National
End of DOMA raises concerns about lingering inequities
Social Security, military benefits could remain problematic after court decision
Issues for married same-sex couples may remain even if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
While many same-sex couples throughout the country have high hopes that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act would mean their marriages would finally have legal status in the eyes of the federal government, certain problems may persist even if the court kills the law.
Depending on the scope of a Supreme Court ruling against Section 3 of DOMA, areas of the law in which couples may continue to face challenges include Social Security benefits — especially if a couple moves to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriages — as well as spousal benefits when one party of the couple is a member of the military, although the immigration issue preventing bi-national couples from staying together in the United States is expected to cease immediately.
Mary Bonauto, civil rights director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said prior to oral arguments one issue in a post-DOMA world is Social Security benefits if a same-sex couple marries in one state and moves to another where their union isn’t recognized. The survivor benefits given to spouses upon the death of their loved ones is among the more than 1,000 federal benefits withheld from married gay couples under DOMA.
“Say you are married in Massachusetts … and you apply for Social Security in Massachusetts, there would be no doubt with DOMA gone, that your spouse is a spouse for Social Security purposes,” Bonauto said. “However, should you relocate to Florida and apply for Social Security benefits there, it’s more of a problem because Social Security law is going to look at the validity of the marriage at the time you apply for benefits, so your state of residence at the time you apply really matters.”
Bonauto added the aftermath of a ruling striking down DOMA may create “a patchwork” that in some situations would make same-sex marriage dependent on their state validity. Ironing out this patchwork, she said, would take either more litigation, legislation or advocacy within the administration to make changes.
“The overwhelming majority of federal programs don’t specify what state law applies, so it may just be for some situations, a matter of some guidance coming for the agencies that say whether you’re married for a particular benefit,” Bonauto added. “That’s a very practical nuts-and-bolts thing that, you know, we don’t have the luxury of worrying about right now because DOMA is still on the books.”
Susan Silber, a lesbian Takoma Park-based lawyer who specializes in family law for gay couples, said a ruling could affect gay couples differently if the court strikes down DOMA but leaves the constitutional right to marry in the case against California’s Proposition 8 an open question.
“Let’s say a couple was married for 30 years, but because they couldn’t get married until two years ago, it would look technically like they’ve only been married for two years,” Silber said. “But when they’re now dividing up their property, will courts say, ‘Oh you’ve only been married two years, there’s not a lot of marital property to buy?’ or will the court recognize that longer-term relationships deserve some recognition and do some kind of equity based on the non-technical part.”
The Human Rights Campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment on lingering issues for married gay couples.
But the general agreement is that the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation designed to repeal DOMA, would address lingering problems regarding state validity because of the “certainty clause” in the bill. Under that provision, gay couples that legally marry in one jurisdiction would be assured federal benefits even if they move to another state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act has yet to be introduced in the 113th Congress.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said during a Blade interview on Monday that she thinks the Respect for Marriage Act could see additional co-sponsors in the wake of so many legislators coming out for marriage equality, but certain bills may have to be rewritten in the aftermath of a court ruling striking DOMA before going forward.
“I think that trend is a very positive one, and, yet, once the Supreme Court in June announces its decision in these two cases, we’re going to have to read those decisions very carefully, understand their reach, impact and then go about the task of looking at their impact on pending legislation,” Baldwin said. “So it may mean that certain things need to be re-written. And that will be a joyous task if we made progress, but we still have a little bit more to go.”
Jon Davidson, legal director or Lambda Legal, was optimistic adjustments could be made, saying the federal government has had to determine previously whether to recognize certain marriages and disputed any notion advanced by DOMA proponents that overturning the law would create a legal mess.
“It’s very important that it be understood that that argument is baseless, as this issue has always existed without creating undue burdens for the federal government,” Davidson said. “For example, some states allow first cousins, or uncles and nieces and aunts and nephews, to marry, and some other states will not allow couples that closely related to marry and will not recognize marriages like those entered in other states as valid for purposes of their own state law.”
Another piece of legislation may be necessary to address the benefits issue for gay service members with same-sex spouses. Sections of U.S. code governing benefits for U.S. service members define marriage as one man, one woman independent of DOMA. Titles 10, 32 and 37 are controlled by DOMA in terms of their definition of marriage, but Title 38, which addresses veterans benefits, defines “spouse” and “surviving spouse” in similar terms and restricts the definitions of persons to the “opposite sex.”
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who sponsors legislation known as Charlie Morgan Act that would afford benefits to gay troops, said in a statement to the Blade that she’s prepared to push forward with the bill in the event that the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t address this issue.
“The Charlie Morgan Act would amend the definition of ‘spouse’ in the federal code in four areas and in turn grant same-sex military couples many benefits that they’ve rightfully earned,” Shaheen said. “Depending on how the Supreme Court rules on DOMA, legislation like this could still be necessary to ensure fairness and equality for all our men and women serving in uniform. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, I will continue to work with my colleagues on behalf of our LGBT servicemen and women, and their families, because no one should be denied benefits due to their sexual orientation.”
There may be other difficulties as well. A blog posting Monday from National Public Radio’s Michelle Andrews speculates that married gay couples may have trouble covering their families with company insurance, although many businesses are pre-emptively addressing the issue.
“If a same-sex couple both lives and works in the District there may not be insurance difficulties,” Andrews writes. “But what if one of them works in Virginia, where same-sex marriage isn’t recognized? If a Virginia-based employer doesn’t voluntarily provide benefits to same-sex spouses, the employee might not be able to insure a spouse even though they’re legally married in the state where they live.”
But one issue that’s expected to immediately go away in the inability of gay Americans to sponsor their spouses for residency in the United States via a marriage-based green card application. Each time when asked to address the issue, the Obama administration has cited Section 3 of DOMA — and only Section 3 of DOMA — as the reason why sponsorship of a foreign spouse is unavailable for gay couples.
Lavi Soloway, a gay immigration attorney and founder of The DOMA Project, explained during a conference call last week that gay Americans should be able to sponsor their same-sex couples for residency in the United States immediately after the law is struck down.
“The moment the Defense of Marriage is struck down, green card petitions filed by same-sex married couples can be approved,” Soloway said. “There’s no other barrier; we’ve established that by filing 70 green card petitions over the last three years, we’ve established that with 40 appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, we’ve established that with 10 remanded cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals. The government’s position is that the law prevents same-sex couples from access only because of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. I’ve no expectation that the Obama administration will have any different opinion the day after DOMA is struck down — if that happens.”
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.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Cuban lawmakers to consider simplifying process for trans people to change IDs
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
