Politics
Another ‘marriage moment’ before year’s end?
Action underway in New Mexico, Illinois and Hawaii
Marriage equality has come to New Jersey under Gov. Chris Christie as Illinois state Rep. Greg Harris and Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie seek passage of legislation. (Washington Blade photos of Christie and Abercrombie by Michael Key; photo of Greg Harris via Livestream).
The month of October 2013 could go down in history as a milestone in the marriage equality movement.
In addition to New Jersey becoming the 14th state in the country to make same-sex marriage legal, states across the country in recent days saw developments in the legislatures and the courts on marriage equality that could expand that roster of equality states by the end of the month.
James Esseks, director of the LGBT project for the American Civil Liberties Union, predicted during a conference call with reporters last week the activity on same-sex marriage this month could create another “marriage moment.”
“I think we are approaching another marriage moment this fall with potential developments in three to four states coming soon,” Esseks said.
The action on marriage comes on the heels of the filing of new litigation both in federal and state courts as well as new legislative efforts seeking marriage equality initiated after the Supreme Court ruled on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 in June.
Dan Pinello, a political scientist at the City University of New York, said the activity on marriage equality at this time is in part the result of the Supreme Court’s actions.
“The high court’s decision unleashed a floodgate of pent-up demand in the LGBT community that is finding true expression in a tidal wave of federal litigation,” Pinello said. “The ruling also prompted an increased awareness of newly recognized constitutional rights among federal judges in the lower courts. The outcomes of all this legal activity will emerge over the next several years.”
The Washington Blade has already provided coverage of developments on marriage equality in New Jersey and Michigan. Here are details on other states in recent weeks.
New Mexico
The New Mexico Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a case brought by all 33 New Mexico clerks, state district courts and a group of same-sex couples seeking a determination on whether state law permits same-sex marriage.
The arguments in the case, Griego v. Oliver, were divided into two portions. The first examined whether the current statutory scheme for marriage under New Mexico law already allows same-sex marriage because portions of it are gender-neutral. In the second, attorneys made their case on whether same-sex couples have a guaranteed right under the state constitution to marry regardless of what the statute says.
Representing Republican lawmakers seeking to prohibit same-sex marriage in New Mexico was attorney James Campbell, who argued that only the legislature has authority to legalize marriage rights for gay couples. Campbell maintained marriage under New Mexico law is reserved for opposite-sex couples because “those unions, unlike same-sex unions, have a natural ability to procreate.”
Campbell also argued that the court shouldn’t determine gay people should be considered a suspect class because they enjoy political power. The legalization of same-sex marriage through state legislatures as well as the Democratic Party and President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, Campbell said, is evidence of this political power.
Representing the views in court of District Judge Alan Mallot, who had previously ruled that same-sex couples can marry because of the gender-neutral language in the marriage law, was attorney Daniel Ivey-Soto.
Attorney General Gary King sent two attorneys to argue a more middle-ground argument. Assistant Attorney General Scott Fuqua argued that the current gender-neutral statute doesn’t permit same-sex marriage, but Assistant Attorney General Sean Cunniff maintained gay couples should be allowed to marry under the equal protection provisions under the state constitution.
Same-sex couples were represented by attorney Maureen Sanders, who articulated a similar view. She argued the gender-neutral law doesn’t allow gay couples to marry in New Mexico, but said “denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a violation of the New Mexico Constitution.”
Sanders also argued gay people should be considered a suspect class. The court shouldn’t look to the recent advancement in LGBT equality, she said, but the long history of discrimination the LGBT community has experienced.
Justices appeared skeptical of the idea of continuing to ban same-sex couples from marrying in New Mexico. In response to Campbell’s argument that marriage is for procreation, Chief Justice Charles Daniels noted many benefits related to marriage aren’t given to couples based on whether they’ve had children.
Despite hopes that the court would issue a ruling on marriage equality at the conclusion of the arguments, justices signaled as they began they would need more time. It’s unclear when a decision could come down, although it could be a matter of weeks.
Nevada
The federal marriage equality case that is closest to the Supreme Court is also seeing movement as proponents of marriage equality — following the lead of Lambda Legal, which is responsible for the lawsuit — were set to weigh in on bringing marriage equality to Nevada.
On Oct. 18, Lambda Legal filed a 100-page brief before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, a lawsuit the organization filed last year. Because the case is now before an appellate court, it’s the most advanced lawsuit that’s pending before federal courts.
The opening brief makes use of the U.S. Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act by arguing that Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage deprives gay couples of the crucial benefits just as the anti-gay federal law had done.
