National
A remembrance of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor by the gay couple she married
Late legal legend made LGBTQ history when she officiated wedding of Trammell, Serkin

It’s been a little over a decade, but the memory of their wedding day in 2013 is fresh in the minds of Jeffrey Trammell and his love of 46 years, Stuart Serkin. The setting was the lawyer’s lounge of the U.S. Supreme Court. Their officiant was retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who died earlier this month.
“She couldn’t have been more delightful,” recalled Trammell in an interview with the Washington Blade about that very special Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013, when these lawyer lobbyists from Florida tied the knot and made LGBTQ history.
Of all days, the couple got stuck in a funeral procession amid the typically notorious D.C. traffic, as they made their way from Logan Circle to the iconic white marble building. They arrived 20 minutes late. Trammell wore a wingtip on one foot, and a black sneaker on his other, broken foot.
“She gave me a hard time about being a little late and wearing a shoe that was not appropriate for a wedding,” he said. “That was quite common for her, a sort of disarming sense of humor.”
The Arizona native was the epitome of “down-to-earth,” Trammell said.
“Her style was such that you were completely at ease, she had the capacity to connect with people,” he said. “I think it’s one reason she was very popular in Washington and internationally, very sought after as a speaker and a member of the boards because she was anything but aloof. She was very common-sense, down-to-earth and had a good sense of humor. So, you enjoyed being around her.”
Trammell had met O’Connor before. In 2011, he was elected rector at his alma mater, William & Mary, as the first out gay board chair of a major university in the United States. O’Connor was serving as the university’s chancellor, while also maintaining an office she kept at the high court, even after retiring in 2005.
“So, I went to see her at the Supreme Court,” said Trammell. “I thanked her for her vote on Lawrence v Texas, and I told her that she made my partner and me no longer felons in our own country.”
O’Connor argued in that 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2003, that a Texas statute banning consenting gay adults from engaging in sexual acts violated the 14th Amendment. Exactly 12 years later, same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court, on June 26, 2015, in the landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The vote was 5-4 in favor, with O’Connor’s successor, far right conservative Justice Samuel Alito, voting in dissent.
Of course, by then, Washington, D.C. had long embraced marriage equality, ever since March 3, 2010. And in 2013, after being partners for more than three decades, the two lawyers decided it was finally time to get hitched.
“Stuart and I wanted to get married, so I asked her. And she said, ‘Sure,’” said Trammell.
If that seems like it was too easy, it’s important to note these guys were well known in the District.
In addition to Trammell & Company, the lobbying firm he and Serkin managed, Trammell had been a staff member at the House of Representatives and the Senate, served on the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund Board of Directors, Human Rights Campaign Board of Advisors, on the LGBT Victims Remembrance Project for the U.S. Holocaust Museum and was Senior Advisor for LGBT Outreach and for Business Outreach on Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign. He also worked on John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004 and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 bid for the White House.
Both retired now, Serkin was a prominent legislative attorney in Washington. He met Trammell in 1977 in a bar exam class in Florida. Trammell grew up in Blountstown, Fla., where he led his basketball team to the state championship, was named High School All-American and won a basketball scholarship to William & Mary, where he served as the captain of the men’s basketball team.
Even with their illustrious resumes, they did not expect that their wedding would become front-page news.
“There was an AP reporter around who saw what was going on and wrote an AP piece. And by the time we got home, I went online to see there were stories all over the country,” he said. “It was interesting to see some of the backlash from the very conservative religious folks who opined that she had violated God’s will. I’m sure she never bothered to read things like that because she never minded controversial subjects. There was a lot of positive coverage, but it’s a reminder that there are detractors out there.”
Their wedding even made The New York Times. But as it turns out, Trammell, Serkin and O’Connor were upstaged by none other than RBG.
“’Keep it quiet’,” Trammell said a journalist friend had advised him, after they had set the date, booked the officiant and the historic venue. “’Maybe you will be the first one married in the building!’” But their wedding wasn’t the first in that landmark, nor the first officiated by a justice. “[Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, RBG, beat us by a few days when she married one of her former clerks.” That was the first same-sex wedding inside the Supreme Court building. “So, we were number two,” said Trammell.
As The Washington Blade reported in September 2013, Ginsburg was the first Supreme Court justice to officiate at a same-sex wedding, when Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser married his partner, economist John Roberts. Trammell and Serkin can at least claim they are the first same-sex couple to be married by a retired Supreme Court justice, a conservative one at that.
O’Connor was a life-long Republican from Arizona, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981. Following her death at age 93 on Dec. 1 from complications related to advanced dementia and a respiratory illness, Trammell reflected on this famous person he got to know, whose opinions over the years showed she had evolved.
“She grew and learned, and she was a great listener,” he said. “A lot of people think to have been a member of the court means they listen to people. You know, politicians don’t survive if they don’t have their ear to the ground and learn from what’s going on in society. I would venture that that was a factor in her growth in support of our community during those years. And I think it’s a logical extension that she eventually grew on other issues, too, on abortion and affirmative action.”

Of all the memories of O’Connor, Trammell said it was her personal touches on their wedding day that stand out.
“She had vows that she had used before when she married people and those were slightly modified to reflect we were a same-sex couple. It was just terrific,” said Trammell. “She was sharp as a tack. She was 83 at that point and had a cane she used to walk. But there was no indication of any future challenges with dementia.”
He said after officiating what turned out to be the first gay wedding inside the Supreme Court, O’Connor spent some quality time with the newlyweds.
“She signed our marriage license and spent time with us. And she just couldn’t have been nicer. I mean, you couldn’t ask for anything and anyone in that sort of position to be more down-to-earth and warm and friendly.”
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
-
The Vatican4 days ago
American cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features4 days ago
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
a&e features4 days ago
Gideon Glick steals the show in Amazon Prime’s ‘Étoile’
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
Opening of Pride exhibition at Smithsonian’s African art museum postponed until 2026