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.”
2026 Midterm Elections
As Washington shifts right, Democratic Socialists gain ground
Next major test for movement comes in Midwest
As President Donald Trump’s second administration has pushed the federal government further to the right on issues ranging from immigration to LGBTQ rights, a different political movement has been gaining momentum inside the Democratic Party.
From industrial communities in upstate New York to Colorado’s Front Range, candidates aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have won a series of victories in Democratic primaries this year, in several cases defeating longtime incumbents who had represented Democratic strongholds for years. Their success has reignited debate over the Democratic Party’s future, as a growing faction of progressive voters calls for a more confrontational approach to economic inequality, healthcare, housing, labor rights, climate policy, and LGBTQ protections rather than what they view as the party’s increasingly cautious establishment.
These victories also reflect a broader ideological divergence in American politics. While Republicans under Trump have embraced a more conservative governing agenda, many Democratic primary voters in safely blue districts appear to be rewarding candidates running on unapologetically progressive platforms that reject incremental change in favor of more sweeping reforms.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the nation’s largest socialist organization, says it has more than 100,000 members and chapters in all 50 states. The organization advocates what it describes as democratic socialism — promoting social and economic equality through democratic government while supporting a larger public role in healthcare, housing, labor protections, education, and other social programs alongside a regulated market economy.
On its website, the DSA explains its goals are to utilize “progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly democratic socialist presence in American communities and politics.”
For LGBTQ Americans, the organization has long supported expansive nondiscrimination protections, marriage equality, transgender rights, and broader legal protections through a platform first adopted in 2017. Its LGBTQ policy calls for federal legislation prohibiting discrimination, expanded access to gender-affirming healthcare, reproductive freedom, and opposition to laws targeting LGBTQ people.
The movement’s biggest victories came in New York.
Just months after the election of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, candidates backed by the DSA and allied progressive organizations swept Democratic primary elections that many political observers viewed as a referendum on the party’s ideological direction.
Among the most notable victories were Brad Lander’s defeat of incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in New York’s 10th Congressional District, Claire Valdez’s victory over Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso in the 7th District, and Darializa Avila Chevalier’s upset of five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat in New York’s 13th Congressional District.
Overall, nine of the 10 New York City candidates backed by the DSA won their Democratic primaries, further cementing the organization’s growing influence in the nation’s largest city and demonstrating that democratic socialist candidates can compete beyond isolated local races.
Outside New York, the trend continued.
In Colorado, Melat Kiros defeated 15-term incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette in one of the cycle’s biggest primary upsets. Kiros campaigned without accepting corporate PAC contributions and criticized DeGette’s fundraising practices and foreign policy positions, presenting herself as an alternative to the Democratic establishment.
While socialist movements have existed in the United States for more than a century, democratic socialism remained largely on the political margins for decades. That began to change following Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020, which introduced millions of Americans to democratic socialist ideas and energized a younger generation of progressive activists.
Although Sanders never won the Democratic nomination, his campaigns helped reshape the party’s left flank by elevating issues such as universal healthcare, tuition-free public college, stronger labor protections, and economic inequality into the mainstream Democratic conversation.
Today, the movement’s most recognizable elected officials include Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and several members of the congressional “Squad,” who have helped normalize the democratic socialist label among younger Democratic voters and increasingly challenged party leadership from the left.
For LGBTQ voters, democratic socialist candidates have frequently positioned themselves among the Democratic Party’s strongest advocates for transgender rights, particularly as the Trump administration has sought to restrict access to gender-affirming healthcare, military service, and other legal protections for transgender Americans.
The next major test for the movement may come in the Midwest.
In Michigan, progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed is locked in a closely watched Democratic Senate primary, while in Wisconsin, DSA-backed Francesca Hong is seeking her party’s nomination for governor. The outcomes of those races could offer another measure of whether democratic socialism’s recent gains represent a lasting realignment within the Democratic Party or are concentrated primarily in deep-blue urban districts.
Politics
In Trump’s divided America, Michael Weinstein’s AHF responds
PART 1 | Group helps Venezuela, president on Democratic Socialists, Fla. march
As the United States of America acknowledges her 250th birthday, too many Americans are partying with fewer family and friends because their wallets and their patriotic hearts just aren’t in it. Meanwhile, the president is using taxpayer dollars to finance ugly pet projects, and a war of choice with Iran that no one wants, and Congress didn’t authorize, while We the People just watch an uncontrolled Trump train speeding through American lives.
Theoretically, this is nothing new. Since the nation’s founding in 1776, individuals have struggled with where to place their allegiance to best uphold their personal freedom and protect the collective unity of the country.
But now the simple democracy-project premise “of the people, by the people, and for the people” has been upended and subverted by Donald Trump, the amoral corrupt 47th president who is using the once independent Justice Department to bypass “due process” and pursue retribution against his enemies — especially around his baseless 2020 election claims — while rewarding his Jan. 6 army of criminal loyalists with pardons and a proposed $1.8 billion “anti-Weaponization” slush fund, now temporarily blocked by a federal judge.
