National
BREAKING: Senate panel approves DOMA repeal legislation
Committee approves bill on 10-8 party-line vote
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
A Senate committee took historic action on Thursday against the Defense of Marriage Act by approving legislation that would lift the anti-gay law from the books.
The Senate Judiciary Committee reported the legislation to the floor by a vote of 10-8 along a party-line basis.
The committee vote marks the first-time ever that any component of Congress has voted to repeal DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, since it was first enacted in 1996.
Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in his opening statement said legislation to repeal DOMA, which is known as the Respect for Marriage Act, is necessary because “thousands of American families are now being treated unfairly by their federal government.”
“They are shunted aside — singled out from all other marriages recognized by their states,” Leahy said. “This unfairness must end. The Respect for Marriage Act would provide for the equal treatment of all lawful treatment of all lawful marriages in this country by repealing DOMA.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the legislation, said she thinks DOMA is “discriminatory” and “should be stricken in its entirety from federal law.”
“Marriage is legal preserve of the states,” Feinstein said. “DOMA infringes on this state authority by requiring the federal government to disregard state law and deny more than 1,100 rights benefits to which all other legally married couples are entitled.”
Republicans said they oppose DOMA repeal because they believe it would undermine the definition of marriage as one man, one woman and impose same-sex marriage in states where it isn’t recognized. The GOP committee members also questioned why the panel was taking up the bill when passage of the floor is unlikely and the country is facing other matters such as jobs and the economy.
The Respect for Marriage Act wouldn’t require states to recognize marriage equality. However, the bill would enable federal benefits to continue to flow to same-sex couples if they marry in one jurisdiction and move to another state within the country that doesn’t recognize their union.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the committee, said the longstanding definition of marriage as between one man, one woman was one of the reasons he voted against the bill.
“For thousands of years, across all cultures and nations, marriage was exclusively a heterosexual institution,” Grassley said. “Obvious biological realities were a major reason why. Another reason was the universal religious view that marriage was about procreation and child-bearing.”
But Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) disputed the argument that marriage has been static for centuries and said Grassley “misstated” the history of the institution.
“Marriage has not existed as a union between one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture,” Franken said. “In many cultures, men are able to marry many women, and even young girls. For centuries, women were treated as chattle in marriage.”
Franken continued, “Further, if the religious purpose of marriage is for procreation, why would we sanction marriage between an 80-year-old widower and a 80-year-old widow? I just think we need to be accurate when talk about … the history of our institutions.”
Grassley also disputed the notion that marriage is a civil rights issue, drawing a recent column from the New York Times’ Frank Bruni. Among the quotes from the column that Grassley selected was from Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, who was quoted as saying attempts to equate the persecution of gays and blacks is “deeply offensive.”
In a statement, Henderson said he in fact believes marriage is a civil right issue and Grassley mischaracterized his remarks before the committee.
“Sen. Charles Grassley chose to misappropriate and misconstrue statements attributed to me in a news article in order to make an illegitimate case against equality for LGBT Americans,” Henderson said. “He was wrong. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue and I am a supporter of marriage equality.”
LGBT advocates heralded the committee vote and called it one step toward ridding the books of an anti-gay law that has barred married same-sex couples from enjoying the federal benefits of marriage.
Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign, said the panel vote marks a milestone in which the Senate for the first time “voted to make gays and lesbians whole people.”
“This truly historic vote today should never have been necessary because this absurd law should never have been on the books,” Jacobs said. “Thanks to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, we have a bill that can move to the Senate floor where fair-minded people who believe in a nation united, not divided, can end federal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples legally married in six states and the District of Columbia.”
Jacobs also criticized committee Republicans for voting in unison against the bill, saying, “Sadly, the Republicans think this is a partisan issue.”
Rea Carey, executive director of National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, was also among those praising the committee for moving forward with the Respect for Marriage Act.
This vote marks an important step toward recognizing our common humanity, and moves us closer to ending a grave injustice against thousands of loving, committed couples who simply want to provide and care for each other as other married couples are allowed to do,” Carey said. “It is shocking and an outrage that, in modern-day America, legally married same-sex couples are being singled out and selectively denied fundamental rights by their own federal government.”
The White House also praised the committee for moving forward DOMA repeal legislation. In July, President Obama endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, although he previously campaigned on DOMA repeal in 2008.
“President Obama applauds today’s vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve the Respect for Marriage Act, which would provide a legislative repeal of the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act,’ said Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson.
Inouye continued, “The president has long believed that DOMA is discriminatory and has called for its repeal. We should all work towards taking this law off the books. The federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections afforded to straight couples.”
Whether the bill will come to a vote before the full Senate remains to be seen. In addition to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the bill’s sponsor, the bill only has 30 co-sponsors — far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster.
A Senate Judiciary Committee spokesperson deferred comment on scheduling to office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), which didn’t immediately respond to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on the bill.
Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) noted the difficulties of passing DOMA repeal on the Senate floor as a reason why the committee shouldn’t even have taken up the legislation. Cornyn said Democratic leaders would face a revolt in their own caucus if a vote was scheduled because of the political difficulties in passing the bill.
Asked by Cornyn during the markup whether a floor vote on DOMA would happen this Congress, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he’s uncertain because of the Republicans’ extensive use of filibusters on the Senate floor.
But Durbin said “it would be worth it” to hold a floor vote on DOMA repeal even if the bill only received support from its 30 co-sponsors.
No amendments were offered during the markup to amend DOMA. The Washington Blade obtained three amendments that were set to come up during consideration of the bill, but no committee member introduced them. It’s unlikely Republicans had the votes to adopt any of the amendments as part of the legislation.
Among those in attendance during the Senate committee markup was Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the sponsor of the DOMA repeal legislation in the House.
Following the vote, Nadler told the Washington Blade the Senate markup was “another step forward” in moving toward DOMA repeal, but expressed pessimism about a similar vote in the Republican-controlled House.
“This is a subject that the more people get used to it, the better it is, the easier it makes it,” Nadler said. “I don’t believe the Republicans are going to allow a vote in the House anytime soon. We may have to wait for the next election for that, but this will help. It’ll definitely help.”
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.
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Murdered Israeli embassy officials were supporters of D.C.’s LGBTQ synagogue
US hate groups fuel anti-LGBTQ rights movement in Africa
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
