News
Leahy withholds amendments for gay couples in immigration bill
In tearful speeches, Dems says time is wrong for measures
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) withheld UAFA as a committee amendment. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Tuesday withheld amendments to include gay couples as part of immigration reform in the aftermath of speeches — sometimes tearful — from Democrats on the panel who said they couldn’t support the measures.
After an extended speech on why he believes discrimination against gay couples is wrong — Leahy said “with a heavy heart” he wouldn’t introduce the amendments before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They would have made bi-national same-sex couples equal under the law to straight couples for immigration purposes.
“In the immigration context, if you’re an American and fall in love will someone of the same sex from a different country and you get married legally, your spouse will not be treated like any other immigrant spouse would be by your federal government,” Leahy said. “My amendments would change that. I don’t want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country.”
During his remarks, Leahy asked members of the “Gang of Eight” who produced the base bill and were also members of the Senate Judiciary Committee why they decided to exclude gay couples from the initial legislation.
Under current law, gay Americans are unable to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States — even if they’re married — unlike straight Americans. For couples that are married, that’s because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. LGBT advocates had been pushing Congress to rectify this issue as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
Two amendments were proposed by Leahy. One mirrored the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. The other would have allowed for the approval of marriage-based green card applications for married same-sex couples.
Democrats who are known for being LGBT rights supporters — Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) — said they were torn on the issue, but couldn’t support the amendments out of fear they would lose Republican support and it would kill the legislative package.
Feinstein said the Supreme Court, which is currently considering the constitutionality of DOMA, may make the issue “moot” because a ruling against the anti-gay law in June would end federal discrimination against married same-sex couples.
“We now know that this is going to blow the agreement apart,” Feinstein said. “I don’t want to lose Sen. Graham’s vote because Sen. Graham’s vote can represent and be used as the rationale for dozens of other [lawmakers] who then will not vote for the immigration bill. … I am for what Sen. Leahy is proposing, I would just implore to hold off on this amendment at this time.”
Schumer, a member of the “Gang of Eight,” said he tried to persuade other senators to support the idea and believes current law is “rank discrimination,” but can’t bring himself to support the amendments because of Republican opposition.
“If we make the effort to add it to this bill, they will walk away,” Schumer said. “They’ve said it publicly, they’ve told me privately — I believe them. The result: no equality, no immigration bill. Everyone loses.”
Prior to the vote, Schumer was targeted by LGBT groups for being the only Democrat on the committee to not voice support for including UAFA as part of the larger package.
Durbin was particularly emotional and had tears in his eyes as he explained why they couldn’t support the measures. A member of the “Gang of Eight,” Durbin said he supports UAFA, but doesn’t see immigration reform as the best vehicle for the measure.
“I believe in my heart of hearts that what you’re doing is the right and just thing … but I believe this is the wrong moment, this is the wrong bill,” Durbin said. “There are approximately 250,000 LGBT undocumented immigrants in America that would benefit from passage of immigration reform. I want to make certain they have that chance.”
LGBT rights groups responded to the committee’s exclusion of same-sex couples from immigration reform with vocal disappointment.
Rachel Tiven, executive director of the LGBT group Immigration Equality, attended the markup and — while she said she’s “proud’ of Leahy for his support — expressed frustration with other Democrats.
“I’m very proud of Sen. Leahy; I’m very dismayed that his colleagues did not stand up with him to talk about the dignity of LGBT immigrant families,” Tiven said. “Only Sen. Leahy talked about the LGBT immigrants that he represents who have dreams, too, and who want to see a good bill passed that will help everyone, and who need immigration reform as badly as any other immigrant.”
Tiven named Democrats on the panel with whom she was particularly disappointed because of their previously articulated support for the LGBT community.
“To hear Sen. Durbin say, ‘Well, this is an outside issue like gun control,’ to hear that Sen. Franken didn’t speak up for families like Ginger and Ness Madeiros, whose visa runs out in August — what are they and their eight-month-old son going to do?” Tiven said. “I can’t imagine how they’re feeling right now about Sen. Franken. How could he not say these are immigrant families, too?”
With the exception of Schumer, Tiven maintained the Democrats on the panel expressed support for including same-sex couples in the reform package, which made their statements during the committee markup surprising.
