National

212 congressional Dems call on court to overturn DOMA

In first, Senators join House Dems in saying anti-gay law is unconstitutional

Published

12 years ago

March 1, 2013

Sen. Tammy Baldwin was among the signers of the congressional Democrats brief against DOMA (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

An unprecedented coalition of 212 House and Senate Democrats have joined together in calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.

In a 35-page brief filed on Friday, congressional Democrats argue DOMA should be struck down because the law should be subject to heightened scrutiny and the law singles out gay and lesbian couples for harm. The case challenging the statute is Windsor v. United States.

“DOMA imposes a sweeping and unjustifiable federal disability on married same-sex couples,” the brief concludes. “It is ‘class legislation’ that lacks any rational connection to legitimate federal interests, thus violating the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee.”

While House Democrats have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in cases challenging DOMA at lower appellate courts, the latest brief is unprecedented because for the first time Senate Democrats have signed on as well. The 172 House Democrats who signed the brief were joined by 40 Senate Democrats.

House Democrats who signed the brief include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who lead the effort to gather signatures, as well as the six openly LGB members of the U.S. House: Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Mark Takano (D-Calif.).

Senators who joined in the effort are lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

The brief devotes significant attention to disputing the arguments in favor of DOMA made by the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — which has taken up defense of DOMA in place of the administration — particularly BLAG’s argument that gays enjoy political power and thus aren’t a suspect class.

Congressional Democrats take note of how the LGBT people unable has been unable pass legislation to institute federal protections against job bias — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — as an example of their political powerlessness.

“In fact, in the nearly twenty years since it was first introduced, ENDA passed only once in the House and never in the Senate,” the brief states. “That gay men and lesbians have been unable to achieve even the modest goal of obtaining basic protection against employment discrimination — despite the fact that 89 percent of the American people supports such protection — shows that BLAG is flat wrong in contending that gay men and lesbians enjoy ‘remarkable political clout.'”

The brief also details harm that DOMA causes same-sex couples who are unable to receive federal benefits of marriage — as well as the harm the statute causes children living in these families.

“Many married lesbians and gay men raise children together,” the brief states. “DOMA harms them and their children, and affords no benefit to different-sex couples or their children. It thus cannot survive equal protection review.”

Notably, the brief refrains from making the argument that Congress passed DOMA in 1996 out of animus — a position held by many LGBT advocates — and instead maintains it was made law because members of Congress at the time didn’t know gay people.

“From our perspective — including those of us who voted for DOMA — debate and passage of the law did not necessarily arise ‘from malice or hostile animus,’ but instead from ‘insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves,'” the brief states. “While fear and distrust of families different from our own may explain why DOMA passed by comfortable majorities in 1996, it does not obviate the need for a constitutionally permissible justification for the law.”

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, commended congressional Democrats speaking out against DOMA before the Supreme Court.

“It’s a key indicator of how indefensible the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is that now literally hundreds of members of Congress are signing a brief repudiating it,” Wolfson said. “These senators and representatives, like the American people they serve, know that the government shouldn’t be assigning second-class status to legally married same-sex couples.”

No Republicans signed the brief. Even though Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) have signed on as co-sponsors to legislation that would repeal DOMA — and penned their names to another brief from 131 Republicans arguing that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional — their names are absent from the DOMA brief.

Ilan Kayatsky, a Nadler spokesperson, deferred comment on the absence of any Republican names from the DOMA brief to Republicans. Neither Ros-Lehtinen’s nor Hanna’s office immediately responded to a request to comment.

The argument presented in the brief is along the lines of the argument that the Obama administration made against DOMA in the brief the Justice Department filed last month.

On Thursday, the administration also filed a brief before the Supreme Court arguing Prop 8 is unconstitutional in addition to the DOMA brief. However, congressional Democrats didn’t do the same and only submitted on brief on DOMA.

Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said the Democratic leader was focused on building support for the DOMA brief and its argument that DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny will assist in efforts to overturn California’s marriage ban.

“The brief provides the congressional members’ perspective on why there is absolutely no legitimate federal interest in discrimination, and why, given the history of how DOMA was enacted, heightened judicial scrutiny is needed for federal laws that discriminate against the LGBT community,” Hammill said. “In making the case for heightened scrutiny, the amicus brief will assist the efforts to overturn Proposition 8.”

Hammill also said Pelosi has spoken out against Prop 8 and “appreciates” the Justice Department’s filing against the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California.

“From the outset, Leader Pelosi has strongly opposed Proposition 8, and believes that the legal advocacy by opponents of Proposition 8 has been outstanding,” Hammill said. “The Leader looks forward to the day when all Californians – and indeed, all Americans everywhere – have the right to marry who they love. She appreciates the President’s strong leadership in favor of overturning Proposition 8 and of striking down DOMA.”

Asked in a follow-up email to clarify whether Pelosi believes Prop 8 is unconstitutional, Hammill replied, “She has said so repeatedly.”

Related Topics:DOMA Homepage Headlines Tammy Baldwin

Up Next

Obama says Prop 8 brief may apply in other cases

Don't Miss

Obama tells court to overturn marriage ban

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

1 day ago

July 3, 2025

Christopher Kane

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

3 days ago

July 1, 2025

Christopher Kane

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

4 days ago

June 30, 2025

Joe Reberkenny

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”