National
Pelosi vows to drop DOMA defense in Democratic House
Lawmaker says ENDA will be legislative priority

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed to drop congressional defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court if Democrats retake control of the House in November.
Pelosi made the remarks Wednesday in an interview with the Washington Blade on Capitol Hill. When asked what could be expected on LGBT issues if Democrats regain control in the 113th Congress, she talked DOMA.
“First of all, we can expect something to go away, like stop spending taxpayer dollars on the Defense of Marriage of Act, which is a waste of money and not the right thing to do,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi had previously criticized House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for taking on defense of DOMA after the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend the anti-gay law and has called on House Republicans to discontinue that effort, but never before pledged to drop defense of DOMA if Democrats resumed control of the House.
She said she thinks Republicans believe DOMA is unconstitutional because when they controlled the House under the Bush administration, they tried to pass court-stripping provisions denying judicial review for the anti-gay law and others.
“They had to know that there was a weakness constitutionally in that bill, if they would want to put court-stripping provisions in relating to DOMA and the rest,” Pelosi said. “So, we think they know it’s weak constitutionally.”
Pelosi made the pledge to discontinue congressional defense of DOMA just hours after the U.S. District Court of the Southern District struck down the law in the case of Windsor v. United States, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones, who became the fifth federal judge to rule against DOMA, ordered that plaintiff Edith Windsor be repaid the $353,053 plus interest and costs allowed by law that she paid out in estate taxes because of DOMA upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer.
Among other LGBT initiatives on which Pelosi pledged action if Democrats win back the House was the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar job discrimination against LGBT people in most situations in the public and private workforce.
“We were on path on ENDA, and I’m still on that path mentally, and that’s what I would like to accomplish,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi also mentioned immigration legislation affecting the LGBT community, alluding to the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign-born same-sex partners for residency in the United States. She said the bill would “seriously codify immigration policy relating to the [LGBT] community.”
Pelosi was cautious about predicting that Democrats would win the 25 seats necessary to regain control of the House, saying there’s a “50-50” chance, nor would she presume that she would once again be elected speaker in that scenario.
“One thing at a time,” Pelosi said. “Let’s win the House first.”
Pelosi also wouldn’t rule out more progress on LGBT issues under the current makeup of Congress. She said conferees working on the Violence Against Women Act may adopt LGBT-inclusive language because the Democratic-controlled Senate wouldn’t pass a bill without it.
“It’s supposed to go to conference,” Pelosi said. “I don’t think the Senate will pass a bill without those protections, and we certainly won’t support it in the House.”
Pelosi maintained the lack of LGBT language ensuring non-discrimination in shelters and inclusion in grant programs — which is found in the version of the bill passed by the Senate — was among the reasons Democrats voted against the House bill.
“How can you say you don’t approve of violence against women except if you happen to be lesbian or bisexual or transgender?” Pelosi said. “Those are the people who need it the most, you know? And so, but it’s not only the [LGBT] community, it’s also Native Americans and immigrants who are excluded from protections in the House bill.”
Pelosi said Republican lawmakers have confided to her they want to push their caucus to support more inclusive language in the conference report even as many voted for the less inclusive House version of the bill because they didn’t want to seem like they favored violence against women.
“If they’re from places with lots of Native Americans and/or lots of LGBT [people] — there are people who vote with their experience, and their constituents, so I think they will be feeling some pressures to support the Senate bill,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi also commented on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision earlier this week not to rehear a case challenging California’s Proposition 8 after a three-judge panel initially struck down the law.
She deferred to others when asked whether the case should move to the Supreme Court, where justices could rule on same-sex marriage bans throughout the country.
“There are better skilled legal minds on this subject,” Pelosi said. “What I want it to do is end up at a place where we really make a difference in people’s lives, and some of the court decisions have deferred to the Supreme Court acting, so that may be what it takes, but again I’m waiting to hear from those who are in the community who are looking at the consequences.”
Pelosi spoke to the Blade after remarks she gave at a reception for Hill staffers called “LGBT Pride on the Hill,” which, in addition to celebrating June as Pride month, honored Pelosi for her 25 years of service on Capitol Hill.
Prior to her remarks, Pelosi was given a rainbow-studded gavel by her deputy director of scheduling, Timothy Merritt, who’s gay. Merritt was appointed to the job in April 2011, but is leaving for Chicago to pursue a job with the Obama campaign.
