National
How will Supreme Court rule on marriage?
Parsing statements, records for hints as to how justices will decide DOMA, Prop 8 cases
Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are expected to issue rulings on the Prop 8 and DOMA cases in June. (Photo public domain)
The nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are expected to reach a decision by the end of June in two high-profile LGBT rights cases on which they heard oral arguments last week challenging California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The justices could reach any number of decisions on either or both of the cases — upholding the anti-gay measures, dismissing the cases for lack of standing or jurisdiction, striking down Prop 8 and DOMA on grounds they violate the rights of same-sex couples under the U.S. Constitution — or even issuing a national ruling in favor of marriage equality.
Predicting how they might rule is tricky. But several of the justices made statements and asked questions during the oral arguments that offered some hints. Perhaps more significantly, many of them have a record of ruling in gay rights cases that might indicate their leanings on marriage. The Washington Blade has compiled profiles of the justices to assess how they might rule in the two marriage cases before them.
In addition to examining their comments during the arguments, the Blade has looked at how they ruled in other high-profile gay rights cases. One is the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans in which the Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2, which would have prohibited municipalities from passing non-discrimination ordinances protecting LGBT people. Another is the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas in which the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws.
The Blade also looked at the court ruling in the 2010 case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In that case, the court upheld the Hastings College of Law’s non-discrimination policy against a challenge from Hastings Christian Fellowship, which sought to overturn the policy to maintain its status as an official school group while prohibiting LGBT people from holding positions as officers.
Chief Justice John Roberts (Photo public domain)
1. Chief Justice John Roberts
The chief justice of the Supreme Court seemed skeptical during oral arguments that Prop 8 and DOMA should be struck down as unconstitutional. He also seemed dismissive of the notion that LGBT people lack political power.
In an exchange with attorney Robbie Kaplan, Chief Justice John Roberts disputed that gay people lack political power — a characteristic that the court has considered in weighing whether a group should be considered a suspect class.
“As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case,” Roberts said.
The chief justice was likely referring to the trend of U.S. senators announcing their support for marriage equality, which just this week added Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). When Kaplan pointed out that no group has been subject to referenda in recent years like gay people, Roberts seemed unmoved.
“You just referred to a sea change in people’s understandings and values from 1996, when DOMA was enacted, and I’m just trying to see where that comes from, if not from the political effectiveness of groups on your side,” Roberts said.
Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, hasn’t ruled on many gay rights cases during his time on the bench. Still, Roberts ruled as part of the dissent that deemed exclusion of LGBT students was acceptable in the Christian Legal Society case.
On the other hand, Roberts in 1996 helped gay rights activists as part of his law firm’s pro bono work in preparation for the Romer case. He also has a lesbian cousin, Jean Podrasky, who attended arguments on Prop 8.
Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, pointed to another comment Roberts made indicating a parent forcing a child to make friends with another child changes the definition of friendship.
“It suggested that he might be less open to recognizing marriage rights for same-sex couples than the Olson-Boies team had anticipated,” Goldberg said.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (Photo public domain)
2. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, viewed by many as the most anti-gay of the justices, mused that being raised by gay parents may not be good for a child — an argument made by many anti-gay groups.
“If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not,” Scalia said. “Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”
Those words are consistent with anti-gay views that Scalia has expressed in the past. Most notably, speaking at Princeton in December, Scalia compared bans on sodomy to laws against murder, saying, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
Since his confirmation to the court, Scalia has not only made anti-gay rulings, but has taken the lead on the opinions. The Reagan-appointed justice wrote the dissenting opinions in the Romer and Lawrence cases and joined with other dissenting justices in ruling for LGBT exclusion in the Christian Legal Society case.
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a professor at Loyola Law School, said Scalia is likely to rule to uphold Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.
“Justice Scalia has made clear in earlier opinions … that legislation can be justified merely by moral disapproval of homosexuality, even though a majority of the court has rejected that position,” NeJaime said. “Moreover, under his theory of constitutional interpretation, he does not believe that lesbians and gay men have a constitutional basis for their claims in these cases.”
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy (Photo public domain)
3. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy
The justice who’s being most closely watched because of his reputation for being a swing vote — and his previous rulings in favor of gay rights — conveyed mixed sentiments during the arguments.
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy contemplated the effect that overturning or sustaining Prop 8 would have on children based on the newness of same-sex marriage.
“We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more,” Kennedy said. “On the other hand, there is … what could be a legal injury, and that’s the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California … that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status.”
A Reagan appointee, Kennedy authored the majority opinions in the Romer and Lawrence cases that struck down anti-gay measures in those lawsuits. In the Christian Legal Society case, Kennedy also ruled in favor of requiring student groups to be open to all students regardless of LGBT status.
