National
Prop 8 opponents: Calif. civilians can’t defend case against state
Supporters of anti-gay law attempting to jump in to defend it after the state chose to stay out
Today the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether or not under state law civilian supporters can take the place of the state, specifically in the Federal case challenging anti-marriage equality Proposition 8.
The hour long hearing was followed by press conferences in which both sides expressed pleasure in the outcome. The court, however, still has 90 days to come to a decision, and both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 will be watching closely for any indication that that decision is ready.
In August of last year, Federal Court Judge Vaughn Walker found unconstitutional Proposition 8, the law barring marriage between two adults of the same sex created after a November 2008 ballot measure, ruling in favor of plaintiffs represented by the organization American Foundation for Equal Rights. The attorneys leading the charge against the law are former President Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, and former Al Gore lawyer David Boies who in 2000 faced off in Bush v. Gore. While plaintiffs are seeking to restore marriage equality to California, proponents of the measure are attempting to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling.
The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals put the case, Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger) on hold in January after both Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend the law in court citing their own constitutional objections. When concerned citizen groups hoping to keep the law on the books attempted to fill in for the state to defend the law, the 9th Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to rule on whether or not the concerned groups can in fact defend the law in place of the state. The legal principle at question is “standing,” which Law.com defines as “the right to file a lawsuit or file a petition under the circumstances.”
Though the 9th Circuit will make the ultimate decision, the appeals certified a question to the State Supreme Court of California on whether state law allows proponents of the ballot initiative to have the right to represent the state in the appeal in place of the state officials themselves. In February the California Supreme Court agreed to address the 9th Circuit’s question which led to today’s hearing.
If the State Supreme Court decides that the interest groups — which include a well-funded conservative website called ProtectMarriage.com — can indeed take the place of the state in defending the law, the 9th Circuit is expected to follow the guidance, allowing the case to proceed through the 9th Circuit despite the non-involvement of any agents of the state. Likewise, if the California Supreme Court decides against the proponents of Proposition 8, the 9th Circuit is expected to concur, which will end the appeals process at Judge Walker’s decision overturning the law.
The Proposition 8 ballot measure was passed in reaction to a decision by the California Supreme Court earlier in 2008 overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriages, which allowed roughly 18,000 same-sex couples to marry in California during the short window prior to the election. The Supreme Court has since upheld those marriages as valid, though new marriages can not be recognized as a consequence of the proposition. The state also passed a law following the passage of Prop 8 that allows the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of California during that same short window.
Arguing for the proponents of Prop 8, Charles Cooper argued that the interest groups would be given standing if this were a state court case, while Justices weighed whether or not the same standard ought to apply in this Federal Court matter.
Ted Olson (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Ted Olson, arguing for the plaintiffs, focused on the lack of precedent for such an intervention by an interest group, and claimed finding in favor of the Prop 8 proponents and granting their right to appeal would mean, essentially “amending” the California Constitution. He also argued that allowing Prop 8 proponents to take the place of the state in the case would set a dangerous precedent undermining the authority of the California Attorney General to make such decisions.
“Initiative proponents are elected by no one,” Olson told the justices, as reported by Adam Bink of Courage Campaign and Kate Kendell of the Center for Lesbian Rights. “Proponents took no oath to represent the people.”
When asked what the particular interest the proponents of Prop 8 had in continuing to defend the case, Charles Cooper responded to the justices, “Our interest is to protect and defend our fundamental right to propose initiatives. We have to defend that.”
In response, the justices asked “Doesn’t that right arise before the initiative is qualified?”
“This court has never recognized any distinction between before and after enactment,” Cooper responded. “That wouldn’t make any sense. What the proponents have a right to do is propose valid constitutional amendments. It is inescapable that they then have the right to defend that measure, before OR after enactment.”
However, before his time expired, Ted Olson did his best to counter Cooper’s claims.
“They sure spent a great deal of time and money, and exercised their power to ‘propose and enact.’ What they’re asking for is the power to represent themselves because of a particularized interest, which they don’t have,” Olson argued. “My understanding of California law and case law is that the legislature doesn’t have the power to defend legislation in court unless it specifically deals with the legislative power itself. There is no case, and Cooper agrees there is no case, in which the legislature has the power the proponents are claiming here. I think the initiative power is important, but the constitution of California fundamentally limits the power of the initiative and initiative proponents to exercise their right to propose and defend, that’s it.”
