [Feinstein aide: “We submitted a number of selections.]
…
Reporter: But really quickly, do you think the selection of witnesses accurately represents how DOMA impacts same-sex couples.
Feinstein: Yes. I mean, every couple has a different story to tell. That’s for sure. The point is, these are all legally married people. And the point is marriage is the preserve of the state, not the federal government. Just as all family matters, abortion, adoption, inheritance are really state law. That’s why one state is different from another state.
Reporter: Senator, how about within the broader Democratic caucus. Do people want this? Is this something that your fellow senators, you sense, want a floor vote on even if it can’t pass in the House?
Feinstein: It would be, of course, ideal to have a floor vote and have it pass. It would not be ideal to have a floor vote and have it fail. I’m not into failure as an option.
Reporter: How did you feel all those years ago when you were one of … 14 [senators who voted against DOMA] and how have things changed since then?
Feinstein: I think eyes have opened. I think more and more people across this land know people who are gay, who want to have a lasting relationship, who look at marriage as an economic agreement as well as an emotional agreement, who want to raise children and do raise children — many of them — children who have no other option. So, it becomes an important social gift, too.
Thank you, bye.
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Queer American in Israel discusses Iran war’s impact
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
Ensuring safer drinking water
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
