National
Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments on marriage
Attorneys in Prop 8, DOMA cases prepare for next week’s showdown
All eyes will be on the Supreme Court next week when it hears arguments in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases. (Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)
At a time of intense national debate, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time ever will hear oral arguments next week on whether marriage rights for gay couples are protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Attorneys on both sides will make their arguments in two separate cases, on two separate days and regarding two separate anti-gay measures, but the state of marriage equality across the country could be altered depending on the rulings in either of the cases.
On Tuesday, the court will hear arguments on Proposition 8, a ballot measure approved by California voters in 2008 that stripped away existing marriage rights in the state for same-sex couples. The next day, the court will listen to arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Chris Stoll, a senior staff attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the oral arguments provide an opportunity for observers to glean what justices are thinking based on their line of questioning.
“It’s true that appellate courts, I would say, mostly base their decisions on the written submissions on the briefs,” Stoll said. “The main purpose of oral argument is to let the justices have questions that they have answered by the lawyers, and so, what the lawyers come in to say isn’t really the focus; it’s really what the justices want to have answered.”
Mary Bonauto, civil rights director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said oral arguments are a “filtering process” that provide justices the opportunity to explore possible outcomes of their rulings and persuade each other.
“That’s part of why they’re so active,” Bonauto said. “They’re trying to influence each other’s votes and perspectives on it, and, effectively, argue the case themselves. If you ever read a Supreme Court transcript, it’s usually very difficult to read because there are so many interruptions.”
In the Prop 8 case, known as Hollingsworth v. Perry, Ted Olson, a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, will argue against the constitutionality of the measure on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Based on the legal brief he filed, Olson will likely argue against the merits of Prop 8 on the basis that it violates due process and equal protection of gay plaintiff couples under the U.S. Constitution.
The ban on same-sex marriage will be defended by anti-gay groups, such as ProtectMarriage.com, because California state officials have declined to defend the marriage ban. The lawyer arguing on behalf of the anti-gay measure will likely be private attorney Charles Cooper, who defended Prop 8 during the district court trial in 2010.
Depending on the scope, a ruling in the Prop 8 case in favor of the plaintiffs could be a jackpot for same-sex couples. Justices could affirm the limited ruling from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affected only California; determine that the nine states, including California, that offer domestic partnerships must offer same-sex marriage; or issue a sweeping ruling that brings marriage equality to all 50 states.
In the DOMA case, known as Windsor v. United States, Roberta Kaplan, a New York-based attorney, is set to argue against the constitutionality of the anti-gay law in a coordinated effort with the American Civil Liberties Union. Kaplan’s client is Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian who was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes upon the death in 2009 of her spouse, Thea Spyer, because of DOMA.
James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project, said preparations have been underway for oral arguments, including moot courts where individuals impersonate justices to ask possible questions that the real ones may pose.
“People do that for Supreme Court arguments, people do that for appeals court arguments, people do that for trial court arguments — we’ve done that all along,” Esseks said. “It’s just the normal thing that people do.”
On the other side of the DOMA case will be Paul Clement, another former U.S. solicitor general from the Bush administration. He was hired at a rate of $520 an hour by the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend DOMA in court.
The stakes in the DOMA case are high as well. A ruling striking down DOMA would have multiple impacts on married gay couples. Among other things, they’d have access to medical leave if their spouses need attention because they’re gravely ill or injured and Social Security survivor benefits would become available.
A ruling that strikes down DOMA would also remove a barrier for gay service members seeking spousal benefits in the wake of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. According to a report published last month from the Center for American Progress and OutServe-SLDN, the average gay military family pays $5,615 out-of-pocket each year for health care insurance because they aren’t eligible for military coverage known as TRICARE.
Both oral arguments will share a common participant: U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Since the Obama administration stopped defending DOMA in court, it has participated in litigation against DOMA and will have speaking time in arguments before the Supreme Court. Similarly, in the wake of filing a friend-of-the-court brief against Prop 8, the Justice Department will also have speaking time to argue against it thanks to a request.
In either or both cases, the Supreme Court could determine as part of its ruling that laws related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional. That’s the view the Justice Department has articulated in legal briefs against DOMA and Prop 8.
Such a decision would also have a sweeping impact because it would create a precedent that guides other courts when evaluating the constitutionality of anti-gay laws, such as bans on same-sex marriage.
But the merits issue — the question of whether Prop 8 and DOMA are constitutional — will only form part of the discussion in the cases as other issues such as standing and jurisdiction must be addressed. These issues may ultimately form the basis of the court’s rulings.
