National
Court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional
Scope of ruling limited to California; appeal planned

In a two-to-one decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional in a federal case challenging California’s marriage ban.
The opinion, authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, affirms Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 ruling that the law passed by California voters at the ballot violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”
The court also rejected the argument that Judge Walker should have recused himself from the case because of his sexual orientation and relationship status.
Legal experts began to weigh in on the meaning of the decision immediately.
“I think the biggest story is how narrow [the majority decision] really is,” Douglas NeJaime, associate professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, told the Blade Tuesday. “Which in some ways I think that might disappoint some folks who were hoping it would expand to more states, but I think in terms of setting it up for a Supreme Court review — either the Supreme Court not taking it, or approving it — for supporters of same-sex marriage, this is actually the most strategically sound way for the case to proceed.”
Legal experts agree that the decision represents a big win for same-sex couples in California, even though it was a narrow decision limited to California. The Ninth Circuit encompasses multiple Western states and some Prop 8 opponents had hoped the court’s decision would impact a wider swath of the country.
“The decision is a very narrow decision striking down Proposition 8 on grounds that are very unique to California,” NeJaime told the Blade. “What this doesn’t do is directly affect the laws of the majority of states that don’t allow same-sex couples to marry. It doesn’t announce that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the federal Constitution, and it doesn’t engage the question of whether sexual orientation-based classifications should be subjected to some heightened form of scrutiny under the federal Constitution. So it’s a very narrow ruling that only directly impacts the law in California.”
If left to stand, however, what the decision would do, NeJaime says, is allow same-sex couples to marry in California.
“What you would likely have happen is a bunch of other people would file cases in other states, and you would have more litigation, and the states that have a system most directly related to the court’s ruling here, would be states that have domestic partnership or civil union statues that allow same-sex couples to have all of the same rights and benefits of different-sex couples,” NeJaime said. “So Washington, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, those states’ laws would probably be the first to be challenged.”
Though the court sided with the plaintiffs, the ruling is stayed until the decision goes into effect, in what is called a “mandate.” This means that same-sex couples will not be able to marry in California until the Ninth Circuit lifts the stay, the Supreme Court decides to uphold the ruling or pass on the case, or the state voters decide to overturn the law at the ballot.
Proponents of Prop 8 now have 15 days to ask for what is called an ‘en banc’ decision by a larger random panel of 11 of the court’s 24 judges — a crap shoot for proponents of the law who could not guarantee the judges assigned to the panel are sympathetic. Proponents also have 90 days to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, if they so choose to skip the ‘en banc’ rehearing.
Though at the onset of the case, gay rights advocates were excited about the prospect of the case advancing to the Supreme Court where they hoped it could be used to strike down same-sex marriage bans across the nation, some legal experts say it’s not so simple.
“Everyone thought this case was going to Supreme Court, but given how narrow this ruling is, the Supreme Court might very likely just not take the case,” NeJaime told the Blade. “The Supreme Court does not have to take the case. And they might decide ‘this only affects California. We’ll let it stand. And we’ll take a case down the road.’”
“If they take the case, then the decision by the Ninth Circuit has really set it up so that the Supreme Court can affirm the decision, meaning strike down Proposition 8, by not having to reach very far.”
NeJaime said that the Reinhardt opinion, much like the Walker opinion, borrows heavily from the case law history of swing vote Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom NeJaime says the opinion “aims” for. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the Romer v. Evans case that struck down an anti-gay constitutional amendment in Colorado’s Constitution nearly 20 years ago, but that doesn’t mean the justice will help the plaintiffs change the law across the land.
“So basically because its a narrow ruling, and because the court applied the lowest form of scrutiny for equal protection purposes, the Supreme Court could affirm the decision without having to expand much on its current case law, and without having to comment on the laws of the other states. It could issue a ruling that would allow same-sex marriage in California but doesn’t affect anything else directly. That’s the preferred course of the court, is to issue narrow, incremental, case-by-case rulings, rather than broad sweeping rulings, that invalidate the majority of states’ laws in one decision.”
In 2008, more than 18,000 same-sex couples were married in California during a brief period following the decision by the California Supreme Court that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the California Constitution. The weddings were halted by the November 2008 voter-enacted law, but the court ruled that the 18,000 marriages performed should remain valid.
For now, same-sex couples in California who did not get married during the narrow 2008 window are in legal limbo, waiting for the stay on the original Judge Walker decision to be lifted once and for all, but that could take some time.
“The mandate would issue seven days after the time for filing a petition for rehearing expires, or seven days after the denial of a petition for a rehearing,” NeJaime told the Blade. “They have 14 days to file the petition, so technically, it could issue as soon as 21 days. But more likely it will be later than that, and if they take it for a rehearing, it would be even later than that, so the soonest would be within three weeks.
