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.
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.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Cuban lawmakers to consider simplifying process for trans people to change IDs
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