But Republican members of the panel were most opposed to including the measures. They reiterated their opposition to including the measure in the package and said adopting them would break apart the coalition that helped put it together.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Republican member of the “Gang of Eight,” said the legislation would lose support from evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church, who’ve supported the measure, if those protections were included.
“I support traditional marriage without animosity,” Graham said. “I’m not married; I guess that means maybe I shouldn’t speak at all about it, but I do believe that the people of my state, and the people of other states who have gone different ways than Vermont, believe it would throw the coalition out of balance.”
When Leahy asked Graham if anything in the amendments would require South Carolina to change its state law on marriage, Graham said no, but maintained it would be making him vote in favor of a concept he opposes.
“You got me on immigration; you don’t got me on marriage,” Graham said. “I can’t just tell any more directly; you want to keep me on immigration; let’s stay on immigration.”
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), another GOP member of the “Gang of Eight,” also said he expected the coalition that put the bill together to fall apart if same-sex couples were included.
“This is an issue that is being addressed by the courts right now, I think that it would certainly upset the coalition that we have,” Flake said. “Certainly, we in Arizona, like in South Carolina, have spoken on the issue. It would certainly mean that this bill would not move forward. That would be a real shame, given how far we’ve come and the work that’s gone into this.”
Winnie Stachelberg, vice president of external affairs at the Center for American Progress, pointed at Republicans as the reason why same-sex couples weren’t included in the legislation.
“We’re all disappointed that at this juncture in the process, a small handful of Republicans prevented the provision from being voted on, but we’ve got a long way to go in the process and we’ll continue to work hard to secure the votes on the floor if it comes up,” Stachelberg said.
Following the discussion on the Leahy amendments, the committee reported out the legislation by a 13-5 vote. Supporters of immigration reform in the room — largely members of immigrant community — chanted, “Yes we can! Yes we can!” and embraced senators who voted in favor of the legislation as they snapped photos with them.
According to a report from the Williams Institute, an estimated 275,000 undocumented LGBT Americans would have a path to citizenship as the legislation currently stands if it reaches President Obama’s desk and is signed into law.
In a statement after the vote, Obama, who called for a gay-inclusive bill as part of his vision for reform, commended the committee for completing work on the legislation and urged a floor vote as soon as possible.
“None of the committee members got everything they wanted, and neither did I , but in the end, we all owe it to the American people to get the best possible result over the finish line,” Obama said. “I encourage the full Senate to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor at the earliest possible opportunity and remain hopeful that the amendment process will lead to further improvements.”
Leahy’s announcement came after an Associated Press report saying the White House had asked the Vermont senator to hold off on offering the amendments until the measure goes before the full Senate.
It’s unclear whether Leahy will introduce the amendments once the legislation reaches the Senate floor, which is expected early in June. Passage on the Senate floor would be significantly more difficult than passage would have been in committee if a 60-vote threshold is necessary to overcome a filibuster.
After the committee reported out the bill, the Washington Blade asked Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) whether he wants to see UAFA brought up as an amendment on the Senate floor.
“You’ll have to ask Sen. Leahy about that,” Schumer replied. “As you heard, I believe strongly in UAFA. I don’t think I have to say anything more; I spoke long enough on it.”
Although the amendment for same-sex couples wasn’t included, the committee on Monday rejected an amendment that would have removed a provision supported by LGBT advocates that was included in the base bill.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) offered two amendments that would have eliminated the repeal of the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers. One amendment failed on a vote of 6-12 and the other failed on a vote of 9-9.
LGBT advocates had supported that provision in the base bill because LGBT asylum seekers often don’t know they have a one-year deadline to apply for asylum in the United States, or lack financial resources to make the application.
District of Columbia
Reasons to be optimistic about 2026
Local thought leaders offer hope for the New Year
It was a year like no other. It began with Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2025 and included a takeover of D.C. police, ICE raids, challenges for the local economy, and other events that have many queer Washingtonians ready for 2026.
As we prepare to welcome the New Year, the Blade asked a range of local thought leaders about what makes them optimistic for 2026. Here are their responses.
June Crenshaw
Deputy Director, Capital Pride Alliance
What gives me optimism for 2026 is the way our LGBTQIA2S+ community supports one another – across identities, neighborhoods, and movements – and because we continue to build our collective powers; we demand and create safer, more inclusive spaces.