In the Prop 8 case, the question is whether proponents of the measure have standing to defend the measure in court. It’s possible — as Olson and his team have argued — the court would rule they lack standing because they aren’t harmed by Prop 8. Such a ruling would leave unanswered questions about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in California, but likely restore same-sex marriage in that state.
The questions about standing and jurisdiction in the DOMA case are more complex. The court asked attorneys when taking up the case whether BLAG has standing to participate and whether the Obama administration’s agreement with lower courts that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. It’s unclear what the fate of DOMA would be if the court decides to rule on those grounds.
GLAD’s Bonauto said she thinks the stronger argument is the court has jurisdiction to consider DOMA and will decide on the merits — but noted “they asked the question for a reason” and questions emerge if the court decides to rule on DOMA on the basis of standing.
“Most people think the Second Circuit decision goes away, then the question is what happens to the district court ruling,” Bonauto said. “Does Edie get her money back, or is there an argument that the district court ruling goes away because the U.S. switched positions in the district court. I’d like to think, at a minimum, Edie would get her money back.”
Vicki Jackson, a Harvard law professor hired by the court, will argue BLAG doesn’t have standing in the lawsuit and the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case. Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinavasan is set to address the standing issue on behalf of the Justice Department. BLAG also has been allocated time to assert it has standing in the case, but Windsor’s attorneys weren’t granted time to talk about jurisdiction or standing.
NCLR’s Stoll said any decision from justices that would extend rights to gay couples — whether on the merits or through issues of standing — would be a “milestone” for the LGBT community.
“We have already been seeing tremendous changes in society and the level of acceptance for gay and lesbian people and for legal recognition of them through marriage,” Stoll said. “I think that if the Supreme Court ruled in whatever way in favor of the plaintiffs in these cases, that it would be a real milestone and landmark moment for our movement.”
National
Victory Institute to honor Biden at D.C. conference
Former president to receive award on Friday
The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute on Friday will honor former President Joe Biden at its annual International LGBTQ+ Leaders Conference in D.C.
Biden will receive the Chris Abele Impact Award in recognition of what the Victory Institute described as “his historic role in championing LGBTQ+ rights and for his leadership in achieving the most LGBTQ+ inclusive administration in U.S. history.” Biden will be the award’s third recipient.
“President Biden has shown unwavering commitment to ensuring LGBTQ+ people can participate fully and openly in our democracy,” said Victory Institute President Evan Low in a press release. “From appointing a record number of LGBTQ+ leaders to reversing harmful policies and expanding civil rights protections, his administration set a new and necessary standard for what inclusive governance looks like.”
“And now, we’re seeing LGBTQ+ elected officials lead the way on everyday issues that are important to most Americans like groceries, housing, and lowering the costs of healthcare,” he added. “This award honors not only his achievements, but also the real impact these changes have had on LGBTQ+ Americans across the country.”
The conference will take place Dec. 4-6 at the JW Marriott Hotel in Downtown Washington, where more than 700 elected LGBTQ+ political leaders and human rights advocates are expected to attend.
Notable officials slated to participate include Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey; Maine Gov. Janet Mills; Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel; Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez; Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes; U.S. Reps. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Robert Garcia (D-Calif.); Maine House of Representatives Speaker Ryan Fecteau; Mississippi state Sen. Fabian Nelson; San Antonio Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones; San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria; West Hollywood (Calif.) Mayor Chelsea Byers and Providence (R.I.) Mayor Brett Smiley.
Transgender Spanish Sen. Carla Antonelli, former U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina Eric Nelson, and Robert Biedroń, a gay member of the European Parliament from Poland, are slated to attend. Earlene Budd, a longtime trans activist in D.C., and D.C. Councilman Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5) are also expected to participate.
Michael K. Lavers contributed to this story.
National
Faith leaders denounce anti-transgender attacks
‘You are holy. You are sacred. We love you.’
This past Trans Awareness Week, 10 heads of diverse religious traditions issued a statement proclaiming that transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people are worthy of love, support, and protection. Led by Rev. Dr. Sofía Betancourt, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, representatives from the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Presbyterian Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, and Reconstructing Judaism called out the violent and systemic persecution of trans, nonbinary, intersex, and queer people–proclaiming that their faith and their humanity urged them to affirm that trans, intersex, and quere people are “sacred” and “holy.”
Their statement comes at a critical time. Over the past three months, Trump and his Cabinet’s anti-trans rhetoric has only intensified, with a report released late September by journalist Ken Klippenstein in which national security officers leaked that the FBI is planning to classify trans people as “extremists.” By classifying trans people as “Nihilistic Violent Extremists,” far-right groups would have more “political (and media) cover,” as Abby Monteil reports for them, for anti-trans violence and legislation.
