News
HISTORIC: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, Prop 8
DOMA violates equal protection; Prop 8 supporters lack standing
Gay marriage advocates rallying at the Supreme Court earlier this year during oral arguments for two major cases. The court struck down two anti-gay laws today, opening the door for expanded rights for same-sex couples in many jurisdictions. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
In a historic development, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two decisions on Wednesday that advanced marriage rights for gay couples and will almost certainly reshape the national debate on the issue.
In one 5-4 ruling, the court determined that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it violates due process and equal protection for same-sex couples under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That decision means the U.S. government must begin recognizing same-sex marriages for a broad range of benefits, including those related to federal taxes and immigration law.
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Kennedy said. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
The dissenting justices were Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. In his opinion, Roberts says Congress acted constitutionally in passing DOMA and took issue with the authority the court granted itself in overturning the anti-gay statute.
Writing his dissent, Scalia said the decision of the court robs the American public of its ability to decide the issue of same-sex marriage through the democratic process.
“Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many,” Scalia writes. “But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.”
In another 5-4 decision, the court determined anti-gay forces don’t have standing to defend California’s Proposition 8. That decision leaves in place a district court injunction that prohibits the state of California from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. Gay couples will be able to marry in the state once the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lift its stay.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the court and was joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor.
“The Article III requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in our system of separated powers,” Roberts writes. “States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.”
The court’s ruling in the case against Prop 8, known as Hollingsworth v. Perry, is specific only to California — meaning the justices didn’t grant the expansive ruling that supporters of marriage equality had sought to bring marriage equality to all 50 states.
Shortly after HRC President Chad Griffin walked out of the court with plaintiffs in the marriage cases, he received a call from President Obama who was aboard Air Force One. Obama congratulated Griffin for the victories as reporters and onlookers watched.
The decisions were handed down 10 years to the day that the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws throughout the country.
The challenge to DOMA, known as United States v. Windsor, was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others in 2011 on behalf of lesbian New York widow Edith Windsor. Upon the death of her spouse Thea Spyer in 2009, Windsor had to pay the U.S. government $363,000 in estate taxes because of DOMA — a penalty that she wouldn’t have faced if she were married to a man.
The decision striking down DOMA affirms the initial rulings against the federal anti-gay law last year by U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones and the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Obama administration helped in securing the ruling against DOMA. After it stopped defending DOMA in 2011, the U.S. Justice Department began filing briefs against the law and sent attorneys to litigate against it during oral arguments. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued against DOMA before the Supreme Court, saying the law doesn’t hold up under the standard heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption it’s unconstitutional.
But the Supreme Court didn’t get to the issue of heightened scrutiny in the DOMA case because it found the law was unconstitutional under the less stringent standard of rational basis review.
The case against Prop 8 was filed by the California-based American Foundation for Equal Rights in 2009 on behalf of two plaintiff couples — a lesbian couple, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, and a gay male couple, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo — who were unable to marry because of the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
The attorneys representing them were Theodore Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general during the Bush administration, and David Boies, a so-called “dream team” of attorneys who represented opposite sides in the 2000 case Bush v. Gore.
Because the state officials — California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris — refused to defend Prop 8 in court, anti-gay groups that put Prop 8 on the ballot in 2008 such as ProtectMarriage.com took up the responsibility of defending the measure. The California Supreme Court certified the groups had standing under state law and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed they had standing.
But the high court determined that these groups — even though attorney Charles Cooper spoke on behalf on them in oral arguments — don’t have standing because they lack any legal injury in the wake of the lower court’s determination that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
The Obama administration had also assisted in efforts to secure a ruling against California’s Proposition 8. The Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in February saying the ban was unconstitutional and Verrilli argued in court against Prop 8, suggesting all eight states with domestic partnerships should be required to grant marriage rights to gay couples.
The issue of standing also came up in the DOMA case for two reasons. One, the court had questioned whether the U.S. Justice Department could have appealed the district court ruling to the Second Circuit because the initial ruling against DOMA was what the Obama administration wanted. Two, the court questioned whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a five-member Republican-majority panel within the U.S. House, had standing to take up defense of DOMA in the administration’s stead.
But the court determined an active controversy remains in the case because the U.S. government still hasn’t refunded Windsor the $363,000 she paid in estate taxes. Once the court determined it has jurisdiction based on the Obama administration’s appeal of the lawsuit, it didn’t get to the issue of whether BLAG has standing.
In his ruling, Kennedy writes the continuation of litigation in the absence of a federal ruling on DOMA would cause uncertainty.
“[T]he costs, uncertainties, and alleged harm and injuries likely would continue for a time measured in years before the issue is resolved,” Kennedy writes in the ruling. “In these unusual and urgent circumstances, the very term ‘prudential’ counsels that it is a proper exercise of the Court’s responsibility to take jurisdiction.”
Rehoboth Beach
Celebrated performer Rose Levine plays Rehoboth on May 15
Freddie’s to host Fire Island legend
Rose Levine is a celebrated entertainer best known for her longstanding performances in Cherry Grove, Fire Island, since 1955 where she has become a beloved fixture of the community’s vibrant arts and nightlife scene. With a career spanning decades, Levine has captivated audiences with her cabaret singing shows full of charisma, classic numbers, humor, and unmistakable stage presence—proving that some stars don’t fade, they simply get better lighting.
Levine is also closely associated with the legendary Fire Island Invasion of the Pines, the annual Fourth of July spectacle in which performers and revelers make their grand (and gloriously over-the-top) entrance by boat from Cherry Grove to Fire Island Pines, now a 50-year tradition. Her role in launching and sustaining this tradition has helped make it one of the most iconic—and entertaining—events of the summer season.
A consummate storyteller, Levine brings audiences along for a glittering ride through entertainment history. Rose will sing her Broadway melodies by Jerry Herman, Irving Berlin, Cy Coleman, Cole Porter, and others. With music direction by Mark Hartman the one-night-only event will celebrate Levine’s legendary life in drag, featuring signature crowd-pleasers and celebrity stories. A friend of Broadway composer Jerry Herman, she shares delicious stories of legends like Ethel Merman and recalls a young Barbra Streisand before she became Barbra Streisand while both performing at the famed singing contests at Greenwich Village’s famed Lion nightclub before her big break at the Bon Soir. Her shows are a mix of music, mischief, and memories of old New York and Fire Island — back when Cherry Grove didn’t even have electricity, but somehow still had better nightlife than most cities today.
Her legendary Fire Island home, Roseland, has hosted its fair share of unforgettable gatherings (and likely a few stories that can’t be printed in a family newspaper), making it a cornerstone of the community’s social scene. Levine splits her time between Manhattan and her summer perch on Fire Island—though audiences across the country are grateful she travels.
In fact, she performs at The Green Room and 54 Below in Manhattan, Cherry Grove in Fire Island, Act 2 and The Palm in Puerto Vallarta, Red Dot Cabaret in Hudson, N.Y., and now Freddie’s in Rehoboth Beach—because retirement, frankly, sounds boring. Her place in the Guinness Book of World Records as the oldest continuously performing drag queen in the world only adds to the legend and gives her bragging rights she fully intends to use.
And now, Rehoboth—consider yourself warned.
Don’t miss Rose Levine live on May 15 at Freddie’s Beach Bar. Dinner begins at 6:30 p.m., with the show at 7 p.m. Come for the cocktails, stay for the stories, and leave wondering how one person can have that many fabulous decades.
Levine’s legacy is defined not only by her remarkable career, but by her ability to connect with audiences across generations—usually while making them laugh, gasp, and occasionally blush. Don’t miss this show.
Federal Government
Senate Democrats press DOJ over anti-trans prison directives
Markey joins other lawmakers in demanding reversal of policies
U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is urging acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and William Marshall III, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to reverse a policy affecting transgender inmates that lawmakers say is “endangering” their “health and safety.”
Markey, along with U.S. Sens. Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), sent the letter that the Washington Blade verified on Monday.
The letter is a direct response to a change in prison policy that went into effect in February 2025, rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates. The senators described how President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” forced a policy shift they argue is rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
In the letter, the lawmakers wrote “On Feb. 21, 2025, the BOP issued a memo to implement President Trump’s EO, requiring BOP staff to ‘refer to individuals by their legal name or pronouns corresponding to their biological sex,’ banning the use of funds for any ‘items that align with transgender ideology,’ and suspending clothing accommodations, pat search accommodations, and support programs offered to transgender individuals.”
“In a second memo, issued one week later, the BOP banned the use of federal funds for ‘any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.’ These changes have resulted in the denial — or threatened denial — of hormone treatment and gender-affirming accommodations for transgender individuals in BOP custody.”
“On Feb. 19, 2026, the BOP escalated its attacks, issuing a program statement titled, ‘Management of Inmates with Gender Dysphoria.’ It prohibits incarcerated people from receiving gender-affirming care, even if paid for with private funds. This practice forces incarcerated people to discontinue care, regardless of medical recommendations.”
The senators continued, “The agency has repeatedly enacted policies that strip transgender individuals of their gender identity and dignity. This includes requiring staff to refer to transgender individuals by pronouns that ‘align with their biological sex’ rather than gender identity and to confiscate gender-affirming items, such as undergarments, clothing, cosmetics, and wigs.”
