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
Chris Van Hollen says the Democratic Party needs change. Is he the one to lead it?
Senator is backing anti-establishment Democrats across the country
By LEE O. SANDERLIN | The Democratic Party is having something of an identity crisis — losing to President Donald Trump twice in three elections will do that.
Should the party embrace anti-establishment figures who espouse progressive policy ideas like Medicare for all and rhetoric about unrigging the economy for the 1 percent? Or should Democrats try to appeal to moderates who want to return to semi-normalcy in a time of political upheaval?
Although he’s been in Congress since 2002, with key leadership roles throughout his tenure, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, 67, counts himself firmly in the anti-establishment camp.
The rest of this article can be found on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Politics
Log Cabin Republicans remove transgender rights from mission
Decision made after ‘significant discussion’ with members, board
Log Cabin Republicans, an organization that formerly represented LGBTQ conservatives, has removed advocating for transgender and queer rights from its “renewed” national advocacy focus.
In an opinion piece written by Log Cabin Republicans President Ross Hemminger for the conservative media outlet Town Hall, he announced that trans rights would no longer be part of what the organization advocates for through conservative leadership and candidates.
In his piece, Hemminger wrote that after “significant discussion” with members and Log Cabin Republicans’ board of directors, the organization’s leadership voted to “refine Log Cabin Republicans’ national advocacy focus to concentrate specifically on issues of sexual orientation and conservative values,” a focus that does not include trans people.
“We have fought for the right to legally marry who we love, serve our country and our communities openly and proudly, and to enjoy the same inalienable rights afforded to all law-abiding Americans — and we succeeded,” Hemminger wrote. “However, the new era of gender identity politics is not the movement we supported and fought for. Gay men and women are losing public support across the country, and support for gay marriage and other once-widely accepted rights is eroding. Why? Because many voters today weren’t alive or cognizant of the politics of gay marriage winding its way through the courts and gaining ground in public opinion. Their view of the gay community is based on today’s radical transgender activists with their unnecessary and discomfiting focus on America’s youth.”
Hemminger then went on to argue that trans advocacy has shifted to focusing primarily on minors — a characterization that does not reflect the breadth of issues trans advocates address.
“They push schools to teach radical gender ideology; they want biological men in women’s sports regardless of the consequences; perhaps most offensively, they support gender reassignment treatments for minors, often without the knowledge or consent of the parents, knowing full well these treatments are mostly irreversible,” he wrote.
Hemminger and many right-wing political leaders have continued to assert this false reality as fact.
A Harvard-affiliated study found approximately 2.1 gender-affirming surgeries occur per 100,000 trans and gender-diverse minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, underscoring how uncommon these procedures are among minors. In addition to the option of surgery for those who think it’s right for them, there is an array of other medically sound options to treat gender dysphoria, which according to KFF, an independent source for health policy research and polling, includes “medical, surgical, mental health, and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people.”
Additionally trans advocacy is not as narrow as Hemminger makes it seem in his opinion piece.
There are a slew of issues the trans community faces — and fights for — on a daily basis that have nothing to do with healthcare. Those include obtaining government documents that accurately reflect one’s gender identity, multiple elements of family law that include the right to marry and adopt children as straight couples can, protections from violence, hate crime protections, the right to serve in the military, access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender, and the right to education.
Despite the overwhelming number of issues trans people — regardless of political affiliation — have to struggle with as a result of systemic gaps in protections that are supposed to be afforded to everyone under the law, they remain vulnerable to unequal treatment.
Despite this shift, Log Cabin Republicans has committed to standing with the Republican Party rather than LGBTQ people as a whole. The organization was initially founded as a loosely connected network of local California social clubs made up of LGBTQ conservatives in the late 1970s before eventually emerging as a national political organization in the early 1990s under its founding executive director, Rich Tafel.
As the organization continued to gain momentum, it endorsed a handful of Republicans who voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 law that federally recognized marriage equality for same-sex couples.
The Washington Blade reached out to Log Cabin Republicans for comment but did not hear back by the time of publication.
White House
Trump-Vance administration’s LGBTQ brain drain: what you need to know
Several high profile figures have left government since January 2025
Uncloseted Media published this article on Aug. 21.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON and HOPE PISONI | Since President Donald Trump regained office in January 2025, he and his administration have waged an all-out war against the LGBTQ community.
This has led queer Americans to move to other countries at unprecedented rates — Rainbow Railroad, a Canadian nonprofit that supports LGBTQ asylum seekers, reported receiving a huge increase in inquiries from the U.S. last year.
The same pattern is playing out within the government. And it’s leading to a brain drain of competent queer employees and allies who are either resigning or being fired, often because of their LGBTQ identity or their belief that queer people deserve basic human rights.
Here are six examples of federal workers who had a messy exit from Trump 2.0:
Demetre Daskalakis
- WHAT HE DID: Dr. Daskalakis is one of the foremost LGBTQ health professionals in the U.S. Under Trump’s first term, he was appointed director of the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Under Biden, he also served as the deputy response coordinator for mpox at the White House.
