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.”
Ecuador
Caso Karlina: Una sentencia histórica contra las terapias de «conversión»
Karlina Quiroz, una mujer trans de Chone, fue internada contra su voluntad
La última vez que Karlina Quiroz, una mujer trans de 57 años, salió sola a la calle en Chone, terminó encerrada contra su voluntad en un centro de rehabilitación donde intentaron “corregir” su identidad de género mediante humillaciones, amenazas y agresiones.
Han pasado cinco años desde ese episodio, ocurrido en 2021; y el 11 de septiembre de 2026 Karlina por fin obtuvo justicia.
La Fiscalía informó, el 14 de septiembre, que el Tribunal de Garantías Penales de Chone sentenció a seis personas por actos de odio contra Karlina, al ser víctima de violencia basada en su identidad de género.
Entre los seis sentenciados están sus dos hermanos, que —según la denuncia de Karlina— ordenaron su encierro a este centro.
El caso de Karlina refleja el odio y la violencia hacia personas trans en Ecuador y vuelve a poner bajo la lupa la existencia de centros conocidos como clínicas de “deshomosexualización” o espacios de “terapias de conversión”.
De acuerdo con la denuncia presentada por Karlina, en julio de 2021 fue interceptada por varios hombres y trasladada contra su voluntad a un centro para el tratamiento de adicciones ubicado en Chone, Manabí, en la vía a Pedernales. Allí permaneció retenida y sometida a tratos degradantes, violencia psicológica y agresiones físicas.
Según su testimonio, durante el encierro recibió insultos relacionados con su identidad de género y amenazas orientadas a “modificarla”.
Karlina denunció, además, que esta no habría sido la primera vez. Según su relato, en 2019 permaneció aproximadamente tres meses internada de manera forzada en otro centro de rehabilitación, también ubicado en la vía a Pedernales, en Chone. Durante ese período habría sido sometida a dinámicas similares de aislamiento, control y presiones dirigidas a modificar su identidad y expresión de género.
Según información de la Fiscalía, en septiembre de 2021, como parte de las diligencias investigativas, se allanó el centro clandestino en Chone. Allí se recabaron indicios relacionados con el internamiento forzoso de Karlina durante tres meses.
Con esos y otros elementos de convicción obtenidos durante la investigación, la Fiscalía inició un proceso penal contra las seis personas, quienes fueron luego llamadas a juicio.
El proceso, explicó Karlina, incluyó los dos casos: el de 2019 y 2021. “El crimen se investigó desde que comenzó la primera gota de sangre”, señaló Karlina, en alusión a la violencia física que sufrió en su primer encierro.
De los seis sentenciados, tres fueron condenados como autores directos a cuatro años de pena privativa de libertad. Se trata de los dos hermanos de Karlina y un sobrino, por ordenar su encierro al centro de adicciones.
Los otros tres recibieron una pena de dos años, como cómplices.
De acuerdo con Karlina, uno de ellos es el director del primer centro al que fue ingresada contra su voluntad en 2019 por tres meses, y los otros dos son quienes la interceptaron la segunda ocasión, en julio de 2021, para llevarla al centro. Ella los señala como “capturadores” de las personas que son recluidas en los centros.
“Cuando recibí la noticia (el viernes 11 de septiembre durante la audiencia de juzgamiento) no podía creerlo. Las piernas me temblaron y las lágrimas se me salieron. Estoy tranquila y satisfecha”, señaló Karlina en una llamada telefónica.
Para Pedro Gutiérrez, abogado especialista en derechos humanos, la sentencia es importante no solo por reconocer un delito de odio, sino también por las características de los hechos: el ingreso (por orden de sus hermanos) a un centro de “deshomosexualización” en el que se cometen actos de tortura y violencia física.
Durante la audiencia, constó el testimonio de Karlina. La Fiscalía también presentó el informe de reconocimiento del lugar de los hechos, la inspección ocular técnica, el levantamiento de evidencias y los testimonios de personas que confirmaron que los actos de violencia por perjuicio hacia su identidad de género fueron ejecutados de manera reiterada por los ahora sentenciados.