While the news is terrifying, it’s not unprecedented – the fight against trans rights and classification of trans people as violent extremists was included in Project 2025, and in the past several weeks, far-right leaders’ transphobic campaign has expanded: boycotting Netflix to pressure the platform to remove trans characters, leveraging anti-trans attack ads in the Virginia governor’s race and banning professors from acknowledging that trans people exist. In fact last month, two Republican members of Congress called for the institutionalization of trans people.
It seems that the government shutdown was predicated, at least partially, on Trump’s own anti-trans policies that were attached as riders in the appropriations bill.
It’s a dangerous escalation of transphobic violence that the Human Rights Campaign has classified as an epidemic. According to an Everytown for Gun Safety report published in 2020, the number of trans people murdered in the U.S. almost doubled between 2017 and 2021. According to data released by the Gun Safety report from February 2024, 34 percent of gun homicides of trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive people remain unsolved.
As Tori Cooper, Director of Community Engagement for the Transgender Justice Initiative for the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, this violence serves a purpose. “The hate towards transgender and gender expansive community members is fueled by disinformation, rhetoric and ideology that treats our community as political pawns ignoring the fact that we reserve the opportunity to live our lives full without fear of harm or death,” Cooper said.
The faith leaders came out in this statement to affirm that it is their spiritual and human imperative to call out this escalating violence and protect trans, nonbinary, intersex, and queer people. The leaders acknowledge that historically and today, religion is used as a weapon of hate to degrade and deny the human dignity of LGBTQ+ peoples. The Supreme Court is hearing Chiles v. Salazar, a case about the constitutionality of a Colorado ban of conversion therapy for minors, with the majority of conversion therapy practices being faith based. And despite the Supreme Court declining to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of same-sex marriage conferred in Obergefell v. Hodges, efforts to end marriage equality remain ongoing with Katy Faust’s End Obergefell movement.
“During a time when our country is placing their lives under increasingly serious threat,” the statement reads, “there is a disgraceful misconception that all people of faith do not affirm the full spectrum of gender – a great many of us do. Let it be known instead that our beloveds are created in the image of God – Holy and whole.”
The faith leaders argue that commendation of LGBTQ peoples and religiously motivated efforts to deny their dignity and rights is not the belief of all faith communities, and far-right Christian nationalist communities and others who uphold homophobia and seek to exact it writ large in the United States do not speak for all faith leaders.
This is a critical piece of the statement and builds on historical precedence. During the 1980s AIDS crisis, when far-right Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, one of the founders of the Moral Majority, stated that HIV was “God’s punishment” for LGBTQ+ people and indicative of a broader moral decline in America, affirming faith communities came out to affirm the dignity and divinity of queer people. As funeral homes and churches refused to prepare the dead and bury them, some faith communities stepped up to say that these homophobic leaders do not speak on behalf of all people of faith.
In 1985, the United Church of Christ General Synod urged its member congregations to claim and declare themselves “Open and Affirming,” in order to express their welcome and support for LGBTQ+ people, and two years later, the Church of the Brethren issued a statement titled “A Call to Compassion” where conference members urged member congregations to speak out boldly against discrimination, provide direct care to people with HIV/AIDS, and actively educate themselves and others to stop the spread of fear and prejudice surrounding the disease.
Just one year later, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Church Council issued a statement, “AIDS and Church’s Ministry of Caring,” which outlined the ways in which welcoming, ministering to and advocating on behalf of people with HIV/AIDS is critical to their mission. Even the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which earlier this month banned gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals, issued a statement in 1987 calling discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS “unjust and immoral,” and denouncing the label of “innocent” or “guilty” patients.
Thus, the faith leaders’ statement this past week builds on a rich history of faith communities fighting the stigma that far-right faith groups perpetuate about LGBTQ+ people and committing to action. What sets this latest statement apart is its decidedly interfaith heart, which speaks to the history of the Pride Interfaith Service in Washington, DC that was first started by a group of faith leaders and lay people who gathered at the AIDS Memorial quilt.
As the statement reads, “Our scriptures vary, but they share a common conviction. As we make justice our aim we must give voice to those who are silenced. Our shared values, held across many faiths, teach us that we are all children of God and that we must cultivate a discipline of hope, especially in difficult times. As such, we raise our voices in solidarity to unequivocally proclaim the holiness of transgener, nonbinary, and intersex people, as well as the recognition of the entire spectrum of gender identity and expression.”
The statement ended by arguing that they need to call out the violence they are witnessing. Their silence, they argue, would be in compliance and reinforce the idea that homophobic religious leaders and lay people speak on behalf of all people of faith. Their statement is not only words, however, it is a written promise affirming the dignity and holiness of queer people but also to protect them in the face of increasing violence and persecution.
