News
Senate insiders bullish on marriage vote as summer recess nears
More than 10 Republicans possible ‘yes’ votes
Senate insiders are bullish on the prospect of a measure seeking to codify same-sex marriage after an unexpected bipartisan vote for the measure in the U.S. House as some predict lawmakers could find the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster and vote to send it to President Biden’s desk, although concerns remain about limited time on the congressional calendar.
With support for same-sex marriage at a record high — 7-in-10 Americans support gay nuptials — insiders told the Washington Blade the Senate could approve the Respect for Marriage Act with the 10 Republicans needed to end a filibuster — or even more. The major obstacles for the measure are finding a time period to put the bill up for a vote in the Senate, waiting for senators out with COVID to return to work, and rounding up enough Republican support.
One LGBTQ lobbyist, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said “we’re in a good place” with votes on the measure, although whether or not 60 votes are present is hard to know until Senate Democratic leadership ultimately brings up the bill for a vote.
“I think this is one of those things where I think we are absolutely close, and I think we should move forward when we can, which I hoped would be really soon, ideally, to try to have a vote,” the lobbyist said.
Lawmakers approved the Respect for Marriage Act by a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining the unanimous Democratic caucus in supporting the legislation. One-fourth of the House Republican caucus voted for the measure, dubbed the Respect for Marriage Act. The measure would need a smaller share of Republicans in the Senate, one-fourth, to obtain the 60 votes necessary to end a filibuster in the chamber.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first out lesbian senator, was the subject of a recent profile in Politico and was quoted as saying she has spoken to at least 10 Republican senators. One LGBTQ lobbyist said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Wis.), the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, is active in the lobbying process through notes to her staff. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), an original co-sponsor of the measure, and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who has a gay son and was an early Republican supporter of same-sex marriage, are taking an active role in lobbying the Republican caucus, insiders said.
In addition to Collins and Portman, a handful of Republicans have declared support for the Respect for Marriage Act, including Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C), who once voted for same-sex partner benefits; and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has supported LGBTQ rights measures in the past. A fifth and unlikely Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), has said he sees “no reason to oppose the measure.”
Other Republicans have been non-committal, such as Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who has a reputation as a moderate, but years ago was once a champion of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage nationwide, or announced they would oppose the measure, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who pointedly called the measure a “stupid waste of time” and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). One Republican, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), surprisingly told reporters he’s OK with same-sex marriage, but hasn’t indicated specifically which way he’ll come down on the bill.
Romney, despite his history of opposition to same-sex marriage, may be in play, one LGBTQ lobbyist said, given his new image as a moderate and getting breathing space from Utah lawmakers in the House who were among the 47 Republicans to vote for the Respect for Marriage Act. Other potential votes identified are Sens. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).
Complicating matters is that a number of senators are out sick. Murkowski and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) have been out after contracting COVID, while Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the longest-serving member of the Senate, has been out with a fractured hip he suffered from a fall at his house in McLean, Va. One Republican insider said there is an effort to schedule a vote in the Senate, but that was scrapped with the number of senators absent, although another LGBTQ insider pushed back on that and said a vote may still happen this week.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), following the bipartisan vote for the Respect for Marriage Act in the House, expressed interest on the Senate floor in bringing the measure up for a vote, although he hasn’t specified any time as lawmakers are preparing to exit for the August recess. A Schumer spokesperson said he didn’t have a timing update and referred the Blade to the senator’s public remarks on the measure.
Time, however, is running out. Not only is the calendar limited before Congress adjourns for August recess, but one LGBTQ lobbyist said time is not on the side of Respect for Marriage Act as social conservatives are beginning to mount aggressive campaigns against the measure.
Schumer, asked about the Respect for Marriage Act during a weekly reporter stakeout Tuesday, said “yes” in response to a question on whether the bill remains a priority before Congress adjourns for August recess.
“OK, the bottom line is that we care very much about the Equality Act, the Marriage Equality Act,” Schumer added. “We are trying, working real hard to get 10 Republican senators. Between that and the illnesses, we’re not there yet.”
Dangerous amendments also remain a possibility. Unlike the House, which proceeded with the Respect for Marriage Act under a closed rule, the same option isn’t available in the Senate, where proposed amendments are determined by agreement among caucus leaders. One LGBTQ lobbyist, however, downplayed the threat of amendments, saying there may be some that would be acceptable if they would win the vote of additional supporters while objectionable changes could be voted down with bipartisan support.
The measure is advancing through Congress amid fears same-sex marriage is under threat after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, when U.S. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas writing in a concurrence he’d like to revisit the the Obergefell decision along with the Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut cases. No other justices signed Thomas’s concurrence, nor is any state legislature or court case advancing a challenge to marriage rights for same-sex couples.
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.
The marriage bill, which would codify existing law and make no additional changes, has momentum and is poised for a vote in the Senate, while the Equality Act, a measure that would expand long-sought after non-discrimination protections in federal law, remains pending in the chamber and is all but dead. No Republican support currently exists for the Equality Act, unlike the Respect for Marriage Act.
One LGBTQ lobbyist said anytime a LGBTQ rights measure like the Respect for Marriage Act gets a win, it can only have a positive impact on other measures, but was ultimately circumspect about expressing optimism for any prospects for a non-discrimination bill.
“As far as the clock on this Congress, we don’t have a lot of time left,” the lobbyist said. “While I think we were getting closer to 60 on something on non-discrimination protections, maybe not the full Equality Act, it’s hard to see the time working in our favor for this Congress, but I do think this vote in broad strokes helps us.”
