National
Legal effort to overturn DOMA offers ‘promising path’
Attorneys prepare for May court hearing in Boston
The organization spearheading a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act is busy with preparations for what could be a monumental court case for LGBT Americans.
Lawyers on both sides of Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management will come before the Federal District Court in Boston on May 6 to argue their cases.
The litigation, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, aims to overturn Section 3 of DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, said the GLAD litigation is “a very important, very well prepared case” and “offers a very promising path to beginning to undo the destructive and unconstitutional so-called Defense of Marriage Act.”
“GLAD thought through very carefully the best way to present the core concerns, powerful stories and a smart remedy to maximize our chances of winning in the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.
Wolfson said he’s certain that GLAD’s attorneys will “be very forceful” in explaining why the federal government’s treatment of same-sex married couples is “unacceptable and unconstitutional.”
The plaintiffs in the case are seven married same-sex couples and three widowers, including Dean Hara, the spouse of Gerry Studds, the late Massachusetts congressman and first openly gay person to serve in Congress.
GLAD contends that as a result of DOMA, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, these plaintiffs have been harmed in various ways, including the denial of survivor benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security benefits, as well as being forced to pay additional federal income taxes. The litigation contends DOMA violates plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
Gary Buseck, GLAD’s legal director, said preparations for the court appearance involve submitting several documents to the court to make their case before Judge Joseph Tauro.
The documents, he said, include memoranda of law to the court, a series of affidavits from the plaintiff couples and widowers, and expert affidavits showing why these couples should be treated as a suspect class for heightened scrutiny from the court.
“What we’re trying to think about is best arguments and how to succinctly present our best arguments,” he said. “We’re trying to think about — given what the government has put to writing — what are they likely to lead with, and are we content with the responses that we’ve written, and trying to imagine what the judge might ask.”
Representing the seven married same-sex couples and three widowers seeking federal marriage benefits in Massachusetts will be Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights project director.
Six years ago, Bonauto was the lead attorney in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the state lawsuit that brought same-sex marriage to Massachusetts, making the Bay State the first in the country to legalize gay nuptials.
Buseck said Bonauto is working on being “as heavily as prepared as possible” so she can “answer any question.”
Buseck said the court appearance on May 6 for the GLAD case wouldn’t be the same as the trial earlier this year for Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a lawsuit in California aimed at overturning Proposition 8.
Because the U.S. government filed a motion to dismiss and GLAD filed a request for summary judgment, Buseck said he’s expecting about 45 minutes to an hour of courtroom activity May 6 instead of a trial lasting several weeks, as in the Perry case.
“We don’t know exactly how much time we’re going to have,” he said. “It’s not like an appeals court where they give you a set of block of time and that’s what you get. This is going to be a little more informal than that.”
The Justice Department didn’t respond to DC Agenda’s request to discuss the case.
Buseck said GLAD can guess how the U.S. government will present itself during the court appearance because of the briefs the Justice Department has already issued.
He noted the Obama administration has said it doesn’t agree with the findings Congress presented in 1996 when it passed DOMA and that it considers the statute is discriminatory, but will nonetheless defend the statute because it believes the statute is constitutional.
Buseck predicted that the government will argue it was rational for Congress to enact DOMA in 1996 in an effort to maintain the status quo and “wait and see how this cultural debate plays out.”
“That’s been their fundamental argument to date, and presumably that’s where they’re going to stick,” he said. “So we’re ready for that. We’ve had to respond to those arguments in writing already.”
Legal experts following the case of Gill v. OPM expect it to reach the U.S. Supreme Court and, if successful, the lawsuit would force the U.S. government to recognize same-sex marriages for federal tax purposes and for Social Security benefits.
Buseck said he thinks it’s possible a decision could come down from a trial court in the summer, but more likely a ruling will be issued this fall.
Following the decision, Buseck said the case would likely go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals at the beginning of next year with a possible decision in Spring 2012. If the case were to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could go on the 2012 term and be decided in June 2013.
But Buseck emphasized that those dates were a “ballpark” estimate and said “there’s a lot of things that could change those dates.”
Running concurrently with the Gill lawsuit in the Federal District Court in Boston is another case challenging DOMA last year by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
Like the Gill case, the state lawsuit challenges the section of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, but contends that it violates Massachusetts’ state right to regulate marriage under the Tenth Amendment.
The Commonwealth case will be heard in the same court and by the same judge, but the court date is scheduled for May 26.
Buseck said the Commonwealth case and the Gill case “complement each other” but “are in different boxes as far as legal theories go.”
“My sense is the judge will probably just for efficiencies’ sake somehow work on these cases together and it’s been my guess — but I’ve no reason to know that — I won’t be surprised if we get decisions on the same day,” Buseck said.