After the hearing, representatives from the American Foundation for Equal Rights were confident and expressed pleasure with the hearing.
“Good justices ask hard questions,” Olson said after the hearing, according to Bink and the Courage Campaign. Olson expressed pleasure with the Supreme Court justices, but emphasized he believes that no matter which direction the Supreme Court decides, the opponents of Prop 8 will prevail.
“We’re sure the US Supreme Court will agree with us,” Olson concluded.
Legal Director from Lambda Legal, Jon Davidson seemed to concur.
“It is often impossible to predict from the questions asked by appellate judges how they will rule and today was no different,” Davidson said in a statement. “All of the judges on the California Supreme Court asked probing questions and seemed concerned about the implications of any decision they might make. We continue to hope that the Court will ultimately decide that small groups of unelected individuals who are answerable to no one should not be able to act on behalf of the state.”
However, Shannon Minter legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who has argued before the California Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage, struck a more cautious tone when discussing her reaction to the hearing with veteran LGBT community journalist, Karen Ocamb.
“I was concerned by the tenor of many of the justices’ questions today,” Minter told Ocamb. “The court has a responsibility to enforce the California Constitution, which gives elected state officials—not private initiative sponsors—the authority to decide whether to appeal a federal court decision invalidating a state law.”
Minter continued, “Both conservative and progressive elected officials have occasionally exercised that discretion in the past by choosing not to expend state resources to defend invalidated measures. Permitting special interest groups to usurp that decision-making authority would dramatically change the current law and take a giant step down the road of turning California into a mobocracy.”
Minter expressed concern that a decision in favor of the Prop 8 proponents could have far reaching effects, going beyond just LGBT issues.
“I was disappointed that, with some notable exceptions, too many of the court’s questions today did not address the specific legal questions before them, but rather seemed to glorify the initiative process in the abstract and to abdicate a searching examination of the California Constitution in favor of emotional appeals to ‘the people.’ The initiative process is already frequently misused to target vulnerable groups, due in part to the Court’s past reluctance to enforce any meaningful limits on the process, even when those limits are mandated by the California Constitution,” Minter concluded.
“I sincerely hope the Court does not compound that mistake by now giving initiative proponents an unprecedented new power to step outside of their proper legislative role and usurp the power that our Constitution gives only to elected state officials in the executive branch.”
New York
N.Y. lawmaker vows ‘Pride flag will fly again’ at Stonewall Monument
After a Jan. 21 policy shift, Pride flags were banned at national parks, prompting backlash from Bottcher and LGBTQ advocates.
Hours after news broke that the National Park Service would no longer allow Pride flags to fly at the Stonewall National Monument — the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement in the United States — the Washington Blade spoke with New York State Sen. Erik Bottcher, who represents the area surrounding the Stonewall Inn and the national monument.
During the interview, Bottcher, who is gay, spoke about the policy change and outlined steps he plans to take in the coming days to push for its reversal.
“This is another act of erasure,” Bottcher told the Blade. “It’s a cowardly attempt to rewrite history and to intimidate our community. This is Stonewall — it’s where we fought back, where we ignited a global movement for equality — and we refuse to go back. We’re not going to accept these acts of erasure.”
The Stonewall Inn became a flashpoint in 1969 after NYPD officers raided the bar, part of a longstanding pattern of police harassment of LGBTQ spaces. The raid sparked days of protest and resistance along Christopher Street, now widely recognized as the catalyst for the modern LGBTQ rights movement.
While the events are often referred to as the “Stonewall Riots,” many activists and historians prefer the term “Stonewall Uprising,” emphasizing that the resistance was a response to systemic oppression rather than senseless violence. LGBTQ patrons and community members fought back — shouting “Gay Power!” and “Liberate Christopher Street!” — as crowds grew and frustration with police abuse boiled over.
Since the uprising, LGBTQ people and allies have gathered annually in June to commemorate Stonewall and to celebrate Pride, honoring the movement that placed LGBTQ voices at the center of the fight for equality.
In June 2016, then President Barack Obama officially designated the space as the Stonewall National Monument, making it the United States’s first national monument designated for an LGBTQ historic site.
Now, nearly 10 years later, President Trump’s appointed NPS acting director Jessica Bowron changed policy on Jan. 21 regarding which flags are allowed to be flown in national parks. Many, including Bottcher, say this is part of a larger targeted and deliberate attempt by the administration to erase LGBTQ history.
“It’s clear they’re making a conscious decision to erase the symbols of our community from a monument to our community’s struggle,” he said. “This is a calculated and premeditated decision, and it could be — and should be — reversed.”
“Let’s be clear,” Bottcher added, “they wish we didn’t exist … But we’re not going anywhere. We refuse to go back into the shadows.”
When asked why it is critical to challenge the policy, Bottcher emphasized the importance of visibility in preserving LGBTQ history.
“This is why it’s so important that we not let this stand,” he said. “Visibility is critical. When people see us, learn about us, and get to know us, that’s how we break down prejudice and stereotypes. We cannot allow them to push us back into the shadows.”
Other LGBTQ leaders and elected officials were quick to condemn the removal of the Pride flag, which had flown since the site’s official designation as a national monument.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the decision “outrageous.”
“I am outraged by the removal of the Rainbow Pride Flag from Stonewall National Monument,” Mamdani said in a statement. “New York is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, and no act of erasure will ever change or silence that history.”
“Our city has a duty not just to honor this legacy, but to live up to it,” he added. “I will always fight for a New York City that invests in our LGBTQ+ community, defends their dignity, and protects every one of our neighbors — without exception.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also condemned the move.
“The removal of the Pride Rainbow Flag from the Stonewall National Monument is a deeply outrageous action that must be reversed immediately,” Schumer said in a statement to The Advocate. “Stonewall is a landmark because it is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, and symbols of that legacy belong there by both history and principle.”
Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the flag’s removal will not erase the movement it represents.
“They can take down a flag, but they can’t take down our history,” Renna said. “Stonewall is sacred ground rooted in resistance, liberation, and the legacy of trans and queer trailblazers who changed the course of history.”
Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Brandon Wolf echoed that sentiment.
“Bad news for the Trump administration: these colors don’t run,” Wolf said. “The Stonewall Inn and Visitors Center are privately owned, their flags are still flying high, and that community is just as queer today as it was yesterday.”
Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, said the removal was aimed squarely at LGBTQ visibility.
“The Pride flag was removed from Stonewall for one reason: to further erase queer and trans people from public life,” Hack said. “Stonewall marks the moment when queer and trans people fought back and demanded dignity. Our history is not theirs to erase.”
Bottcher closed with a promise to his constituents — and to the broader LGBTQ community — that the Pride flag’s removal would not be permanent.
“We will not be erased. We will not be silenced,” he said. “And the Pride flag will fly again at the birthplace of our movement.”
Florida
Disney’s Gay Days ‘has not been canceled’ despite political challenges
GayDays is moving forward with its planned LGBTQ meet-up
Gay Days in Orlando is preparing for its 2026 gathering though organizers have yet to release full details.
Concerns emerged about the status of the annual meetup of LGBTQ people at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Fla., after social media posts and multiple news outlets reported the event would not take place this year.
In response to inquiries from the Blade, Josh Duke, co-owner of Gay Days, clarified that an update would come this week.
“At this time, I’d like to clarify that Gay Days Orlando has not been canceled,” an email to the Blade said. “We are currently finalizing details regarding our plans for 2026 and will be making an official announcement later this week.”
Earlier this week, Gay Days posted about a pause in their plans for the annual meeting, which quickly gained traction online.
In an official statement on social media, Gay Days organizers cited several factors behind what had initially appeared to be a cancellation of their 2026 event.
“Changes to our host hotel agreement, the loss of key sponsorship support, and broader challenges currently impacting LGBTQIA+ events nationwide made it impossible to deliver the experience our community deserves,” organizers wrote. However, the statement added, “This is a pause — not an ending.”
In a longer message shared with supporters, organizers elaborated on that now-reversed decision.
“Gay Days Family — it is with very heavy hearts that we share Gay Days 2026 will not take place this year. This was an incredibly difficult decision and one that was only made after every possible option was explored.
“Gay Days has always been more than an event — it is community, family, and a place where so many memories are made. While this pause is painful, it also gives us the opportunity to step back, listen, and begin shaping a stronger and reimagined GayDays for the future. Thank you for your continued love, patience, and support. This is not goodbye — it’s a reset, and we look forward to creating the future of GayDays together.”
GayDays, which began in 1991, encourages queer Disney fans to visit the Orlando theme park while wearing red shirts to identify one another. Originally focused on gay men reclaiming the childhood joy often denied due to homophobia, the event has expanded over the years to include LGBTQ+ families on summer vacations and queer couples honeymooning in the Magic Kingdom.
Disney made history in 2019 by holding its first-ever official Pride event at its European park, Disneyland Paris. In 2023, Disneyland California hosted the first U.S. official Pride event.
Concerns about the potential cancellation had arisen amid broader challenges affecting LGBTQ events nationwide. These include changes in hotel agreements, sponsorship support, and Florida’s increasingly restrictive anti-LGBTQ policies under Gov. Ron DeSantis. Florida currently has an equality score of -3.00 out of 49 from the Movement Advancement Project, which evaluates states based on policies affecting relationship and parental recognition, nondiscrimination, religious exemptions, LGBTQ youth, healthcare, criminal justice, and transgender identity documentation.
Recent legislation in Florida has included prohibitions on hormone replacement therapy for transgender minors, restrictions on adult access to treatment, bans on drag performances for those under 18, bathroom bans for transgender people in state buildings, and expansion of the Parental Rights in Education Act, commonly called the “Don’t Say Gay” law. These measures limit public school instruction or discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity.
Gay Days Anaheim is scheduled to take place at Disneyland Resort in September.
Disney has also maintained a focus on Pride, reporting in 2022 that proceeds from Pride merchandise benefited numerous LGBTQ organizations, including GLSEN, PFLAG, The Trevor Project, Zebra Coalition, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, the LGBT Center Orange County, the San Francisco LGBT Center, and the Ali Forney Center. Pride merchandise sold internationally supports local LGBTQ organizations in those regions.
More details about this event are expected to be released on Friday.
New York
Pride flag removed from Stonewall Monument as Trump targets LGBTQ landmarks
The new NPS policy targets Pride flags amid consistent efforts from the Trump administration to minimize LGBTQ history.
A rainbow Pride flag flying at the Stonewall National Monument in New York was removed at the direction of Trump administration officials at the National Park Service, according to a source familiar with the matter who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity.
The source said the move had been in the works for weeks and is part of ongoing efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to erase LGBTQ identity from federally controlled landmarks.
In response to the Blade’s request for information about the new flag policy, the National Park Service provided the following statement:
“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points. The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose. These include historical context or reenactments, current military branch flags, flags of federally recognized tribal nations affiliated with a park, flags at sites co-managed with other federal, state, or municipal partners, flags required for international park designations, and flags displayed under agreements with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Naturalization ceremonies.”
The statement also included official guidance on the display of non-agency flags issued by Trump-appointed National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron.
The Blade reached out to other organizations to confirm the status of the Pride flag last week, including the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, and the National Parks Conservation Association. None were able to provide details about whether the flag was still flying at that time but it has since been removed.
This action aligns with other moves targeting and erasing LGBTQ history. In September, the Blade reported that three organizations originally slated to receive more than $1.25 million from the National Park Service’s Underrepresented Communities Grant Program would no longer receive funding: In Washington, D.C., the Preservation League had been awarded $75,000 to document LGBTQ+ historic resources. In Providence, R.I., the Preservation Society was slated for $74,692 to conduct an LGBTQ+ survey and prepare a National Register nomination. And in New York, the Fund for the City of New York, Inc., had been awarded $32,000 to nominate the residence of Bayard Rustin — the iconic civil rights and LGBTQ activist — as a National Historic Landmark.
Shooter who killed 7 people inside Canada school was transgender
Russia’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown takes absurd turn
McPike wins special election for Va. House of Delegates
As Oscars approach, it’s time to embrace ‘KPop Demon Hunters’
Just when you think Trump can’t sink any lower, he does
PHOTOS: Drag in rural Virginia
New book explores homosexuality in ancient cultures
I keep getting rejected on the apps
Gay man details secret struggle with bulimia