There have been amoral and ineffectual presidents in the past, as well as arrogant presidents who wielded power inhumanely, such as Andrew Jackson, who defied the Supreme Court and oversaw the Indian Removal Act, and Rutherford B. Hayes, who pulled troops out of the South, effectively ending the post-Civil War Reconstruction era. And there have been dangerous, outright liars like Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Warren G. Harding, whose Teapot Dome Scandal in his administration may have killed him.
But American history has never seen such a profoundly corrupt con artist who has taken over the federal government, installing ideological autocratic loyalists intent on expanding Trump’s power in the Supreme Court and Congress — the second and third branches of government intended to provide checks and balances to an overreaching Executive.
And now, in allegiance to White Supremacy and Christian Nationalism, Trump is trying to claim the right and power to decide who gets to claim citizenship, how he can pre-determine the outcome of elections through gaslighting and disinformation, and how he can make American residents afraid and silently complicit by not challenging his blatant racism, sexism, and transphobia.
New York Times columnist M. Gessen writes: “Read the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on transgender athletes — the majority’s decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor — and you will see the members of the court arguing about something more fundamental than the law. They are arguing about who should be seen, whose story ought to be heard, and who deserves to be protected.”
AIDS Healthcare Foundation co-founder and President Michael Weinstein might add that deciding who lives and dies is fundamental, too. The nonprofit is the world’s largest provider of HIV medical care, cutting-edge medicine, and advocacy regardless of ability to pay with 3 million in care and 50 countries served.
AHF has a history of acting quickly with coalitions when there is a need. For that, Weinstein was honored by the Los Angeles Urban League on June 24 with the John W. Mack Legacy Award during the annual Whitney M. Young Jr. Awards Celebration.
“The Los Angeles Urban League is proud to present the John W. Mack Legacy Award to Michael Weinstein — transformative leader, fearless advocate, and champion for health equity and human rights,” they wrote in their announcement on Facebook.
“As founder and president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Michael Weinstein has led one of the largest global HIV/AIDS medical care providers in the world, expanding access to treatment, housing, prevention, and advocacy for underserved communities. His bold leadership has saved lives while challenging stigma and systemic inequities in healthcare,” they continued.
“For decades, he has stood at the intersection of public health and social justice — building systems of care that affirm dignity, expand access, and ensure that the most vulnerable are not left behind. His unwavering advocacy reflects the very principles that guide the Los Angeles Urban League’s mission: advancing equity, protecting opportunity, and strengthening communities,” they said. “In many ways, his work echoes the legacy of Whitney M. Young Jr. — courageous leadership rooted in policy, partnership, and a belief that justice must be both spoken and enacted.”
Interestingly, on June 24, the night the Urban League celebrated Weinstein as “a leader whose impact continues to shape a more just and compassionate future,” two consecutive 7.2 and 7.5 magnitude earthquakes struck northern Venezuela, killing and injuring thousands.
Interim President Delcy Rodríguez later called the earthquakes the “most brutal natural catastrophe” in Venezuela’s history.
In a horrific twist of fate, the BBC reported that ICE had deported more than 140 Venezuelans back to their home country on June 24, where they were housed in a hotel near the coast. The massive quakes struck there hours later, killing at least 2,200 people, injuring more than 10,000, and, according to UN figures, leaving 50,000 missing.
On July 2, the Venezuelan government estimated that 2,295 people died in the earthquakes, with another 11,000 injured.
“However, that’s believed to be a vast undercount. Gianluca Rampolla del Tindaro, the United Nations’ humanitarian coordinator for Venezuela, said the organization was procuring 10,000 body bags. And U.N. emergency relief coordinator Tom Fletcher called an estimate of 50,000 missing people ‘terrifyingly plausible,’” PBS reported.
Remember when Trump said the U.S. will ‘run’ Venezuela after capturing Maduro in surprise military strike?
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 10,000 people over a five-day period at the end of June — that’s roughly 2,000 arrests per day — continuing Trump’s mass deportations agenda. No news about where they might be sent.

But while Trump is wildly spinning about his Fourth of July plans, AHF is in Venezuela, actively helping those in desperate need.
“The number of fatalities continues to rise, and many shelters have been set up in public spaces to help those in need. Hospitals and morgues are working tirelessly beyond their capacity, demonstrating the community’s resilience. Fortunately, international rescue teams have arrived, offering much-needed assistance to recover those still trapped in the debris. Venezuela’s government response has been uncoordinated, poor, and delayed, influenced by political interests,” AIDS Healthcare Foundation Latin America Bureau Chief Patricia Campos wrote to Weinstein on June 29.

