Opinions
Supreme Court considers taking marriage cases
‘We are better people than what these laws represent’

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss seven petitions from five different states today urging the Court to decide the constitutionality of state laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage on a nationwide basis. The Supreme Court has complete discretion over whether or not to take a case. And no one knows if the Court will decide whether to take any of the cases at this time or defer its decision until a future conference this fall. Indeed, the Court will have a lot to cover at its first conference with 53 petitions in other cases on its schedule as well. However, we could learn possibly as early as Tuesday whether the Court will take up the issue of the freedom to marry nationwide this term, with a substantive, definitive decision likely in June 2015.
The momentum toward marriage equality in the courts has accelerated at breakneck speed in the just over a year since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Windsor invalidated Section 3 of the misnamed “Defense of Marriage Act,” a statute that prohibited the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples validly performed in states with marriage equality. Since Windsor, 27 federal courts have found state bans to be unconstitutional, with only one lower federal court upholding such a ban. Significantly, all four federal appellate decisions, from which the seven petitions to the Supreme Court come, favor equality. Judges ruling for the freedom to marry include appointees of Presidents Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama. Federal District Judge Richard Young of Indiana described in his ruling the winning streak as a phenomenon “never” before “witnessed … throughout the federal court system ….” Similarly, 13 state courts have ruled in favor of marriage equality, with only one opposed.
The petitions before the Supreme Court arise out of federal appeals court decisions striking down five states’ marriage bans: Indiana (7th Circuit), Oklahoma (10th Circuit), Utah (10th Circuit), Virginia (4th Circuit), and Wisconsin (7th Circuit). All of the cases present the issue of whether or not a state may prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. However, the cases differ as well, and the justices likely will be considering these differences in determining which case or cases to take. Attorneys for same-sex couples in each of the cases have argued the particular circumstances of their individual cases make them desirable for review.
One difference in the cases is that the Oklahoma case raises only the issue of whether a state may ban same-sex couples from marrying under its state laws, while the other states’ cases also involve challenges to whether a state must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples validly married in other states. If the Supreme Court were to strike down state marriage bans nationwide, the Court would not need to decide if and when one state must recognize marriages performed in other states. Alternatively, if the Court declined to decide the issue nationwide or upheld state marriage bans, the issue of recognition of out of state marriages could be very important.
The various states’ laws at issue in the petitions also differ. For instance, Wisconsin permits same-sex couples to enter into domestic partnerships, affording them limited legal rights, while the other states with petitions before the Court do not. The wording of the marriage bans and the history of the political campaigns to pass them vary from state to state. Procedural histories of the cases differ as well. For instance, in Virginia, the Attorney General, representing the state defendant agrees that the ban is unconstitutional, and local county clerks are defending the state ban. In the other states, the state has uniformly defended the bans. The attorneys in each case differ, too, and include lawyers from groups who have been advocating for LGBT equality for decades, such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and the ALCU.
The legal bases for striking down the bans also differ between the various federal appellate decisions before the Court. The appellate courts in the Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia cases invalidated those state bans on the grounds that that they violated same-sex couples’ “fundamental right to marry,” while the appellate court in the Indiana and Wisconsin cases struck down those states’ bans on the grounds that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are entitled to elevated scrutiny under the Constitution. Windsor held that DOMA violated the Constitution’s guarantees of both liberty and equality. Both issues, and very possibly whether the bans constitute unlawful sex discrimination, will doubtlessly be argued before the Court regardless of which case or cases it takes. However, the Justices may consider the logic or rationale of one or more of the appellate court decisions particularly useful for review.
Two additional federal appellate circuits will likely weigh in this fall as well. The Sixth Circuit heard cases arising out of marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee in early August, and the Ninth Circuit heard cases from Idaho and Nevada in early September. From relevant circuit court precedent and the questions and comments the judges made at oral argument, most observers believe the Ninth Circuit will very likely rule in favor of equality, but the outcome of the Sixth Circuit cases is much harder to predict.