“But in the meantime, there’s probably going to be additional motions to stay, so that doesn’t mean that once the mandate is issued, same-sex couples can marry,” NeJaime added.
Despite the continued wait, LGBT rights organizations were quick to hail the victory.
“Today’s decision heartens and gives hope to the 15,698 loving couples in California who are raising more than 30,000 children,” said Family Equality Council Executive Director Jennifer Chrisler. “They, like all Americans, understand that while love makes a family, there is no denying that marriage strengthens it. These parents have raised their children to love their country, support their friends and treat their neighbors with respect. Now they only ask for the fundamental American freedom to demonstrate their love and commitment to their family through marriage.”
California-based Courage Campaign also weighed in minutes after the announcement of the ruling upholding Judge Walker’s decision.
“The 9th Circuit did what it must: it ruled that Judge Walker is competent, not somehow diminished for being gay and it ruled that the Constitution of the United States indeed provides equal protection and due process to all Americans, not just some Americans,” said Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the Courage Campaign.
Even the LGBT military group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network weighed in with a statement by outgoing executive director and Army veteran Aubrey Sarvis.
“SLDN welcomes today’s important ruling by the Ninth Circuit affirming the lower court decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional; indeed, fairness and equality have carried the day,” said Sarvis. “This victory strengthens our case on behalf of married gay and lesbian service members and veterans as we seek to gain equal recognition, support, and benefits for them and their families. This is an historic win for supporters of full equality in the military and in our country.”
“We’re thrilled that today the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that under our Constitution, all loving couples must be allowed to marry, regardless of the gender of either partner,” said Transgender Law Center Executive Director Masen Davis. “The state should not be in the business of policing who can marry based on gender. I’m optimistic that full equality for all our families is on the horizon.”

The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected].
The Comings & Goings column also invites LGBTQ college students to share their successes with us. If you have been elected to a student government position, gotten an exciting internship, or are graduating and beginning your career with a great job, let us know so we can share your success.
Congratulations to Ted Lewis M.ED. on being named executive director of Rainbow Families. On their appointment they said, “Right now, when we are facing tremendous opposition to our very existence, is the time to build up our community and our community resources. LGBTQ+ families are innovative, supportive, loving, and resilient and we will need all those tools and more in this moment. My hope as Rainbow Families’ Executive Director is to expand our membership and welcome the vast community resources, expertise, and lived experiences to support new family formation and new parents. I hope to bring education, advocacy and support to LGBTQ+ families, parents, and prospective parents when we are worried about our rights disappearing. I’m also excited to join the joyous and thriving community at Rainbow Families and expand on fun events that bring families together from our weekend camping trip, to picking pumpkins at Cox Farms, and dancing at family parties. It is within a beloved community that we can both prepare for challenges ahead and celebrate our fabulousness together.”
Prior to this, Lewis served as director of Youth Well-Being for the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Lewis served as project manager for Project THRIVE, a multi-year campaign with 30+ national organizations committed to the thriving of LGBTQ youth resulting in industry specific resources and professional development on LGBTQ best practices. Lewis was also founder and CEO of Ted Lewis Consulting, advising K-12 school districts, Fortune 500 companies, higher education institutions, and non-profits on LGBTQ inclusive practices. They also served as assistant director for Sexual/Gender Diversity, UNC Charlotte, responsible for LGBTQ student programming as well as Men’s & Women’s programming for the institution. Lewis has presented on numerous panels including: “Othermuvas: How Black LGBTQ+ Chosen Families Provide Support to Black LGBTQ+ Youth” National Mentoring Summit, 2025; “Addressing the Issues of LGBTQ+ Cultural Competency, Parity and Inconsistency” Richmond Bench-Bar Conference, 2019; and “The Unmasking: Race & Reality in Richmond” Richmond Magazine Panel, 2017. Lewis was named in Style Weekly’s 40 Under 40, in 2018; and received the VA Pride Firework Award in 2019.
Lewis earned a bachelor’s degree in English and History, University of Mary Washington; Master of Education, University of South Carolina, and an Education Master Certificate in Women & Gender Studies, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
Federal Government
Garcia writes to HHS Secretary about the dismantling of HIV programs in Trump’s second term
Out congressman was elected top Democrat on House Oversight on June 24

U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter on Thursday to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. demanding answers about the Trump-Vance administration’s “systematic” elimination of programs to fight HIV in the U.S. and around the world.
Also signed by Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, the letter requests information about cuts to federal support for HIV research, including vaccine development efforts, the shuttering of the HIV prevention division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the defunding of programs providing HIV treatment and prevention services since President Donald Trump returned to the White House.