El caso volvió a poner la atención sobre las llamadas terapias de conversión en Ecuador, prácticas ampliamente cuestionadas por organismos internacionales de derechos humanos y señaladas como formas de tortura o violencia psicológica. Aunque el Estado ecuatoriano ha realizado operativos y clausuras de algunos centros en los últimos años, organizaciones sociales sostienen que estos espacios continúan funcionando de manera clandestina o bajo otras denominaciones.
La legislación ecuatoriana penaliza los actos de tortura con la intención de modificar la orientación sexual o identidad de género, pero no existe una sanción contra los centros que ofrecen las denominadas terapias de conversión.
En 2020, la Asamblea aprobó el Código Orgánico de Salud y una de sus disposiciones fue prohibir expresamente este tipo de terapias, pero fue vetado totalmente por el expresidente Lenín Moreno en medio de una campaña de sectores antiderechos.
La sentencia también dispuso, como reparación integral a favor de Karlina, tratamiento psicológico e indemnizaciones por daños materiales e inmateriales.
Gutiérrez considera que la reparación para Karlina es limitada, pues -por ejemplo- no hay llamados de atención al Ministerio de Salud o disculpas públicas a la víctima.
“Mi nombre es Ariel Karlina Zambrano, soy una mujer trans de Chone, Manabí. Desde niña supe que quería ser mujer, quería ser bonita, libre. Pero mi familia nunca lo aceptó. Mis hermanos y mi padre, profundamente machistas, me maltrataban constantemente”, contó Karlina en un testimonio en 2025 que recogió el Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (CDH).
Para activistas y defensores de derechos humanos, el caso de Karlina evidencia además un patrón de violencia que suele permanecer oculto dentro de círculos familiares, religiosos y comunitarios. En muchos casos, explican, los internamientos forzados son promovidos bajo la idea de “corregir” orientaciones sexuales o identidades de género consideradas inaceptables.
Karlina intentó vivir en Chone, creyendo que con la denuncia y las medidas cautelares estaba a salvo, pero su hermano le pagaba a personas para que la acosaran, según su relato. Por ello, tuvo que esconderse por meses.
Las personas trans en Ecuador enfrentan altos niveles de discriminación, violencia y exclusión social, especialmente fuera de las grandes ciudades. Según la Encuesta Nacional sobre las Condiciones de Vida de la Población LGBTI+ del INEC, el 53,5 por ciento de las personas LGBTQ mayores de 18 años en el país ha sufrido algún tipo de discriminación o violencia a lo largo de su vida, siendo el entorno familiar uno de los principales espacios de agresión.
En materia de violencia letal, organizaciones como Asociación Silueta X y el Observatorio Runa Sipiy documentaron 30 asesinatos de personas LGBTQ y transfemicidios en Ecuador durante 2025. De esos casos, alrededor del 70 por ciento corresponden a mujeres trans, lo que las posiciona como el grupo más expuesto a crímenes de odio y violencia extrema.
Diversas organizaciones de derechos humanos han advertido además sobre la persistencia de centros de “deshomosexualización” o internamientos forzosos, prácticas denunciadas desde hace más de una década en Ecuador pese a prohibiciones estatales y operativos de control insuficientes.
El caso de Karlina pone a prueba algo más grande que una sentencia individual: si Ecuador está dispuesto o no a reconocer que estas prácticas siguen existiendo y que la violencia contra personas LGBTQ continúa ocurriendo, muchas veces con la complicidad o el silencio de sus propios entornos familiares.
“Con mi caso, debe quedar un precedente. Debemos luchar contra el odio que podemos encontrarlo dentro de nuestras propias familias. Por nuestra libertad y derechos, debemos luchar”, indicó Karlina.
Netherlands
Dutch prime minister visits Stonewall Inn
Rob Jetten is the Netherlands’ first openly gay prime minister
Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten on Monday visited the Stonewall Inn in New York.
“The Stonewall Inn is not just a gay bar in New York, but the place where in 1969 riots took place as a reaction to years of discrimination and police violence,” wrote Jetten on X. “This is seen as the starting point of the global LGBTIQ+ emancipation and activism. Nowadays, the bar is a national monument, dedicated to the LGBTIQ+ rights movement.”