In remarks last week at the University of Minnesota, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fueled speculation that the Court might wait to determine whether or not to take a case until the Sixth Circuit rules. She stated that there would be “no need for [the Supreme Court] to rush” if the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the freedom to marry, as all the other circuits who have addressed the issue since Windsor have. However, she said that a Sixth Circuit ruling against equality would create “some urgency” for the Court to step in. The Supreme Court often takes cases to resolve disputes among the circuits.
Further, the Supreme Court will take a case if four of the nine justices vote to hear it. The Supreme Court has stayed decisions in the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits from taking effect until final resolution of the cases. If the Sixth and Ninth Circuits were also to rule in favor of equality, most observers believe it unlikely that the four justices who dissented in Windsor would simply let all the petitions be dismissed by voting to deny review — effectively permitting marriage equality in 20 additional states located in those circuits. But if the Supreme Court held the petitions until a circuit court ruled against the freedom to marry, many thousands of LGBT Americans could have to wait even longer for a decision. Regardless of how the Sixth Circuit rules, the issue of marriage equality is, in fact, “urgent,” for LGBT Americans, many of whom have been together for decades without legal recognition and protection.
Many of us would love to be a proverbial “fly on the wall” at the justices’ conference chamber, but we will of course have to wait until the Court makes public its decisions from the conference either later this week or on Oct. 6, the official beginning of the new term. Federal District Judge John E. Jones III, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion, invalidating Pennsylvania’s marriage ban: “We are better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.” That time cannot come too soon.
John Lewis is legal and policy director for Marriage Equality USA.
I hope you have a great Thanksgiving and can enjoy it with family and friends and that you have things you can be thankful for this past year. That you have your health. Now here is the column I would have liked to share with you this Thanksgiving:
To all my friends and family. This year I am thankful the felon has left the White House. It feels we can all finally breath again. I am so happy his idea of a ballroom at the White House was a joke, and we can once again walk in Jackie Kennedy’s rose garden, and visit the beautiful East Wing. I am thankful the felon’s personal Goebbels, Stephen Miller, lost his job when the reality that he was a fascist was too much to take. It was wonderful to see the Supreme Court wake up and do their job once again. They stopped drinking the MAGA Kool-Aid and voided all the executive orders calling on museums to hide the history of Black Americans, women, and the LGBTQ community. They told the president he didn’t have the right to place tariffs, and that he couldn’t fire legally appointed members of commissions under the rubric of Congress’s control.
Then I am thankful the Congress began to do its job. That so many Republicans grew a set of balls and decided to challenge Speaker Mike ‘sycophant’ Johnson, reminding him they were an independent part of government, and didn’t need to rubber stamp everything the felon wanted. I was thankful to see them extend the SNAP program indefinitely, and the same with the tax credits for the ACA, agreeing to include these important programs in next year’s budget. Then they went further, and paid for the programs, by rescinding all the tax benefits they had given to the wealthy, and corporations, in the felon’s big ugly bill. Finally realizing it is the poor and middle class who they had to help if the country was to move forward. Then I can’t thank them enough for finally passing the Equality Act, and doing it with a veto proof majority, so the felon had to sign it, before he left office. They did the same for the Choice Act, and the Voting Rights Act. It was a glorious year with so much to be thankful for.
Then I am so thankful Congress finally stood up to the felon and said he couldn’t start wars without their approval, and the Supreme Court ruled they were right. That attacking Venezuela was not something he had the right to do. Then the final thing the court did this year I am thankful for, is they actually modified their ruling on presidential immunity, and said the felon’s grifting was not covered, as under their decision that was private, and not done in his role as president. Again, can’t thank them enough for waking up and doing that.
Then there is even more I am thankful for this year. It was so nice to see Tesla collapse, and Musk lose his trillion-dollar salary. The people finally woke up to him and insisted Congress mandate the satellite system he built, basically with money from the government, was actually owned by the government, and he could no longer control who can use it. It was determined he alone would not be able to tell Ukraine whether or not they can use it in their war defending against the Russian invasion. Then I am so thankful Congress went even further, and approved the funds needed by the Ukrainians for long-range missiles, and a missile defense system, accepting Ukraine was actually fighting a proxy war for the West, and Ukraine winning that war would help keep our own men and women off the battlefield.