Additionally, Pelosi commented on Wednesday’s news that one of the daughters of House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Stefany Hoyer Hemmer, has publicly come out as a lesbian in hopes of preserving the marriage equality law in Maryland. Pelosi said she read the Blade article that broke the story.
“I was very happy with her,” Pelosi said. “I know it must have brought her some peace, too. It’s liberating to make a decision. I don’t want to speak for anybody else, but God bless her for her decision, and God bless her for the work that she is setting out to do.”
Pelosi said she hasn’t spoken with Hoyer about her daughter’s decision to come out as a lesbian, but plans to bring it up with him.
U.S. Federal Courts
Judge temporarily blocks executive orders targeting LGBTQ, HIV groups
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in federal court

A federal judge on Monday blocked the enforcement of three of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that would have threatened to defund nonprofit organizations providing health care and services for LGBTQ people and those living with HIV.
The preliminary injunction was awarded by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a case, San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal and eight other organizations.
Implementation of the executive orders — two aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion along with one targeting the transgender community — will be halted pending the outcome of the litigation challenging them.
“This is a critical win — not only for the nine organizations we represent, but for LGBTQ communities and people living with HIV across the country,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project director and senior counsel on the case.
“The court blocked anti-equity and anti-LGBTQ executive orders that seek to erase transgender people from public life, dismantle DEI efforts, and silence nonprofits delivering life-saving services,” Abrigo said. “Today’s ruling acknowledges the immense harm these policies inflict on these organizations and the people they serve and stops Trump’s orders in their tracks.”
Tigar wrote, in his 52-page decision, “While the Executive requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the constitution.”
“And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous,” he said.
Without the preliminary injunction, the judge wrote, “Plaintiffs face the imminent loss of federal funding critical to their ability to provide lifesaving healthcare and support services to marginalized LGBTQ populations,” a loss that “not only threatens the survival of critical programs but also forces plaintiffs to choose between their constitutional rights and their continued existence.”
The organizations in the lawsuit are located in California (San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Los Angeles LGBT Center, GLBT Historical Society, and San Francisco Community Health Center), Arizona (Prisma Community Care), New York (The NYC LGBT Community Center), Pennsylvania (Bradbury-Sullivan Community Center), Maryland (Baltimore Safe Haven), and Wisconsin (FORGE).
U.S. Supreme Court
Activists rally for Andry Hernández Romero in front of Supreme Court
Gay asylum seeker ‘forcibly deported’ to El Salvador, described as political prisoner

More than 200 people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday and demanded the Trump-Vance administration return to the U.S. a gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who it “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador.
Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based organization that represents Andry Hernández Romero, is among those who spoke alongside U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Human Rights Campaign Campaigns and Communications Vice President Jonathan Lovitz. Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark, Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, and Tim Miller are among those who also participated in the rally.
“Andry is a son, a brother. He’s an actor, a makeup artist,” said Toczylowski. “He is a gay man who fled Venezuela because it was not safe for him to live there as his authentic self.”
(Video by Michael K. Lavers)
The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The Trump-Vance administration subsequently “forcibly removed” Hernández and hundreds of other Venezuelans to El Salvador.
Toczylowski said she believes Hernández remains at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT. Toczylowski also disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.
“Andry fled persecution in Venezuela and came to the U.S. to seek protection. He has no criminal history. He is not a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. Yet because of his crown tattoos, we believe at this moment that he sits in a torture prison, a gulag, in El Salvador,” said Toczylowski. “I say we believe because we have not had any proof of life for him since the day he was put on a U.S. government-funded plane and forcibly disappeared to El Salvador.”
“Andry is not alone,” she added.
Takano noted the federal government sent his parents, grandparents, and other Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II under the Alien Enemies Act. The gay California Democrat also described Hernández as “a political prisoner, denied basic rights under a law that should have stayed in the past.”
“He is not a case number,” said Takano. “He is a person.”
Hernández had been pursuing his asylum case while at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.
A hearing had been scheduled to take place on May 30, but an immigration judge the day before dismissed his case. Immigrant Defenders Law Center has said it will appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the Justice Department oversees.
“We will not stop fighting for Andry, and I know neither will you,” said Toczylowski.