- WHAT HAPPENED: While he continued a lot of this work under Trump 2.0, he didn’t last long. In August 2025, he resigned from the CDC, writing in his resignation letter that he was “unable to serve in an environment that treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health.”
- BOTTOM LINE: I recently interviewed Daskalakis, where he told me that leadership from RFK Jr.’s Health and Human Services Department justified HIV cuts by saying the virus is “just too woke.”
Julia Curlee
- WHAT SHE DID: Julia Curlee worked in intelligence for nearly two decades between the CIA and the National Security Council. Earlier this week, she wrote an article in The Atlantic explaining how she had served as Mike Pence’s daily briefer and the NSC’s director for intelligence programs. During Trump 1.0, she briefed the president on Air Force One.
- WHAT HAPPENED: Curlee told CNN this week that in Trump’s second term, her treatment by the federal government transformed. She was no longer allowed to use the women’s bathroom on federal property and had to leave her workplace to relieve herself. Her passport was also reissued to read “male,” which led to complications when traveling abroad. In March 2025, less than 70 days into Trump’s second term, Curlee says she received a call while at a rib joint in Virginia with her family informing her that her White House tour was over and that they couldn’t tell her why. She continued to work for the CIA for some months, but she later resigned.
- BOTTOM LINE: Curlee wrote that moments after she learned she was fired from the White House, she saw a post from right-wing political activist Laura Loomer that read “A transgender, Biden holdover who hates President Trump is still working in the NSC intel office. I’m told there are several NSC staffers who have complained that this trans Biden holdover hasn’t been fired yet, but nothing is being done about it.”
Marc Seawright
- WHAT HE DID: Marc Seawright worked for more than eight years at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Most recently, he served as the EEOC’s director of information governance and strategy, where he oversaw tech policy to help combat workplace harassment and discrimination.
- WHAT HAPPENED: During Trump 2.0, Seawright was ordered to develop technology that would erase any mention of LGBTQ identities from EEOC outreach materials. “[My expertise] was being leveraged to perpetuate discrimination against people like me,” he told the Associated Press. In that article, Seawright and other transgender and gender nonconforming federal employees described their “fear, grief, frustration, and distress working for the federal government at a time when it rejects them — often with no clear path for recourse or support.”
- BOTTOM LINE: Seawright quit in June, citing a hostile work environment. “It became overwhelming. It felt insurmountable,” he told the AP. He has now hired lawyers at Katz Banks Kumin and has filed a discrimination complaint.
David Maltinsky
- WHAT HE DID: Until 2025, Maltinsky worked for more than 16 years at the FBI as an intelligence specialist. In 2025, he was training to become a special agent, but three weeks ahead of graduation, he was fired.
- WHAT HAPPENED: On Oct. 1, he was delivered a letter from FBI Director Kash Patel informing him that he was being fired for an “inappropriate display of political signage.” The signage in question, according to Maltinsky, was a Pride flag displayed in his work station at a previous post in Los Angeles. The flag had been given to him by the FBI’s LA Field Office, and Maltinsky says he had been told by multiple supervisors that displaying it would not be a violation.
- BOTTOM LINE: Maltinsky is currently suing the FBI and the Department of Justice, arguing that his firing constituted unlawful discrimination.
Mary Brinkmeyer
- WHAT SHE DID: Brinkmeyer had been working as a psychologist for the Department of Veterans Affairs since 2008. She held multiple leadership roles, including the LGBTQ veteran care coordinator at the Hampton VA Medical Center. She established the first military support group for trans servicemembers and was awarded Navy Psychology Civilian Psychologist of the Year in 2016.
- WHAT HAPPENED: Following an early Trump executive order directing the federal government to purge any practices promoting “gender ideology,” Brinkmeyer says staff at her workplace were told to remove all LGBTQ-affirming materials from both public and private areas, as well as to identify “anything in medical records, training materials, or patient resources that could be considered ‘gender ideology.’” When she refused to comply and confronted her supervisor, she says her concerns were dismissed.
- BOTTOM LINE: Brinkmeyer resigned in February 2025, stating that she “didn’t want to be complicit in something that I knew was wrong.”
Amy Paris
- WHAT SHE DID: Paris was the second-highest ranking trans woman in the federal government, serving as a deputy digital services lead in the HHS Department, where she oversaw the safety of organ donations. Prior to that, she worked in a number of tech-related roles across the federal government since the Bush administration. She helped create cross-agency spending trackers, streamlined unemployment insurance during the pandemic and implemented trans-inclusive policies like gender-neutral passports.
- WHAT HAPPENED: Paris was fired as part of a string of mass layoffs across the federal government in February 2025. While the HHS did not publicly comment on why she was fired, Paris says she was told it was because of her performance, despite the fact that she got a 4.75 out of five on her last performance review and was praised for her work by multiple Biden administration officials.
- BOTTOM LINE: Paris told the 19th she suspected her firing was politically motivated, saying the Trump administration is “trying to sow discord and disrupt confidence in the workings of the federal government.”