“By foreclosing same-sex couples from marriage, Nevada inflicts virtually the same collection of federal harms and deprivations on unmarried same-sex couples as DOMA previously did, since nearly all federal benefits are unavailable to unmarried couples, regardless of whether they are registered domestic partners,” the brief states.
A major component of the argument that Lambda makes against the ban on same-sex marriage is the state’s domestic partnership system is inadequate for gay couples even though it provides them the legal equivalent of marriage.
“Relegating same-sex couples to registered domestic partnership is no remedy,” the brief states. “That novel, inferior status qualifies unmarried same-sex couples for virtually no federal benefits, and instead designates same-sex couples as second-class citizens and subjects them to a host of practical difficulties and vulnerabilities.”
Accompanying the opening brief is a motion to the court for permission to file another brief no longer than 26,500 words for “an adequate exposition of the plaintiff couple’s claims.”
Friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of marriage equality were also due in the case on Wednesday. That marks the opportunity for the Obama administration to weigh in on the lawsuit by filing its own friend-of-the-court brief in the case. Lambda has previously said it would “welcome” a brief from the U.S. Justice Department in the case, but as of Tuesday had no information on whether one would be forthcoming.
Illinois
All eyes will be on the Illinois Legislature in the coming days as lawmakers return for a “veto session” that will likely include a vote in the State House on marriage equality.
On Tuesday, the first day of the veto session, supporters held a “March on Springfield” to urge passage of the marriage equality legislation. Speakers at a rally held near the State Capitol Building included Gov. Pat Quinn and U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).
According to Buzzfeed, Durbin invoked the Supreme Court decision against DOMA while speaking before the estimated 2,300 attendees about passing marriage equality legislation.
“Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, I say to members of the Illinois House of Representatives, you have an awesome and historic decision,” Durbin said. “Will you offer to everyone married in our state — regardless if straight, gay, lesbian, whatever — will you offer them the same federal benefits, or will you discriminate against some.”
The regular session of the legislature concluded in May, to the dismay of supporters of same-sex marriage, without a vote on same-sex marriage legislation in the House that was earlier passed in the Senate. Gay State Rep. Greg Harris declined to bring the legislation to a vote because he believed it lacked sufficient support for passage.
Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, expressed confidence that lawmakers would act during the veto session to pass the legislation based on recent polling data from Fako & Associates in Lisle, IL, showing a 12-point margin in support of marriage equality.
“Amongst key constituencies like African Americans, there’s a 20-point spread, amongst Latino voters, there’s a 30-point spread, amongst American Catholics, there’s a 30-point spread,” Cherkasov said. “There’s strong business support. Illinoians expect lawmakers will do their job and the pass the bill.”
Because the legislature in is in a veto session, different rules apply to passing legislation. A bill that would go into effect immediately, as the Senate-passed marriage equality legislation does, would require a supermajority of 71 votes in the House for passage. But bills that go into effect at a later date need only a simple majority of 60 votes for passage. The veto session consisted of two days this week, followed by a break, and another three days when lawmakers return on Nov. 5.
Cherkasov said the bill is “definitely within striking distance” in the House for votes to passage under the lower 60-vote threshold, which he said could be arranged by amending the House bill to go into effect on June 1 and passing that bill in the Senate.
Asked whether he wants the bill to come up for a vote during the veto session regardless of whether supporters think it has the necessary votes, Cherkasov said, “I do believe that if it came to the floor that it would pass.”
Advocates are pursuing same-sex marriage legislation in Illinois as a state lawsuit seeking marriage equality in the state, Darby v. Orr, is pending in Cook County Circuit Court.
Hawaii
Efforts to pass same-sex marriage legislation are also underway in Hawaii, where Gov. Neil Abercrombie has called for a special session of the legislature starting Oct. 28 for the purpose of debate and passage of marriage equality.
Donald Bentz, executive director of Equality Hawaii, said he’s “optimistic” the session will lead to marriage equality in the Aloha State because of stories of “love and commitment” heard by legislators.
“Polls indicate that the majority of Hawaii’s residents support marriage equality and are buoyed by the growing list of business, faith, political and nonprofit leaders who are standing up in support of the freedom to marry,” Bentz said.
Depending upon the length of time the legislature chooses to debate the marriage bill, the special session could go as quickly as five working days or take two full weeks.
Bentz said the marriage equality legislation enjoys “a wide margin” of support in the Senate, but not so much in House. A vote tally conducted by the Honolulu Civil Beat last month found that 26 House members support the legislation. Passage of the bill in that chamber requires 27 votes.