That’s what makes Kennedy’s comment questioning the Ninth Circuit ruling against Prop 8, which was largely based on his opinion in Romer, particularly noteworthy.
“The rationale of the Ninth Circuit was much more narrow,” Kennedy said. “It basically said that California, which has been more generous, more open to protecting same-sex couples than almost any state in the union, just didn’t go far enough, and it’s being penalized for not going far enough. That’s a very odd rationale on which to sustain this opinion.”
Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, said the “single most powerful vibe” she received from Kennedy during arguments was his ambivalence.
“My best guess is that in the Perry case, he will rule in some way that avoids discussion of Prop 8’s constitutionality and that in the Windsor case, he will conclude that DOMA is unconstitutional, but his opinion may invoke federalism as much as it does the Equal Protection Clause,” Hunter said.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (Photo public domain)
4. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
In accordance with his custom, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas remained silent for the duration of oral arguments in the marriage cases.
Thomas is known for not asking questions. In January, after seven years of silence, the George H.W. Bush-appointed justice made news when he broke his tradition and cracked a joke about the competency of an attorney during a case unrelated to marriage.
But Thomas has a history of taking the anti-gay side. He ruled in the dissent in the Romer and Lawrence cases and ruled for LGBT exclusion in the Christian Legal Society case.
Chris Stoll, a senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said oral arguments don’t offer any information on how Thomas might rule, but noted the justice’s history of anti-gay opinions.
“He is quite conservative and historically has voted with the other conservative justices in cases involving LGBT equality,” Stoll said.
5. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Photo public domain)
One justice who has a history of ruling in favor of gay rights indicated a disdain for DOMA during oral arguments.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 1996 law creates two different kinds of unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples: “the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.”
While questioning attorney Paul Clement, Ginsburg more distinctly articulated the problems for gay couples under DOMA by enumerating benefits denied to them under the law.
“The problem is if we are totally for the states’ decision that there is a marriage between two people, for the federal government then to come in to say no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits; your spouse is very sick but you can’t get leave; people — if that set of attributes, one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this?” Ginsburg said.
Ginsburg also has a history suggesting she’d be willing to rule against Prop 8 and DOMA. The Clinton-appointed justice ruled in favor of LGBT advocates in the Romer, Lawrence and Christian Legal Society cases. Prior to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, Ginsburg was a women’s rights advocate and co-founder of the women’s rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
David Gans, civil rights director for the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, said he considers Ginsburg a likely vote to strike down DOMA and Prop 8 based on her history of rulings and comments made in court.
“I think her comments tended to be across the board very skeptical of the justifications offered, and, of course, her record, both as an advocate and justice is to honor the constitutional guarantee of equal protection applies to all persons,” Gans said.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (Photo public domain)
6. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer
The other Clinton appointee on the bench also made comments during the Prop 8 arguments suggesting he might rule in favor of marriage rights for gay couples.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer was dismissive of Cooper’s assertion that marriage is for procreation, observing California allows straight couples who cannot have children to marry.
“What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not?” Breyer said. “I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can’t have children.”
And Breyer’s earlier rulings suggest he would be amenable to striking down Prop 8 and DOMA. Breyer joined Kennedy and other justices in the pro-gay rulings for Romer and Lawrence and sided with LGBT inclusion in the Christian Legal Society Case.
Gans said Breyer’s comments during the Prop 8 arguments indicate his rulings on the anti-gay measures will likely be consistent with his earlier decisions.
“Justice Breyer’s questions during oral argument suggested that he would find that discriminatory marriage laws violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all persons,” Gans said.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito (Photo public domain)
7. Associate Justice Samuel Alito
Associate Justice Samuel Alito expressed concerns about same-sex marriage, quipping that it’s “newer than cell phones or the Internet.”
“Same-sex marriage is very new,” Alito said. “I think it was first adopted in the Netherlands in 2000. So there isn’t a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.”
An appointee of President George W. Bush, Alito hasn’t been on the court long enough to have ruled in the earlier landmark Lawrence and Romer cases. But he wrote the dissenting opinion in favor of LGBT exclusion in the Christian Legal Society case.
Lavi Soloway, a gay immigration attorney and co-founder of The DOMA Project, said he expects Alito to be consistent and issue an anti-gay decision in the cases before him — taking note of the exchange in the Prop 8 case.
“This line of thinking was disappointing; it not only belittled the fight for equality, but suggested that Justice Alito would first need to be convinced of the ‘effects’ of same-sex marriage before he could determine whether gay and lesbian Americans have a constitutionally protected right to marry,” Soloway said. “This exchange suggested to me that Alito will most likely vote to uphold Prop 8, preferring that legislatures continue to wrestle with this issue.”
