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.”
Philippines
Philippines Supreme Court rules same-sex couples can co-own property
Advocacy group celebrated landmark decision
The Philippines Supreme Court in a landmark ruling said same-sex couples can co-own property under the country’s Family Code.
The Philippine News Agency on Tuesday notes the court issued its ruling in the case of two women who bought a house in Quezon City, a suburb of Manila, the Filipino capital, before they broke up.
The two women, according to the Philippine News Agency, “agreed to sell the property” after they ended their relationship, “and the registered owner — the respondent — signed a document acknowledging that the other partner paid for half of the purchase and renovations.” The Philippine News Agency notes “the registered owner” later “refused to sell the property and withdrew her earlier acknowledgment of co-ownership, prompting the other partner to file a complaint.”
A Regional Trial Court and the Philippines Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court in a 14-page ruling it issued on Feb. 5 overturned the decisions. The Supreme Court published its decision on Tuesday.
“Considering that there is co-ownership between petitioner and respondent, then each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as her share is concerned,” said the Supreme Court in its ruling, according to the Philippine News Agency. “Having rightful interest over the subject property, petitioner has the right to demand the division of the subject property.”
The predominantly Catholic country’s Family Code defines marriage as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.” It also states in Article 148 that “in cases of cohabitation” outside of marriage, “only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions.”
“In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal,” it reads.
The BBC reported the Supreme Court ruling states this provision “applies to all forms of co-habitation,” regardless of the couple’s gender. A Supreme Court press release indicates the decision notes lawmakers and the Filipino government “must address same-sex couples’ rights, as courts alone cannot resolve all related policy concerns.”
“This court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples,” it reads. “With the political, moral, and cultural questions that surround the issue concerning the rights of same-sex couples, political departments, especially the Congress must be involved to quest for solutions, which balance interests while maintaining fealty to fundamental freedoms.”
LGBT Pilipinas, a Filipino advocacy group, welcomed the ruling.
“This ruling marks a monumental step forward in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ families and relationships in the country,” it said in a statement.
LGBT Pilipinas added the ruling “lays a crucial legal foundation for broader recognition of same-sex relationships and strengthens the push for comprehensive anti-discrimination protections.”
“This is a win not only for the LGBTQ+ community, but for fairness and justice in Philippine society as a whole,” said the group.
Florida
Disney’s Gay Days ‘has not been canceled’ despite political challenges
GayDays is moving forward with its planned LGBTQ meet-up
Gay Days in Orlando is preparing for its 2026 gathering though organizers have yet to release full details.
Concerns emerged about the status of the annual meetup of LGBTQ people at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Fla., after social media posts and multiple news outlets reported the event would not take place this year.
In response to inquiries from the Blade, Josh Duke, co-owner of Gay Days, clarified that an update would come this week.
“At this time, I’d like to clarify that Gay Days Orlando has not been canceled,” an email to the Blade said. “We are currently finalizing details regarding our plans for 2026 and will be making an official announcement later this week.”
Earlier this week, Gay Days posted about a pause in their plans for the annual meeting, which quickly gained traction online.
In an official statement on social media, Gay Days organizers cited several factors behind what had initially appeared to be a cancellation of their 2026 event.
“Changes to our host hotel agreement, the loss of key sponsorship support, and broader challenges currently impacting LGBTQIA+ events nationwide made it impossible to deliver the experience our community deserves,” organizers wrote. However, the statement added, “This is a pause — not an ending.”
In a longer message shared with supporters, organizers elaborated on that now-reversed decision.
“Gay Days Family — it is with very heavy hearts that we share Gay Days 2026 will not take place this year. This was an incredibly difficult decision and one that was only made after every possible option was explored.
“Gay Days has always been more than an event — it is community, family, and a place where so many memories are made. While this pause is painful, it also gives us the opportunity to step back, listen, and begin shaping a stronger and reimagined GayDays for the future. Thank you for your continued love, patience, and support. This is not goodbye — it’s a reset, and we look forward to creating the future of GayDays together.”
GayDays, which began in 1991, encourages queer Disney fans to visit the Orlando theme park while wearing red shirts to identify one another. Originally focused on gay men reclaiming the childhood joy often denied due to homophobia, the event has expanded over the years to include LGBTQ+ families on summer vacations and queer couples honeymooning in the Magic Kingdom.