Since the time that article was published, Bentz said State Rep. Karen Awana has gone on record as a “no” vote, but State Rep. Mark Takai has come out as a “yes” vote. That would give the bill the 27 votes necessary for passage.
Advocates are pursuing same-sex marriage legislation in Hawaii as litigation seeking marriage equality in the state, Jackson v. Abercrombie, is pending alongside the Nevada lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit.
Tennessee
The most recent lawsuit seeking marriage equality in the federal court system was filed on Tuesday by the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of four legally married same-sex couples seeking recognition of their unions.
The lawsuit, known as Tanco v. Haslam, was filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and private attorneys Abby Rubenfeld, Maureen Holland, Regina Lambert along with the firm of Sherrard & Roe and is pending before the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Tennessee.
Shannon Minter, NCLR’s legal director, said the lawsuit is a useful addition to other cases pending in 19 other states because it helps draw attention to the lack of LGBT rights in the South.
“We think it is important to bring cases that highlight the damage that is being caused by discriminatory state marriage bans across the country, including especially in southern states,” Minter said. “I am very hopeful we will obtain a positive result in this case, which would be hugely beneficial to LGBT people in Tennessee, and also be a huge boost to creating even more positive national momentum.”
One couple in the lawsuit, Dr. Valeria Tanco and Dr. Sophy Jesty, is expecting their first child this spring and is worried state law won’t recognize them both as legal parents. Another couple, Sgt. Ijpe DeKoe and Thom Kostura, married just before DeKoe was deployed for a tour of duty in Afghanistan.
The litigation is one of two cases seeking marriage equality in federal courts lying within the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The other case is the federal litigation pending before the district court in Michigan.
The White House
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
App’s head of global government affairs a long-time GOP-aligned lobbyist
Gay dating and hookup app Grindr will host its first-ever White House Correspondents’ Weekend party on April 24.
The event is scheduled for the night before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an annual gathering meant to celebrate the First Amendment, honor journalism, and raise money for scholarships.
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association, a group of journalists who regularly cover the president and the administration.
An invitation obtained by the Washington Blade’s Joe Reberkenny and Michael K. Lavers reads:
“We’d be thrilled to have you join us at Grindr’s inaugural White House Correspondents’ Dinner Weekend Party, a Friday evening gathering to bring together policymakers, journalists, and LGBTQ community leaders as we toast the First Amendment.”
The Blade requested an interview with Joe Hack, Grindr’s head of global government affairs, but was unable to reach him via phone or Zoom. He did, however, provide a statement shared with other outlets, offering limited explanation for why the company decided 2026 was the year for the app to host this event.
“Grindr represents a global community with real stakes in Washington. The issues being debated here — HIV funding, digital privacy, LGBTQ+ human rights — are daily life for our community. Nobody does connections like Grindr, and WHCD weekend is the most iconic place in the country to make them. We figured it was time to host.”
Hack said the company has been “well received” by lawmakers in both parties and has found “common ground” on issues such as HIV funding and keeping minors off the app. He credited longstanding relationships in Washington and what he described as Grindr’s “respectful” approach to lobbying.
Hack, a longtime Republican-aligned lobbyist, previously worked for several GOP lawmakers, including U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.).
According to congressional disclosure forms compiled by OpenSecrets, Grindr spent $1.3 million on lobbying in 2025— more than Tinder and Hinge’s parent company Match Group.
“This is going to be elevated Grindr,” Hack told TheWrap when describing the invite-only party that has already generated buzz on social media. “This isn’t going to be a bunch of shirtless men walking around. This is going to be very elevated, elegant, but still us.”
He also pointed to the company’s work on HIV-related initiatives, including efforts to maintain federal funding for healthcare partners that distribute HIV self-testing kits through the app.
The event comes at a particularly notable moment for an LGBTQ-focused connection platform to enter the Washington social circuit at a high-profile political weekend, as LGBTQ rights remain under constant attack from conservative lawmakers, particularly around transgender healthcare, sports participation, and public accommodations.
2026 Midterm Elections
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
Referendum to take place April 21
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ civil rights organization, has endorsed a Virginia ballot initiative that would allow the state to redraw its congressional districts this year, ahead of the 2030 Census.
Currently, Virginia’s Redistricting Commission — a legislative body made up of eight legislators and eight citizens, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats — is responsible for redrawing congressional districts every 10 years following the Census. The proposed amendment would temporarily shift that authority to the Virginia General Assembly through 2030, before returning it to the commission in 2031.