Zachary Parker
Ward 5 DC. Council member
I’m optimistic about the upcoming elections and the District’s continued fight for local autonomy. One thing I know for sure is that Washingtonians are tough and persistent, and we’re ready to face any challenge as we keep fighting for D.C. statehood.
Sister Jeannine Gramick
Co-founder of LGBTQ supportive New Ways Ministry
As a nun who thinks politically about the Catholic Church, I’m extremely optimistic that Pope Leo XIV will continue to welcome LGBTQ people. At the conclave, most cardinals knew Pope Francis had (then) Cardinal Proost in mind!
Adam Ebbin
Virginia State Senator representing parts of Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax Counties
I am excited about 2026 bringing the return of the pro-equality governor to Virginia. I believe that Abigail Spanberger will be a champion for LGBT people and it will also be the year that we can finally pass the necessary legislation to send a constitutional amendment to the voters that would guarantee marriage equality in the Virginia Constitution.
Howard Garrett
President, Capital Stonewall Democrats
In 2026, our community can be optimistic because we’ve proven, again and again, that when we organize, we win: at the ballot box, in the courts, and in our neighborhoods. Even amid challenge, LGBTQ+ Washingtonians and our allies are building stronger coalitions, electing champions, and advancing real protections that make daily life safer and more affirming for everyone.
Paul Kuntzler
D.C. LGBTQ activist since the early 1960s, co-founder of Capital Stonewall Democrats
Last Nov. 4, 11 states held elections and Democrats won almost all of the elections. Next Nov. 3, 2026, Democrats will win control of both the House and Senate …An Economist poll reported that 15 percent to 20 percent of those who voted for Trump no longer support him. The results of the elections of Nov. 3, 2026, will be the beginning of the end of Trump and his racist and criminal regime.
Kelley Robinson
President, Human Rights Campaign
This past year has brought relentless attacks against the LGBTQ+ community, but it has also shown the resiliency of queer folks. While this administration has worked tirelessly to oppress us, we’ve met that oppression with courage. As we step into 2026, my hope is that we carry that energy forward and continue protecting one another, fighting back against injustice, and celebrating queer joy. If 2026 is anything like 2025, we know the challenges will be intense, but our community is more determined than ever to meet hate with resilience, and to turn struggle into strength.
Freddie Lutz
Owner, Freddie’s Beach Bar in Arlington and Rehoboth Beach
I am optimistic that the current president will fulfill his promise to boost the economy. We are all suffering – businesses in D.C. I just read it is 17 to 18 percent down. And I’m hoping the president will boost the economy. I always try to remain optimistic.
Nicholas F. Benton
Owner & Editor, Falls Church News-Press
My optimism stems from my belief in the human capacity and generosity of spirit. Those who are committed to those qualities will find a way.
Richard Rosendall
Former president, D.C. Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance
MAGA efforts to demonize LGBTQ people are dangerous but will fail overall because understanding and acceptance have grown and endured. The blue wave in November 2026 will show this.
TJ Flavell
Organizer, Go Gay DC
Hope springs eternal. Nurturing your own wellness is vital to the New Year, including enjoying social and cultural activities through such groups as Go Gay DC – Metro DC’s LGBTQ Community. Also, 2026 ushers in a new tax deduction for charitable giving. Check the IRS website for details. You can make a positive impact in the New Year by supporting good charitable causes like the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center, a safe, inclusive, and affirming space where all members of our community can thrive.
Rayceen Pendarvis
Leader of Team Rayceen D.C. LGBTQ support organization
I have experienced many trials and tribulations in my lifetime, throughout which my spirit has enabled me to find peace despite the turbulence around me. Being optimistic allows me to be a beacon of light for those who may be lost in the darkness.
Zar
Team Rayceen organizer
My reason for optimism is this: death. Life is a cycle of time, change, and destruction. Everything is impermanent; the time any person rules is finite and eventually all empires end.
DJ Honey
Team Rayceen supporter
Despite the noise, I see 2026 as a year where queer people continue choosing community over isolation. Even when challenged, our culture keeps evolving. We are more visible, more creative and intentional about building spaces that protect each other and center joy without asking permission.
