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.”
Japan
Japanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
Japan only G7 country that does not legally recognize same-sex couples
The Japanese Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will consider six marriage equality lawsuits.
NHK, the country’s public broadcaster, noted all 15 of the court’s justices will consider the case.
Japan is the only G7 country that does not legally recognize same-sex couples, despite several court rulings in recent years that found the denial of marriage benefits to gays and lesbians unconstitutional.
Tokyo High Court Judge Ayumi Higashi last November upheld Japan’s legal definition of a family as a man and a woman and their children.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who became the country’s first female head of government last October, opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples. She has also reiterated the constitution’s assertion that the family is an institution based around “the equal rights of husband and wife.”
Same-sex couples can legally marry in Taiwan, Nepal, and Thailand.
NHK reported the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in early 2027.
Botswana
Lorato ke Lorato: marriage equality, democracy, and the unfinished work of justice in Botswana
High Court considering marriage equality case
As Botswana prepares for the resumption of a landmark marriage equality case before the High Court on July 14–15, the country finds itself at a critical constitutional crossroads.
At first glance, the matter may appear to be about whether two women, Bonolo Selelelo and Tsholofelo Kumile, can have their love legally recognized. At its core however, this case is about something far more profound: the dismantling of patriarchy, the decolonization of law, and the integrity of Botswana’s constitutional democracy.
Beyond marriage: a question of power
Marriage, as a legal institution, has never been neutral. It has historically functioned as a mechanism for regulating women’s bodies, sexuality, and social roles within a patriarchal order. To deny LBQ (lesbian, bisexual, and queer) women access to marriage is not merely to exclude them from a legal benefit, it is to reinforce a hierarchy of relationships, where heterosexual unions are deemed legitimate and all others invisible. This case therefore challenges the very foundations of who gets to love, who gets to belong, and who gets to be protected under the law.
As feminist scholars have long argued, patriarchy is sustained through institutions that appear ordinary but are deeply political. The law is one such institution. And it is precisely here that this case intervenes: by asking whether Botswana’s legal system will continue to uphold exclusion, or evolve to reflect the constitutional promise of equality.
A constitutional journey: Botswana’s courts and human dignity
This is not the first time Botswana’s courts have been called upon to affirm the dignity of LGBTQI+ persons. Over the past decade, the judiciary has built a progressive body of jurisprudence grounded in equality, nondiscrimination, and human dignity.
In Attorney General v. Rammoge and Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. CACGB 128-14, 2016), the Court of Appeal upheld the right of LEGABIBO to register as an organization. The court affirmed that:
“The refusal to register the appellant society was not only unlawful, but a violation of the respondents’ fundamental rights to freedom of association.”
This was followed by the ND v. Attorney General of Botswana (MAHGB-000449-15, 2017) case, where the High Court recognized the right of a transgender man to change his gender marker. The court held:
“Gender identity is an integral part of a person’s identity … and any interference with that identity is a violation of dignity.”
In Letsweletse Motshidiemang v. Attorney General (MAHGB-000591-16, 2019), the High Court decriminalized same-sex activity, declaring sections of the Penal Code unconstitutional. Justice Leburu powerfully stated:
“Human dignity is harmed when minority groups are marginalized.”
This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Attorney General v. Motshidiemang (CACGB-157-19, 2021), where the court emphasized:
“The Constitution is a dynamic instrument … it must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the values of dignity, liberty, and equality.”
These cases collectively establish a clear principle: the Constitution of Botswana protects all persons, not just the majority.
The marriage equality case now asks a logical next question: If LGBTQI+ persons are entitled to dignity, identity, and freedom from criminalization, why are their relationships still denied recognition?
Decolonizing the law: What is truly ‘UnAfrican’?
Opponents of marriage equality often argue that homosexuality is “unAfrican.” This claim, while politically powerful, is historically inaccurate. Same-sex relationships and diverse gender identities have existed across African societies long before colonial rule. What is foreign, however, are the laws that criminalize these identities.
Botswana’s anti-sodomy laws were inherited from British colonial legal systems, not from indigenous Tswana culture. As scholars of African history have demonstrated, colonial administrations imposed rigid Victorian moral codes that erased and suppressed existing sexual diversity. To claim that homosexuality is unAfrican, while defending colonial-era laws, is therefore a contradiction.
A truly decolonial approach to the law requires us to ask: Whose morality are we upholding? And whose history are we erasing?
Marriage equality, in this sense, is not a Western imposition: it is part of a broader project of reclaiming African dignity, plurality, and humanity.
Democracy on trial: the question of separation of powers
This case also raises important questions about the health of Botswana’s democracy.
Following the 2021 Court of Appeal decision affirming the decriminalization of same-sex relations, Botswana witnessed public demonstrations, including marches led by groups such as the Evangelical Fellowship of Botswana (EFB), opposing the judgment and calling for the retention of discriminatory laws.
While public participation is a cornerstone of democracy, these events raise deeper concerns about the separation of powers. Courts are constitutionally mandated to interpret the law and protect fundamental rights, even when such decisions are unpopular. When judicial decisions grounded in constitutional principles are publicly resisted on moral or religious grounds, it risks undermining the authority of the courts and the rule of law itself.
Democracy is not simply about majority opinion: it is about the protection of minority rights within a constitutional framework.
Botswana is not a theocracy
It is also important to clarify a recurring misconception: Botswana is not a Christian nation.
Botswana is a secular constitutional democracy and more accurately, a pluralistic society that recognizes and respects diversity of belief, culture, and identity. The Constitution does not elevate one religion above others, nor does it permit religious doctrine to dictate legal rights. The law must serve all citizens equally, regardless of faith.
To frame marriage equality as a threat to Christianity is therefore misplaced. The question before the courts is not theological, but constitutional: Does the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violate the rights to equality and nondiscrimination?
Love, equality, and the future of justice
At its heart, this case is about love, but it is also about power, history, and justice. It asks whether Botswana is prepared to move beyond colonial legal frameworks and patriarchal norms, and to embrace a future grounded in equality, dignity, and inclusion.
It asks whether the Constitution will continue to be interpreted as a living document, one that evolves with society, or remain constrained by outdated moral assumptions. Ultimately, it asks whether Botswana’s democracy can hold true to its founding promise: that all persons are equal before the law.
As the High Court prepares to hear this case in July 2026, the nation has an opportunity to affirm not only the rights of two individuals, but the broader principle that love, in all its diversity, deserves recognition, and protection.
Lorato ke lorato.
Love is love.
Justice, if it is to mean anything at all, must make space for it.
Nozizwe is the CEO of LEGABIBO (Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana)
District of Columbia
‘No Kings’ protests set for D.C.
Anti-Trump demonstrations to take place across country on Saturday
As President Donald Trump and his administration escalate rhetoric targeting transgender youth and student athletes, push efforts to restrict voting access for millions of Americans, and pursue foreign policy decisions that critics say bypass congressional authority, organizers across the country are once again mobilizing in protest.
For many LGBTQ advocates, the moment feels especially urgent.
In recent months, activists have pointed to a surge in anti-trans legislation, attacks on gender-affirming care, and efforts to roll back nondiscrimination protections as direct threats to the safety and visibility of queer and trans communities. Organizers say the demonstrations are not just about policy, but about defending the right of LGBTQ people — particularly trans youth and people of color — to live openly and safely.
Thousands of “No Kings” protests are planned nationwide, with multiple demonstrations set to take place in D.C.
One of the primary events, “No Kings Washington,” will be held in Anacostia, an overwhelmingly Black area of D.C. that is often at the center of conversations around racial justice, policing, and access to resources in the nation’s capital.
The protest in Anacostia is focused on what organizers describe as the “power behind the throne,” specifically Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor. Miller has been closely associated with the administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy, including the family separation practice that resulted in thousands of children being separated from their parents at the Southern border.
Activists have also linked immigration enforcement policies to broader concerns about LGBTQ migrants, including queer asylum seekers who often face heightened risks of violence and discrimination both in their home countries and within detention systems.
Anacostia protest details:
Participants are asked to gather starting at 1:30 p.m. on the southeast side of the Frederick Douglass Bridge. The closest Metro station is Anacostia on the Green Line, about an 8-minute walk from the starting point. Organizers strongly encourage attendees to use public transportation, as street parking is limited.
The march will proceed past Fort McNair and conclude near the Waterfront Metro station.
D.C. icon and LGBTQ activist Rayceen Pendarvis is set to speak at the protest around 2 p.m.
Kalorama protest details:
A separate protest will take place earlier in the day in Kalorama, a neighborhood long associated with political power and home to presidents, cabinet officials, and foreign ambassadors. Demonstrators are expected to gather at 10 a.m., with a march running until approximately noon near the intersection of Connecticut Avenue and Kalorama Road.
Arlington/National Mall protest details:
Another group is expected to assemble at Memorial Circle near Arlington National Cemetery at 10 a.m. before crossing the Memorial Bridge into D.C., passing the Lincoln Memorial and continuing on to the Washington Monument. Organizers say the march is intended to defend “American democracy, the rule of law, and a healthy planet.”
Unlike last June — when organizers discouraged large-scale demonstrations in D.C. due Trump’s military/birthday parade — activists are now explicitly calling on people to show up in the nation’s capital and surrounding areas.
The protests also coincide with Transgender Day of Visibility weekend, which includes additional gatherings and celebrations on the National Mall. At the same time, peak bloom for the National Cherry Blossom Festival is expected to draw large crowds to the city. With multiple major events happening simultaneously, officials and organizers anticipate significant congestion, increased traffic, and crowded public transit throughout the weekend.
Organizers are urging participants to plan ahead and come prepared.
“Bring your signs, noisemakers, music, and creative ideas, and gather in joyful, nonviolent protest,” they said. “Children are very welcome.”
For more information, visit nokings.org.
Japanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
The outrage economy is not the LGBTQ community
Calendar: March 27-April 2
Celebrate cherry blossoms the drag way
Lorato ke Lorato: marriage equality, democracy, and the unfinished work of justice in Botswana
PHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
Polish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary gala draws sold out crowd
Trans Day of Visibility events planned
Virginia General Assembly’s 2026 legislative session ends
-
Photos4 days agoPHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
-
Poland4 days ago
Polish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary gala draws sold out crowd
-
District of Columbia3 days ago
Trans Day of Visibility events planned