Supporters say the push for the amendment comes in response to anti-democratic moves by several Republican-led state legislatures following demands from President Donald Trump, which have resulted in newly gerrymandered congressional maps that advocates argue disenfranchise pro-equality voters.
Under the proposed map in Virginia, Democrats could gain as many as four of the five seats currently held by Republicans in this fall’s midterm elections, when control of the narrowly divided House is up for grabs.
Six states — including Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina on the GOP side — enacted new maps last year at Trump’s behest. The most significant Democratic counter-effort so far has come from California.
HRC President Kelley Robinson issued a statement backing the measure, encouraging Virginia voters who support democracy to vote “yes,” saying it would ensure “the will of the people is heard.”
“Voters should choose their leaders, not the other way around. But anti-equality lawmakers around the country, in service to Donald Trump’s assaults on democracy, are trying to undermine our elections and engineer their preferred outcome in the midterms,” Robinson said. “The American people are ready to take Congress back from the anti-equality, anti-freedom politicians that have been abusing their power to hurt all our communities and bend government to the will of a wannabe king.”
U.S. Rep. Don Beyer, who represents Virginia’s 8th Congressional District that encompasses much of Washington’s suburbs, including Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church, and parts of eastern Fairfax County — has also voiced support for the measure. He has called Trump’s attempts to influence elections ahead of the November midterms a “betrayal of our democracy,” emphasizing that while the fight is ongoing, this effort is a step toward correcting the situation.
“It’s not a done deal by any means,” Beyer said in an op-ed for the Cardinal News. “We have to effectively make the case that even though this seems unfair in Virginia, it’s totally fair for America, for those of us who believe that taking back the House is the most significant thing we can do to stop Donald Trump.”
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is another staunch supporter of the amendment, arguing that it would, through bipartisan means, help counterbalance Trump’s efforts in what remains an uphill battle.
“As early voting begins tomorrow on Virginia’s redistricting amendment, voters should know that Virginia’s approach is different. It is temporary, directly responsive to what other states decide to do, and — most importantly — it preserves Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting process for the future,” the first female governor of the state said in a statement. “I supported the formation of Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting commission in 2020, and that support has not changed. What has changed is what we’re seeing in states across the country — and a president who says he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats before this year’s midterm elections.”
“Virginians have the opportunity to take action in response to this extraordinary moment in history,” she added. “That’s why, as a Virginia voter, I’m voting in favor of this amendment.”
Virginians for Fair Elections, the group responsible for marketing the initiative, has raised nearly $50 million dollars, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonpartisan organization focusing on sharing public documents related to financial matters of the state. The ads notably feature former President Barack Obama, who supports the measure and has hailed it as a way to “level the playing field.”
In a recent Politico article, a person close to the White House, granted anonymity, suggested the outlook for Trump’s governing majority is weakening — particularly following the unraveling of the Iran war — underscoring why the administration is pushing Republican-led states to maximize their advantage ahead of the midterms.
“This war in Iran almost cements the fact that we lose the midterms in November — the Senate and House,” the person said.
According to The Economist, Trump holds a 37 percent approval rating, with 56 percent of respondents disapproving of his handling of the presidency.
This is not the first time Virginia has held a special election for a statewide ballot initiative. Most recently, in 1956, voters approved a measure that led to the use of public funds to provide tuition grants for students attending nonsectarian private schools.
Early voting is already underway in the Old Dominion, with Election Day set for April 21.
Politics
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
President threatened to destroy Iranian civilization in Truth Social post
Following multiple brazen Truth Social posts this week related to the ongoing war with Iran — one which he said he could wipe out “a whole civilization,” — Democrats are seizing the opportunity to gain momentum in ousting President Donald Trump from office.
As the war with Iran continues to unfold, Trump appears increasingly frustrated — and willing — to use any means necessary to achieve his goals of ending the country’s nuclear capabilities, destroying its military, and ushering in regime change. So far, none of these goals have been met. As his frustration grows, so do calls to invoke a never-before-used safeguard for the nation—the 25th Amendment.
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday morning. “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”
This came only days after Trump posted a now-deleted, expletive-filled demand for the country to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on Easter Sunday, saying, “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.” On the same day, Trump told The Hill he would not rule out sending ground troops. And he told Fox News Sunday that he’s “considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil” if Iran doesn’t accept his deal.
The president then set a new deadline of 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday for Iran to reach a deal with the U.S., marking yet another extension, which did lead to a two-week ceasefire.
