Connect with us

News

House passes bill to protect same-sex marriage in bipartisan vote

Lawmakers approved measure 267-157

Published

on

The House approved the Respect for Marriage Act on a bipartisan vote.

The U.S. House approved on Tuesday with significant bipartisan support the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify marriage rights for same-sex couples amid fears those rights are at risk in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

Lawmakers approved the measure, introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), by a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining the unanimous Democratic caucus in supporting the legislation.

Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), a Black lawmaker who is one of nine openly gay or lesbian members of Congress, was among those who spoke on the House floor ahead of the vote and said the vote on the measure was “personal” for him.

“I still remember where I was on June 24, 2011 ā€” the day the New York State Legislature passed marriage equality,” Jones said. “I was living with friends in New York City, but I was still closeted, and I was so afraid still that someone might find out the truth about my being gay. So, instead, I closed the door to my room and cried tears of joy by my lonesome. Finally, my home state of New York had recognized me as a full human being. Affirmed all of those scary, yet beautiful, feelings that I had bottled up inside for decades ā€“ wondering, hoping, one day the world would change.”

A key motivation for advancing the Respect for Marriage Act was the concurring opinion to the Dobbs decision written by U.S. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. In it, he spelled out his inclination to revisit landmark decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, including the Obergefell decision for same-sex marriage as well as the 2003 ruling striking down state sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas and the 1965 decision striking down state bans on contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) drew on Thomas’s concurrence in her remarks on the House floor in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, saying it was evidence of a greater plot from the Republican Party to undermine the right for same-sex couples to marry.

“We must act now to defend same-sex and interracial marriage from the bigotry and extremism in the wake of the Dobbs decision,” Pelosi said. “With marriage rights now squarely in Republican crossfires, Democrats are ferociously fighting back. With a landmark Respect for Marriage Act, we ensure that marriage equality remains the law of the land now and for generations to come.”

The Respect for Marriage Act wouldn’t keep same-sex marriage the law of the land if the Supreme Court were to strike down Obergefell per se, but rather repeal from the books the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Supreme Court struck down in 2013, and require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. There would be constitutional issues if Congress required states to accommodate same-sex couples in their marriage laws, which have been under the jurisdiction of the states.

A number of Republicans broke ranks with their caucus to vote in favor of the legislation. Log Cabin Republicans, which has taken a mixed approach to LGBTQ issues in recent years, was among the organizations encouraging lawmakers to vote in favor of the bill.

Republican leadership in the U.S. House didn’t whip the vote ā€” one way or the other ā€” ahead of the floor vote for the Respect for Marriage Act, two Republican insiders told the Washington Blade.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), one of the 47 Republicans who voted in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, told top Republicans in their caucus meeting that morning they wouldn’t whip the vote on the bill.

ā€œI always have and always will support the right of any American to marry,” Mace said in a statement. “This vote is no different. I believe any two people, regardless of the color of their skin or gender or orientation or otherwise, should be free to enter into marriage together. If gay couples want to be as happily or miserably married as straight couples, more power to them.ā€

But the majority held the vote with some declaring on the House floor the Respect for Marriage would impede on states’ rights.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) was among those on the House floor decrying the Democratic leadership for forcing a vote on the Respect for Marriage Act.

“We’re going to make a decision here about the recognition of marriages across state lines, where there are differences of opinion, still to this day, about how one defines marriage,” Roy said. “In the name of full faith and credit…Republicans will be voting on this floor today on the question of whether the federal government should tell Texas what marriage is they have to recognize, irrespective of what the court has said. That is a vote. That is a choice.”

The Respect for Marriage Act now heads to the U.S. Senate, where it will face an uphill battle in a chamber that requires 60 votes to end a filibuster and advance to a vote on legislation. The Blade has placed a request in with the office of Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) seeking comment on when he’d schedule a floor vote on the bill.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

State Department

Transgender, nonbinary people file lawsuit against passport executive order

State Department banned from issuing passports with ‘X’ gender markers

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

Seven transgender and nonbinary people on Feb. 7 filed a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.

Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, and Reid Solomon-Lane are the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the private law firm Covington & Burling LPP filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit names Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as defendants.

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an ā€œXā€ gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.

The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.

