News
New Mexico high court rules for marriage equality
Decision makes state the 17th with same-sex marriage on the books
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in favor marriage equality. (Photo public domain)
Capping off a year of historic victories, the New Mexico high court handed down a unanimous ruling on Thursday granting same-sex couples the ability to wed in the state.
The 5-0 decision is written by Justice Edward Chavez, who concludes the current statutory scheme of the marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18, of the state constitution.
“We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law,” the ruling states.
The ruling, which takes effect immediately, makes New Mexico the 17th state with marriage equality on the books. It also retroactively affirms the same-sex marriages for couples who already wed after obtaining marriage licenses from county clerks in the state.
The parties in the lawsuit, Griego v. Oliver, were six same-sex couples as well as all 33 of the state’s county clerks, who sought clarification on whether the state law enabled them to deliver marriage licenses to gay couples. Representing the same-sex couples were the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, the national ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the law firm of Sutin, Thayer & Browne APC as well as New Mexico attorneys Maureen Sanders, N. Lynn Perls and J. Kate Girard.
Laura Schauer Ives, legal director for ACLU-New Mexico, said the decision represents a “historic and joyful day for New Mexico.”
“As a state, we have always strived to treat all families with dignity and respect, and today’s decision allowing loving, committed same sex couples to marry continues that tradition,” Schauer Ives said. “The more than 1,000 same-sex couples who have already married in New Mexico can now rest certain knowing their marriages will be recognized and respected by our state.”
Camilla Taylor, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal, commended her colleagues in the LGBT advocacy community for leading the way to a favorable decision on marriage equality in New Mexico.
“This beautiful unanimous decision explicitly underscores the argument we and our sister organizations have long made: denying same-sex couples the ability to marry imposes significant emotional and dignitary harm and is discrimination, pure and simple,” Taylor said.
New Mexico Gov. Suzanne Martinez, who opposes same-sex marriage but didn’t actively defend the marriage law, said in a statement she’ll abide by decision, but wish it were settled differently.
“My personal views on this issue are well-known, and I’m confident that most New Mexicans believe, like I do, that it should have been settled by a vote of the people,” Martinez said. “Instead, the Supreme Court stepped in and rendered their decision. While there will surely be intense debate about this decision moving forward, I encourage New Mexicans to continue to respect one another in their discourse, as this is an important issue for many New Mexicans on both sides.”
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said immediate after the ruling he had no “official reaction,” but offered some thoughts.
“I would say that we welcome that ruling, and this is another example of the extraordinary progress that’s been made when it comes to equal rights for LGBT Americans in this country,” Carney said.
Justices make use of the June decision from the U.S. Supreme Court against Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, noting the decision leaves marriage equality as the only option for same-sex couples to receive the federal benefits and for the state to avoid a federal challenge to its state law.
“Interpreting our statutes to authorize committed same-gender couples to enter into civil marriage will grant them the rights and privileges available to opposite-gender married couples in approximately one thousand statutes and federal regulations that refer to a person’s marital status, thereby avoiding a constitutional challenge on that basis,” the decision states.
The decision is the culmination of a drawn-out process over the course of 2013. It started in March with Santa Fe Mayor David Coss introducing a resolution, later approved the city council, saying marriage equality was already legal in New Mexico because of the gender-neutral construction of some portions of state law. That’s the conclusion Judge Alan Malott reached in a decision earlier this year extending marriage equality to Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties.
Notably, the court rejects in its decision the notion that marriage is already legal under the current state statutory scheme, observing that the legislature has passed laws, such as one changing the marriage application forms in 1961, defining marriage in opposite-sex terms.
“Thus, we conclude that a mix of gender-neutral and gender-specific terminology in the domestic relations statutes does not mean that the Legislature intended to authorize marriage between same-gender couples,” the decision states. “On the contrary, we conclude that the statutory scheme reflects a legislative intent to prohibit same-gender marriages.”