Since the president’s tirade, Democratic legislators in federal office have condemned his words, while Republicans are quietly standing behind him. Former Trump allies are among the loudest voices advocating for invoking the 25th Amendment, as some in international government organizations have sharply called Trump’s threats illegal.
“If there’s an attack on clearly civilian infrastructure, that is not allowed under international humanitarian law,” Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the United Nations secretary-general, said last week.
That concern is heightened by the broader human rights landscape in Iran, where violations of international legal standards are already well documented — particularly when it comes to LGBTQ people.
Iran has some of the harshest laws in the world regarding LGBTQ rights, policies that human rights advocates say are themselves in violation of international law.
Under the country’s legal system, all sexual activity outside a traditional Islamic marriage is illegal, including same-sex relations. Sexual activity between members of the same sex is criminalized and, in some cases, punishable by death under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code.
With international officials raising concerns about the legality of Trump’s threats, the conversation in Washington has increasingly shifted from condemnation to potential consequences, namely, whether the 25th Amendment could be used to hold him accountable.
“Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which has never been invoked, allows for the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries (or another body as Congress may provide) to declare the president unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office,” according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. “The vice president would then immediately assume the role of acting president.”
Although there seems to be momentum from Trump adversaries, this is unlikely, according to PolitiFact.
“For all of the partisan chatter, it is highly unlikely this legal procedure to remove a president will happen,” Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman wrote for the nonprofit political fact-checking website that is operated by the Poynter Institute.”Trump has the support of Vice President JD Vance, his Cabinet and the majority of Republicans in Congress.”
Delaware Congresswoman — and the first transgender legislator on Capitol Hill — Sarah McBride issued a statement in response to Trump’s words.
“In a political career defined by grotesque statements, this president’s horrifying, illegal, and genocidal threat this morning is among the most dangerous and appalling,” McBride said. “You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and a president cannot be allowed to threaten genocide with the United States military. Threats of war crimes and disregard for human life must be met with accountability under the law.”
She then, like many others, called for removing the president from office to protect the American people.
“Trump must go — and Republicans, whether in the Cabinet or Congress, must join Democrats in using any and all constitutional powers at our collective disposal to end this illegal war and take the gun out of this madman’s hands,” said McBride, the Congressional Democratic Women’s Caucus whip.
Mark Takano, the first openly gay person of color elected to Congress, pointed out that Trump’s ceasefire is only temporary, and does not ensure that Americans won’t be called to fight in a war they didn’t ask for.
“We heard no plan to end this war and no commitment to keep American boots out of Iran,” Takano said on X.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first openly gay member elected to the U.S. Senate, used her platform to remind Trump — and the world — that diplomacy remains critical.
“Diplomacy has always been the answer, which is why the president shouldn’t have gotten us into this war of choice,” a statement read on X. “It’s been reckless, cost U.S. soldiers their lives, and is raising prices on families. A ceasefire is a start, but Congress needs to do our jobs and end this war.”
“The House must pass articles of impeachment, and then the Senate must vote to convict and remove the President,” U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights wrote in a statement on X. “Or, the Cabinet and vice president, with congressional concurrence, must invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump.”
“Donald Trump’s instability is more clear and dangerous than ever,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Multiple other Democrats also called for removing the president for violating international and constitutional law. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for “this unhinged lunatic” to “be removed from office.” U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said, “Threatening war crimes is a blatant violation of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.” U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), told Midas Touch Journalist Scott MacFarlane “In the last 48 hours alone, the rhetoric has crossed every line.”
In addition to Democrats, some staunch Trump supporters have also been loudly criticizing the president’s handling of the Iran war.
Conspiracy theorist, former Trump confidant, and $1.3 billion defamation case loser for spreading far-right lies, Alex Jones, asked “How do we 25th Amendment his ass?” on Monday’s InfoWars show.
Georgia Republican, former member of the House of Representatives, and former high-profile MAGA ally Marjorie Taylor Greene called Trump’s post about destroying civilizations “evil and madness” and posted a simple “25TH AMENDMENT!!!”
Victory Fund brunch draws top LGBTQ officials, 2028 hopeful Andy Beshear
Inside the lonely world of MAGA gay men
PHOTOS: National Champagne Brunch
PHOTOS: Night of Champions
‘Big Mistakes’ an uneven – but worthy – comedic showcase
Science said stop; the Supreme Court said no
Response to a personal attack against me
Queery: Meet artist, performer John Levengood
Charlie Kirk Act advances in Tenn.