Friday’s rally took place hours after Attorney General Pam Bondi said Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump-Vance administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador, had returned to the U.S. Abrego will face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee.
National
A husband’s story: Michael Carroll reflects on life with Edmund White
Iconic author died this week; ‘no sunnier human in the world’

Unlike most gay men of my generation, I’ve only been to Fire Island twice. Even so, the memory of my first visit has never left me. The scenery was lovely, and the boys were sublime — but what stood out wasn’t the beach or the parties. It was a quiet afternoon spent sipping gin and tonics in a mid-century modern cottage tucked away from the sand and sun.
Despite Fire Island’s reputation for hedonism, our meeting was more accident than escapade. Michael Carroll — a Facebook friend I’d chatted with but never met — mentioned that he and his husband, Ed, would be there that weekend, too. We agreed to meet for a drink. On a whim, I checked his profile and froze. Ed was author Edmund White.
I packed a signed copy of Carroll’s “Little Reef” and a dog-eared hardback of “A Boy’s Own Story,” its spine nearly broken from rereads. I was excited to meet both men and talk about writing, even briefly.
Yesterday, I woke to the news that Ed had passed away. Ironically, my first thought was of Michael.
This week, tributes to Edmund White are everywhere — rightly celebrating his towering legacy as a novelist, essayist, and cultural icon. I’ve read all of his books, and I could never do justice to the scope of a career that defined and chronicled queer life for more than half a century. I’ll leave that to better-prepared journalists.
But in those many memorials, I’ve noticed something missing. When Michael Carroll is mentioned, it’s usually just a passing reference: “White’s partner of thirty years, twenty-five years his junior.” And yet, in the brief time I spent with this couple on Fire Island, it was clear to me that Michael was more than a footnote — he was Ed’s anchor, editor, companion, and champion. He was the one who knew his husband best.
They met in 1995 after Michael wrote Ed a fan letter to tell him he was coming to Paris. “He’d lost the great love of his life a year before,” Michael told me. “In one way, I filled a space. Understand, I worshiped this man and still do.”
When I asked whether there was a version of Ed only he knew, Michael answered without hesitation: “No sunnier human in the world, obvious to us and to people who’ve only just or never met him. No dark side. Psychology had helped erase that, I think, or buffed it smooth.”
Despite the age difference and divergent career arcs, their relationship was intellectually and emotionally symbiotic. “He made me want to be elegant and brainy; I didn’t quite reach that, so it led me to a slightly pastel minimalism,” Michael said. “He made me question my received ideas. He set me free to have sex with whoever I wanted. He vouchsafed my moods when they didn’t wobble off axis. Ultimately, I encouraged him to write more minimalistically, keep up the emotional complexity, and sleep with anyone he wanted to — partly because I wanted to do that too.”
Fully open, it was a committed relationship that defied conventional categories. Ed once described it as “probably like an 18th-century marriage in France.” Michael elaborated: “It means marriage with strong emotion — or at least a tolerance for one another — but no sex; sex with others. I think.”
That freedom, though, was always anchored in deep devotion and care — and a mutual understanding that went far beyond art, philosophy, or sex. “He believed in freedom and desire,” Michael said, “and the two’s relationship.”
When I asked what all the essays and articles hadn’t yet captured, Michael paused. “Maybe that his writing was tightly knotted, but that his true personality was vulnerable, and that he had the defense mechanisms of cheer and optimism to conceal that vulnerability. But it was in his eyes.”
The moment that captured who Ed was to him came at the end. “When he was dying, his second-to-last sentence (garbled then repeated) was, ‘Don’t forget to pay Merci,’ the cleaning lady coming the next day. We had had a rough day, and I was popping off like a coach or dad about getting angry at his weakness and pushing through it. He took it almost like a pack mule.”
Edmund White’s work shaped generations — it gave us language for desire, shame, wit, and liberation. But what lingers just as powerfully is the extraordinary life Ed lived with a man who saw him not only as a literary giant but as a real person: sunny, complex, vulnerable, generous.
In the end, Ed’s final words to his husband weren’t about his books or his legacy. They were about care, decency, and love. “You’re good,” he told Michael—a benediction, a farewell, maybe even a thank-you.
And now, as the world celebrates the prolific writer and cultural icon Edmund White, it feels just as important to remember the man and the person who knew him best. Not just the story but the characters who stayed to see it through to the end.