Connect with us

News

Analysis: Bipartisan legislative approach wins out as marriage vote nears

Schumer expects action soon to codify rights into law

Published

on

Sen. Charles Schumer (left) has appeared to yield to the bipartisan approach to marriage bill proposed by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). (Blade file photos by Michael Key)

Two strategies for passing legislation have emerged within the Democratic caucus: either build support among Republicans or push it through to expose their position. Both were on full display this week over legislation seeking to codify same-sex marriage into law. At the end of the day, the more bipartisan approach appears to have won out.

It started amid reports earlier in the week, which were confirmed by the Washington Blade, that senior Senate Democratic leadership was considering attaching the Respect for Marriage Act to the continuing resolution, a stopgap that would continue funding the government as lawmakers hammer out a budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

It’s unclear why attaching the marriage bill to the continuing resolution was an option. Either as a standalone bill or an amendment, the marriage legislation needs 60 votes to end a filibuster in the Senate. Including the marriage bill in the budget stopgap may have been seen as a way to act swiftly on the marriage bill during a limited legislative calendar before Election Day.

The approach, in fact, could have had the effect of sinking the marriage bill: Republicans who may have been on board could have instead found a reason to vote “no” if the measure were included in the continuing resolution over objections to adding an extraneous issue to the measure.

One thing stands out: The idea of moving forward with the legislation regardless of how Republicans will vote is consistent with the general legislative strategy of Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Ever the political animal, Schumer has no qualms about forcing a vote on legislation with no chance of getting 60 votes if it means exposing Republicans, especially when that would occur within two months of Election Day.

Take, for example, Schumer’s decision to bring to the floor after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs an abortion rights measure with no Republican support as opposed to another more bipartisan measure. Whether or not the measure actually had 60 votes in support is an afterthought.

In other words, the approach of putting the marriage provision in the continuing resolution was more consistent with the legislative model of Build Back Better and the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed without any Republican votes. But the standalone measure is more consistent with approaches seen with the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the gun reform measure. Each made it to Biden’s desk, but in different ways and with different political fallout.

In the case of the marriage bill, the standalone approach appears to have won out. Schumer, speaking with reporters, said he expects the marriage vote “in the coming weeks” and threw cold water on the idea about including it in the continuing resolution: “We would prefer to do it as a separate bill. We hope there are 10 Republicans to help us with that.”

It’s not hard to imagine Schumer getting a call from supporters of the marriage bill who had a problem with including the measure as part of the continuing resolution. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis), who’s not only the first out lesbian in the U.S. Senate, but a senator with a reputation for seeking to reach the across the aisle, has been in charge of rounding up votes for some time and has signaled that 10 Republicans are within reach. Among the original co-sponsors of the bill is Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has publicly commented about working her side of the aisle on the bill.

Baldwin and Collins, following news earlier in the week about the possibility of including the marriage bill in the continuing resolution, published a joint op-ed in the Washington Post on the importance of the measure and getting it done on a bipartisan basis.

“We have worked across party lines to bring the Senate together and build support for the Respect for Marriage Act because we should be able to agree that same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, both need and deserve the assurance that their marriage will be recognized by the federal government and that they will continue to enjoy freedoms, rights and responsibilities that come with all other marriages,” Baldwin and Collins wrote.

Another factor suggesting a bipartisan approach on the marriage legislation has won out: Schumer in the remarks this week name-checked Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) as one of the leaders in the Democratic caucus seeing to build support for the measure. Although Sinema, the only out bisexual in Congress, is vilified among progressives, she was among the leaders in the cadre of lawmakers who obtained sufficient bipartisan support for the infrastructure deal and gun reform measure.

If the marriage bill passes in the Senate, as supporters of the measure are predicting, it appears the credit would go to the old-school approach of working across the aisle to build a consensus for a more durable legislative solution. The strict party-line approach will have to take a back seat and find another legislative vehicle.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Philippines

Philippines Supreme Court rules same-sex couples can co-own property

Advocacy group celebrated landmark decision

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

The Philippines Supreme Court in a landmark ruling said same-sex couples can co-own property under the country’s Family Code.

The Philippine News Agency on Tuesday notes the court issued its ruling in the case of two women who bought a house in Quezon City, a suburb of Manila, the Filipino capital, before they broke up.

The two women, according to the Philippine News Agency, “agreed to sell the property” after they ended their relationship, “and the registered owner — the respondent — signed a document acknowledging that the other partner paid for half of the purchase and renovations.” The Philippine News Agency notes “the registered owner” later “refused to sell the property and withdrew her earlier acknowledgment of co-ownership, prompting the other partner to file a complaint.”

A Regional Trial Court and the Philippines Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court in a 14-page ruling it issued on Feb. 5 overturned the decisions. The Supreme Court published its decision on Tuesday.

“Considering that there is co-ownership between petitioner and respondent, then each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as her share is concerned,” said the Supreme Court in its ruling, according to the Philippine News Agency. “Having rightful interest over the subject property, petitioner has the right to demand the division of the subject property.”

The predominantly Catholic country’s Family Code defines marriage as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.” It also states in Article 148 that “in cases of cohabitation” outside of marriage, “only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions.”

“In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal,” it reads.

The BBC reported the Supreme Court ruling states this provision “applies to all forms of co-habitation,” regardless of the couple’s gender. A Supreme Court press release indicates the decision notes lawmakers and the Filipino government “must address same-sex couples’ rights, as courts alone cannot resolve all related policy concerns.”

“This court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples,” it reads. “With the political, moral, and cultural questions that surround the issue concerning the rights of same-sex couples, political departments, especially the Congress must be involved to quest for solutions, which balance interests while maintaining fealty to fundamental freedoms.”

LGBT Pilipinas, a Filipino advocacy group, welcomed the ruling.