Nick Tsusaki
Owner, Spark Social House, D.C. LGBTQ café and bar
I’m optimistic for 2026 because it feels like the tide is turning and we’re coming together as a community.
District of Columbia
Rush reopens after renewing suspended liquor license
Principal owner says he’s working to resolve payroll issue for unpaid staff
The D.C. LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush reopened and was serving drinks to customers on Saturday night, Dec. 20, under a renewed liquor license three days after the city’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board suspended the license on grounds that Rush failed to pay a required annual licensing fee.
In its Dec. 17 order suspending the Rush liquor license the ABC Board stated the “payment check was returned unpaid and alternative payment was not submitted.”
Jackson Mosley, Rush’s principal owner, says in a statement posted on the Rush website that the check did not “bounce,” as rumors circulating in the community have claimed. He said a decision was made to put a “hold” on the check so that Rush could change its initial decision to submit a payment for the license for three years and instead to pay a lower price for a one-year payment.
“Various fees and fines were added to the amount, making it necessary to replace the stop-payment check in person – a deadline that was Wednesday despite my attempts to delay it due to these circumstances,” Mosley states in his message.
He told the Washington Blade in an interview inside Rush on Saturday night, Dec. 20, that the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) quickly processed Rush’s liquor license renewal following his visit to submit a new check.
He also reiterated in the interview some of the details he explained in his Rush website statement regarding a payroll problem that resulted in his employees not being paid for their first month’s work at Rush, which was scheduled to take place Dec. 15 through a direct deposit into the employees’ bank accounts.
Several employees set up a GoFundMe appeal in which they stated they “showed up, worked hard, and were left unpaid after contributing their time, labor, and professional skills to Rush, D.C.’s newest LGBTQ bar.”
In his website statement Mosley says employees were not paid because of a “tax related mismatch between federal and District records,” which, among other things, involves the IRS. He said the IRS was using his former company legal name Green Zebra LLC while D.C. officials are using his current company legal name Rainbow Zebra LLC.
“This discrepancy triggered a compliance hold within our payroll system,” he says in his statement. “The moment I became aware of the issue, I immediately engaged our payroll provider and began working to resolve it,” he wrote.
He added that while he is the founder and CEO of Rush’s parent and management company called Momentux, company investors play a role in making various decisions, and that the investors rather than he control a “syndicated treasury account” that funds and operates the payroll system.
He told the Blade that he and others involved with the company were working hard to resolve the payroll problem as soon as possible.
“Every employee – past or present – will receive the pay they are owed in accordance with D.C. and federal law,” he says in his statement. “That remains my priority.”
In a follow-up text message to the Blade on Sunday night, Dec. 21, Mosley said, “All performers, DJs, etc. have been fully paid.”
He said Rush had 21 employees but “2 were let go for gross misconduct, 2 were let go for misconduct, 1 for moral turpitude, 2 for performance concerns.” He added that all of the remaining 14 employees have returned to work at the time of the reopening on Dec. 20.
Rush held its grand opening on Dec. 5 on the second and third floors of a building at 2001 14th Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street next to the existing LGBTQ dance club Bunker.
With at least a half dozen or more LGBTQ bars located within walking distance of Rush in the U Street entertainment corridor, Mosley told the Blade he believes some of the competing LGBTQ bars, which he says believe Rush will take away their customers, may be responsible along with former employees of “rumors” disparaging him and Rush.
India
Few transgender people benefit from India’s low-income housing program
Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana launched in 2015
The Indian government on Dec. 15 informed parliament that only one transgender person in Jammu and Kashmir has been recorded as a beneficiary under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana since the housing program was launched a decade ago.
PMAY is a federal government program aimed at expanding access to affordable housing for low- and middle-income households, including through credit-linked subsidies. The parliamentary disclosure indicates that trans beneficiaries have been virtually absent from the program’s records in the union territory, despite official guidelines listing trans people as a priority category.
In a written reply to a question in the upper house of parliament, known as the Rajya Sabha, the Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry said Jammu and Kashmir recorded zero trans beneficiaries under the program in each financial year from 2020–2021 through 2025–2026, with the cumulative total since inception remaining at one.