“When people of faith and conscience stay silent in the face of oppression, we are all made less whole. When people of faith and conscience speak out against that which violates the sacred in its own name, we have the power to stay the hand of sin. Transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are vulnerable today,” the statement concluded.
“Our faiths, our theologies, and our practices of prophetic witness call on us to say with one voice to transgender people among us: ‘You are holy. You are sacred. We love you. We support you, and we will protect you.’”
The White House
White House halts World AIDS Day recognition amid HIV funding cuts
Trump-Vance administration under increased criticism over policies
For the first time since the global observance began, the U.S. government did not commemorate World AIDS Day on Monday.
World AIDS Day, first marked in 1988, has long served as an annual reminder of the ongoing effort to end an epidemic that has killed more than 44.1 million people worldwide and continues to disproportionately impact LGBTQ people, communities of color, and those in the American South. Yet the Trump-Vance administration declined to acknowledge the day this year, severing a symbolic but consistent tradition upheld by every president since Ronald Reagan.
The move comes despite the scale of the epidemic today. Approximately 1.2 million people in the U.S. are living with HIV, according to federal estimates, and about 13 percent — 158,249 people — do not know their status. Globally, the World Health Organization reports 40.8 million people were living with HIV at the end of 2024.
Presidents of both parties have historically used World AIDS Day to highlight progress, remember lives lost, and recommit to reducing disparities in prevention and treatment. Past administrations have also commemorated the day through displays of the AIDS Memorial Quilt — first created in 1987 and later spread across the National Mall and White House lawn. Today, the quilt includes the names of more than 94,000 people lost to AIDS on more than 47,000 panels.
This year’s silence from the White House follows several sweeping foreign aid rollbacks instituted by President Donald Trump after his 2024 inauguration. According to an October report by KFF, the administration enacted a “90-day review of foreign aid; a subsequent ‘stop-work order’ that froze all payments and services for work already underway; the dissolution of USAID, including the reduction of most staff and contractors; and the cancellation of most foreign assistance awards.”
These cuts have created significant funding gaps for nongovernmental organizations around the world — many of which work directly to prevent HIV transmission and expand access to lifesaving treatment.
The State Department dismissed criticism of the administration’s decision not to acknowledge World AIDS Day.
“An awareness day is not a strategy. Under the leadership of President Trump, the State Department is working directly with foreign governments to save lives and increase their responsibility and burden sharing,” deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in a statement CNN first reported. “Earlier this year, we released a global health strategy aimed at streamlining America’s foreign assistance and modernizing our approach to countering infectious diseases.”
The U.S. historically played a central role in the global HIV response. Since 2003, the United States has been the largest financial supporter of HIV/AIDS programs — primarily through President George W. Bush’s PEPFAR initiative, which has invested more than $110 billion into the fight to end the epidemic.
Despite overall declines in transmission, HIV continues to disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ people, and men who have sex with men. More than half of new HIV diagnoses occur in the South.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative focuses on the 48 counties, D.C., San Juan, Puerto Rico, and seven rural states that accounted for more than half of all new diagnoses in 2016 and 2017.
Advocates say the administration’s withdrawal from World AIDS Day — combined with its cuts to foreign and domestic health programs — risks reversing hard-won gains.
“Though new HIV infections declined 12 percent from 2018 to 2022, progress is uneven with Black people accounting for 38 percent of new diagnoses, Latino people accounting for 32 percent of new diagnoses and more than half (52 percent) of new HIV diagnoses were among people living in the South,” Jarred Keller, senior press secretary at the Human Rights Campaign, told the Washington Blade via email. “Cuts to CDC funding have driven HIV prevention resources to historic lows, stripping support from HIV-focused programs.”
Legal and public health experts echoed that concern, saying that there is a possibility to stop HIV/AIDS, but only if efforts are taken gradually over time.
“HIV is a preventable and treatable condition, but only if the research, organization, and effort continue to be a priority to those looking out for the health of Americans and people worldwide,” said Lambda Legal HIV Project Director Jose Abrigo.
Victory Institute to honor Biden at D.C. conference
Colombia anunció la inclusión de las categorías ‘trans’ y ‘no binario’ en los documentos de identidad
Faith leaders denounce anti-transgender attacks
Tokyo court upholds Japan’s same-sex marriage ban
White House halts World AIDS Day recognition amid HIV funding cuts
Comings & Goings
Impulse Group DC to host fundraiser
Calendar: November 28-December 4
India’s Jharkhand state works to improve trans people’s access to health care
