National
Prop 8 plaintiffs lead Calif. couples in tying the knot
Ninth Circuit lifts stay on marriage equality; Anti-gay groups cry foul but are dismissed
Attorney General Kamala Harris marries Prop 8 plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier (Blade screenshot by Chris Johnson)
The jubilation following two Supreme Court decisions in favor of marriage equality continued on Friday as plaintiffs in the lawsuit against California’s Proposition 8 became the first in the Golden State to marry after the demise of the ban on same-sex marriage.
The lesbian couple in lawsuit — Kris Perry and Sandra Stier — was first to marry in California and did so at 4:45 pm in a San Francisco City Hall ceremony officiated by California Attorney General Kamala Harris.
Shortly thereafter at 6:15 pm, the gay male couple — Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo — married in Los Angeles in a ceremony over which Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa officiated during his last day in office.
During the ceremony for Perry and Stier, Harris noted the long road on which the couple had journeyed since they filed their lawsuit in 2009 to restore marriage equality to California. Their son, Elliott Perry, served as a witness.
“Four years ago, Kris and Sandy embarked upon a journey that most couples do not experience,” Harris said. “By joining the case against Proposition 8, they represented thousands of couples like themselves in the fight for marriage equality.”
San Francisco City Hall stayed open until 8 pm to issue marriage licenses and will reopen from 9 am to 5pm Saturday and Sunday while the city celebrates June as Pride month.
Same-sex weddings resumed in California in the same city hall where nearly a decade ago then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom jump started the marriage equality movement by handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples before the court ordered him to stop.
The weddings were able to commence in California thanks to the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals lifting its stay on the injunction that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker put in place in 2010 prohibiting the enforcement of Prop 8. The lifting of stay was the consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court determination that anti-gay groups lack standing to defend Prop 8 in court.
In between the ceremonies for lesbian and the gay male couple, the plaintiffs held a conference call with reporters to talk about the jubilation they felt over finally being able to marry. They were joined by Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, and American Foundation for Equal Rights attorney Ted Boutrous.
Griffin said “we are all more American” on the day marriage equality resumed in California and emphasized gay nuptials in the Golden State are here to stay.
“Marriage has finally returned to the great state of California, and no one — no judge, no election and no politician — can take it away,” Griffin said.
Asked by the Washington Blade how it feels to finally be married after the completion of the lawsuit, Perry said she needs to wait until tomorrow for it to register.
“Right now, we feel victorious and thrilled and relieved, really, to be at the end of this long journey, and now finally able to move forward as a regular married couple just like everybody else,” Perry said.
Katami said he doesn’t much more to add as he prepared for his wedding ceremony, but noted the feeling of finally being able to marry was satisfying.
“I can tell you this: equal feels different,” Katami said. “We woke up on Thursday and this morning feeling like full citizens that will be recognized by our state, and recognized by our federal government. And we know that in just a few short minutes, Jeff and I will be able to call each other husband officially.”
In response to a question on whether plaintiffs received any advanced notice that the Ninth Circuit would lift its stay, advocates said on the call they had none but were nonetheless ready to spring into action when it happened.
But amid the excitement, anti-gay forces cried foul over what they said was a breach of protocol by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in lifting the stay prematurely.
Legal observers had said they had a 25-day waiting period after the Supreme Court ruling in which proponents of Prop 8 could file for reconsideration. Even so, reconsideration is either rarely granted or never happens.
Andrew Pugno, an attorney with ProtectMarriage.com, posted a statement called the lifting of the stay an “outrageous act” and said the resumption of same-sex marriage has been obtained “by illegitimate means.”
“Homosexual marriage is not happening because the people changed their mind,” Pugno said. “It isn’t happening because the appellate courts declared a new constitutional right. It’s happening because enemies of the people have abused their power to manipulate the system and render the people voiceless.”
It’s unclear what recourse, if any, anti-gay forces have to fight the lifting of the stay after the Supreme Court determined they lack standing in court. Pugno said “it remains to be seen whether the fight can go on” as he said the development made for “a disgraceful day.”
LGBT advocates strongly pushed back on the notion that anti-gay forces had more options.
Asked by the Blade about this concern, Boutrous said Ninth Circuit “quite correctly” viewed itself as having the power to lift the stay and is “totally authorized by the court’s rules and by federal rules.”
“We’ve had cases where courts have lifted the stay in much more boring cases than this one,” Boutrous said. “And it makes sense here because you look at the possibility of success for the other side: it’s zero.”
Asked by another reporter if the Supreme Court or en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit could issue a stay if Prop 8 proponents asked for one during the 25-day waiting period, Boutrous said “no” because the high court determined the Ninth Circuit has no jurisdiction in the case.
Boutrous also dismissed another question on whether Prop 8 proponents could take action in state court, noting the federal injunction against Prop 8 would trump anything from state judges.
Those on the call also had no comment on what would happen if certain counties refused to hand marriage licenses to gay couples, referring a question on the matter from Reuters to the attorney general’s office.
The reaction from Stier was more mirthful in response to a question on what plans she and Perry had for a honeymoon.
“We didn’t have a lot of time to plan one, as you might well imagine, because we were at work when we found out we could get married today,” Stier said. “But next on our order of things to plan are a celebration, which means a reception, and then we need a honeymoon.”
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Queer American in Israel discusses Iran war’s impact
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
Ensuring safer drinking water
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
