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.”
National
Man charged in Mall of America shooting plot inspired by Pulse massacre: report
Suspect exchanged hundreds of messages, pledged loyalty to ISIS
The U.S. Department of Justice charged Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud, 18, of Richfield, Minn., on Oct. 7 with one count of knowingly receiving a firearm and ammunition in order to commit a federal crime of terrorism. Mohamud allegedly planned to carry out a mass-casualty attack in support of ISIS, inspired in part by the Pulse nightclub massacre that took place on June 12, 2016 when then-29-year-old Omar Mateen murdered 49 people and wounded 58 – one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, and the deadliest targeting the LGBTQ+ community.
According to a DOJ statement release, Mohamud was arrested on Oct. 6 by the FBI, which had arranged to sell him an AK-47 assault rifle, magazines, and ammunition through an undercover FBI employee. Mohamud was arrested shortly after paying $600 in cash and taking possession of those items; he reaffirmed his intention to shoot people at the Mall of America during the transaction.
“Mohamud allegedly sought to carry out a mass-casualty shooting at the Mall of America, expressing a desire to emulate some of the most horrific ISIS-inspired attacks in the United States, including the atrocities at Pulse Nightclub and 2025 New Year’s Day attack in New Orleans,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg in the statement by the DOJ. “The National Security Division will continue to work closely with the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force to track down and prosecute ISIS-inspired terrorists in the United States.”
According to the complaint, beginning on or about December 2024, Mohamud had exchanged hundreds of messages through multiple social media and messaging apps with a confidential source, and expressed a desire to travel to Somalia to join a designated foreign terrorist organization to fight on their behalf.
The defendant stated many times that if he was unable to travel overseas because of a lack of funds, he planned to carry out a mass-casualty event in Minnesota in support of ISIS.
According to the DOJ, “In July 2026, Mohamud sent messages discussing his intent to carry out a mass-casualty shooting attack at the Mall of America because he claimed it was owned by Jews. He wrote that [he] wanted to kill 30 to 60 people so no one would go there.”
“During the course of his communications, Mohamud stated that he wanted to commit an attack similar to those of the Pulse Nightclub mass-shooting in Orlando, the Bondi Beach mass-shooting in Australia, and the New Year’s Day vehicle-ramming attack in New Orleans.”
This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Ryan White of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Bejar for the District of Minnesota.
California
Calif. GOP gubernatorial candidate ad ‘disgusting attempt to exploit lesbian intimacy’
Activists, anti-LGBTQ religious leaders criticized Steve Hilton spot
Two women sit on a bed, a Pride flag hanging behind them. One is nervous; the other tells her to be calm and that she’ll do “all the work.” The music swells. The two hold hands and — fill out a ballot voting for Steve Hilton?
This is the new advertisement from the Hilton gubernatorial campaign that is drawing rebuke from both sides of the aisle, but for very different reasons.
Jorge Reyes Salinas, the communications director at Equality California, said the ad was an insult to the queer community.
“This ad is a disgusting attempt to exploit lesbian intimacy for political attention,” he said. The advertisement plays on media tropes that Salinas says “reduce lesbian and bisexual women … to sexual entertainment,” rather than showing them as well-rounded characters. “Any group of the LGBTQ+ community deserves the same dignity and respect as everyone else,” he said.
The ad is truly hyper-sexualized. It ends with one woman telling the other, “Now lick it.” The two pause and stare before she reveals an envelope to send the ballot, and large text pops up saying, “Just try it!”
Salinas characterized the ad as a desperate attempt to get attention from a candidate who is trailing far behind in the polls in heavily Democratic California. The Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, who is endorsed by Equality California, holds a 25-point lead over Hilton according to recent polling by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.
Conservatives have also criticized the ad.
Influential evangelical Pastor Jack Hibbs thought the ad was distasteful and said, “lesbianism among college girls and some high school girls that right now is an actual pandemic of social ill.” Republican attorney general candidate Michael Gates said it undermines “the sanctity of the relationship between parents and their children.” This criticism is rather confusing because although the ad features two relatively young women, they both appear to be adults, not minors.
