National
212 congressional Dems call on court to overturn DOMA
In first, Senators join House Dems in saying anti-gay law is unconstitutional
Sen. Tammy Baldwin was among the signers of the congressional Democrats brief against DOMA (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
An unprecedented coalition of 212 House and Senate Democrats have joined together in calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.
In a 35-page brief filed on Friday, congressional Democrats argue DOMA should be struck down because the law should be subject to heightened scrutiny and the law singles out gay and lesbian couples for harm. The case challenging the statute is Windsor v. United States.
“DOMA imposes a sweeping and unjustifiable federal disability on married same-sex couples,” the brief concludes. “It is ‘class legislation’ that lacks any rational connection to legitimate federal interests, thus violating the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee.”
While House Democrats have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in cases challenging DOMA at lower appellate courts, the latest brief is unprecedented because for the first time Senate Democrats have signed on as well. The 172 House Democrats who signed the brief were joined by 40 Senate Democrats.
House Democrats who signed the brief include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who lead the effort to gather signatures, as well as the six openly LGB members of the U.S. House: Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Mark Takano (D-Calif.).
Senators who joined in the effort are lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).
The brief devotes significant attention to disputing the arguments in favor of DOMA made by the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — which has taken up defense of DOMA in place of the administration — particularly BLAG’s argument that gays enjoy political power and thus aren’t a suspect class.
Congressional Democrats take note of how the LGBT people unable has been unable pass legislation to institute federal protections against job bias — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — as an example of their political powerlessness.
“In fact, in the nearly twenty years since it was first introduced, ENDA passed only once in the House and never in the Senate,” the brief states. “That gay men and lesbians have been unable to achieve even the modest goal of obtaining basic protection against employment discrimination — despite the fact that 89 percent of the American people supports such protection — shows that BLAG is flat wrong in contending that gay men and lesbians enjoy ‘remarkable political clout.'”
The brief also details harm that DOMA causes same-sex couples who are unable to receive federal benefits of marriage — as well as the harm the statute causes children living in these families.
“Many married lesbians and gay men raise children together,” the brief states. “DOMA harms them and their children, and affords no benefit to different-sex couples or their children. It thus cannot survive equal protection review.”
Notably, the brief refrains from making the argument that Congress passed DOMA in 1996 out of animus — a position held by many LGBT advocates — and instead maintains it was made law because members of Congress at the time didn’t know gay people.
“From our perspective — including those of us who voted for DOMA — debate and passage of the law did not necessarily arise ‘from malice or hostile animus,’ but instead from ‘insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves,'” the brief states. “While fear and distrust of families different from our own may explain why DOMA passed by comfortable majorities in 1996, it does not obviate the need for a constitutionally permissible justification for the law.”
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, commended congressional Democrats speaking out against DOMA before the Supreme Court.
“It’s a key indicator of how indefensible the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is that now literally hundreds of members of Congress are signing a brief repudiating it,” Wolfson said. “These senators and representatives, like the American people they serve, know that the government shouldn’t be assigning second-class status to legally married same-sex couples.”
No Republicans signed the brief. Even though Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) have signed on as co-sponsors to legislation that would repeal DOMA — and penned their names to another brief from 131 Republicans arguing that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional — their names are absent from the DOMA brief.
Ilan Kayatsky, a Nadler spokesperson, deferred comment on the absence of any Republican names from the DOMA brief to Republicans. Neither Ros-Lehtinen’s nor Hanna’s office immediately responded to a request to comment.
The argument presented in the brief is along the lines of the argument that the Obama administration made against DOMA in the brief the Justice Department filed last month.
On Thursday, the administration also filed a brief before the Supreme Court arguing Prop 8 is unconstitutional in addition to the DOMA brief. However, congressional Democrats didn’t do the same and only submitted on brief on DOMA.
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said the Democratic leader was focused on building support for the DOMA brief and its argument that DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny will assist in efforts to overturn California’s marriage ban.
“The brief provides the congressional members’ perspective on why there is absolutely no legitimate federal interest in discrimination, and why, given the history of how DOMA was enacted, heightened judicial scrutiny is needed for federal laws that discriminate against the LGBT community,” Hammill said. “In making the case for heightened scrutiny, the amicus brief will assist the efforts to overturn Proposition 8.”
Hammill also said Pelosi has spoken out against Prop 8 and “appreciates” the Justice Department’s filing against the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California.
“From the outset, Leader Pelosi has strongly opposed Proposition 8, and believes that the legal advocacy by opponents of Proposition 8 has been outstanding,” Hammill said. “The Leader looks forward to the day when all Californians – and indeed, all Americans everywhere – have the right to marry who they love. She appreciates the President’s strong leadership in favor of overturning Proposition 8 and of striking down DOMA.”
Asked in a follow-up email to clarify whether Pelosi believes Prop 8 is unconstitutional, Hammill replied, “She has said so repeatedly.”
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.”
Virginia 2025 GOP ticket gives DEI a bad name
In stressful times, escape to Rehoboth Beach
Down to shuck!
Garcia confronts Noem over gay asylum seeker ‘forcibly removed’ to El Salvador
Tourists, locals express concerns about WorldPride security
HRC: GOP reconciliation bill would imperil critical LGBTQ-specific programs
Del. Gov. Meyer to join Washington Blade party in Rehoboth on Friday
Tourists, locals express concerns about WorldPride security
Peruvian activists react to Pope Leo XIV’s election
Impact of federal gov’t RIF on D.C.’s rental market
-
Congress2 days agoHRC: GOP reconciliation bill would imperil critical LGBTQ-specific programs
-
Rehoboth Beach2 days agoDel. Gov. Meyer to join Washington Blade party in Rehoboth on Friday
-
World Pride 20251 day agoTourists, locals express concerns about WorldPride security
-
Peru1 day agoPeruvian activists react to Pope Leo XIV’s election