Politics
New Jersey court rules in favor of marriage equality
Garden State ordered to issue licenses to gay couples starting Oct. 21

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry (image via wikimedia).
A New Jersey court ruled on Friday in favor of marriage equality on the basis that the state’s current system of civil unions precludes gay couples from receiving the federal benefits of marriage.
In the 53-page decision, Judge Mary Jacobson of the New Jersey Superior Court grants summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, saying same-sex couples must be able to marry under the equal protection guarantee provided under the state constitution. The ruling cites Lewis v. Harris, an earlier decision that led to the creation of civil unions in New Jersey to bring equality to gay couples.
“The equality demanded by Lewis v. Harris now requires that same-sex couples in New Jersey be allowed to marry,” the decision states. “As a result, this court will grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and will order the state to permit any and all same-sex couples, who otherwise satisfy the requirements for civil marriage, to marry in New Jersey.”
If the state doesn’t appeal the ruling, the decision states New Jersey has until Oct. 21 to start distributing marriage licenses to gay couples. The office of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who opposes same-sex marriage. didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on whether an appeal would happen.
But according to the Associated Press, Michael Drewniak, a Christie spokesperson, suggested on Friday the governor intends to appeal the ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
“Gov. Christie has always maintained that he would abide by the will of the voters on the issue of marriage equality and called for it to be on the ballot this Election Day,” Drewniak was quoted as saying. “Since the legislature refused to allow the people to decide expeditiously, we will let the Supreme Court make this constitutional determination.”
The court makes heavy use of the U.S. Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act. Now that the federal benefits marriage are beginning to flow to married gay couples as the result of that decision, the New Jersey court reasons that civil unions are insufficient because the DOMA decision doesn’t apply to them.
“The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts: civil union partners who are federal employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for martial rights with regard to the federal pension system, all civil union partners who are employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married couples enjoy,” the decision states.
The decision reached in the case, known as Garden State Equality et al. v. Dow et al, means New Jersey is set to become the 14th state in the country to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The court reaches the decision as a result of a lawsuit filed in 2011 by Lambda Legal on behalf of Garden State Equality and six plaintiffs couples following a veto of marriage bill by Christie. The lawsuit alleged that civil unions — established in 2007 as a result of the decision in Lewis v. Harris — provided inadequate protections to gay couples.
Hayley Gorenberg, Lambda Legal’s deputy legal director, said the court decision is “thrilling” because it enables gay couples to receive the federal benefits of marriage following the Supreme Court decision against DOMA.
“The end of DOMA made the freedom to marry even more urgent than before because the state stood between these families and a host of federal protections, benefits, rights and responsibilities,” Gorenberg said. “With this ruling, our clients and all of New Jersey’s same-sex couples are at the threshold of the freedom to marry.”
LGBT advocates had been moving forward with plans to override Christie’s veto of same-sex marriage legislation as litigation was proceeding in state court.
Earlier this month, according to the group New Jersey United for Marriage, supporters of same-sex marriage picked up three new votes in favor of same-sex marriage: Assembly members Wayne DeAngelo, Gabriela Mosquera and Holly Schepesi, a Republican, bringing them closer to the two-thirds vote needed in both chambers of the legislature to override Christie’s veto.
Troy Stevenson, executive director for Garden State Equality, said the court decision represents an incredible victory and marriage equality will come to New Jersey one way or the other.
“We have been saying it for months and it stands true today: through litigation or legislation, we will win the dignity of marriage this year,” Stevenson said. “We just won the first round through litigation and we will continue to fight until we guarantee marriage for all New Jersey couples.”
The decision from the New Jersey court wasn’t the only victory on Friday for supporters of same-sex marriage. On the same day in Illinois, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, allowed another consolidated lawsuit known as Darby v. Orr to proceed in state court. That litigation was filed by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union in May 2012.
Assembly member Reed Gusciora, a Democrat and gay lawmaker, commended the court for its decision and said it affirms civil unions are inadequate for same-sex couples.
“The federal government has recognized this,” Gusciora said. “The New Jersey Legislature recognized this. The courts now recognize this. It’s time for the Governor to stop standing in the way of justice and allow this order to be upheld.”
Judge Sophia Hall allowed the case to proceed on the basis of claims that the state law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Illinois denies gay couples equal protection and due process under the state constitution. However, she dismissed claims the same-sex marriage ban violates the state’s constitution’s equal protection on account of sex, the right to privacy and special legislation clause.
