Connect with us

National

In reversal, same-sex marriage advocates playing offense

After years of fighting anti-gay forces, has the tide turned?

Published

on

The issue of same-sex marriage has returned to the national stage in an unprecedented way as numerous states throughout the country are seeing action on the issue.

In the past week, several states have seen developments on marriage. Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law marriage legislation, while New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a similar bill that reached his desk. The Maryland House voted to approve marriage legislation by a vote of 72-67, clearing what is seen as the most difficult hurdle in getting the legislation to Gov. Martin O’Malley’s desk.

A surprise development in Hawaii was also announced on Wednesday. According to Hawaii News Now, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) announced he would no longer defend in court a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage against federal legislation, while Health Director Loretta Fuddy said she’d continue defending the amendment.

These actions come on the heels of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Anti-gay forces this week appealed the ruling to the full appellate court.

The issue is also at the ballot. Advocates in Minnesota and North Carolina are working to beat back anti-gay marriage amendments, while advocates in Maine are preparing to push the first ever pro-marriage equality ballot in their state.

Meanwhile, anti-gay forces continue threatening to take away marriage rights in New Hampshire through repeal legislation.

M.V. Lee Badgett, a lesbian professor of economics and director of the Center for Public Policy & Administration at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said she’s struck by “the tipping of the balance toward the proactive and positive side” of the debate on same-sex marriage.

In previous years, the issue of same-sex marriage has predominately seen activity in terms of anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives that — with the exception of Arizona in 2006 — have all been approved by voters, but that situation has changed.

“In four states, the marriage equality forces are on the offensive, with one new victory and others in sight,” Badgett said. “In a fifth, New Hampshire, the effort is more defensive to preserve an earlier win, and a sixth, Maine, is led by people determined to get back the right granted by the legislature but taken away by voters.”

Badgett, also research director at the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted only two states, North Carolina and Minnesota, have situations “like the ‘old’ model” of efforts to institute a ban on same-sex marriage in state constitutions.

“That political progress is very likely to reflect a growing cultural acknowledgement that same-sex couples can have the same kind of loving, committed relationships as different-sex couples, so they should also have the same right to marry,” Badgett said.

The issue is already playing out in the 2012 presidential election as the candidates vying for the nomination have adopted positions against marriage equality as part of their campaigns.

Just after the marriage legislation was signed in Washington, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum made a campaign appearance in the state, saying Gregoire’s signature isn’t the “final word” and urging opponents of same-sex marriage to take action. Anti-gay forces have the opportunity to bring the measure to the ballot if they collect 120,577 petition signatures and deliver them to state officials before the June 6 deadline.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has taken an interest in the marriage issue as well. Prior to the New Hampshire primary, he said he supports the repeal of the same-sex marriage law in the state. Both Romney and Santorum have also decried the Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling against Proposition 8 in California.

But what about President Obama? Sixteen months after first saying he could “evolve” on the issue, the president has yet to publicly endorse same-sex marriage, despite other work his administration has done on behalf of same-sex couples, including calling for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and declaring the anti-gay law unconstitutional.

Last week, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Air Force One that he wouldn’t weigh in on individual states’ actions on marriage and reiterated comments he previously made on the issue, saying Obama believes states should decide the issue and the president opposes taking away already established rights from couples.

“I would say only broadly, as I have said in the past, without weighing into individual states and their actions, that this president strongly supports the notion that the states should be able to decide this issue, and he opposes actions that take away rights that have been established by those states,” Carney said.

Pressed on whether Obama is still evolving on same-sex marriage, Carney said has “no update” on Obama’s views on the matter.

Richard Socarides, a New York-based LGBT advocate and former president of Equality Matters, said Obama should endorse same-sex marriage before Election Day.

“I do still believe it’s a good idea politically and I do still believe that he will cross that path and  end up announcing his official support for it, but beyond that I don’t have any serious predictions,” Socarides said.

Socarides said an endorsement from Obama would energize progressive Democrats in an election year and “remind them that he’s a president who stands strongly” with the LGBT community as well as increase the support among the majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage.

Additionally, Socarides said anyone who wouldn’t support Obaman because he endorsed same-sex marriage wouldn’t support the president anyway in an election.

“He kind of has the worst of both worlds now because no one thinks he doesn’t support same-sex marriage, and the people who want him to be more vocal in this regard aren’t satisfied,” Socarides said.

LGBT advocates are also seeking help from the Democratic National Committee on the issue of same-sex marriage on two fronts: an endorsement of same-sex marriage in the Democratic Party platform, which will be issued in the fall, and financial resources to assist pro-LGBT advocates with ballot measures in the various states.

Last week, Freedom to Marry launched a campaign to encourage members of the Democratic Party platform drafting committee to adopt an endorsement of same-sex marriage in the document as well as support for measures overturning DOMA and opposition to anti-gay marriage amendments. As of Wednesday, the organization’s petition had 15,528 signatures.

The proposed platform language has already seen endorsements from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), and, just this week, Emily Tisch Sussman, executive director of the Young Democrats of America.

During a news conference last week, Pelosi expounded upon her endorsement of adding marriage equality to the Democratic Party platform.

“What I, as one person, say that I support, is not necessarily what the consensus document of the platform is, so I was just talking about me when I said that,” Pelosi said. “In fact, in my platform in 1982, it was a midterm platform for our convention in California. We respected the definition of ‘family’ that worked for people, where they found their support, their loving system, and their opportunity to raise a family or to be a family.”

As for contributing money to the fight for same-sex marriage at the ballot, the DNC has made no announcement about financial contributions to pro-LGBT forces in states where it’ll be an issue. According to The Advocate, Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, had a meeting with DNC officials to ask for help in defeating the anti-gay marriage amendment in North Carolina, but hasn’t heard a response.

The DNC didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request for comment. During an LGBT fundraiser in D.C. in October, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told the Washington Blade she’d “certainly consider” spending money to combat anti-gay constitutional amendments.

In a separate interview in January, Wasserman Schultz deferred to the platform committee on whether same-sex marriage will be included in the Democratic Party platform, although she said she’s supports marriage equality.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy

Recent policy actions from the White House limit transgender rights in sports, immigration visas, and overarching federal policy.

Published

on

President Donald Trump stands in the Roosevelt Room in December 2025. (Washington Blade Photo by Joe Reberkenny)

In a proclamation issued by the Trump White House Thursday night, the president said he would, among other things, “restore public safety” and continue “upholding the rule of law,” while promoting policies that restrict the rights of transgender people.

“We are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written, and ensuring colleges preserve — and, where possible, expand — scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes,” the proclamation reads. “At the same time, we are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”

The statement comes amid a broader series of actions by the Trump administration targeting transgender people across multiple federal policy areas, including education, health care, and immigration. A nearly complete list of policies the current administration has put forward can be found on KFF.org.

One day before the proclamation was issued, the U.S. State Department announced changes to visa regulations that could impact transgender and gender-nonconforming people seeking entry into the United States.

The policy, published March 11 and scheduled to take effect April 10, introduces changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, commonly known as the “DV Program.” The rule is framed by the department as an effort to strengthen oversight and prevent fraud within the visa lottery system, which allocates a limited number of immigrant visas annually to applicants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.

However, the updated language also standardizes the use of the term “sex” in federal regulations in place of “gender,” a change that LGBTQ advocates say could create additional barriers for transgender and gender-diverse applicants.

The policy states: “The Department of State (‘Department’) is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (‘DV Program’) to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word ‘shall’ to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term ‘sex’ in lieu of ‘gender’; and replace the term ‘age’ in the DV Program regulations with the phrase ‘date of birth’ to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.”

Advocates say the shift toward using “sex” rather than “gender” in federal immigration rules reflects a broader push by the administration to roll back recognition of transgender identities in federal policy.

According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, an estimated 15,000 to 50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants currently live in the United States, with many entering the country to seek refuge from persecution and hostile governments in their home countries.

Continue Reading

Florida

Fla. House passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill

Measure could open door to overturning local LGBTQ rights protections

Published

on

(Photo by Catella via Bigstock)

The Florida House of Representatives on March 10 voted 77-37 to approve an “Anti-Diversity in Local Government” bill that opponents have called an extreme and sweeping measure that, among other things, could overturn local LGBTQ rights protections.

The House vote came six days after the Florida Senate voted 25-11 to pass the same bill, opening the way to send it to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who supports the bill and has said he would sign it into law.

Equality Florida, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization that opposed the legislation, issued a statement saying the bill “would ban, repeal, and defund any local government programming, policy, or activity that provides ‘preferential treatment or special benefits’ or is designed or implemented with respect to race, color, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

The statement added that the bill would also threaten city and county officials with removal from office “for activities vaguely labeled as DEI,” with only limited exceptions.

“Written in broad and ambiguous language, the bill is the most extreme of its kind in the country, creating confusion and fear for local governments that recognize LGBTQ residents and other communities that contribute to strength and vibrancy of Florida cities,” the group said in a separate statement released on March 10.

The Miami Herald reports that state Sen. Clay Yarborough (R-Jacksonville), the lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said he added language to the bill that would allow the city of Orlando to continue to support the Pulse nightclub memorial, a site honoring 49 mostly LGBTQ people killed in the 2016 mass shooting at the LGBTQ nightclub.

But the Equality Florida statement expresses concern that the bill can be used to target LGBTQ programs and protections.

“Debate over the bill made expressly clear that LGBTQ people were a central target of the legislation,” the group’s statement says. “The public record, the bill sponsors’ own statements, and hours of legislative debate revealed the animus driving the effort to pressure local governments into pulling back from recognizing or resourcing programs targeting LGBTQ residents and other historically marginalized communities,” the statement says.

But the statement also notes that following outspoken requests by local officials, sponsors of the bill agreed to several amendments “ensuring local governments can continue to permit Pride festivals, even while navigating new restrictions on supporting or promoting them.”     

The statement adds, “Florida’s LGBTQ community knows all too well how to fight back against unjust laws. Just as we did, following the passage of Florida’s notorious ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ law, we will fight every step of the way to limit the impact of this legislation, including in the courts.”

Continue Reading

The White House

Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions

Measure described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’

Published

on

President Donald Trump speaks at the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump said he will refuse to sign any legislation into law unless Congress passes the “SAVE Act,” pressuring lawmakers to move forward with the controversial voting bill.

In posts on Truth Social and other social media platforms, the 47th president emphasized the importance of Republican lawmakers pushing the legislation through while also using the opportunity to denounce gender-affirming care.

“I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION — GO FOR THE GOLD,” Trump posted. “MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY — ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!!”

The proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. Trump has also called for the legislation to include a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent.

“This is a huge priority for the president. He added on some priorities to the SAVE America Act in recent days, namely, no transgender transition surgeries for minors. We are not gonna tolerate the mutilation of young children in this country. No men in women’s sports,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “The president putting all of these priorities together speaks to how common sense they are.”

The comments mark the first time the White House has publicly confirmed that Trump is pushing to attach anti-trans policies to the SAVE Act.

The bill would also require the removal of undocumented immigrants from existing voter rolls and allow election officials who fail to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement to be sued.

It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Current safeguards include requirements such as providing a Social Security number when registering to vote, cross-checking voter rolls with federal data and, in some states, requiring identification at the polls.

Trump began pushing for the legislation during his State of the Union address last month, where he singled out Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) by name while criticizing the lack of movement on the bill.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has denounced the legislation as “Jim Crow 2.0” and said it has little chance of advancing through the Senate, calling it “dead on arrival.”

In remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer said “the SAVE Act includes such extreme voter registration requirements that, if enacted, could disenfranchise 21 million American citizens.”

Trump has repeatedly used political messaging around trans youth and gender-affirming care as part of broader cultural and policy debates during his presidency — most recently during his State of the Union address, where he cited the case of Sage Blair, a Virginia teenager whose school allegedly encouraged her to transition without her parents’ consent.

LGBTQ advocates — including those familiar with Blair’s story — say the situation was far more complex than described and argue that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions could place trans people, particularly youth, at greater risk.

Continue Reading

Popular