“Despite the communication challenges, our team from AHF Colombia has been communicating with 600 of the 1080 of our patients in care who live in Venezuela. We are continuing to search for the 480 others to be sure they are alive or to support them,” Campos concluded, noting that AHF´s Emergency Aid supplies arrived with 11/13 Foundation and distribution was underway.
In an hour-long Zoom interview, Weinstein talked about a number of issues, including his long association with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described Socialist, and the New York races that just yielded three Democratic Socialist candidates (Part 1) and his long, successful fight against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s HIV/AIDS cuts (Part 2).
Check out the video interview here.
“Well, as a native New Yorker,” Weinstein says, “the election in New York is a clash between the corporate Democrats and, particularly, a younger generation, with the exception of Bernie. It’s an epic change, right? And I would say that younger people who powered this (New York Mayor) Mamdani, AOC (New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), and the rest of the movement do not feel that they have a stake in the system the way it is, right? And so, they’re willing to look at more radical answers.
“And this really is similar to the 1930s, you know, whereby when [President Franklin D.] Roosevelt came to office, who was a blue blood, right? He basically said, ‘in order to save the system, we have to move in the direction of socialism.’ He may not have called it that, but that’s essentially what it was,” Weinstein says.
“I mean, the model for democratic socialism is essentially Scandinavian and Northern European countries, right? Which is, essentially, a capitalist system that has a strong safety net, or basically says, ‘we’re going to tax the rich heavily in order to maintain a minimum level of existence for everyone.’
“So that’s basically what Bernie is espousing, and what Mamdani and others are espousing. And I don’t take too seriously … the characterizations that Trump has of them being Communist, et cetera, et cetera.”
Weinstein, longtime Latina activist Dolores Huerta, and an expected crowd of thousands in an AHF-created coalition are participating in a We The People March for Freedom in Trump’s Florida backyard on July 3.
“At a time in our nation when healthcare is being rationed, and rents are outpacing wages, teachers are working second jobs, and rural hospitals are closing, we must continue to stand up for what’s right for all Americans. July 4, 2026, marks 250 years since the Declaration of Independence. The We the People March for Freedom is not just an event to celebrate this document or its declaration of independence, but the night before the fireworks, to remind America what and who it’s for,” stated Esteban Wood, AHF director of advocacy and legislative affairs and March for Freedom coordinator.
This is a cross-post from Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
Politics
Buttigieg says false report temporarily separated him from his children
Michigan State Police corroborated his account
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Friday recounted being separated from his children following an anonymous police report later determined to be false.
The openly gay former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and current 2028 presidential contender was accused of posing a danger to his children and was not allowed to be with his four-year-old twins until after interviews were conducted.
Buttigieg went public with this account on his Substack, sharing how a woman anonymously — and falsely — accused him of posing a danger to his children.
“The caller said that he had spoken to a woman who claimed to have met me at a conference several years ago in Alabama, where she said I told her that I had committed unspeakable violent crimes, and the caller believed my children were still at risk,” Buttigieg wrote in a post he titled “A Terrible Thing Happened to My Family.” “I am a reasonable man. I try to keep as calm and low-key as possible. But I cannot describe the mix of rage and sadness that I feel at the idea that someone brought our children into this.”
Michigan State Police spoke to the BBC following Buttigieg sharing his story.
“The Michigan State Police and Child Protective Services responded and determined the report was false.”
The statement also went on to explain that these types of false reports were “dangerous” and divert “workers from responding to legitimate emergencies and protecting vulnerable children and families.”
In that post recounting the ordeal, Buttigieg continued, saying that it was “among the darkest hours of my life,” and pointed out that his children should not be subjected to this type of harassment as a circumstance of his own place in the national political spotlight.
“They are four years old. Four. They do not know or care what a Democrat or a Republican is.”
He finished his post:
“We cannot let American politics keep going in this direction. And we must not all go on as if it’s acceptable for this kind of thing to be part of the cost of entering public service.”
“Most importantly, Chasten and I will continue to pour ourselves into the joyful and demanding work of raising and educating our two children. Being their parents is the best thing in our lives. They are just children, kids who deserve the best upbringing that their parents can provide, who mean more to us than anything, whom we love beyond words and will do anything to protect, and whose right to a safe and happy childhood deserves absolute and unconditional respect.”
In response to the story Buttigieg shared on his Substack, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, released the following statement:
“I know how I would feel if someone tried to come between me and my kids. This is truly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. It takes an awful, hateful person to question someone’s fitness as a parent just because of who they are, who they love, or in Sec. Buttigieg’s case, perhaps even who he speaks out against politically. We’re thinking of Pete, Chasten, and their whole family in this moment — and we aren’t resting until all LGBTQ+ families have the kind of safety and justice every one of us deserves.”
Buttigieg was transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.
The Washington Blade reached out to Michigan State Police to ask if any disciplinary actions would be imposed on the woman who made the false report, but was told to file a FOIA request to view the full report. the story will be updated as new information is shared.