Trump signed the executive order that overturned it shortly after he took office on Jan. 20. Rubio later directed State Department personnel to ā€œsuspend any application requesting an ā€˜Xā€™ sex marker and do not take any further action pending additional guidance from the department.ā€  

ā€œThis guidance applies to all applications currently in progress and any future applications,” reads Rubio’s memo. “Guidance on existing passports containing an ā€˜Xā€™ sex marker will come via other channels.ā€

The lawsuit says Trump’s executive order is an “abrupt, discriminatory, and dangerous reversal of settled United States passport policy.” It also concludes the new policy is “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“It discriminates against individuals based on their sex and, as to some, their transgender status,” reads the lawsuit. “It is motivated by impermissible animus. It cannot be justified under any level of judicial scrutiny, and it wrongly seeks to erase the reality that transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people exist today as they always have.”

Solomon-Lane, who lives in North Adams, Mass., with his spouse and their three children, in an ACLU press release says he has “lived virtually my entire adult life as a man” and “everyone in my personal and professional life knows me as a man, and any stranger on the street who encountered me would view me as a man.”

ā€œI thought that 18 years after transitioning, I would be able to live my life in safety and ease,” he said. “Now, as a married father of three, Trumpā€™s executive order and the ensuing passport policy have threatened that life of safety and ease.”

“If my passport were to reflect a sex designation that is inconsistent with who I am, I would be forcibly outed every time I used my passport for travel or identification, causing potential risk to my safety and my familyā€™s safety,ā€ added Solomon-Lane.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Booz Allen withdraws as WorldPride corporate sponsor

Company updated programs to comply with Trump executive orders

Published

on

(Screenshot courtesy of WorldPride's website)

The U.S. technology company Booz Allen Hamilton has confirmed it has withdrawn as a corporate sponsor for the international LGBTQ WorldPride events scheduled to take place in D.C. from May 17-June 8, according to a report by the Washington Business Journal.

In an exclusive story published Feb.10, the business publication reports that Booz Allen Hamilton disclosed in a statement that its decision to withdraw as a WorldPride sponsor was based on its need to comply with ā€œrecently issued presidential executive orders.ā€

Although the statement did not say so directly, it is referring to executive orders issued since Jan. 20 by President Donald Trump that, among other things, ban government agencies and companies doing business with the government through contracts from promoting or carrying out diversity, equity, and inclusion or ā€œDEIā€ programs.

On its website, Booz Allen Hamilton describes itself as an ā€œadvanced technology company delivering outcomes with speed for Americaā€™s most critical defense, civil, and national securities priorities.ā€ Among the government agencies it does business with, the website statement says, are the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

ā€œWe take this responsibility to our nation seriously,ā€ Washington Business Journal quoted the Booz Allen Hamilton statement regarding WorldPride as saying. ā€œIt demands from us commitment to their best principle to flawless execution and to full compliance with all laws and regulations, including executive orders,ā€ Washington Business Journal quotes the statement as saying.

The Washington Business Journal article includes a photo of more than a dozen of Booz Allen Hamilton employees marching in D.C.ā€™s Capital Pride parade in 2017.

The company did not immediately respond to a request from Washington Blade seeking comment on its WorldPride decision.

Capital Pride Alliance, the group that organizes most D.C. LGBTQ Pride events and is the lead organizer of WorldPride 2025, in response to a request by the Blade released a statement responding to Booz Allen Hamiltonā€™s sponsorship withdrawal.

ā€œBooz Allen Hamilton is the only organization that has withdrawn its committed financial support for WorldPride,ā€ the statement says. ā€œCPA is proud of its many longstanding legacy sponsors, many of whom have already reaffirmed their commitments to participate in WorldPride this summer,ā€ the statement continues.

ā€œJust like many American companies and LGBTQ+ organizations, we are navigating current challenges and many unknowns,ā€ the statement says. ā€œWe are confident, however, that we will have the support necessary to have a successful and safe WorldPride that meets this moment,ā€ it says.

ā€œThat support includes families, organizations, and businesses from across our community and corporations that truly celebrate diversity and value equity and inclusion for all,ā€ the statement concludes.