LGBT groups followed up with the Santa Fe resolution by filing a lawsuit on behalf of same-sex couples seeking to wed in New Mexico. Attorney General Gary King issued an opinion saying he wouldn’t defend the marriage law against a legal challenge in court on the basis that the law was unconstitutional.
Prior to the ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court, a total of eight county clerks were already distributing marriage licenses to same-sex couples either through court order as a result of the litigation or on their own volition based on their interpretation of state law. An estimated 58.5 percent of New Mexico’s population had access to marriage equality prior to the Supreme Court ruling.
Attorney General King and plaintiffs in the case were pushing the idea that gays and lesbians are a suspect class and laws related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny — a idea with which New Mexico Supreme Court concurs because of the history of persecution faced by the LGBT community.
“Therefore, we conclude that intermediate scrutiny must be applied in this case because the LGBT community is a discrete group that has been subjected to a history of purposeful discrimination, and it has not had sufficient political strength to protect itself from such discrimination,” the ruling states.
It’s possible the opponents of the decision could place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2014 that would rescind the decision, but only by legislative referral, not by initiative petition. It’s unclear at this time what the legislature will do. Democrats hold strong majorities in both chambers of the New Mexico legislature.
Brian Brown, president of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, promised in a statement to pursue action to protect people in New Mexico who don’t support same-sex marriage.
“Once again, activists judges have thrown out the historic legal understanding of marriage in New Mexico,” Brown said. “This is a continuation of a very dangerous rush towards silencing people of faith who simply believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. The National Organization for Marriage will do everything in its power to protect believers of true marriage in New Mexico and around the nation from the fallout of radical judges who deny the truth of marriage.”
Marc Solomon, national campaign director of Freedom to Marry, said his organization is prepared to fight to make sure the New Mexico decision stays in place.
“We have a campaign that we played a lead role in setting up and are on the board of, New Mexico Unites for Marriage, to protect the decision and defeat any efforts to amend the constitution,” Solomon said. “We’ve hired a campaign manager and there’s a field and media team on the ground, lobbyists, and more. It’s cochaired by former Republican Gov. Gary Johnson and Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham.”
Rehoboth Beach
Celebrated performer Rose Levine plays Rehoboth on May 15
Freddie’s to host Fire Island legend
Rose Levine is a celebrated entertainer best known for her longstanding performances in Cherry Grove, Fire Island, since 1955 where she has become a beloved fixture of the community’s vibrant arts and nightlife scene. With a career spanning decades, Levine has captivated audiences with her cabaret singing shows full of charisma, classic numbers, humor, and unmistakable stage presence—proving that some stars don’t fade, they simply get better lighting.
Levine is also closely associated with the legendary Fire Island Invasion of the Pines, the annual Fourth of July spectacle in which performers and revelers make their grand (and gloriously over-the-top) entrance by boat from Cherry Grove to Fire Island Pines, now a 50-year tradition. Her role in launching and sustaining this tradition has helped make it one of the most iconic—and entertaining—events of the summer season.
A consummate storyteller, Levine brings audiences along for a glittering ride through entertainment history. Rose will sing her Broadway melodies by Jerry Herman, Irving Berlin, Cy Coleman, Cole Porter, and others. With music direction by Mark Hartman the one-night-only event will celebrate Levine’s legendary life in drag, featuring signature crowd-pleasers and celebrity stories. A friend of Broadway composer Jerry Herman, she shares delicious stories of legends like Ethel Merman and recalls a young Barbra Streisand before she became Barbra Streisand while both performing at the famed singing contests at Greenwich Village’s famed Lion nightclub before her big break at the Bon Soir. Her shows are a mix of music, mischief, and memories of old New York and Fire Island — back when Cherry Grove didn’t even have electricity, but somehow still had better nightlife than most cities today.
