Connect with us

National

House Dems to urge Supreme Court to strike down DOMA

Other briefs filed by businesses, ‘red state’ coalition, GOP

Published

on

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will lead Democrats in a brief against DOMA before the Supreme Court (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will lead Democrats in a brief against DOMA before the Supreme Court. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

House Democrats are circulating a legal brief that will argue against the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, the Washington Blade has learned.

Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said his boss will lead other Democrats in the friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, which is due on Friday. The case pending before the court is known as Windsor v. United States.

“There will be a strong expression of support from the House Democratic Caucus in support of overturning DOMA and casting DOMA into the dustbin of history,” Hammill said.

Hammill declined to provide additional details about the filing, so it’s unknown what the argument of the brief will be. It will likely counter the arguments presented by the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group that the committee speaks for the House as a whole.

The individual House members who signed the brief and the total number of signatures wasn’t immediately known. But Ilan Kayatsky, a spokesperson for Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), said his boss is the principal signer of the brief. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif), the only openly gay Asian-American in Congress, and Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), the only bisexual member, independently told the Washington Blade they would sign the brief.

It’s not surprising House Democrats are preparing a brief because they’ve participated in each of the DOMA challenges pending before appellate courts.

They filed a brief before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals when the Windsor case was before that court. House Democrats also filed a brief before the First Circuit in the combined case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, and another before the Ninth Circuit in the case of Golinski v. United States.

House Democrats are preparing their brief amid a flurry of news regarding other briefs that have been submitted in the case against DOMA before the Supreme Court as well as Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case challenging California’s Proposition 8.

LGBT advocates are also eagerly waiting to see whether the Obama administration will take part in the lawsuit against Prop 8 before the Supreme Court. The deadline for the Justice Department to do so is Thursday.

Following the White House news briefing on Wednesday, the Blade shouted out to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney an inquiry on whether the Justice Department would file a brief. Without turning around to answer as he left the room, Carney replied, “I don’t have anything for you on that.”

A group of 278 businesses and organizations — including tech companies like Xerox and Microsoft as well as web companies like Google, Twitter and eBay — filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court on Wednesday arguing that DOMA is bad for business.

In the 36-page brief, the companies argue that DOMA imposes compliance burdens upon employers because they treat benefits — such as health care benefits and family leave — differently for straight married employees and gay married employees.

“Although marriages are celebrated and recognized under state law, DOMA, a federal law withholding marital benefits from some lawful marriages but not others, requires that employers treat one employee differently from another, when each is married, and each marriage is equally lawful,” the brief states. “DOMA thus impairs employer/employee relations and other business interests.”

The brief also argues that DOMA requires companies to affirm discrimination they believe is injurious to their corporate missions and is contrary to non-discrimination laws and policies.

“DOMA imposes on amici not simply the considerable burden of compliance and cost,” the brief states. “DOMA conscripts amici to become the face of its mandate that two separate castes of married persons be identified and separately treated.”

Also among the signatories is the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the official non-partisan organization of all United States cities with populations of 30,000 or more.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and a member of the group Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, said the conference is proud to take part in the brief.

“Mayors want their citizens and businesses to prosper, and that means supporting them against discrimination – from any level of government,” Nutter said. “Married means married, and mayors and businesses agree that DOMA can’t stand.”

Another brief was filed on Wednesday by a coalition of groups representing Red States where same-sex marriage isn’t legal. The “Red State” brief, which responds to both the Prop 8 and DOMA cases, was signed by groups like Kentucky Equality Federation, Equality Virginia, the Utah Pride Center and the the Utah Pride Center and the Campaign for Southern Equality.

The 34-page brief argues that the Supreme Court should find laws related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, citing laws that demean gay students in the education system as well as bans on adoption and same-sex marriage.

“The keystone of existing systems of de jure denigration of gay Americans is the denial of their right to marry,” the brief states. “It is both the crux of the matter and the root of other forms of discrimination against gay citizens. The heartbreaking message to committed, gay couples: Your love is unworthy of marriage.”

And The New York Times reported that more than two-dozen Republicans have signed onto the brief against Prop 8 being circulated by gay former Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman, which received significant media attention this week. The additional reported signers include former Rep. Charles Bass of New Hampshire, who signed on as co-sponsor of DOMA repeal late last year, and Beth Myers, who was an adviser to former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

The Times initially reported that former congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, who authored the Federal Marriage Amendment while in Congress, was another signer. But Musgrave denied to local Denver media that she signed the brief and the Times later ran a correction saying the signer was in fact B. J. Nikkel, who last year was the only Republican on the Colorado House Judiciary Committee to vote in support of civil unions and worked as district director for Musgrave.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story

Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.

Published

on

President Donald Trump at the State of the Union in February 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.

While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.

“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.

“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”

His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.

White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.

Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”

He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.

The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.

Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.

His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.

Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.

Continue Reading

National

Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents

Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community

Published

on

The Trump administration has moved from identifying trans people as as threat to the family to claiming that trans people are a threat to the spiritual health of the nation. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”

The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.” 

This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.

As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.” 

Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation. 

By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents. 

With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”

This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “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. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”

And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions. 

While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933. 

In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare. 

Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people. 

The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.” 

As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.” 

In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law

Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure

Published

on

Pennsylvania Capitol Building (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.

House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.

The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.

“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”

Continue Reading

Popular