The Indian government launched the program on June 25, 2015, and the Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry implemented it.
The parliamentary reply came in response to a question on whether trans people are being included under the housing scheme and what steps have been taken to address barriers to access. The ministry said both PMAY and its successor, PMAY 2.0, are demand-driven programs, with responsibility for identifying and selecting beneficiaries resting with state and regional governments.
The ministry said the program lists trans people as a priority group, alongside widows, single women, people with disabilities, senior citizens, and other socially disadvantaged categories. It added that actual implementation depends on housing proposals and beneficiary lists submitted by state and regional governments.
According to figures the Indian government cited, a total of 809 trans beneficiaries have been recorded under PMAY and its successor, PMAY 2.0, since the programs were launched, with the vast majority concentrated in a small number of states. The southern state of Tamil Nadu accounts for 222 beneficiaries, followed by Andhra Pradesh with 186, and Odisha with 101. By contrast, several other states and federally administered regions, including Jammu and Kashmir, have reported either negligible or no coverage. India is administratively divided into 28 states and eight federally governed territories.
According to India’s 2011 national Census, Jammu and Kashmir recorded 4,137 trans residents. The same census counted 487,803 trans people nationwide, providing the most recent official population baseline for the community in India.
The ministry also said it has not conducted a specific survey to assess barriers faced by trans communities in accessing the scheme’s benefits. Instead, it said lessons from earlier implementation phases informed the design of the second phase of the program, launched on Sept. 1, 2024, which aims to support an additional 10 million urban beneficiaries over the next five years.
The parliamentary reply reveals an even more severe gap in Ladakh, India’s northernmost federally governed territory bordering China and Pakistan-administered areas and considered strategically critical to national security.
Official records show that Ladakh has not reported a single trans beneficiary under the housing scheme, either in recent years or cumulatively since the program began, with zero coverage recorded across all financial years listed in the Annexure. By comparison, Ladakh’s trans population stands at six, according to a written submission made to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in 2024.
Despite trans people being listed as a priority group in the scheme’s guidelines, the federal government said that as of November 2025 it had sanctioned more than 12.2 million homes nationwide under both versions of the program, with over 9.6 million homes completed and delivered. At the same time, data from Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, and several other regions show little to no recorded housing uptake by trans beneficiaries.
Speaking with the Washington Blade, Meera Parida, a trans activist, former member of the National Council for Transgender Persons in India’s eastern zone, and a former state advisor under the housing and urban development department, said the 2011 Census does not reflect the full size of India’s trans population, noting that public recognition and self-identification were far more limited at the time. She pointed to later government data collection efforts, including the National Portal for Transgender Persons that the Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry launched in 2020, as evidence that official counts have expanded beyond what was captured in the last Census.
“I am surprised that around the country only over 800 people benefited from the scheme, because most of the transgender population is from socially backward classes,” said Parida. “So they do not have a house and no family. Five years have passed since the NALSA judgment and the Transgender Protection Act; even after all these, if only over 800 transgender persons got home, that is a sad situation.”
Parida said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has publicly positioned trans people’s welfare as a priority, but argued that the issue requires greater attention at the administrative level. She said the prime minister’s office should issue clear directions to all relevant departments to ensure trans people receive housing support and that implementation moves more quickly.
“There is still widespread discrimination and stigma against the community. Many transgender people are afraid to speak openly, which is why this issue continues to persist,” Parida said. “If stigma and discrimination are not addressed seriously, the marginalized community will remain invisible and reluctant to come forward. In that situation, the government will also be limited in what it can do. State governments should work with activists and community organizations to build accurate data. The government has decided to resume the Census in 2026, but the enumerators who go door to door must be sensitized to engage respectfully with the transgender community. The government should also improve awareness of housing schemes, because many people simply do not know they exist. A single-window system is needed.”
Your guide to D.C.’s queer New Year’s Eve parties
Long-awaited ‘Pillion’ surpasses the sexy buzz
Trump’s ‘American people derangement syndrome’
Reasons to be optimistic about 2026
Using movement to boost your mental health during holidays
Reasons to be optimistic about 2026
America is going in the wrong direction for intersex children
Rush reopens after renewing suspended liquor license
Long-awaited ‘Pillion’ surpasses the sexy buzz