Her legendary Fire Island home, Roseland, has hosted its fair share of unforgettable gatherings (and likely a few stories that can’t be printed in a family newspaper), making it a cornerstone of the community’s social scene. Levine splits her time between Manhattan and her summer perch on Fire Island—though audiences across the country are grateful she travels.
In fact, she performs at The Green Room and 54 Below in Manhattan, Cherry Grove in Fire Island, Act 2 and The Palm in Puerto Vallarta, Red Dot Cabaret in Hudson, N.Y., and now Freddie’s in Rehoboth Beach—because retirement, frankly, sounds boring. Her place in the Guinness Book of World Records as the oldest continuously performing drag queen in the world only adds to the legend and gives her bragging rights she fully intends to use.
And now, Rehoboth—consider yourself warned.
Don’t miss Rose Levine live on May 15 at Freddie’s Beach Bar. Dinner begins at 6:30 p.m., with the show at 7 p.m. Come for the cocktails, stay for the stories, and leave wondering how one person can have that many fabulous decades.
Levine’s legacy is defined not only by her remarkable career, but by her ability to connect with audiences across generations—usually while making them laugh, gasp, and occasionally blush. Don’t miss this show.
Federal Government
Senate Democrats press DOJ over anti-trans prison directives
Markey joins other lawmakers in demanding reversal of policies
U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is urging acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and William Marshall III, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to reverse a policy affecting transgender inmates that lawmakers say is “endangering” their “health and safety.”
Markey, along with U.S. Sens. Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), sent the letter that the Washington Blade verified on Monday.
The letter is a direct response to a change in prison policy that went into effect in February 2025, rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates. The senators described how President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” forced a policy shift they argue is rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
In the letter, the lawmakers wrote “On Feb. 21, 2025, the BOP issued a memo to implement President Trump’s EO, requiring BOP staff to ‘refer to individuals by their legal name or pronouns corresponding to their biological sex,’ banning the use of funds for any ‘items that align with transgender ideology,’ and suspending clothing accommodations, pat search accommodations, and support programs offered to transgender individuals.”
“In a second memo, issued one week later, the BOP banned the use of federal funds for ‘any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.’ These changes have resulted in the denial — or threatened denial — of hormone treatment and gender-affirming accommodations for transgender individuals in BOP custody.”
“On Feb. 19, 2026, the BOP escalated its attacks, issuing a program statement titled, ‘Management of Inmates with Gender Dysphoria.’ It prohibits incarcerated people from receiving gender-affirming care, even if paid for with private funds. This practice forces incarcerated people to discontinue care, regardless of medical recommendations.”
The senators continued, “The agency has repeatedly enacted policies that strip transgender individuals of their gender identity and dignity. This includes requiring staff to refer to transgender individuals by pronouns that ‘align with their biological sex’ rather than gender identity and to confiscate gender-affirming items, such as undergarments, clothing, cosmetics, and wigs.”
“These policies risk triggering mental health crises, including increased suicidality, among incarcerated people with gender dysphoria. The BOP’s repeated guidance to roll back gender-affirming protections — despite a federal court order finding that the BOP’s actions to discontinue gender-affirming care are likely unlawful — generate confusion about the current state of regulations and convey the BOP’s indifference to court orders and the rule of law.”
“By stripping away appropriate medical and psychiatric care, safety protections, and measures to provide dignity, the BOP is exposing transgender individuals to significant harm.”
The Marshall Project, a nonprofit newsroom focused on the U.S. criminal justice system and immigration enforcement through data-driven reporting, also reported on the policy change. The outlet spoke with Shana Knizhnik, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, about the impact of the changes.
“It’s clear that this new policy is a ban on gender affirming healthcare,” Knizhnik, who works for the nationwide chapter of the ACLU said. “This is a policy that disregards the medical needs of our plaintiffs.”
The letter also asked the BOP and the DOJ specific questions regarding why the policy went into effect, as lawmakers suggested the changes appear politically motivated rather than based on new medical evidence regarding treatment for trans inmates.
The senators requested answers to these trans policy-specific questions by May 21, including:
“Does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impacts of recent policies that eliminate gender-affirming medical and psychiatric care?”
“Since January 20, 2025, how many transgender, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-diverse individuals have been transferred to a different facility to meet the EO’s goal of housing individuals ‘according to their biological sex?’”
“Given that the BOP has stopped enforcing Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations related to gender identity and collecting data on gender identity, how will the BOP protect the physical and emotional health and safety of incarcerated transgender individuals?”
“How does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impact of eliminating protections against sexual violence for this population?”
“Does the BOP plan to institute a specific process by which transgender individuals may seek assistance or lodge complaints regarding harms they experience from the recent BOP policies and actions implementing President Trump’s EO?”
“Describe the specific criteria the BOP intends to use to determine whether it will allow a ‘social accommodation’ for gender dysphoria.”
Markey also included a personal statement to the Blade explaining why he is using his position on Capitol Hill to push for more information and advocate for reversing the policy.
“This administration continuously shows their contempt for trans people and a total disregard for their rights and humanity. As part of this cruel campaign, the Bureau of Prisons has systematically stripped health care access and basic protections from trans people, abandoning its duty to the people in its custody. I won’t stop fighting until this administration’s hateful anti-trans policies are reversed and trans people’s rights are secured.”
The Blade reached out to the DOJ and the BOP for comment but had not received a response at press time.
Arts & Entertainment
Washington Blade’s Pride on the Pier returns June 13 to kick off D.C. Pride week
Pride on the Pier officially launches Pride Week in D.C.
The Washington Blade’s annual Pride on the Pier celebration returns to The Wharf on Saturday, June 13, 2026 from 4-9 p.m., bringing thousands of LGBTQ community members and allies together for an unforgettable waterfront celebration to kick off Pride week in Washington, D.C.
Now in its eighth year, Washington Blade Pride on the Pier extends the city’s annual celebration of LGBTQ visibility to the bustling Wharf waterfront with an exciting array of activities and entertainment for all ages. The District Pier will offer DJs, dancing, drag, and other entertainment. Alcoholic beverages will be available for purchase for those 21 and older.
“Pride on the Pier has become one of the signature moments of Pride in D.C.,” said Lynne Brown, publisher of the Washington Blade. “There’s nothing like watching our community come together on the waterfront with live music and incredible energy as we kick off Pride week.”
Pride on the Pier is free and open to the public, with VIP tickets available for exclusive pier access to the Dockmaster Building. To purchase VIP tickets visit www.prideonthepierdc.com/vip.
Additional entertainment announcements, sponsor activations, and event details will be released in the coming weeks.
Event Details:
📍 Location: District Pier at The Wharf (101 District Sq SW, Washington, DC)
📅 Dates: Friday, 13, 2026
⏱️ 4-9PM
🎟️ VIP Tickets: www.PrideOnThePierDC.com/VIP
Celebrated performer Rose Levine plays Rehoboth on May 15
The rise of accidental landlords
Senate Democrats press DOJ over anti-trans prison directives
Washington Blade’s Pride on the Pier returns June 13 to kick off D.C. Pride week
National tour of ‘Gatsby’ comes to National Theatre
PHOTOS: Miss Gay Western Maryland
Memorial service for trans rights advocate SaVanna Wanzer set for May 17
LGBTQ people, weed, and mental health: what you need to know
Your guide to D.C. region’s many Pride celebrations
New Vatican report acknowledges LGBTQ Catholics feel isolated in the church
-
Photos5 days agoPHOTOS: Miss Gay Western Maryland
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
Memorial service for trans rights advocate SaVanna Wanzer set for May 17
-
Cannabis Culture4 days ago
LGBTQ people, weed, and mental health: what you need to know
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Your guide to D.C. region’s many Pride celebrations