New York
Pride flag raised at Stonewall after National Park Service took it down
‘Our flag represents dignity and human rights’
A Pride flag was raised at the site of the Stonewall National Monument days after a National Park Service directive banned flying the flag at the birthplace of the LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S.
The flag-raising was led by Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal and supported by other elected officials.
“The community should rejoice. We have prevailed,” Hoylman-Sigal said shortly after the flag was hoisted. “Our flag represents dignity and human rights.”
The flag now sits in Christopher Street Park, feet away from the Stonewall Inn, where in 1969 a police raid of the gay bar sparked outrage and led to a rising of LGBTQ people pushing back on NYPD brutality and unjust treatment.
Elected officials brought a new flagpole with them, using plastic zip ties to attach it to the existing pole.
In 2016, President Barack Obama declared the site a national monument.
One day before the planned re-raising of the Pride flag, the National Park Service installed only an American flag on the flagpole, which days prior had flown a rainbow flag bearing the NPS logo.
The directive removing the flag was put forward by Trump-appointed National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron.
This comes one day after more than 20 LGBTQ organizations from across the country co-signed a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and General Services Administrator Ed Forst, demanding the flag be restored to the monument.
“It is our understanding that the policy provides limited exceptions for non-agency flags that provide historical context or play a role in historic reenactments. Simply put, we urge you to grant this flag an exception and raise it once again, immediately,” the letter read. “It also serves as an important reminder to the 30+ million LGBTQ+ Americans, who continue to face disproportionate threats to our lives and our liberty, that the sites and symbols that tell our stories are worth honoring … However, given recent removals of the site’s references to transgender and bisexual people — people who irrefutably played a pivotal role in this history — it is clear that this is not about the preservation of the historical record.”
The letter finished with a message of resilience the LGBTQ community is known for: “The history and the legacy of Stonewall must live on. Our community cannot simply be erased with the removal of a flag. We will continue to stand up and fight to ensure that LGBTQ+ history should not only be protected — it should be celebrated as a milestone in American resilience and progress.”
When asked about the directive, the NPS responded with this 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.”
An Interior Department spokesperson on Thursday called the move to return the flag to the monument a “political stunt.”
“Today’s political pageantry shows how utterly incompetent and misaligned the New York City officials are with the problems their city is facing,” a department spokesperson said when reached for comment.
The clash comes amid broader efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to minimize LGBTQ history and political power. The White House has spent much of President Donald Trump’s second presidency restricting transgender rights — stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth, issuing an executive order stating the federal government will recognize only two sexes, male and female, and blocking Medicaid and Medicare from being used for gender-affirming care.
State Department
FOIA lawsuit filed against State Department for PEPFAR records
Council for Global Equality, Physicians for Human Rights seeking data, documents
The Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents.
The groups, which Democracy Forward represents, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday.
Then-President George W. Bush in 2003 signed legislation that created PEPFAR. UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima last March said PEPFAR has saved 26 million lives around the world.
The Trump-Vance administration in January 2025 froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during the freeze.
The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down because of gaps in U.S. funding. HIV/AIDS activists have also sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over reported plans it will not fully fund PEPFAR in the current fiscal year.
The lawsuit notes the Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have “filed several FOIA requests” with the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents. The groups filed their most recent request on Jan. 30.
“On Jan. 30, 2026, plaintiffs, through counsel, sent State a letter asking it to commit to prompt production of the requested records,” reads the lawsuit. “State responded that the request was being processed but did not commit to any timeline for production.”
“Plaintiffs have received no subsequent communication from State regarding this FOIA request,” it notes.
“Transparency and inclusion have been hallmarks of PEPFAR’s success in the last decade,” said Beirne Roose-Snyder, a senior policy fellow at the Council for Global Equality, in a press release that announced the lawsuit. “This unprecedented withholding of data, and concurrent ideological misdirection of foreign assistance to exclude LGBTQI+ people and others who need inclusive programming, has potentially devastating and asymmetrical impacts on already marginalized communities.”
“This data is vital to understanding who’s getting access to care and who’s being left behind,” added Roose-Snyder.
“We filed this lawsuit to seek transparency: the administration’s PEPFAR data blackout withholds information the public, health providers, and affected communities need to track the HIV epidemic and prevent avoidable illness and death, obscuring the true human cost of these policy decisions,” said Physicians for Human Rights Research, Legal, and Advocacy Director Payal Shah.
The State Department has yet to respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the lawsuit.
New York
N.Y. lawmaker vows ‘Pride flag will fly again’ at Stonewall Monument
After a Jan. 21 policy shift, Pride flags were banned at national parks, prompting backlash from Bottcher and LGBTQ advocates.