“These policies risk triggering mental health crises, including increased suicidality, among incarcerated people with gender dysphoria. The BOP’s repeated guidance to roll back gender-affirming protections — despite a federal court order finding that the BOP’s actions to discontinue gender-affirming care are likely unlawful — generate confusion about the current state of regulations and convey the BOP’s indifference to court orders and the rule of law.”
“By stripping away appropriate medical and psychiatric care, safety protections, and measures to provide dignity, the BOP is exposing transgender individuals to significant harm.”
The Marshall Project, a nonprofit newsroom focused on the U.S. criminal justice system and immigration enforcement through data-driven reporting, also reported on the policy change. The outlet spoke with Shana Knizhnik, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, about the impact of the changes.
“It’s clear that this new policy is a ban on gender affirming healthcare,” Knizhnik, who works for the nationwide chapter of the ACLU said. “This is a policy that disregards the medical needs of our plaintiffs.”
The letter also asked the BOP and the DOJ specific questions regarding why the policy went into effect, as lawmakers suggested the changes appear politically motivated rather than based on new medical evidence regarding treatment for trans inmates.
The senators requested answers to these trans policy-specific questions by May 21, including:
“Does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impacts of recent policies that eliminate gender-affirming medical and psychiatric care?”
“Since January 20, 2025, how many transgender, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-diverse individuals have been transferred to a different facility to meet the EO’s goal of housing individuals ‘according to their biological sex?’”
“Given that the BOP has stopped enforcing Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations related to gender identity and collecting data on gender identity, how will the BOP protect the physical and emotional health and safety of incarcerated transgender individuals?”
“How does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impact of eliminating protections against sexual violence for this population?”
“Does the BOP plan to institute a specific process by which transgender individuals may seek assistance or lodge complaints regarding harms they experience from the recent BOP policies and actions implementing President Trump’s EO?”
“Describe the specific criteria the BOP intends to use to determine whether it will allow a ‘social accommodation’ for gender dysphoria.”
Markey also included a personal statement to the Blade explaining why he is using his position on Capitol Hill to push for more information and advocate for reversing the policy.
“This administration continuously shows their contempt for trans people and a total disregard for their rights and humanity. As part of this cruel campaign, the Bureau of Prisons has systematically stripped health care access and basic protections from trans people, abandoning its duty to the people in its custody. I won’t stop fighting until this administration’s hateful anti-trans policies are reversed and trans people’s rights are secured.”
The Blade reached out to the DOJ and the BOP for comment but had not received a response at press time.
Arts & Entertainment
Washington Blade’s Pride on the Pier returns June 13 to kick off D.C. Pride week
Pride on the Pier officially launches Pride Week in D.C.
The Washington Blade’s annual Pride on the Pier celebration returns to The Wharf on Saturday, June 13, 2026 from 4-9 p.m., bringing thousands of LGBTQ community members and allies together for an unforgettable waterfront celebration to kick off Pride week in Washington, D.C.
Now in its eighth year, Washington Blade Pride on the Pier extends the city’s annual celebration of LGBTQ visibility to the bustling Wharf waterfront with an exciting array of activities and entertainment for all ages. The District Pier will offer DJs, dancing, drag, and other entertainment. Alcoholic beverages will be available for purchase for those 21 and older.
“Pride on the Pier has become one of the signature moments of Pride in D.C.,” said Lynne Brown, publisher of the Washington Blade. “There’s nothing like watching our community come together on the waterfront with live music and incredible energy as we kick off Pride week.”
Pride on the Pier is free and open to the public, with VIP tickets available for exclusive pier access to the Dockmaster Building. To purchase VIP tickets visit www.prideonthepierdc.com/vip.
Additional entertainment announcements, sponsor activations, and event details will be released in the coming weeks.
Event Details:
📍 Location: District Pier at The Wharf (101 District Sq SW, Washington, DC)
📅 Dates: Friday, 13, 2026
⏱️ 4-9PM
🎟️ VIP Tickets: www.PrideOnThePierDC.com/VIP
Celebrated performer Rose Levine plays Rehoboth on May 15
The rise of accidental landlords
Senate Democrats press DOJ over anti-trans prison directives
Washington Blade’s Pride on the Pier returns June 13 to kick off D.C. Pride week
National tour of ‘Gatsby’ comes to National Theatre
PHOTOS: Miss Gay Western Maryland
Barney Frank on trans rights, 2028, and the need to ‘reform the left’
Memorial service for trans rights advocate SaVanna Wanzer set for May 17
LGBTQ people, weed, and mental health: what you need to know
Your guide to D.C. region’s many Pride celebrations
-
Photos5 days agoPHOTOS: Miss Gay Western Maryland
-
National5 days ago
Barney Frank on trans rights, 2028, and the need to ‘reform the left’
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
Memorial service for trans rights advocate SaVanna Wanzer set for May 17
-
Cannabis Culture4 days ago
LGBTQ people, weed, and mental health: what you need to know