Florida
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
Republican Fla. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed anti-DEI bill
Following the passage of anti-DEI legislation in Florida, Key West will no longer receive any state funding for its future Pride events.
In a letter provided to the Key West Business Guild, the LGBTQ visitor and tourism center for the string of islands, a senior assistant county attorney for Monroe County officially said that the organization would no longer receive funding for its ongoing projects as a result of Senate Bill 1134 and House Bill 1001, starting in 2027.
The popular Key West Pride, gay men–leaning Tropical Heat weekend, and Womenfest will no longer receive any state money. This is something that Gay Key West Visitor Center Executive Director Rob Dougherty highlighted will shift how all the largest LGBTQ events in the Keys will be held after this year.
He said that the explanation is solely a result of SB 1134 and HB 1001, which limits the official actions of local governments by “prohibiting counties and municipalities, respectively, from funding or promoting or taking official action as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion …”
The legislation is being used to impose restrictions on funding events that exclude — whereas the events’ true purpose is to uplift already marginalized groups.
“Womenfest lost it [funding] because it’s a women’s-only event. Tropical Heat lost it because it’s a men’s-only event … that’s how this is being applied.”
This will not impact anything this year, Dougherty assured the Washington Blade; however, the future is not as certain.
“The law that (Republican Florida) Gov. DeSantis signed does not go into effect until Jan. 1, so for 2026 we’re okay,” Dougherty told the Blade. “But it impacts Key West Pride 2027, it impacts Tropical Heat 2027 and Womenfest — so we have lost all funding for those three events.”
He said that this will amount to a large chunk of the expected funding for the LGBTQ celebrations, which the Key West tourism board says is “internationally known as a gay mecca.”
“We’re due to lose about $200,000. Not all of that is direct, but the way that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) distributes their money, about $75,000 of it is for Key West Pride, and that helps to pay for things like marketing, swag, and other things that promote the event.”
He went on to explain that marketing to many major metropolitan areas with large LGBTQ populations may not see the same Key West advertisements and push as in years past — and that is the point.
“Our digital marketing, our print marketing, our SEO marketing — all of that is paid for through there, and it targets places with direct flights like Washington, D.C., New York, Philly, Atlanta, Dallas. So it’s definitely going to impact that.”
The money that will stop coming is not just to run events and celebrations, he explained. Money that goes back directly into the community is going to be hardest hit.
“An estimated 250,000 LGBTQ+ travelers make it to Key West on an annual basis, and on a very conservative basis, for every LGBTQ+ person there are two to four allies traveling with the same values.”
“The TDC also estimates that $1,500+ is spent per person per visit … so if you take those figures and multiply those all together, it comes up to about $1.2 billion … that is potentially going to be lost.”
He says that this will intrinsically change how Key West’s tourism — especially the large LGBTQ side of it — will run, especially since gay vacations need a foundation and expectation of safety and support to blossom.
“We travel based upon where we feel most welcome,” Dougherty said. “Key West has always been its own little place … the LGBTQ+ history of Key West and everything about Key West has always been a little bit weird for people, and that’s why they come here.”
The Guild was formed in 1978 to encourage summer tourism and support Key West’s gay community — becoming the nation’s first LGBTQ destination marketing organization. It has grown tremendously from its original membership to now include more than 475 enterprises representing virtually every facet of the island’s business community.
He also went on to say that this should be eye-opening for anywhere considered an LGBTQ destination, regardless of whether it is in a blue state or a red one.
“I think it can be a wake-up call across the country, because if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.”
Federal Government
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
Mass. college accused of violating Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.
Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.
The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.
The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.
This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.
Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.
“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”
“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”
This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.
Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.
Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.
Ukraine
Ukrainian MPs advance new Civil Code without protections for same-sex couples
Advocacy groups say proposal would ‘contradict European standards’
Ukrainian lawmakers have advanced a proposed new Civil Code that does not contain legal protections for same-sex couples.
The Kyiv Independent reported the proposal passed on its first reading on April 28 by a 254-2 vote margin.
The newspaper notes more than two dozen advocacy groups in a statement said some of the proposed Civil Code’s provisions “contradict European standards” and “violate Ukraine’s commitments under its EU accession process.”
“The most worrying provisions are those that make it impossible for a court to recognize the existence of a family relationship between people of the same sex,” the statement reads. “This overturns the already established case law on this issue, and closes the only legal avenue that allows partners to somehow protect their rights in individual cases.”
“Moreover, the draft completely ignores the obligations that Ukraine should have already fulfilled as part of its accession to the EU, as it lacks provisions that would allow people of the same sex to register their relationships,” it adds.
“The provisions also stipulate that all marriages concluded by people who have changed their gender automatically become invalid,” the statement further notes. “This is not just stagnation in the field of human rights or lack of progress on the path to European integration, but an actual setback in the legal sphere.”
Olena Shevchenko, chair of Insight, a Ukrainian LGBTQ advocacy group, in an April 28 Facebook post said the new Civil Code “is a step back on upholding the rights of women and the LGBT+ community in Ukraine.”
The Ukrainian constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2022 publicly backed civil partnerships for same-sex couples.
The Ukrainian Supreme Court on Feb. 25 recognized Zoryan Kis and Tymur Levchuk — a gay couple who has lived together since 2013 and married in the U.S. in 2021 — as a family. Ukraine the day before marked four years since Russia began its war against the country.
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
A reign defined by commitment and human impact
Ukrainian MPs advance new Civil Code without protections for same-sex couples
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
New Zealand blood donation rules shift
The university that refuses to let go
