National
2012 could prove landmark year for marriage rights
Will Washington, New Jersey, Maryland legalize gay nuptials?
This could be a landmark year in the marriage equality movement, as several states appear close to enacting marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Advocates are working to legalize marriage rights for gay couples in Washington State, Maryland and New Jersey; efforts are also underway to pursue civil unions in Colorado. Meanwhile, opponents are hoping to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.
Washington State could be in the strongest position among other states where advocates are undertaking efforts to legalize marriage equality. The legislation was introduced last week by request from Gov. Chris Gregoire (D), who announced her support in a news conference Jan. 4.
“I’m announcing my support for a law that gives our same-sex couples in our state the right to receive a marriage license in Washington — the same right given to our heterosexual couples,” Gregoire said. “It is time, it’s the right thing to do — and I will introduce the bill to make it happen.”
The number of co-sponsors for the legislation in the House already exceeds the votes needed for passage there. In the Senate, the legislation has 23 co-sponsors, which is two supporters short of 25 votes needed for passage.
Josh Friedes, marriage equality director for Equal Rights Washington, said he’s “really delighted” with the level of support the legislation has found upon introduction — especially from two Republican state senators who’ve already signed on in support.
“That was really important because it shows Republicans in Washington State that the moral arc is bending toward support for marriage,” Friedes said.
The Washington State Legislature is meeting only for a 60-day period this year, so if legislation is to make it to Gregoire’s desk, the marriage bills would have to pass by March 8. Per legislative rules, one version of the legislation would have to pass either the House or Senate by Feb. 14. Committee hearings are scheduled Monday.
In Maryland, Gov. Martin O’Malley is set to introduce marriage equality legislation as part of his legislative package for 2012. Last year, the bill legislation passed the Senate, but advocates pulled the bill from the House floor after they determined they didn’t have enough votes for passage.
Lesbian Del. Mary Washington (D-Baltimore City) said chances for passage in the House have “greatly improved” now that O’Malley has made marriage a legislative priority.
“We’ve had the whole summer to talk to people, we’ve got more people involved and I think it will have a better shot,” Washington said.
Washington added that assigning the bill jointly to two panels — the Health & Government Operations Committee and the Judiciary Committee — would broaden the number of lawmakers who will hear testimony on marriage.
“I think as more delegates get to see what impact the current exclusion of gays and lesbians from the right to marry is doing for Maryland families, I think they’ll understand that passing civil marriage will be the right thing to do,” Washington said.
As far as timing for the vote, Washington said she thinks the vote on the marriage bill will take place before March — when it happened last year — because of the heavy workload lawmakers face this time around.
But Washington State and Maryland will face additional challenges even if the governors in those states sign the marriage legislation into law because residents there could put the measures on the ballot in November through a voter-initiated referendum process.
In Washington State, the signatures needed to bring a measure to referendum is 4 percent of the total votes from the last gubernatorial election, which in terms of absolute numbers would be 120,577 names. In Maryland, a total of just 55,736 signatures is necessary to put a law on the ballot in the upcoming election.
Washington said a referendum on the marriage bill in Maryland is a possibility for which advocates of same-sex marriage must prepare.
“I’m hoping that it doesn’t go to referendum, but if it does, I’m confident the citizens of Maryland will know that it’s time for all families and people to be treated equally under the Maryland Constitution,” Washington said.
Friedes said advocates in Washington State are taking “nothing for granted” after previous losses of same-sex marriage at the ballot and encouraged LGBT families to talk to others there about “why marriage matters.”
“We need to grow the number of people who support marriage equality and make sure that those who do, vote,” Friedes said. “The thing that would hurt us the most is if people become over-confident.”
Another state where advocates are hoping for passage of same-sex marriage is New Jersey, where legislation was introduced last week in both chambers of the legislature. A Senate committee is set to hold a hearing on the legislation Tuesday and the Assembly is expected to have one afterward.
But New Jersey is unlike Washington State or Maryland in that its governor, Republican Chris Christie, campaigned on a promise to veto any such bill that reached his desk.
However, when asked about the marriage bill this month, Christie didn’t reiterate his pledge to veto and made comments suggesting that his tune may have changed on the issue.
“When forced to make a decision, if forced to make a decision on it, I’ll make a decision,” Christie reportedly told NJ.com in Camden, N.J.
Gay Assembly member Reed Gusciora (D-Princeton) said he “wouldn’t rule the governor out” as someone who would sign the marriage bill if it reaches his desk.
“In the last several weeks, he’s visited four out of the six states that have marriage equality: Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York,” Gusciora said. “I don’t think he saw any diminishment in the institution of marriage other than when Newt Gingrich was around.”
Gusciora added he thinks the legislation has a “good shot of passage” in the legislature and the bill should reach Christie’s desk by the end of February.
New Jersey has no voter-initiated referendum process, so if Christie signs or allows the legislation to become law, it’ll stay on the books.
In Colorado, advocates are pressing to push civil unions legislation into law. Last year, the legislation was approved by the Senate, but a House committee voted 6-5 against reporting it out to the floor.
Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said the legislation will have to go through the Senate once again because the House committee voted to kill the bill last year.
“All indicators suggest had it gotten out of committee, it would have passed on the floor of the House, which is why advocates felt comfortable enough to really push to have it come up again rather than waiting until after elections and then having new legislators in place,” Warbelow said.
Warbelow added Colorado has a longer legislative session that extends until May, so the civil unions bill may not be acted upon as soon as the marriage bills in other jurisdictions.
Advocates are pursuing civil unions in Colorado as opposed to marriage rights because the state constitution has an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
While progress on relationship recognition could come in those states, there is also the potential for repeal of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.
Gov. John Lynch (D), who signed marriage equality into law in 2009, has pledged to veto repeal, but the Republican supermajority of the legislature may have enough votes to override his veto.
Warbelow said the legislature is “highly likely” to pass the repeal legislation in the first round, but “all the effort” has been focused on making sure there aren’t enough votes to overturn Lynch’s veto.
The legislature has pushed back the timing for the repeal vote. According to the Eagle Tribune, House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt said he won’t bring up the repeal measure until February.
“We must deal with some critical financial and economic-related legislation first, as well as legislative redistricting, prior to any discussion of gay marriage,” Bettencourt was quoted as saying. “It’s critical to keep legislative priorities in their proper order.”
Other bills related to advancing marriage rights for same-sex couples could emerge in Illinois and Rhode Island; both states passed civil unions last year.
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.
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
Gerry Connolly dies at 75 after battle with esophageal cancer
WorldPride begins — let’s hope it ends well
LGBTQ leaders celebrate Frank Kameny’s 100th birthday at Supreme Court