“The comments from Pastor Jack Hibbs should be criticized because there is nothing wrong with two women being attracted to each other,” Salinas said. “We’re calling out the ad’s stereotypes, while also rejecting the homophobia in the response to it … by other Republicans.”
The backlash from Hilton’s own party and supporters shows that an advertisement full of queer innuendo was ill-considered, considering the national GOP’s attacks on LGBTQ people in recent years. Hilton himself has been campaigning against transgender girls and women competing in school sports and using locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity. This context might be why Hilton’s political base responded to the ad just as poorly as the liberal voters he was attempting to court.
Hilton says the ad is part of a new series rolling out before Election Day, showing stereotypical California liberal archetypes voting for Hilton. He claims these ads are authentically filmed with real actors, as opposed to being A.I. generated, like many of his previous ads. One other advertisement has been released so far by the campaign showing a man at a spiritual retreat also being swayed to vote for Hilton, although it is notably absent of sexual innuendo.
Caleb Kaufman is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows.
2026 Midterm Elections
Trump uses anti-trans slur against Democratic Senate candidate
President mocked Annie Andrews
President Donald Trump used an anti-trans slur against Democratic South Carolina Senate candidate Annie Andrews on Monday as he sought to rally support for Republicans in the state’s Senate race.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump attacked Andrews three times, referring to her as “trannie” while promoting U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.)’s campaign.
Andrews is running against Graham for a Senate seat in the solidly Republican state.
Earlier this year, Graham was specially appointed to the seat following the death of her brother, Lindsey Graham, who represented South Carolina in the Senate from 2003 to 2026.
Andrews, the Democratic nominee from the state, is a pediatrician that lives in Charleston with her three children. She told NBC News that she will “work with anyone to put South Carolina first.”
“As a mom and a pediatrician, I’m in this race to fight for my patients, my three kids, and South Carolina,” Andrews said, adding that “lowering costs and making life better for families across our state is going to take all of us working together.”
Andrews used the attention from the president’s attack to emphasize what she described as a focus on policy issues rather than the culture wars that have dominated much of the political debate.
“If you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you,” she added.
Trump’s remarks have drawn criticism from leaders on both sides of the aisle.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned Trump’s words Monday night on social media, calling his attacks on Andrews “despicable.”
“Annie Andrews is a mom and pediatrician who’s always put her community first — and she’s exactly who South Carolina needs representing them in the Senate,” Schumer said on X.
Former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, also criticized the president’s attack on Andrews, urging voters to “reject politics based on division and hate.”
“This is abhorrent. Elections don’t have to be about cruelty and lies. South Carolina deserves better,” Beasley wrote Monday night on X.
South Carolina has not elected a Democratic senator in nearly three decades.
Andrews’s campaign website does not mention her positions on LGBTQ issues.
The Washington Blade reached out to Andrews’s campaign for comment on Trump’s attack and her positions on transgender rights but did not hear back by time of publication.
Center for Black Equity honors leaders, activists at BE. Gala
In ‘The Lost Brontë,’ a complicated lie can lead to danger
CAMP Rehoboth Block Party returns Oct. 18
Essential queer horror classics for Halloween
Solidarity beyond the parade: the actual cost of Pride
10 years later, we still can’t shake Barry Jenkins’s ‘Moonlight’
‘Some Like It Hot’ a wild ride at renovated Bernard Family Theatre
D.C.’s LGBTQ homeless facilities face possible hit from Trump funding cuts
Trump uses anti-trans slur against Democratic Senate candidate
U.S. int’l trade negotiator, consultant James Bedore dies at 82
-
Movies5 days ago10 years later, we still can’t shake Barry Jenkins’s ‘Moonlight’
-
Theater5 days ago
‘Some Like It Hot’ a wild ride at renovated Bernard Family Theatre
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
D.C.’s LGBTQ homeless facilities face possible hit from Trump funding cuts
-
2026 Midterm Elections4 days ago
Trump uses anti-trans slur against Democratic Senate candidate