Camilla Taylor, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, said her organization is “pleased” the couples represented in the case will have their day in court.
“Illinois’ marriage ban not only brands these couples and their children as inferior under state law, but now that the federal law known as DOMA has been struck down by the Supreme Court, Illinois is the only thing standing between these families and full federal respect for their relationships,” Taylor said. “Loving same-sex couples in Illinois can’t wait any longer for the freedom to marry. We’re excited to get to the next step and make the case for equality.”
Congress
McBride, other US lawmakers travel to Denmark
Trump’s demand for Greenland’s annexation overshadowed trip
Delaware Congresswoman Sarah McBride is among the 11 members of Congress who traveled to Denmark over the past weekend amid President Donald Trump’s continued calls for the U.S. to take control of Greenland.
McBride, the first openly transgender person elected to Congress, traveled to Copenhagen, the Danish capital, with U.S. Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and U.S. Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), Don Bacon (R-Neb.), and Sarah Jacobs (D-Calif.). The lawmakers met with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic MP Pipaluk Lynge, among others.
“I’m grateful to Sen. Coons for his leadership in bringing together a bipartisan, bicameral delegation to reaffirm our support in Congress for our NATO ally, Denmark,” said McBride in a press release that detailed the trip. “Delaware understands that our security and prosperity depend on strong partnerships rooted in mutual respect, sovereignty, and self-determination. At a time of growing global instability, this trip could not be more poignant.”
Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark with a population of less than 60,000 people. Trump maintains the U.S. needs to control the mineral-rich island in the Arctic Ocean between Europe and North America because of national security.
The Associated Press notes thousands of people on Saturday in Nuuk, the Greenlandic capital, protested against Trump. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is among those who have criticized Trump over his suggestion the U.S. would impose tariffs against countries that do not support U.S. annexation of Greenland.
A poll that Sermitsiaq, a Greenlandic newspaper, and Berlingske, a Danish newspaper, commissioned last January indicates 85 percent do not want Greenland to become part of the U.S. The pro-independence Demokraatit party won parliamentary elections that took place on March 12, 2025.
“At this critical juncture for our countries, our message was clear as members of Congress: we value the U.S.-Denmark partnership, the NATO alliance, and the right of Greenlanders to self-determination,” said McBride on Sunday in a Facebook post that contained pictures of her and her fellow lawmakers meeting with their Danish and Greenlandic counterparts.
Congress
Van Hollen speaks at ‘ICE Out for Good’ protest in D.C.
ICE agent killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7
U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is among those who spoke at an “ICE Out for Good” protest that took place outside U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s headquarters in D.C. on Tuesday.
The protest took place six days after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis.
Good left behind her wife and three children.
(Video by Michael K. Lavers)
Congress
Advocates say MTG bill threatens trans youth, families, and doctors
The “Protect Children’s Innocence” Act passed in the House
Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has a long history of targeting the transgender community as part of her political agenda. Now, after announcing her resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives, attempting to take away trans rights may be the last thing she does in her official capacity.
The proposed legislation, dubbed “Protect Children’s Innocence Act” is among the most extreme anti-trans measures to move through Congress. It would put doctors in jail for up to 10 years if they provide gender-affirming care to minors — including prescribing hormone replacement therapy to adolescents or puberty blockers to younger children. The bill also aims to halt gender-affirming surgeries for minors, though those procedures are rare.
Greene herself described the bill on X, saying if passed, “it would make it a Class C felony to trans a child under 18.”
According to KFF, a nonpartisan source for health policy research, polling, and journalism, 27 states have enacted policies limiting youth access to gender-affirming care. Roughly half of all trans youth ages 13–17 live in a state with such restrictions, and 24 states impose professional or legal penalties on health care practitioners who provide that care.
Greene has repeatedly introduced the bill since 2021, the year she entered Congress, but it failed to advance. Now, in exchange for her support for the National Defense Authorization Act, the legislation reached the House floor for the first time.
According to the 19th, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first trans member of Congress, rebuked Republicans on the Capitol steps Wednesday for advancing anti-trans legislation while allowing Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire — a move expected to raise health care costs for millions of Americans.
“They would rather have us focus in and debate a misunderstood and vulnerable one percent of the population, instead of focusing in on the fact that they are raiding everyone’s health care,” McBride said. “They are obsessed with trans people … they are consumed with this.”