Disney made history in 2019 by holding its first-ever official Pride event at its European park, Disneyland Paris. In 2023, Disneyland California hosted the first U.S. official Pride event.
Concerns about the potential cancellation had arisen amid broader challenges affecting LGBTQ events nationwide. These include changes in hotel agreements, sponsorship support, and Florida’s increasingly restrictive anti-LGBTQ policies under Gov. Ron DeSantis. Florida currently has an equality score of -3.00 out of 49 from the Movement Advancement Project, which evaluates states based on policies affecting relationship and parental recognition, nondiscrimination, religious exemptions, LGBTQ youth, healthcare, criminal justice, and transgender identity documentation.
Recent legislation in Florida has included prohibitions on hormone replacement therapy for transgender minors, restrictions on adult access to treatment, bans on drag performances for those under 18, bathroom bans for transgender people in state buildings, and expansion of the Parental Rights in Education Act, commonly called the “Don’t Say Gay” law. These measures limit public school instruction or discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity.
Gay Days Anaheim is scheduled to take place at Disneyland Resort in September.
Disney has also maintained a focus on Pride, reporting in 2022 that proceeds from Pride merchandise benefited numerous LGBTQ organizations, including GLSEN, PFLAG, The Trevor Project, Zebra Coalition, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, the LGBT Center Orange County, the San Francisco LGBT Center, and the Ali Forney Center. Pride merchandise sold internationally supports local LGBTQ organizations in those regions.
More details about this event are expected to be released on Friday.
New York
Pride flag removed from Stonewall Monument as Trump targets LGBTQ landmarks
The new NPS policy targets Pride flags amid consistent efforts from the Trump administration to minimize LGBTQ history.
A rainbow Pride flag flying at the Stonewall National Monument in New York was removed at the direction of Trump administration officials at the National Park Service, according to a source familiar with the matter who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity.
The source said the move had been in the works for weeks and is part of ongoing efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to erase LGBTQ identity from federally controlled landmarks.
In response to the Blade’s request for information about the new flag policy, the National Park Service provided the following statement:
“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points. The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose. These include historical context or reenactments, current military branch flags, flags of federally recognized tribal nations affiliated with a park, flags at sites co-managed with other federal, state, or municipal partners, flags required for international park designations, and flags displayed under agreements with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Naturalization ceremonies.”
The statement also included official guidance on the display of non-agency flags issued by Trump-appointed National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron.
The Blade reached out to other organizations to confirm the status of the Pride flag last week, including the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, and the National Parks Conservation Association. None were able to provide details about whether the flag was still flying at that time but it has since been removed.
This action aligns with other moves targeting and erasing LGBTQ history. In September, the Blade reported that three organizations originally slated to receive more than $1.25 million from the National Park Service’s Underrepresented Communities Grant Program would no longer receive funding: In Washington, D.C., the Preservation League had been awarded $75,000 to document LGBTQ+ historic resources. In Providence, R.I., the Preservation Society was slated for $74,692 to conduct an LGBTQ+ survey and prepare a National Register nomination. And in New York, the Fund for the City of New York, Inc., had been awarded $32,000 to nominate the residence of Bayard Rustin — the iconic civil rights and LGBTQ activist — as a National Historic Landmark.
Attitude! French ice dancers nail ‘Vogue’ routine
Philippines Supreme Court rules same-sex couples can co-own property
Disney’s Gay Days ‘has not been canceled’ despite political challenges
Pride flag removed from Stonewall Monument as Trump targets LGBTQ landmarks
Capital Pride wins anti-stalking order against local activist
LGBTQ Venezuelans in Colombia uncertain about homeland’s future
D.C. bar Rush facing eviction on charge of failing to pay rent
Blade, Pride House LA announce 2028 Olympics partnership
D.C. non-profits find creative ways to aid the unhoused amid funding cuts
Calendar: February 6-12
-
Colombia5 days agoLGBTQ Venezuelans in Colombia uncertain about homeland’s future
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
D.C. bar Rush facing eviction on charge of failing to pay rent
-
Sports5 days ago
Blade, Pride House LA announce 2028 Olympics partnership
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
D.C. non-profits find creative ways to aid the unhoused amid funding cuts