“For me, it is impressive and moving to be here tonight. And also fitting, because the defense of human rights is an important part of our foreign policy,” he added. “The Netherlands stands alongside the Stonewall Inn community when it comes to everyone’s right to live openly, safely, and with pride, no matter who you are or who you love.”
De Stonewall Inn is niet zomaar een gay bar in New York, maar de plaats waar in 1969 rellen plaatsvonden als reactie op jarenlange discriminatie en geweld van de politie. Dit wordt gezien als startpunt van de wereldwijde lhbtiq+-emancipatie en activisme. Tegenwoordig is de bar… pic.twitter.com/hJmFYjF91Z
— Rob Jetten (@MinPres) September 23, 2026
Jetten in February became the Netherlands’s first openly gay prime minister.
He opened last month’s World Pride Human Rights Conference in Amsterdam. Jetten also participated in a panel with former Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, former San Marino Captain Regent Paolo Rondelli, and other current and former heads of government who are gay or lesbian.
Jetten is scheduled to speak to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday.
District of Columbia
Capital Pride chair resigns from board after just 10 months
Anna Jinkerson ‘taking step back to move forward’
Anna Jinkerson, who has served as chair of D.C.’s Capital Pride Alliance Board of Directors for the past 10 months and has served on the board for the past four years, confirmed she is resigning from the board effective Sept. 30.
Capital Pride Alliance serves as the lead organizer of D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events.
“I am taking a step back to move forward and plan to stay engaged in the community,” Jinkerson told the Washington Blade in a statement. “Serving as a volunteer leader during a period of transition following World Pride was both an honor and a challenge,” she said.
“Throughout my tenure, I focused on strengthening accountability, improving communications, supporting staff and volunteers, and helping position the organization for long-term success,” she told the Blade in her statement. “Meaningful organizational progress requires collaboration, dedication, and a shared commitment to serving the community, and I am proud of the work accomplished during this period.”
In February of this year, during Jinkerson’s tenure on the board, Capital Pride announced it had expanded the size of its board from 12 to 25 members.
Around that same time one of the existing board members, transgender activist Taylor Lianne Chandler, announced in a letter to fellow board members that the Blade obtained from an anonymous sender that she was resigning from the board. Among her reasons for resigning, she said in the letter, was the board’s failure to address “sexual misconduct” within the Capital Pride organization.
In the letter, which she confirmed for the Blade was authentic, Chandler said she and other board members raised “credible concerns” of alleged sexual misconduct within the Capital Pride organization and the board chose not to adequately respond to those concerns.
Chandler told the Blade a Capital Pride investigation identified an individual implicated in a “pattern” of sexual harassment related behavior, but said she was bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement that applied to all board members and she could not provide further details.
When the Blade contacted Capital Pride for comment on Chandler’s allegations, Jinkerson responded with a statement saying Capital Pride was addressing her concerns.
“When concerns are brought to CPA, we act quickly and appropriately to address them,” Jinkerson said. “As we continue to grow our organization, we’re proactively strengthening the policies and procedures that shape our systems, our infrastructure, and the support we provide to our team and partners,” she said.
In her statement to the Blade this week commenting on her planned resignation from the Capital Pride board, Jinkerson appeared to refer to the concern raised by Chandler.
“I am proud to have advocated for sexual harassment training, supported staff and volunteers when concerns were raised, engaged community leaders in important conversations, and helped advance practices that strengthen safety, transparency, and accountability,” she said.
“As I step away from board service, I do so with gratitude for the opportunity to serve and with confidence in the organization’s future,” she added. “I am taking a step back to move forward, and I look forward to remaining actively engaged in our community and continuing to support efforts that advance equality, belonging, and pride for all.”
Caso Karlina: Una sentencia histórica contra las terapias de «conversión»
Washington Blade responds to concerns over White House pool duties
Young people should know history of the fight for human rights
Dutch prime minister visits Stonewall Inn
Clavicular charged in alleged rape of teenage influencer
Over 2,000 turn out for Hands Around the Kennedy Center protest
PHOTOS: Wanda Alston Foundation Fall Reception
PHOTOS: Walk and 5K to End HIV
What LGBTQ veterans are building after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