The Capital Pride Alliance website last year listed Booz Allen Hamilton as a corporate sponsor for the 2024 Capital Pride events in the category of a ā€œTrue Colorsā€ sponsor, which it said represented a donation of $75,000. But the Capital Pride Alliance statement to the Blade this week says, ā€œWe are not going to share theyā€™re previously planned commitment for 2025.ā€

The statement adds, ā€œMany in our community are extremely vulnerable right now, and standing up for them, standing with them, standing with us, in this movement is what we all need.ā€

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Trump executive order prompts local hospitals to stop gender-affirming care for youth

Activists marched outside Children’s National on Feb. 2

Published

on

A protester stands outside Children's National Hospital in Northwest D.C. on Feb. 2, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Linus Berggren)

Hospitals in the D.C. area are putting a prompt stop to aiding transgender youth and their families continue their transition after President Donald Trump signed an executive order that bans all gender-affirming care nationwide for minors under 19.

On Jan. 28, days after Trump took office, signed the executive order, ā€œProtecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,ā€ which immediately halted the prescription and medical treatment of gender-affirming care for all minors under the age of 19 across the country. The order use of ā€œchemical and surgical mutilationā€ is in reference to the various kinds of gender-affirming care that youth may receive when in the care of a medical practice.

“Today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a childā€™s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.ā€ says the executive order. ā€œThis dangerous trend will be a stain on our nationā€™s history, and it must end.ā€

The executive order laid out various guidelines for medical practices to follow that must be implemented within the coming months. These include ā€œending reliance on junk science,ā€ in referring to following the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s guidelines for youth, and “defunding chemical and surgical mutilation,” which seeks to ban hospitals and medical schools to use federal funding for gender-affirming care.

Hospitals, medical schools, and clinics across the country have begun to abide by the executive order and drop trans and gender diverse youth as they dismantled programs that provided care of any kind that treated a childā€™s gender dysphoria. Childrenā€™s National Hospital in Northwest Washington is one of those institutions.

ā€œChildrenā€™s National is committed to providing compassionate and comprehensive care in accordance with the law,” said Children’s National in a Jan. 30 press release. “As a result, we are currently pausing all puberty blockers and hormone therapy prescriptions for transgender youth patients, per the guidelines in the executive order issued by the White House this week. Childrenā€™s National already does not perform gender affirming surgery for minors.”

“We recognize the impact this change will have, and our commitment to creating a better future for children and families remains at the forefront of our mission,” it added. “We will do everything we can to ensure the same uninterrupted access to mental health counseling, social support, and holistic and respectful care for every patient at Children’s National. We are working directly with patients and providers to ensure every patient has access to the information and support services they need, and we appreciate their continued trust and understanding as we work through these changes.ā€

The hospital did not provide the Washington Blade with additional comment.

Activists in response to the decision organized a march that took place outside Children’s Hospital. on Feb. 2. D.C. Safe Haven, a group founded to ā€œprovide TLGBQ people in the DMV area with opportunities to transform their lives,ā€ helped organize the march.

Similar protests have taken place across the country.

The Gender Liberation Movement organized the “Rise Up for Trans Youth” march in New York’s Union Square on Saturday. The group was one of the organizers of a march that took place in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 4 when the justices heard oral arguments in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case, which challenges a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors under 18.

ā€œVCU Health and Childrenā€™s Hospital of Richmond at VCU have suspended gender-affirming medications and gender-affirming surgical procedures for patients under 19-years-old in response to an executive order issued by the White House on Jan. 28, 2025, and related state guidance received by VCU on Jan. 30, 2025,” the hospital said in a statement. “Our doors remain open to all patients and their families for screening, counseling, mental health care, and all other health care needs.ā€

Equality Virginia, a queer advocacy group that works across the state, in a statement to the Blade criticized the executive order and response to it.

ā€œExecutive orders are not legislation, they are not law, and they do not supersede state laws,” said Narissa Rahaman, the group’s executive director. “The General Assembly has taken up bills on both transgender athletes and gender-affirming care, and in both cases, the general assembly has declined to pursue bans on either. State law is clear; what is unclear is why the Youngkin administration is spending its final year cozying up to the Trump administration and repeatedly singling out transgender Virginians for discrimination.ā€

ā€œTo the transgender and nonbinary athletes and youth seeking healthcare in Virginia who are feeling scared: Equality Virginia will not stop fighting for you, no matter who occupies the Governorā€™s Mansion or the White House,” added Rahaman.

Petitions are urging D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, Health and Human Services, and Children’s National to use D.C.’s human rights law to challenge the executive orders. Lambda Legal, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firms Jenner & Block and Hogan Lovells have filed lawsuits against Trump’s mandate on behalf of families of trans youth.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular