National
DOMA repeal unlikely to find a single GOP vote in committee
‘Poison pill’ amendments could emerge during panel markup

Legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act is unlikely to win support from a single Republican during an upcoming committee vote on the bill.
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin debate leading to a vote on the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the 1996 law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Although the committee action on the legislation is set begin on Thursday, the panel will likely hold off on consideration of the bill for another week. Committee rules allow for any member of the panel to hold bills over when they first appear on the executive committee agenda.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the DOMA repeal bill, told the Washington Blade in a brief exchange on Capitol Hill that she expects the committee to postpone action on the Respect for Marriage Act after the panel convenes.
“Everybody has the right to put it over for one week, so it’ll be put over,” Feinstein said.
Members of the committee may read opening statements on Thursday regarding their views on DOMA, but action will likely be postponed.
All 10 Democrats on the 18-member panel are supporters of DOMA repeal, so the legislation should have no trouble moving out of committee. But LGBT advocates are dubious about finding support from any Republicans on the panel.
Of the eight Republican members of the panel, six received a score of “0” in the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent scorecard of federal legislators. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had a score of 13 out of 100. Another committee member, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), is a newcomer and wasn’t rated during the 111th Congress.
Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign, said he isn’t expecting a single Republican vote during the committee consideration of the Respect for Marriage Act.
“I don’t think they will,” Jacobs said. “They should. We welcome them. … This should be non-partisan because it simply restores the status quo ante. For people who are states’ rights advocates, join the party.”
The Courage Campaign, a progressive grassroots organization, has been working to build the number of Senate co-sponsors for the Respect for Marriage Act by circulating petitions among state residents and sending them to senators. The group is currently focused on adding Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) as supporters.
The Blade placed calls to each of the eight Republican members of the committee to inquire about how the senators would vote when the Respect for Marriage Act comes before them. Only the office of Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the committee, responded immediately.
Beth Levine, a Grassley spokesperson, said the senator “has been very clear how he feels about this bill” and “supports the Defense of Marriage Act.”
During the Senate committee hearing on DOMA in July, Grassley articulated his opposition to lifting DOMA from the books in his opening statement.
“A real bill to restore marriage would restore marriage as it has been known: as between one man and one woman,” Grassley said. “That is the view of marriage that I support. This bill would undermine, not restore marriage, by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.”
The Respect for Marriage Act wouldn’t compel states to recognize same-sex marriages, but would lift the provision preventing federal benefits and responsibilities from flowing to existing married gay couples throughout the country.
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said his organization is communicating with GOP members of the committee in conjunction with Freedom to Marry, but added he couldn’t name any Republican who would vote “yes.”
“We’re still working and communicating with them,” Cooper said. “But I’ll leave it at that.”
In addition to voting against the legislation, Republican opponents of the Respect for Marriage Act may offer amendments to force senators to vote on uncomfortable issues or alter the legislation so supporters would no longer back it.
Such amendments are often called “poison pill” amendments because they serve no purpose other than to disrupt the measure at hand.
Feinstein acknowledged that amendments attempting to derail passage of the Respect for Marriage Act could come up, but expressed skepticism that any would move forward.
“That’s certainly a possibility,” Feinstein said. “I don’t know whether it’s a probability or not — there’ll certainly be amendments. Whether they would be poison pill — I would be doubtful of that. But that’s just me.”
LGBT advocates say they’re awaiting Republican amendments aimed at disrupting passage of the Respect for Marriage Act to come up in committee, but don’t want to speculate on the nature of the measures.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, an HRC spokesperson, said Republicans may want to score points with their conservative base by offering disruptive amendments.
“The interesting thing will be to see to degree to which committee Republicans will want to offer amendments or otherwise make political hay out of this issue,” Cole-Schwartz said.
Even if the bill is advanced out of committee, supporters of the legislation will face a stiff challenge in passing the bill on the Senate floor. In addition to Feinstein, the legislation has 30 co-sponsors — all Democrats — far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster on the Senate floor.
The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request for comment on whether the Democratic leadership would bring the bill up for a vote during the 112th Congress.
Feinstein said she hasn’t engaged in talks with Reid on bringing the Respect for Marriage Act to the Senate floor. Asked whether she had conversations with him about the bill, Feinstein replied, “No. Not at this time. Let’s get it out of committee first.”
The California lawmaker said she doesn’t “necessarily” expect a floor vote on the bill before this Congress adjourns at the end of next year, saying “We’d like to win it.”
Cole-Schwartz said the full Senate “remains a challenge” in passing DOMA repeal, but the committee markup would be effective in building momentum for the legislation.
“There’s a lot more work to be done to gain additional co-sponsors, to educate members on the issue,” he said. “It’s important that we get Republican co-sponsors on the bill before we’re really going to be in a position to win 60 votes on the floor.”
Passage in the U.S. House would be even more difficult. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated in July he wouldn’t bring the legislation to a vote on the House floor, telling the Blade that DOMA is “the law of the land, and should remain the law of the land.”
An amendment affirming DOMA sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) passed in July on the House floor by a vote of 248-175.
Despite these challenges, Jacobs said the effort is still worthy and he’s “not going to give up on the idea” the bill could pass this Congress.
“I think it’s really obvious and simple: people didn’t think that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ would move as it did,” Jacobs said. “As a community, we have to continue to organize with our friends and our allies, and we have this great opportunity with this markup now, and if we keep going we’ll win.”
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
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.
-
World Pride 20253 days ago
WorldPride events round-up
-
The Vatican4 days ago
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
-
a&e features2 hours ago
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
-
Congress2 days ago
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances