Politics
10 years later, another Supreme wait
Attorneys for landmark gay rights cases compare their significance to pending lawsuits
The U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Expectations are high as the wait continues for two decisions expected in June on marriage cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, just as they were 10 years ago when gay rights supporters awaited what amounted to landmark rulings in two other cases.
In 2003, two cases reshaped the landscape for gay rights: the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws throughout the country, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which for the first time led to the legalization of marriage equality in a U.S. jurisdiction.
The two cases currently before the court — Hollingsworth v. Perry, which aims to strike down California’s Proposition 8, and United States v. Windsor, which is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act — are different in many respects from the cases 10 years ago. Lawrence was related to sodomy laws and Goodridge was a state lawsuit that resulted in a change only in Massachusetts. Still, they’re similar in terms of their potential significance.
The two attorneys who made arguments before the courts in the decades-old lawsuits — in the Goodridge case, Mary Bonauto, civil rights director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and, in the Lawrence case, Paul Smith, a partner at Jenner & Block — acknowledged the magnitude of the cases both then and now, but said it’s hard to compare the significance of the older ones to the newer ones.
Smith said we won’t know the significance of the DOMA and Prop 8 cases until the Supreme Court rules on them, but touted the Lawrence decision striking down sodomy bans across the country as significant in any event.
“It provided the foundation for all the progress that has been made on marriage and other forms of discrimination over the past 10 years,” Smith said. “It did that by establishing that our relationships are just as important and valuable as different-sex relationships and by saying that the government can’t use morality as a justification for interfering with individual choices about who to love and how. With those principles in place it’s very hard for anyone to come up with a legitimate and persuasive justification for discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
Similarly, Bonauto said “it’s not really easy” to compare the significance of the Goodridge case to the Perry and Windsor lawsuits, recalling the different cultural climate 10 years ago in which the Massachusetts case was argued.
“In 2003, these waters were largely uncharted,” Bonauto said. “There were zero marriage states, a civil union system in Vermont, and 36 states with discriminatory statutes and four states with amendments. But then, as now, we were right; right on the constitutional principles and the utter absence of legal justifications for this discrimination.”
Those court rulings — in particular the Goodridge decision because it was the first successful case for full marriage equality in the United States — paved the way for 11 more states to approve same-sex marriage over the course of 10 years, including the legalization of marriage equality in Minnesota just this week.
Just as observers are parsing statements from justices now in an attempt to determine what the court may rule on Prop 8 and DOMA, followers of the court cases a decade ago were also trying to predict the future based on what was said during oral arguments.
In Lawrence, Smith said moderate justices at the time — Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy and then-Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — were “uncharacteristically quiet,” making it difficult to predict how the court would rule.
“But we took hope from the fact that they didn’t say anything negative,” Smith added. “We were relatively optimistic that the court would strike down the sodomy laws once the court decided to take the case.”
For Goodridge, Bonauto said the wait was different from now in two regards: first because same-sex marriage wasn’t legalized anywhere in the country at the time, and second because there was no set timeline for when the Massachusetts Supreme Court had to make a decision.
“We thought and hoped we were right on the timing,” Bonauto said. “There were a lot of nerves and uncertainty while we waited. The fact that we didn’t know when the decision would come — no clue at all — added to the nerves and fueled the rumor factory. In the end, the decision turned out to be beautifully written and world-changing.”
In the present, many observers believe that the Supreme Court will issue a decision that will strike down DOMA on its merits — either based on equal protection or federalism grounds — although issues of standing were examined.
For Prop 8, much attention has been given to justices’ interest in the standing of Prop 8 proponents to defend the measure in court. A determination that they lack standing would leave in place a lower court ruling and likely invalidate the ban on same-sex marriage in California.
The standing issues before the Supreme Court, as Bonauto noted, also means the wait for Goodrige was different because the Massachusetts Supreme Court couldn’t rule on this basis.
“There were no outs,” Bonauto said. “They had to decide whether denying marriage to gay couples violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth or not. And I was asked very specifically in oral arguments about Vermont civil unions and a remedy that would provide those protections, and I said, ‘That was not what the plaintiffs were seeking; they were seeking access to marriage itself.'”
Notably, the oral arguments in Lawrence v. Texas took place on March 26, 2003, which is exactly 10 years to the day that oral arguments took place in the Prop 8 case on March 26, 2013. A ruling was issued in the Lawrence case on June 26, 2003 just as a ruling is expected in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases in June 2013.
In the Goodridge case, oral arguments took place before the Massachusetts Supreme Court on March 3, 2003, but a decision wasn’t rendered until Nov. 18, 2003.
Mary Bonauto (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
It remains to be seen whether the wording of rulings from the Supreme Court will have the same power as the language that justices handed down a decade ago. The 4-3 ruling in the Goodridge case affirmed that same-sex couples had the right to marry with never before seen language.
“The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry,” the decision states. “We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals.”
In the Lawrence case, the 6-3 opinion written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy determined that the framers intended language in the U.S. Constitution to be reinterpreted by later generations in accordance with their vision of liberty.
“They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” Kennedy wrote “As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
Also unknown is how the public might react if the Supreme Court issues affirmative rulings for marriage equality in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases.
In 2003, the court ruling in Massachusetts — combined with then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to issue marriage licenses to gay couples — sparked a national backlash that led in the next year to 11 states passing constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Former President George W. Bush ran a successful re-election campaign in which he advocated for passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment.
But Bonauto was skeptical that the legalization of same-sex marriage led to the passage of state constitutional amendments and Bush’s re-election — saying the religious right wanted to enact the amendments anyway and analysis shows the marriage issue wasn’t as much a boon to Bush as it may seem on its face.
“By the time we had filed Goodridge, there were already 36 state statutes and four amendments,” Bonauto said. “So, for a lot of these states, they didn’t have anything else to do but to pass an amendment because they already had statutes barring marriage. So I really view this as political opportunism both with elected officials and also the organized right-wing. It was trying to cut us off and change the facts on the ground, so that they could isolate this debate and isolate this issue in certain states.”
Given the growing acceptance of marriage equality — one widely noted recent poll shows it enjoys support from 58 percent of the American public, compared to 30 percent support in 2003 — the negative reaction to any pro-gay rulings will likely be more restrained.
In the event the Supreme Court in June renders similarly favorable decisions in support of rights for gay couples, Bonauto predicted some would speak out in opposition, but the reaction generally would be favorable.
“There are going to be people who are going to say things, and some of them have echo chambers and bully pulpits and their blogs,” Bonauto said. “I don’t think we should equate that to a backlash. I just think that is what public discourse is like in 2013. I really believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans are at a point where they accept and embrace the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.”
Congress
MTG resigns after years of anti-LGBTQ attacks amid Trump feud
Greene’s abrupt departure adds fresh uncertainty to an already fractured Republican Party.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced on Friday that she is resigning from Congress.
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), the Georgia 14th Congressional District representative announced her sudden decision to resign from office.
The nearly 11-minute-long video shows Rep. Greene stating she will step down from her role representing one of Georgia’s most Republican districts on Jan. 5, 2026. She cited multiple reasons for this decision, most notably her very public separation from Trump.
In recent weeks, Greene — long one of the loudest and most supportive MAGA members of Congress — has butted heads with the president on a slew of topics. Most recently, she supported pushing the DOJ to release the Epstein Files, becoming one of only four Republicans to sign a discharge petition, against Trump’s wishes.
She also publicly criticized her own party during the government shutdown. Rep. Greene had oddly been supportive of Democratic initiatives to protect healthcare tax credits and subsidies that were largely cut out of national healthcare policy as a result of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” passed in July.
“What I am upset over is my party has no solution,” Greene said in October.
Trump recently said he would endorse a challenger against the congresswoman if she ran for reelection next year, and last week went as far as to declare, “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Green is a disgrace to our GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY!” on his Truth Social platform.
Trump told ABC News on Friday night that Greene’s resignation is “great news for the country,” and added that he has no plans to speak with Greene but wishes her well.