“This ruling marks a monumental step forward in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ families and relationships in the country,” it said in a statement.

LGBT Pilipinas added the ruling “lays a crucial legal foundation for broader recognition of same-sex relationships and strengthens the push for comprehensive anti-discrimination protections.”

“This is a win not only for the LGBTQ+ community, but for fairness and justice in Philippine society as a whole,” said the group.

Continue Reading

Florida

Disney’s Gay Days ‘has not been canceled’ despite political challenges

GayDays is moving forward with its planned LGBTQ meet-up

Published

on

(Photo by Ben Gingell/Bigstock)

Gay Days in Orlando is preparing for its 2026 gathering though organizers have yet to release full details.

Concerns emerged about the status of the annual meetup of LGBTQ people at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Fla., after social media posts and multiple news outlets reported the event would not take place this year.

In response to inquiries from the Blade, Josh Duke, co-owner of Gay Days, clarified that an update would come this week.

“At this time, I’d like to clarify that Gay Days Orlando has not been canceled,” an email to the Blade said. “We are currently finalizing details regarding our plans for 2026 and will be making an official announcement later this week.”

Earlier this week, Gay Days posted about a pause in their plans for the annual meeting, which quickly gained traction online.

In an official statement on social media, Gay Days organizers cited several factors behind what had initially appeared to be a cancellation of their 2026 event.

“Changes to our host hotel agreement, the loss of key sponsorship support, and broader challenges currently impacting LGBTQIA+ events nationwide made it impossible to deliver the experience our community deserves,” organizers wrote. However, the statement added, “This is a pause — not an ending.”

In a longer message shared with supporters, organizers elaborated on that now-reversed decision.

“Gay Days Family — it is with very heavy hearts that we share Gay Days 2026 will not take place this year. This was an incredibly difficult decision and one that was only made after every possible option was explored.

“Gay Days has always been more than an event — it is community, family, and a place where so many memories are made. While this pause is painful, it also gives us the opportunity to step back, listen, and begin shaping a stronger and reimagined GayDays for the future. Thank you for your continued love, patience, and support. This is not goodbye — it’s a reset, and we look forward to creating the future of GayDays together.”

GayDays, which began in 1991, encourages queer Disney fans to visit the Orlando theme park while wearing red shirts to identify one another. Originally focused on gay men reclaiming the childhood joy often denied due to homophobia, the event has expanded over the years to include LGBTQ+ families on summer vacations and queer couples honeymooning in the Magic Kingdom.

Disney made history in 2019 by holding its first-ever official Pride event at its European park, Disneyland Paris. In 2023, Disneyland California hosted the first U.S. official Pride event.

Concerns about the potential cancellation had arisen amid broader challenges affecting LGBTQ events nationwide. These include changes in hotel agreements, sponsorship support, and Florida’s increasingly restrictive anti-LGBTQ policies under Gov. Ron DeSantis. Florida currently has an equality score of -3.00 out of 49 from the Movement Advancement Project, which evaluates states based on policies affecting relationship and parental recognition, nondiscrimination, religious exemptions, LGBTQ youth, healthcare, criminal justice, and transgender identity documentation.

Recent legislation in Florida has included prohibitions on hormone replacement therapy for transgender minors, restrictions on adult access to treatment, bans on drag performances for those under 18, bathroom bans for transgender people in state buildings, and expansion of the Parental Rights in Education Act, commonly called the “Don’t Say Gay” law. These measures limit public school instruction or discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Gay Days Anaheim is scheduled to take place at Disneyland Resort in September.

Disney has also maintained a focus on Pride, reporting in 2022 that proceeds from Pride merchandise benefited numerous LGBTQ organizations, including GLSEN, PFLAG, The Trevor Project, Zebra Coalition, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, the LGBT Center Orange County, the San Francisco LGBT Center, and the Ali Forney Center. Pride merchandise sold internationally supports local LGBTQ organizations in those regions.

More details about this event are expected to be released on Friday.

Continue Reading

New York

Pride flag removed from Stonewall Monument as Trump targets LGBTQ landmarks

The new NPS policy targets Pride flags amid consistent efforts from the Trump administration to minimize LGBTQ history.

Published

on

(Photo courtesy of the National Park Service)

A rainbow Pride flag flying at the Stonewall National Monument in New York was removed at the direction of Trump administration officials at the National Park Service, according to a source familiar with the matter who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity.

The source said the move had been in the works for weeks and is part of ongoing efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to erase LGBTQ identity from federally controlled landmarks.

In response to the Blade’s request for information about the new flag policy, the National Park Service provided the following statement:

“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points. The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose. These include historical context or reenactments, current military branch flags, flags of federally recognized tribal nations affiliated with a park, flags at sites co-managed with other federal, state, or municipal partners, flags required for international park designations, and flags displayed under agreements with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Naturalization ceremonies.”

The statement also included official guidance on the display of non-agency flags issued by Trump-appointed National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron.

The Blade reached out to other organizations to confirm the status of the Pride flag last week, including the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, and the National Parks Conservation Association. None were able to provide details about whether the flag was still flying at that time but it has since been removed.

This action aligns with other moves targeting and erasing LGBTQ history. In September, the Blade reported that three organizations originally slated to receive more than $1.25 million from the National Park Service’s Underrepresented Communities Grant Program would no longer receive funding: In Washington, D.C., the Preservation League had been awarded $75,000 to document LGBTQ+ historic resources. In Providence, R.I., the Preservation Society was slated for $74,692 to conduct an LGBTQ+ survey and prepare a National Register nomination. And in New York, the Fund for the City of New York, Inc., had been awarded $32,000 to nominate the residence of Bayard Rustin — the iconic civil rights and LGBTQ activist — as a National Historic Landmark. 

Continue Reading

Popular