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.”
District of Columbia
Man charged with carjacking, kidnapping after having sex in D.C. park pleads guilty
Arrest followed year-long investigation into incident at Fort Dupont Park
A D.C. man initially charged with armed carjacking, armed kidnapping, and armed robbery of a male victim he met and with whom he engaged in sex at D.C.’s Fort Dupont Park in September 2024 pleaded guilty on March 12 to two lesser charges as part of a plea bargain deal offered by prosecutors.
Records filed in D.C. Superior Court show that Da’Andre Pardlow, 31, who has been held in jail since the time of his arrest in December 2025, pleaded guilty to unarmed carjacking and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. Court records show the agreement includes a recommendation by prosecutors that Pardlow be sentenced to seven years in prison.
The agreement allows him to withdraw the guilty plea if the judge rejects the sentencing recommendation and calls for a harsher sentence. He is scheduled to be sentenced by Superior Court Judge Robert Salermo on May 29.
Details of the incident that led to Pardlow’s arrest and guilty plea are included in a 12-page arrest affidavit prepared by U.S. Park Police detective Christopher Edmund, the lead investigator in the case.
According to the affidavit, which is part of the public court records, Park Police received a call at approximately 6:30 a.m. on Sept. 13, 2024, regarding an armed robbery that occurred around 3 a.m. that day at D.C.’s Fort Dupont Park. The affidavit says Park Police officers drove the person who called, who is identified only as Victim 1 or V-1, from his residence to the Park Police Anacostia Operations facility where he was interviewed.
“V-1 reported that they were at their residence at approximately 2:30 a.m. on September 13, 2024, and decided to drive to Fort Dupont Park in hopes of meeting a man for a sexual encounter,” the affidavit states. “V-1 arrived at Fort Dupont Park at approximately 3:00 a.m. and parked their vehicle on the south side of Alabama Avenue, SE, in Washington, D.C. adjacent to the park entrance,” the affidavit continues.
It says the victim stated the park was empty and he decided to leave, but while walking back to his car he encountered a black male appearing in his 20s or 30s and gave a full description of the man’s appearance and clothing, saying he was wearing a ski mask.
“V-1 and the male conversed and agreed to engage in consensual sexual acts on a bench under the pavilion near the restroom,” the affidavit says. It says V-1 then told detectives that the man, who is initially identified only as Suspect 1 or S-1, “had ejaculated onto V-1’s face. V-1 then used a napkin that he found on the ground nearby to wipe S-1’s semen from V-1’s face. V-1 then discarded the napkin on the ground.”
The affidavit states that investigators later recovered the napkin and through DNA testing linked the semen to Pardlow. But prior to that, it says during their sexual encounter in the park V-1 agreed to suspect 1’s request that he take off all his clothes.
“When V-1 disrobed, S-1 got behind V-1 and held a hard, metal item that V-1 believed to be a handgun, to the back of V-1’s head,” according to the affidavit. It says V-1 added that S-1 “threatened to shoot him ‘over and over again’” if he did not comply with S-1’s demands to surrender his phone and wallet, provide the code to access the phone, and then to take possession of and drive V-1’s car to a nearby bank, with V-1 sitting in the passenger’s seat, to withdraw money from V-1’s bank account. The affidavit says he withdrew $500 from V-1’s account at a Bank of America ATM at 3821 Minnesotta Ave., NE.
“S-1 then drove V-1 back to the park and told them to get their clothes, which were still in the pavilion area,” the affidavit says. “When V-1 exited the vehicle, S-1 drove out of the park in V-1’s vehicle at a high rate of speed toward Massachusetts Avenue,” it says. “V-1 walked back to their residence and contacted the police.”
The affidavit says that over the course of the next several months investigators used tracking devices linked to V-1’s car, cell phone, and Apple Watch that Pardlow had taken to locate the car and a residence where Pardlow was possibly living.
The Park Police investigators also pulled up FBI DNA records to identify a suspect that matched the DNA sample taken from the napkin V1 used at the park to a man arrested in Prince George’s County, Md., on an unrelated charge of Use of a Firearm In A Violent Felony. That person turned out to be Da’Andre Pardlow, the affidavit states.