Polling suggests the public largely opposes criminalizing gender-affirming care.
A recent survey by the Human Rights Campaign and Global Strategy Group found that 73 percent of voters in U.S. House battleground districts oppose laws that would jail doctors or parents for providing transition-related care. Additionally, 77 percent oppose forcing trans people off medically recommended medication. Nearly seven in 10 Americans said politicians are not informed enough to make decisions about medical care for trans youth.
The bill passed the House and now heads to the U.S. Senate for further consideration.
According to reporting by Erin Reed of Erin In The Morning, three Democrats — U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Don Davis of North Carolina — crossed party lines to vote in favor of the felony ban, joining 213 Republicans. A total of 207 Democrats voted against the bill, while three lawmakers from both parties abstained.
Advocates and lawmakers warned the bill is dangerous and unprecedented during a multi-organizational press call Tuesday. Leaders from the Human Rights Campaign and the Trevor Project joined U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Dr. Kenneth Haller, and parents of trans youth to discuss the potential impact of restrictive policies like Greene’s — particularly in contrast to President Donald Trump’s leniency toward certain criminals, with more than 1,500 pardons issued this year.
“Our MAGA GOP government has pardoned drug traffickers. They’ve pardoned people who tried to overthrow the government on January 6, but now they want to put pediatricians and parents into a jail cell for caring for their kids,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson. “No one asked for Marjorie Taylor Greene or Dan Crenshaw or any politician to be in their doctor’s office, and they should mind their own business.”
Balint, co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, questioned why medical decisions are being made by lawmakers with no clinical expertise.
“Parents and doctors already have to worry about state laws banning care for their kids, and this bill would introduce the risk of federal criminal prosecution,” Balint said. “We’re talking about jail time. We’re talking about locking people up for basic medical care, care that is evidence-based, age-appropriate and life-saving.”
“These are decisions that should be made by doctors and parents and those kids that need this gender-affirming care, not certainly by Marjorie Taylor Greene.”
Haller, an emeritus professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine, described the legislation as rooted in ideology rather than medicine.
“It is not science, it is just blind ideology,” Haller said.
“The doctor tells you that as parents, as well as the doctor themselves, could be convicted of a felony and be sentenced up to 10 years in prison just for pursuing a course of action that will give your child their only chance for a happy and healthy future,” he added. “It is not in the state’s best interests, and certainly not in the interests of us, the citizens of this country, to interfere with medical decisions that people make about their own bodies and their own lives.”
Haller’s sentiment is echoed by doctors across the country.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest organization that represents doctors across the country in various parts of medicine has a longstanding support for gender-affirming care.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” their website reads.
Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, senior vice president of public engagement campaigns at the Trevor Project, agreed.
“In Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill [it] even goes so far as to criminalize and throw a parent in jail for this,” Heng-Lehtinen said. “Medical decisions should be between patients, families, and their doctors.”
Rachel Gonzalez, a parent of a transgender teen and LGBTQ advocate, said the bill would harm families trying to act in their children’s best interests.
“No politician should be in any doctor’s office or in our living room making private health care decisions — especially not Marjorie Taylor Greene,” Gonzalez said. “My daughter and no trans youth should ever be used as a political pawn.”
Other LGBTQ rights activists also condemned the legislation.
Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, called the bill “an abominable attack on the transgender community.”
“Marjorie Taylor Greene’s last-ditch effort to bring her 3-times failed bill to a vote is an abominable attack on the transgender community and further cements a Congressional career defined by hate and bigotry,” they said. “We are counting down the days until she’s off Capitol Hill — but as the bill goes to the floor this week, our leaders must stand up one last time to her BS and protect the safety of queer kids and medical providers. Full stop.”
Hack added that “healthcare is a right, not a privilege” in the U.S., and this attack on trans healthcare is an attack on queer rights altogether.
“Marjorie Taylor Greene has no place in deciding what care is necessary,” Hack added. “This is another attempt to legislate trans and queer people out of existence while peddling an agenda rooted in pseudoscience and extremism.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, also denounced the legislation.
“This bill is the most extreme anti-transgender legislation to ever pass through the House of Representatives and a direct attack on the rights of parents to work with their children and their doctors to provide them with the medical care they need,” Takano said. “This bill is beyond cruel and its passage will forever be a stain on the institution of the United States Congress.”
The bill is unlikely to advance in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to pass.