Hours after news broke that the National Park Service would no longer allow Pride flags to fly at the Stonewall National Monument — the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement in the United States — the Washington Blade spoke with New York State Sen. Erik Bottcher, who represents the area surrounding the Stonewall Inn and the national monument.
During the interview, Bottcher, who is gay, spoke about the policy change and outlined steps he plans to take in the coming days to push for its reversal.
“This is another act of erasure,” Bottcher told the Blade. “It’s a cowardly attempt to rewrite history and to intimidate our community. This is Stonewall — it’s where we fought back, where we ignited a global movement for equality — and we refuse to go back. We’re not going to accept these acts of erasure.”
The Stonewall Inn became a flashpoint in 1969 after NYPD officers raided the bar, part of a longstanding pattern of police harassment of LGBTQ spaces. The raid sparked days of protest and resistance along Christopher Street, now widely recognized as the catalyst for the modern LGBTQ rights movement.
While the events are often referred to as the “Stonewall Riots,” many activists and historians prefer the term “Stonewall Uprising,” emphasizing that the resistance was a response to systemic oppression rather than senseless violence. LGBTQ patrons and community members fought back — shouting “Gay Power!” and “Liberate Christopher Street!” — as crowds grew and frustration with police abuse boiled over.
Since the uprising, LGBTQ people and allies have gathered annually in June to commemorate Stonewall and to celebrate Pride, honoring the movement that placed LGBTQ voices at the center of the fight for equality.
In June 2016, then President Barack Obama officially designated the space as the Stonewall National Monument, making it the United States’s first national monument designated for an LGBTQ historic site.
Now, nearly 10 years later, President Trump’s appointed NPS acting director Jessica Bowron changed policy on Jan. 21 regarding which flags are allowed to be flown in national parks. Many, including Bottcher, say this is part of a larger targeted and deliberate attempt by the administration to erase LGBTQ history.
“It’s clear they’re making a conscious decision to erase the symbols of our community from a monument to our community’s struggle,” he said. “This is a calculated and premeditated decision, and it could be — and should be — reversed.”
“Let’s be clear,” Bottcher added, “they wish we didn’t exist … But we’re not going anywhere. We refuse to go back into the shadows.”
When asked why it is critical to challenge the policy, Bottcher emphasized the importance of visibility in preserving LGBTQ history.
“This is why it’s so important that we not let this stand,” he said. “Visibility is critical. When people see us, learn about us, and get to know us, that’s how we break down prejudice and stereotypes. We cannot allow them to push us back into the shadows.”
Other LGBTQ leaders and elected officials were quick to condemn the removal of the Pride flag, which had flown since the site’s official designation as a national monument.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the decision “outrageous.”
“I am outraged by the removal of the Rainbow Pride Flag from Stonewall National Monument,” Mamdani said in a statement. “New York is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, and no act of erasure will ever change or silence that history.”
“Our city has a duty not just to honor this legacy, but to live up to it,” he added. “I will always fight for a New York City that invests in our LGBTQ+ community, defends their dignity, and protects every one of our neighbors — without exception.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also condemned the move.
“The removal of the Pride Rainbow Flag from the Stonewall National Monument is a deeply outrageous action that must be reversed immediately,” Schumer said in a statement to The Advocate. “Stonewall is a landmark because it is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, and symbols of that legacy belong there by both history and principle.”
Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the flag’s removal will not erase the movement it represents.
“They can take down a flag, but they can’t take down our history,” Renna said. “Stonewall is sacred ground rooted in resistance, liberation, and the legacy of trans and queer trailblazers who changed the course of history.”
Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Brandon Wolf echoed that sentiment.
“Bad news for the Trump administration: these colors don’t run,” Wolf said. “The Stonewall Inn and Visitors Center are privately owned, their flags are still flying high, and that community is just as queer today as it was yesterday.”
Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, said the removal was aimed squarely at LGBTQ visibility.
“The Pride flag was removed from Stonewall for one reason: to further erase queer and trans people from public life,” Hack said. “Stonewall marks the moment when queer and trans people fought back and demanded dignity. Our history is not theirs to erase.”
Bottcher closed with a promise to his constituents — and to the broader LGBTQ community — that the Pride flag’s removal would not be permanent.
“We will not be erased. We will not be silenced,” he said. “And the Pride flag will fly again at the birthplace of our movement.”
Unconventional love: Or, fuck it, let’s choose each other again
Pride flag raised at Stonewall after National Park Service took it down
Trans students not included in new India University Grants Commission equity rules
Calendar: February 13-19
FOIA lawsuit filed against State Department for PEPFAR records
I keep getting rejected on the apps
Pride flag removed from Stonewall Monument as Trump targets LGBTQ landmarks
Olympics Pride House ‘really important for the community’
Gay man details secret struggle with bulimia