Despite her recent split with the head of the Republican Party, Rep. Greene has consistently taken a staunch stance against legislation supporting the LGBTQ community — notably a hardline “no” on any issue involving transgender people or their right to gender-affirming care.
Rep. Greene has long been at odds with the LGBTQ community. Within her first month in office, she criticized Democrats’ attempts to pass the Equality Act, legislation that would bar anti-LGBTQ employment discrimination. She went as far as to suggest an apocalypse-like scenario if Congress passed such a measure.
“God created us male and female,” she said on the House floor. “In his image, he created us. The Equality Act that we are to vote on this week destroys God’s creation. It also completely annihilates women’s rights and religious freedoms. It can be handled completely differently to stop discrimination without destroying women’s rights, little girls’ rights in sports, and religious freedom, violating everything we hold dear in God’s creation.”
Greene, who serves one of the nation’s most deeply red districts in northwest Georgia, attempted to pass legislation dubbed the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which would have criminalized gender-affirming care for minors and restricted federal funding and education related to gender-affirming care in 2023. The bill was considered dead in January 2025 after being referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Her push came despite multiple professional medical organizations, including the nation’s largest and most influential — the American Medical Association — stating that withholding gender-affirming care would do more harm than any such care would.
She has called drag performers “child predators” and described the Democratic Party as “the party of killing babies, grooming and transitioning children, and pro-pedophile politics.”
Greene has also publicly attacked Delaware Rep. Sarah McBride, the nation’s first and only transgender member of Congress. She has repeatedly misgendered and attacked McBride, saying, “He’s a man. He’s a biological male,” adding, “he’s got plenty of places he can go” when asked about bathrooms and locker rooms McBride should use. Greene has also been vocal about her support for a bathroom-usage bill targeting McBride and transgender Americans as a whole.
She has repeatedly cited false claims that transgender people are more violent than their cisgender counterparts, including falsely stating that the 2022 Robb Elementary School shooter in Texas was transgender.
The former MAGA first lady also called for an end to Pride month celebrations. She criticized the fact that the LGBTQ community gets “an entire” month while veterans get “only one day each year” in an X post, despite November being designated as National Veterans and Military Families Month.
Under Georgia law, Gov. Brian Kemp (R) must hold a special election within 40 days of the seat becoming vacant.
The Washington Blade reached out to both the White House and Greene’s office for comment, but has not heard back.
PFLAG honored U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) with the “2025 PFLAG National Champion of Justice” award during their annual “Love Takes Justice” event in Washington.
Waters has represented California’s 43rd Congressional District — including much of Los Angeles — since 1991 and has been a vocal advocate for LGBTQ rights since her swearing-in.
Her track record includes opposing the Defense of Marriage Act, which would have made marriage only between a man and a woman; co-sponsoring the Respect for Marriage Act, ultimately requiring all U.S. states to recognize same-sex marriages performed by other states; and is a long time supporter of the Equality Act, which would codify comprehensive protections for LGBTQ Americans.
In addition to her work on marriage equality, she also created the Minority AIDS Initiative to help address the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS on minority communities, particularly communities of color.
The award reception took place Tuesday at the headquarters of the American Federation of Teachers, where Waters was presented with the award by former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the openly gay member of Congress. Frank praised Waters for her unwavering support for the LGBTQ community and her lifelong commitment to advancing equality for all.
“One of the most encouraging developments in the fight for human rights is the failure of those who traffic in any form of bigotry, including bigotry to divide the Black and LGBTQ+ communities,” said Frank, who came out in 1987 while in office. “No one deserves more recognition for strengthening our unity than Maxine Waters.”
During the reception, Waters spoke about her extensive history of LGBTQ advocacy within the halls of Congress, emphasizing that her idea of government centers around uplifting its most vulnerable and threatened communities.
“From the very beginning of my public life I’ve believed that the government must protect those that are vulnerable, including LGBTQ+ people, who have been pushed to the margins, criminalized and told that their lives and their love do not matter,” Waters said. “Discrimination has no place in our laws.”
She continued, adding that the discrimination LGBTQ people have dealt with — and continue to deal with — is unconstitutional and wrong.
“I am proud to stand with LGBTQ+ families against efforts to write discrimination into our constitution, against attempts to deny people jobs, housing, healthcare and basic dignity because of who they are or who they love,” she said.
Waters joins a slew of other LGBTQ advocates who have received this award, beginning with the late-Georgia Congressman John Lewis in 2018. Past honorees include Oakland (Calif.) Mayor Barbara Lee, who was then a member of Congress, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Frank, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, who was then a member of Congress, and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
PFLAG CEO Brian Bond commented on the continued fight for LGBTQ rights in the U.S. as anti-transgender rhetoric and policies coming from the Trump-Vance White House grow each week.
“LGBTQ+ people and their families — and all of you here — know too well the reality of the political climate, the attitudes of the public, and the sheer lack of respect that LGBTQ+ people are experiencing in the world today. There’s no end to the hostile barrage of harmful laws, city ordinances, and regulations, especially against our trans loved ones,” Bond said. “This particular moment in history calls us to increase and fortify our work, advocating at every level of government.”
He ended with some hope — reminding the LGBTQ community they have been on the receiving end of discrimination and unjust treatment before, but have risen above and changed the laws — saying we can do it again.
“PFLAG members and supporters are uniquely suited for this moment, because we are fighting for and alongside our LGBTQ+ loved ones, we know that our love is louder … and love and liberty are inseparable,” said Bond.
Congress
Global Respect Act reintroduced in US House
Measure would sanction foreign officials responsible for anti-LGBTQ human rights abuses
U.S. Reps. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) on Thursday reintroduced a bill that would sanction foreign officials who carry out anti-LGBTQ human rights abuses.
A press release notes the Global Respect Act would direct “the U.S. government to identify and sanction foreign persons who are responsible for torture, arbitrary detention, physical attacks, murder, and other flagrant abuses against LGBTQI+ individuals.” The measure would also require “annual human rights reporting from the State Department and strengthens coordination with foreign governments, civil society, and the private sector to prevent anti-LGBTQI+ persecution.”
“Freedom and dignity should never depend on your zip code or who holds power in your country,” said McBride.
The Delaware Democrat who is the first openly transgender person elected to Congress notes consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized in more than 60 countries, while “far too many (countries) look away from the violence that follows.”
“The Global Respect Act reaffirms a simple truth: no one should be targeted for who they are or whom they love,” said McBride. “This bill strengthens America’s voice on human rights.”
“No person should ever face imprisonment, violence, or discrimination on the basis of who they are,” added Fitzpatrick. “The Global Respect Act imposes real and necessary sanctions on those who carry out these abuses and strengthens America’s resolve to uphold basic human rights worldwide.”
The Global Respect Act has 119 co-sponsors. McBride and Fitzpatrick reintroduced it in the U.S. House of Representatives on the annual Transgender Day of Remembrance.
“As we mark Transgender Day of Remembrance, we reaffirm that no one, no matter where they live in the world, should be persecuted or subjected to violence simply because of who they are or whom they love,” said Mark Bromley, co-chair of the Council for Global Equality. “The Global Respect Act seeks to hold the world’s worst perpetrators of violence against LGBTQI+ people accountable by leveraging our sanctions regimes to uphold the human rights of all people.”
Outright International, Amnesty International USA, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, ORAM (Organization for Refuge, Asylum and Migration), and the Human Rights Campaign are among the other groups that have endorsed the bill.
U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) in June introduced the Global Equality Act in the U.S. Senate. Gay California Congressman Robert Garcia and U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) on Monday introduced the International Human Defense Act that would require the State Department to promote LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad.
The promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights was a cornerstone of the Biden-Harris administration’s overall foreign policy.
The global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement since the Trump-Vance administration froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid has lost more than an estimated $50 million in funding.
The U.S. Agency for International Development, which funded dozens of advocacy groups around the world, officially shut down on July 1. Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier this year said the State Department would administer the remaining 17 percent of USAID contracts that had not been cancelled.
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