The lawmakers requested responses by or before the end of July.
“It is shameful that HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and the Trump Administration are working to dismantle our HIV research, care, and prevention programs aimed at eradicating the disease across the world,” Garcia said. “This decision is absolutely reckless and puts millions of lives at risk. Oversight Democrats refuse to let Secretary Kennedy’s reliance on conspiracy theories and misinformation threaten the health and safety of our public health.”
“The Trump Administration’s reckless decision to gut HIV prevention and research programs is not only scientifically indefensible—it’s morally unconscionable. These cuts jeopardize the health of millions, both at home and abroad, and reverse decades of bipartisan progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” Krishnamoorthi said. “We’re demanding answers because the American people, and the global community, deserve better than politically motivated neglect of public health.”
Echoing warnings from HIV and public health experts, the congressmen in their letter stressed that backsliding in efforts to fight the disease at home and abroad come just as advancements in treatment and prevention have finally put some of the most ambitious goals to end the epidemic within reach.
The letter suggests that Kennedy’s embrace of misinformation about HIV might explain, to some extent, his dismantling of programs to end the epidemic at home and abroad, specifically, pointing to the secretary’s history of challenging the overwhelming and longstanding scientific and medical consensus about the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS.
The congressmen also detailed many of the real-world consequences of health policy concerning HIV in Trump’s second term. For example, they note experts anticipate there will be millions of excess new HIV infections and hundreds of thousands of excess HIV-related deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa in just one year.
The letter also warns that “President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request for domestic HIV program calls for a $1.5 billion reduction in funding,” which “could lead to more than 143,000 additional HIV cases in the United States within five years and about 127,000 additional deaths from HIV and AIDS-related causes.”
Garcia’s leadership of Oversight Dems will be closely watched
If Democrats recapture a majority of seats in the House next year, Garcia becomes chair of the committee and has access to far more powerful tools to exercise oversight — like the authority to issue subpoenas (unilaterally or by majority vote) compelling witnesses to testify or requiring officials to turn over documents.
Leadership positions, especially coveted spots leading the most powerful committees in Congress, are typically awarded based on seniority. When the House Democratic caucus elected Garcia on June 24, it marked the first first time in more than a century that a second-term member was selected for the role.
During his brief time in Washington, the congressman, who is openly gay and formerly served as mayor of Long Beach, has emerged as arguably one of the strongest communicators in the House Democratic caucus and one of his party’s most vocal critics of the second Trump administration.
Thursday’s letter, which comes less than a month after his election as ranking member, may signal how Garcia will approach fact finding missions and investigations, or where he will focus the committee’s work, under the vastly expanded powers that might be available to him after the midterms.
National
Trump threatens Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship
Comedian responds with post linking him to Epstein

Donald Trump threatened to revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s U.S. citizenship last weekend amid his administration’s pattern of targeting people with whom he has publicly disagreed.
The actress and comedian, known for her roles in major motion pictures like “A League of Their Own” and “Harriet the Spy,” was singled out by the president on his social media app Truth Social, where he called the lesbian entertainer a “Threat to Humanity.”
“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,” Trump also posted. “[She] should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”
In response to the post—which reignites a decade-old feud between the two—O’Donnell shared a collage of photos from her time in Ireland, along with an old photo of Trump with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
“The president of the usa has always hated the fact that i see him for who he is – a criminal con man sexual abusing liar out to harm our nation to serve himself,” the former talk show host posted on Instagram. She continued, “this is why i moved to ireland – he is a dangerous old soulless man with dementia who lacks empathy compassion and basic humanity – i stand in direct opposition [to] all he represents – so do millions of others – u gonna deport all who stand against ur evil tendencies – ur a bad joke who cant form a coherent sentence.”
Trump’s threat is both irregular and constitutionally unsound. The Supreme Court has ruled over multiple decades that stripping someone of their citizenship violates the Constitution—and the 14th Amendment.
Three Supreme Court cases in particular—Trop v. Dulles (1958), Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)—have all affirmed that once legally obtained, citizenship is not something that can simply be revoked, even if the president disagrees with what a person says or does. In Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court wrote: “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.”
This authoritarian threat echoes Trump’s broader efforts to undermine birthright citizenship, which has been a foundational part of the U.S. Constitution since the ratification of the 14th amendment.
-
Obituary3 days ago
Cassandra Mary Ake-Duvall, 36, passed away on July 2, 2025.
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Trans woman attacked, beaten near Lincoln Memorial
-
Delaware3 days ago
Delaware church to protest Rehoboth restaurant’s drag brunch
-
Movies5 days ago
‘Superman’ is here to to save us, despite MAGA backlash