And speaking of our military, I thank Congress for lifting the ban on transgender persons in the military, and honoring their service, along with the service of women, Black service members, all members of the LGBTQ community, and all minorities. It was fun to see Pete Hegseth being led out of the Pentagon, and being reminded he wasn’t the Secretary of War. There is no Department of War, it is still the Department of Defense, with congressional oversight. Again, so many things to be thankful for this past year. It seemed like my heart runneth over.
Then my alarm went off and I woke up from my big beautiful dream, only to realize I was still living in the Trumpian nightmare.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Commentary
Elusive safety: what new global data reveals about gender, violence, and erasure
Movements against gender equality, lack of human rights data contributing factors.
“My identity could be revealed, people can say whatever they want [online] without consequences. [Hormone replacement therapy] is illegal here so I’m just waiting to find a way to get out of here.”
-Anonymous respondent to the 2024 F&M Global Barometers LGBTQI+ Perception Index from Iraq, self-identified as a transgender woman and lesbian
As the campaign for 16 Days Against Gender-Based Violence begins, it is a reminder that gender-based violence (GBV) — both on– and offline — not only impacts women and girls but everyone who has been harmed or abused because of their gender or perceived gender. New research from the Franklin & Marshall (F&M) Global Barometers and its report A Growing Backlash: Quantifying the Experiences of LGBTQI+ People, 2022-2024 starkly show trends of declining safety among LGBTQI+ persons around the world.
This erosion of safety is accelerated by movements against gender equality and the disappearance of credible human rights data and reporting. The fight against GBV means understanding all people’s lived realities, including those of LGBTQI+ people, alongside the rights we continue to fight for.
We partnered together while at USAID and Franklin & Marshall College to expand the research and evidence base to better understand GBV against LGBTQI+ persons through the F&M Global Barometers. The collection of barometers tracks the legal rights and lived experiences of LGBTQI+ persons from 204 countries and territories from 2011 to the present. With more than a decade of data, it allows us to see how rights have progressed and receded as well as the gaps between legal protections and lived experiences of discrimination and violence.
This year’s data reveals alarming trends that highlight how fear and violence are, at its root, gendered phenomena that affect anyone who transgresses traditional gender norms.
LGBTQI+ people feel less safe
Nearly two-thirds of countries experienced a decline in their score on the F&M Global Barometers LGBTQI+ Perception Index (GBPI) from 2022-2024. This represents a five percent drop in global safety scores in just two years. With almost 70 percent of countries receiving an “F” grade on the GBPI, this suggests a global crisis in actual human rights protections for LGBTQI+ people.
Backsliding on LGBTQI+ human rights is happening everywhere, even in politically stable, established democracies with human rights protections for LGBTQI+ people. Countries in Western Europe and the Americas experienced the greatest negative GBPI score changes globally, 74 and 67 percent, respectively. Transgender people globally reported the highest likelihood of violence, while trans women and intersex people reported the highest levels of feeling very unsafe or unsafe simply because of who they are.
Taboo of gender equality
Before this current administration dismantled USAID, I helped create an LGBTQI+ inclusive whole-of-government strategy to prevent and respond to GBV that highlighted the unique forms of GBV against LGBTQI+ persons. This included so-called ‘corrective’ rape related to actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression” and so-called ‘conversion’ therapy practices that seek to change or suppress a person’s gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics. These efforts helped connect the dots in understanding that LGBTQI+ violence is rooted in the same systems of inequality and power imbalances as the broader spectrum of GBV against women and girls.
Losing data and accountability
Data that helps better understand GBV against LGBTQI+ persons is also disappearing. Again, the dismantling of USAID meant a treasure trove of research and reports on LGBTQI+ rights have been lost. Earlier this year, the US Department of State removed LGBTQI+ reporting from its annual Human Rights Reports. These played a critical role in providing credible sources for civil society, researchers, and policymakers to track abuses and advocate for change.