It says investigators obtained additional evidence linking Pardlow to the park incident involving V-1, including video images of his face from a Bank of America security camera at the time he withdraws money from V-1’s ATM account. A tracking of Pardlow’s own mobile phone also placed him at the site of the park at the time of his alleged interaction with V-1.
When Park Police detectives first interviewed Pardlow at the Eastern Correctional Institute prison in Westover, Md., where he was being held in connection with the unrelated firearm arrest, “he denied having ever been to Fort Dupont Park since he was in high school and said that he had no involvement in this incident,” the affidavit says.
Court records show a warrant was obtained for his arrest on Nov. 25, 2025, for the Fort Dupont incident and he was officially charged on Dec. 17, 2025, with Armed Carjacking, Robbery While Armed, and Kidnapping While Armed.
Pardlow’s attorney, Patrick Nowak, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on Pardlow’s decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges of Unarmed Carjacking and Possession of a Firearm During A Crime of Violence, with the other charges being dropped by prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C.
Botswana
The rule of law, not the rule of religion
Bonolo Selelo and Tsholofelo Kumile are challenging the Botswana Marriage Act
Botswana was in a whole frenzy as religious and traditional fundamentalists kept mixing religion and constitutional law as if it were harmless. It is not. One is a private matter of belief between you and God, while the other is the framework that protects and governs us all. When these two systems get fused, the result is rarely justice. It results in discrimination.
The ongoing case brought by Bonolo Selelo and Tsholofelo Kumile challenging provisions of the Botswana Marriage Act has reignited a familiar debate in Botswana. Some commentators insist that marriage equality violates religious values and therefore should not be recognized by law. It is a predictable argument. It is also fundamentally incompatible with constitutional governance.
Botswana is not a Christian state. It is a constitutional democracy governed by the Constitution of Botswana. That distinction matters. In a constitutional democracy, laws are interpreted in accordance with constitutional principles such as equality, dignity, protection, inclusion and the rule of law, rather than the doctrinal beliefs of any particular religion.
Religion has no place in constitutional law and democracy
The central problem with religious arguments in constitutional disputes is simple in that they divide, they other, they contest equality and they are personal. Constitutional law by contrast, must apply equally to everyone.
Botswana’s Constitution guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms under Sections 3 and 15, including protection from discrimination and the right to equal protection of the law. These provisions are not conditional on religious approval. They exist precisely to protect minorities from the preferences or prejudices of the majority.
Legal experts, such as Anneke Meerkotter, in her policy brief in Defense of Constitutional Morality, point out that constitutional rights function as a safeguard against majoritarian morality. If rights depended on whether the majority approved of a minority’s identity or relationships, they would not be rights at all. They would merely be privileges.
This principle has already been affirmed in Botswana’s jurisprudence. In the landmark decision of Letsweletse Motshidiemang v Attorney General, the High Court held that criminalizing consensual same-sex relations violated constitutional protections of liberty, dignity, privacy, and equality. This judgment noted that constitutional interpretation must evolve with society and must be guided by human dignity and equality. The court emphasized that the Constitution protects all citizens, including those whose identities, expressions or relationships may be unpopular. That ruling was later upheld by the Court of Appeal of Botswana in 2021, reinforcing the principle that constitutional rights cannot be restricted on grounds of moral disapproval alone. These decisions were not theological pronouncements. They were legal determinations grounded in constitutional principles.
The danger of religious majoritarianism
When religion is used to justify legal restrictions, the result is what constitutional scholars call “majoritarian moralism.” It allows the dominant religious interpretation in society to dictate the rights of everyone else. That approach is fundamentally incompatible with constitutional democracy. Botswana is religiously diverse. While Christianity is the majority faith, there are also Muslims, Hindus, traditional spiritual communities, Sikh and people who practice no religion at all. If the law were to follow the doctrines of one religious group, which interpretation would it adopt? Christianity alone contains dozens of denominations with different views on love, equality, marriage, sexuality, and gender. The moment the state begins to legislate on the basis of religious doctrine, it implicitly privileges one belief system over others. That undermines both religious freedom and constitutional equality. Ironically, keeping religion separate from constitutional law is what protects religious freedom in the first place.
Judicial independence is the cornerstone of Botswana’s governance system
The current case involving Bonolo Selelo and Tsholofelo Kumile is before the judiciary, where it belongs. Courts exist to interpret the Constitution and determine whether legislation complies with constitutional rights. Political and religious lobbying, as well as public outrage, must not influence that process.
Judicial independence is the cornerstone of Botswana’s governance system. According to the International Commission of Jurists, judicial independence ensures that courts can make decisions based on law and evidence rather than political or social pressure.
When governments, political, religious, or traditional actors attempt to interfere in constitutional litigation, they weaken the rule of law. Botswana has historically prided itself on having one of the most stable constitutional systems in Africa. The judiciary has played a critical role in safeguarding rights and maintaining legal certainty. The decriminalization case demonstrated this. Despite strong public debate and political sensitivity, the courts assessed the law according to constitutional principles rather than moral panic. The same standard must apply in the current marriage equality case.
This article was first published in the Botswana Gazette, Midweek Sun, and Botswana Guardian newspapers and has been edited for the Washington Blade.
Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a social justice activist.
District of Columbia
D.C. journalist, video producer Sean Bartel dies
Beloved member of Gay Flag Football League found deceased on hiking trail in Argentina
Sean Christopher Bartel, 47, who began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024, was found deceased on a hiking trail near a glacier in Argentina on or around March 15, according to a report by an Argentine newspaper.
The newspaper Clarín reports no foul play was suspected regarding his death, and other local media reports indicate authorities believe he suffered some sort of accident while on the hiking trail.
The Clarín report says Bartel arrived in Argentina on March 3 and visited Buenos Aires and the city of El Chaltén, which is near Argentina’s Los Glaciares National Park and a glacial lagoon popular with hikers. It says his body was found on the trail leading to the glacier.
“The D.C. Gay Flag Football League is heartbroken to learn of the passing of Sean Bartel, one of the most devoted members this league has ever known,” the organization said in a statement. “The story of DCGFFL could not be told without Sean.”
“He was not only a dedicated teammate and a model league member – he was our storyteller and our champion, honoring the competitive greatness, the radiant humor, and the beautiful bonds that make our community so special,” the statement says.
It adds that for years, Bartel served as “our man behind the camera, he drew our community tighter by portraying us with the skill of a professional and the care of a family member.”
Bartel’s LinkedIn page shows he most recently worked for 12 years as Senior Video Producer for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which is described as North America’s largest labor union.
Matt Spense, a spokesperson for the union, told the Washington Blade that Bartel resigned from his job there in 2024 to pursue other career endeavors, but he didn’t know what he did career wise after that time.
Bartel’s LinkedIn page shows he served as a video producer and account supervisor at the Edelman global communications firm based in D.C. from 2010-2013. Prior to that, he worked as a reporter for Sirius XM Radio, Inc. from 2007 to 2012. It shows that from a little over a year — from 2009 to 2010 — he worked as video producer and account executive for the firm North Ridge Communications, but it doesn’t give the company’s location.
He began his career in journalism, his LinkedIn page shows, as a reporter and news and sports anchor at the WHAS TV station in Louisville, Ky., from January 2005 through January 2008.
It says he received a bachelor’s degree in Sports Marketeing and Management in 1999 from Indiana University in Bloomington and a master’s degree from the School of Media and Public Affairs from D.C.’s George Washington University in 2010.
The Blade couldn’t immediately obtain information about surviving family members or funeral arrangements.
Man charged with carjacking, kidnapping after having sex in D.C. park pleads guilty
The rule of law, not the rule of religion
Meet the Scandals, D.C.’s LGBT rugby team
D.C. journalist, video producer Sean Bartel dies
The very few queer highlights of the Oscars
Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
Gay Cameroonian immigrant will be freed from ICE detention — for now
Gaga, Cardi B, and more to grace D.C. stages this spring
‘Are you on PrEP?’
Adolescentes trans en Ecuador podrán cambiar datos en su cédula, pero con condicionamientos
-
The White House4 days agoTrump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
-
Cameroon4 days ago
Gay Cameroonian immigrant will be freed from ICE detention — for now
-
Music & Concerts4 days ago
Gaga, Cardi B, and more to grace D.C. stages this spring
-
Opinions5 days ago
‘Are you on PrEP?’
