National
In historic week, a chorus of support for marriage equality
NFL players, major corporations, politicians denounce DOMA, Prop 8
Mike Neubecker signed a PFLAG brief against Prop 8 for his son-in-law David (right). (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
A slew of legal briefs — signed by parties ranging from NFL players to LGBT advocates to businesses — were filed this week before the U.S. Supreme Court in lawsuits challenging California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.
During a news conference held on Thursday by the Respect for Marriage Coalition, a number of parties that filed briefs in the cases spoke out on why they were calling on the Supreme Court to issue rulings striking down Prop 8 and DOMA.
Mike Neubacker, a self-avowed devout Christian from Michigan, held back tears as he explained why he penned his name to a brief against Prop 8 filed by the LGBT group PFLAG. He and his wife, Janice, signed the brief on behalf of his son Lee, his spouse David and their two children.
“I met a lot of people in PFLAG, and signed on to this brief also knowing all the people that helped me besides my own family,” Neubacker said. “For me, marriage, when I say that I’ve been married 41 years to my wife, I usually get applause if I’m speaking somewhere because there’s that respect for marriage that’s understood. Right away, they immediately know the relationship and what we meant to each other. I want Lee and David to have that same recognition when they say they’re married.”
Gay former Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona was among the 131 Republicans who signed another brief against Prop 8 — which was also signed by former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, director Clint Eastwood as well as Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.). He also spoke at the news conference in terms of DOMA’s impact on bi-national same-sex couples.
“My partner is from Panama,” Kolbe said. “He’s been here for a number of years. He’s a Fulbright scholar, master’s degree in special education, bilingual education specialist, but our getting married does not permit the right to immigrate to this country, so our struggle to get immigration for him has been a long and very difficult one for him.”
Two separate briefs were filed in the DOMA case and the Prop 8 case that were signed by a number of LGBT advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the Courage Campaign and the Center for American Progress, as well as other civil rights groups such as the National Council of La Raza and the National Immigration Forum.
Both briefs argue that Prop 8 and DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional because laws related to sexual orientation merit heightened scrutiny in the courts.
“Amici urge the Court to hold that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to heightened scrutiny, so that governments cannot use invented, after-the-fact rationalizations to mask and justify discrimination based on prejudice, antipathy, or baseless stereotypes,” the Prop 8 brief states. “Discrimination based on sexual orientation bears the same essential hallmarks as other kinds of discrimination that have long received heightened scrutiny, and it should be treated no differently under the law.”
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Lambda Legal, which had filed their cases against DOMA that didn’t reach the Supreme Court, also filed their own brief in the case challenging the 1996 anti-gay law.
That 39-page brief also maintains DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny, but also argues the law would fail under a lower standard of rational basis review.
“DOMA bears each of the various indicia the Court has considered when it has invalidated laws under rational basis review,” the brief states. “DOMA both targets a group disliked at the time of its passage and impacts important personal interests. It arose not out of the usual process of allocating federal rights and benefits but as a one-time departure from the traditional method of predicating eligibility for federal marriage-based protections on a couple’s marital status under state law.”
Another brief was filed in the Prop 8 case by National Football League players known for their support for marriage equality: Chris Kluwe, punter for the Minnesota Vikings, and Brendon Ayanbadejo, linebacker for the Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens.
The football players argue that professional sports play a major role in shaping public opinion and Prop 8 should be ruled unconstitutional because the earlier decision from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the measure is consistent with the constitution.
“The NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA, at the league level, team level, and individual level, are finally speaking out against homophobia and intolerance of LBGTQ individuals,” the brief states. “More and more of us realize that using demeaning slur words like ‘faggot,’ ‘queer,’ and ‘gay’ can have serious, negative consequences.”
The deadline for filing in the Prop 8 case was Thursday and the deadline for filing in the DOMA case was Friday. In the Prop 8 case, oral arguments are set for March 26; they’re set the day after on March 27 in the DOMA case. Justices are expected to render a decision before their term ends in June.
A list of other friend-of-the-court briefs filed in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases follows. The Washington Blade has written more extensive articles on some of these briefs already.
Friend-of-the-court briefs against Prop 8
• Amid calls from LGBT advocates, the Obama administration a filed legal brief against California’s same-sex marriage ban. The brief focuses on the unconstitutionality of Prop 8, but Obama himself said the reasoning in the brief could be applied to other laws.
• A “red” state coalition of groups that operate where same-sex marriage is illegal — ranging from the Utah Pride Center, to the Campaign for Southern Equality, to Equality Virginia — filed a brief arguing that both Prop 8 and DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny.
• A coalition of state attorneys general, including Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, filed another brief against Prop 8.
• California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who has declined to defend Prop 8 in court, also filed a brief calling on the court to strike down the measure.
• Gay California Assembly Speaker John Perez — who’s reportedly on Obama’s short list as the next labor secretary — filed with law professors a brief against Prop 8 arguing that laws preventing equal political participation merit heightened scrutiny.
• Equality California filed a brief against Prop 8 with a different focus, arguing that proponents of the measure don’t have standing to defend the law in court.
• The libertarian think-tank known as the Cato Institute joined the Constitutional Accountability Center filed a brief arguing that Prop 8 violates equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.
Friend-of-the-court briefs against DOMA
• 212 congressional Democrats filed a brief against DOMA, marking the first time ever that House and Senate lawmakers have joined together in calling the anti-gay law unconstitutional.
• The LGBT military group OutServe-SLDN filed a brief against DOMA emphasizing the harm it causes gay service members with same-sex partners.
• A coalition of 278 of municipalities and businesses, including Google, Twitter and Microsoft, filed a brief maintaining DOMA is unconstitutional because it requires employers to discriminate against married gay employees.
• The Family Equality Council and the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network filed a brief with allied organizations against both DOMA and Prop 8.
• The American Bar Association filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the “serious obstacles” that DOMA imposes on lawyers’ clients who are same-sex couples legally married under state law.
• The Gay & Lesbian Medical Association filed briefs in both the Prop 8 and DOMA cases highlighting for the justices the scientific and clinical evidence that sexual orientation is an innate human characteristic.
• Trevor Potter, gay adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and author of McCain-Feingold, signed a brief against DOMA filed by former federal election commissioners. That brief argues DOMA — when superimposed onto federal campaign finance law — legally bars married gays and lesbians from political expression and association opportunities that are afforded to other married citizens.
Michael K. Lavers contributed to this report.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Murdered Israeli embassy officials were supporters of D.C.’s LGBTQ synagogue
US hate groups fuel anti-LGBTQ rights movement in Africa
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