If violence isn’t documented, it’s easier for governments to deny it even exists and harder for us to hold governments accountable. Yet when systems of accountability work, governments and civil society can utilize data in international forums like the UN Universal Periodic Review, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Sustainable Development Goals to assess progress and compliance and call for governments to improve protections.
All may not be lost if other countries and donors fill the void by supporting independent data collection and reporting efforts like the F&M Global Barometers and other academic and civil society monitoring. Such efforts are essential to the fight against GBV: The data helps show that the path toward safety, equality, and justice is within our reach if we’re unafraid of truth and visibility of those most marginalized and impacted.
Jay Gilliam (he/him/his) was the Senior LGBTQI+ Coordinator at USAID and is a member of the Global Outreach Advisory Council of the F&M Global Barometers.
Susan Dicklitch-Nelson (she/her/hers) is the founder of the F&M Global Barometers and Professor of Government at Franklin & Marshall College.
Commentary
Second ‘lavender scare’ is harming our veterans. We know how to fix it
Out in National Security has built Trans Veterans State and Local Policy Toolkit
Seventy years after the first “lavender scare” drove LGBTQ Americans from public service, a second version is taking shape. Executive directives and administrative reviews have targeted transgender servicemembers and veterans, producing a new wave of quiet separations and lost benefits.
The policy language is technical, but the result is personal. Veterans who served honorably now face disrupted healthcare, delayed credentials, or housing barriers that no act of Congress ever required. Once again, Americans who met every standard of service are being told that their identity disqualifies them from stability.
Out in National Security built the Trans Veterans State and Local Policy Toolkit to change that. The toolkit gives state and local governments a practical path to repair harm through three measurable actions.
First, continuity of care. States can keep veterans covered by adopting presumptive Medicaid eligibility, aligning timelines with VA enrollment, and training providers in evidence-based gender-affirming care following the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care Version 8.
Second, employment, and licensing. Governors and boards can recognize Department of Defense credentials, expedite licensing under existing reciprocity compacts, and ensure nondiscrimination in state veterans’ employment statutes.
Third, housing stability. States can designate transgender-veteran housing liaisons, expand voucher access, and enforce fair-housing protections that already exist in law.
Each step can be taken administratively within 90 days and requires no new federal legislation. The goal is straightforward: small, state-level reforms that yield rapid, measurable improvement in veterans’ daily lives.
The toolkit was introduced during a Veterans Week event hosted by the Center for American Progress, where federal and state leaders joined Out in National Security to highlight the first wave of state agencies adopting its recommendations. The discussion underscored how targeted, administrative reforms can strengthen veterans’ healthcare, employment, and housing outcomes without new legislation. Full materials and implementation resources are now available at outinnationalsecurity.org/public-policy/toolkit, developed in partnership with Minority Veterans of America, the Modern Military Association of America, SPARTA Pride, and the Human Rights Campaign.
These are technical fixes, but they carry moral weight. They reaffirm a basic democratic promise: service earns respect, not suspicion.
As a policy professional who has worked with veterans across the country, I see this moment as a test of civic integrity. The measure of a democracy is not only who it allows to serve but how it treats them afterward.
The second “lavender scare” will end when institutions at every level decide that inclusion is an obligation, not an exception. The toolkit offers a way to begin.
For more information or to access the toolkit once it is public, visit outinnationalsecurity.org/toolkit.
Lucas F. Schleusener is the CEO of Out in National Security.
-
District of Columbia21 hours agoBowser announces she will not seek fourth term as mayor
-
U.S. Military/Pentagon2 days agoPentagon moves to break with Boy Scouts over LGBTQ and gender inclusion
-
Drag2 days agoPattie Gonia calls out Hegseth’s anti-LGBTQ policies — while doing better pull-ups
-
District of Columbia3 days agoSecond gay candidate announces run for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat