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Photo public domain)
8. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Another justice — this one appointed by President Obama — asked some of the most pointed questions about whether there’s any reason anti-gay laws could survive the court’s lowest standard of review.
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed attorney Charles Cooper on whether he could conceive of anti-gay laws on other issues other than marriage that could survive rational basis review. The answer from Cooper was that he could not.
“If that is true, then why aren’t they a class?” Sotomayor responded. “If they’re a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren’t we treating them as a class for this one thing?”
Sotomayor’s response suggests she might agree with the Obama administration that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional.
A newcomer to the court, Sotomayor hasn’t had the opportunity to rule on many of the earlier LGBT rights cases that have come before the bench. But in the Christian Legal Society case, she joined four other justices in ruling student groups had to accept all students regardless of LGBT status.
Notably, Sotomayor was the only one among nine justices who responded to a letter from a North Carolina 6th grader named Cameron urging justices to rule in favor of marriage equality. The justice said she had no comment on the marriage cases, but urged Cameron to keep “dreaming big.”
NCLR’s Stoll pointed to Sotomayor’s exchange with Cooper as evidence she’d rule against Prop 8 and had similar expectations for how she’d rule on DOMA.
“She seemed perplexed and unpersuaded by Cooper’s argument that excluding gay people from marriage somehow promotes ‘responsible procreation’ by different-sex couples,” Stoll said.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
9. Associate Justice Elena Kagan
Yet another justice appointed by President Obama seemed skeptical about arguments presented by proponents of Prop 8 and DOMA.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan suggested to attorney Paul Clement that Congress may have had another motive other than uniformity when it determined to pass the anti-gay law.
“This was a real difference in the uniformity that the federal government was pursuing,” Kagan said. “And it suggests that maybe something — maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity.”
Clement offered a lengthy response in which he talked about federal bans on polygamy and laws after the Civil War allowing freed slaves to marry. But Kagan responded by reading from the House report on DOMA, which states the law was passed “to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality” — deemed a “gotcha” moment that elicited laughter from those in the courtroom.
During the Prop 8 arguments, Kagan was also skeptical of Cooper’s argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation and asked for a legitimate reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
“Is there any reason that you have for excluding them?” Kagan said. “In other words, you’re saying, well, if we allow same-sex couples to marry, it doesn’t serve the state’s interest. But do you go further and say that it harms any state interest?”
Like Sotomayor, Kagan is a relative newcomer to the court and hasn’t had the opportunity to rule on gay cases. During her confirmation hearing, Kagan wouldn’t say whether the she thinks the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.
Still, Loyola’s NeJaime said Kagan seemed bothered during oral arguments by equal protections concerns presented by Prop 8 and DOMA.
“Given her lengthy questions about the relationship between age and procreative ability, she seems unconvinced by the ‘responsible procreation’ rationale for same-sex marriage bans,” NeJaime said. “And given her reading of the House report on DOMA regarding the ‘moral disapproval of homosexuality,’ she is suggesting that the law may not survive rational basis review.”
New York
Grace Meng sharply criticizes DOJ over hospital settlements
N.Y. congresswoman spoke with the Blade this week
Few things have riled up Republicans in power like the ongoing fight to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
The Trump-Vance administration has been clear in making the fight against transgender rights, healthcare, and visibility a priority as they enter their “lame duck” phase of the presidency.
With the midterms looming, they are hoping scapegoating trans children — as they did in 2020, only for it to grow into a core national party strategy in the following elections — will save them from a less-than-secure control of the federal government like they’ve had since Trump took office.
In the past year, numerous deals have been struck between hospitals that have provided gender-affirming care to minors and the Justice Department to halt any further care.
While Republican pundits and conservative voices continue to accuse these hospitals — like NYU Langone and Mount Sinai Health System — of committing what they contend are atrocities against these children, large portions of gender-affirming care for minors involve social transitions and puberty blockers, which are reversible.
The Washington Blade spoke with Congresswoman Grace Meng, who represents New York’s Sixth Congressional District and is the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, to discuss whether these ongoing settlements between hospitals and the Trump-run Justice Department are legal.
In her role as the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Meng oversees funding for Justice Department and a slew of other federal agencies. The position gives her the power to look behind the coercion, examine how things are being done, and question the policies and actions of these federal powers in a way many other members of Congress cannot.
Meng said the Justice Department’s actions against hospitals providing gender-affirming care are part of what she sees as a broader pattern of institutions — under the control of this president — targeting LGBTQ people.
“Unfortunately this is not the first time that the DOJ is weaponizing the agency to target our communities, and our LGBTQ+ community, especially our young people, are unfortunately yet another victim of that,” Meng told the Blade. “The real victims are the actual patients and families who are losing a trusted provider.”
She argued that one prong of this ongoing situation is the way the DOJ is going about these “wins” — through pressure rather than through going to court to find actual wrongdoings.
“This DOJ knows that they can’t win in the courts based on the merit of these types of actions, so they are just working by bullying and using coercion to cheat their way through getting what they want,” she said.
She pointed to the use of litigation, subpoenas, and reputational damage against the hospitals as part of that pressure campaign.
“They know that they can’t prove any wrongdoing in court, so they’re just using the threat of prolonged litigation, subpoenas for patients’ records and trying to damage reputations of these institutions as they’ve been cutting funding for them.”
The hospitals involved so far include NYU Langone Hospitals in New York, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, Connecticut Children’s Hospital in Connecticut, and Texas Children’s Hospital in Texas.
Meng said the settlements are part of a broader strategy by the Justice Department.
“This is a part of their larger deliberate strategy across the country. They’ve obviously gone after NYU Langone. They’ve gone after Mount Sinai in my state, and they’re doing this in other states as well.”
When asked about the agreements being reached between the Justice Department and hospitals, Meng was direct.
“I think these are forced settlements. Absolutely,” Meng said.
Meng described the federal government’s involvement in individual trans healthcare decisions as an intrusion into private medical decisions.
“This is cruel. It’s a cruel form of coercion. It’s a form of cheating,” she went on, comparing this to the ongoing fight for reproductive freedom in the country. “Just like when we’re talking about reproductive rights, right? It’s an invasion of privacy. These are confidential patient records.”
Meng said the federal government should not be involved in decisions between families and their doctors.
“President Trump and the federal government do not belong in a hospital, helping to make decisions that are very personal and sensitive to every single family. They should not be involved in these decisions.”
She said the settlements could leave families without access to healthcare they need.
“Their way of forcing these settlements and leaving so many without the healthcare that they really need is really just devastating.”
Meng said the impact is already being felt by families in her district and across New York.
“The human impact, the impact on our families, on our constituents here in Queens and throughout New York, is really hurtful.”
Meng framed the issue as part of what she described as a larger pattern within the Trump-Vance administration of attacking the most vulnerable.
“If you ask me to sum up this administration in one word, it would be cruelty,” she said. “They feel like they have a right to decide who is American enough in this country, and who is good enough, and who is deserving enough.”
She went further, saying Trump is “literally acting as a dictator.”
She contrasted his leadership with that of a traditional public servant.
“Most public servants wake up every day thinking of ways that they can make people’s lives better, how they can help people. This administration and this action is no different. It wakes up and thinks of a new way to target a different community every day.”
As the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Meng said Congress has tools available to examine how the Justice Department operates and spends federal money.
“The purpose of our 12 subcommittees is to have direct oversight and leverage as Congress members, as the third branch of government, over how the Department of Justice spends our taxpayers’ money.”
One crucial thing Meng pointed out about being on this committee is the fact that much of the work of appropriations is bipartisan and is entirely within the power of Congress via the Constitution.
“We need the White House to respect the constitutional process that the Appropriations Committee goes through,” she said. “We write the Appropriations Law. It’s between Republican and Democratic Congress members.”
When asked about the funding from the settlements — and the continued funding for an increasingly looked-down-upon DOJ — she said she is seeking greater transparency into how federal money is being spent.
“I think that both sides will end up wanting more transparency into the money, how the money is spent.”
Meng said Congress has the legal authority to place requirements on the Justice Department through appropriations legislation.
“We have the legal authority to include language that helps write the DOJ and other agencies, but the DOJ’s budget, and so we will certainly exercise that authority whether or not we’re in the majority.”
She also pointed to the possibility of Democrats taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives after the midterms.
“Hopefully, as we’re in the majority after November, we will be able to have more teeth and more ability to apply that pressure and to write the bill in a way that is transparent and doesn’t harm our families.”
Despite the growing public agitation and disappointment over these settlements, Meng said there is not yet a specific schedule for congressional hearings on the issue, but that it may come after the midterms.
“We don’t have a timeline of hearings and specific topics, but CJS is everything under Commerce, Justice, and Science-related agencies,” she said. “Hopefully, when House Democrats control the House and maybe even the Senate, that we’ll be able to claw back some of their overreach.”
Meng also criticized what she described as a Justice Department operating outside the traditional boundaries of the agency.
“They can’t operate as a rogue agency or as a personal law firm of this president, in the way that they’re doing now. Using subpoenas, threatening prosecutions, these settlements — they are tools that are being used, I believe, unethically and illegally.”
Meng said trans children and their families could continue to face the consequences of the administration’s actions as the Justice Department expands its efforts.
“These are maybe low-hanging fruit or easy targets for the administration, but I can see them going after institutions in other states as they started to do as well.”
She said members of Congress have a responsibility to reassure affected families that they are not alone.
“Our job, whether it’s a representative for my Queens families, but for families across America too, is to let them know that I and my colleagues, many of my colleagues, are standing with them.”
“We are still with them, especially with the patients and the families affected by the NYU Langone deal, but any of these institutions and how they’re hurting them.”
Meng said she wants to achieve that through partnerships outside of government.
“We’re gonna do our best to expand partnership with organizations on the ground to make sure that they’re getting the support and the care that they need.”
While talking to the Blade, Meng also raised broader concerns about the relationship between Congress and the executive branch.
“This administration has definitely not followed the Constitution, and I know that there are pending lawsuits,” she said.
Just this week, the Trump-Vance administration was taken to court over what CNN, POLITICO and MS NOW alleged were violations of their First Amendment rights.
Meng said the administration has not treated Congress as an independent branch of government.
“They [the president] do not act as if Congress is a third branch of government. They think and act like Congress works for them, like they’re a part of their agencies that they’re weaponizing.”
Meng said she believes the public has become more aware of the administration’s actions, but that there is still work to do in explaining how those actions unfold.
“I think that the American people’s eyes have been opened a little more under this administration than in past ones … There’s definitely more room to continue to educate the public as to what this administration is doing.”
For Meng, the debate over trans healthcare ultimately comes down to the families affected by the decisions being made in Washington.
“What’s most important is not just the legalese that everyone’s debating these days when news like this comes out. We have to remember that there are real human beings, real families that are being impacted,” she said. “There are people crying behind closed doors in their homes, and they don’t know literally what they can do or where they will call next to get the care that they need and that they want.”
Meng said lawmakers have a responsibility to address the issue legislatively while also supporting families in their communities.
“It’s our job in Washington, in the capital, to fight these fights legislatively. But in our home districts and in our communities, it’s our job to reassure these families that we’re there for them, and that we’re going to be creative, and we’re going to find new partnerships and expand existing ones to make sure that our families have a path forward.”
She said local and state governments are also being forced to find ways to respond — and, in many cases, end up being some of the only places where protections can happen.
“Our local legislators and many of our communities, on the city level, municipal level, and the state level, they’re looking for more funding options, and a lot of them, including in New York, have had to step up in major ways.”
“Everyone has to step up in newer and more creative ways.”
Ultimately, Meng said the focus should remain on the families affected by the decisions.
“But at the end of the day, it’s the families that are impacted that we’re doing this for,” she said.
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the U.S., issued a statement this week following the announcement of more settlements.
“This is nothing less than a crisis for families and transgender youth. Since day one, Trump and his callous administration have used the full force of the federal government to come after transgender young people, their families and their doctors — and far too many hospitals are complying and abandoning their patients. Now, even in states with policies that protect transgender people, the options for parents to get their children best-practice, and potentially life-saving healthcare, are dwindling day by day,” HRC President Kelley Robinson said.
“This is the exact outcome Trump wants to see — and this cruelty shouldn’t be lost on anyone who has ever had to make difficult decisions about how to safeguard their child’s health and well-being. Our thoughts are with the countless families across the country who feel scared and under siege. We will not stop fighting until everyone can have access to the healthcare they need.”
While the Blade had her, they also asked about House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), and his decision to send members of Congress home rather than hold a vote on impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in part over his trans military ban, which has left thousands of highly skilled, ready and able workers sitting on the sidelines awaiting the courts to tell them if they are guaranteed the right to fight on behalf of the country.
“I can’t take credit for this, but someone called it the Hegseth holiday,” Meng said. “This speaker, every time there’s a tough vote, instead of acting as a leader and a speaker, he just calls it quits and he sends us home.”
“I believe — and I’m sure he does — that we had enough votes to impeach Hegseth, and he didn’t want to do it. So off we go.”
National
Philadelphia event to launch 2026 LGBT History Month
Dr. Fauci to be honored as 31 LGBT ‘Icons’ are announced
Equality Forum, the Philadelphia-based group that organizes the nation’s annual LGBT History Month in October, is scheduled to launch the 2026 LGBT History Month at a VIP Reception on Sept. 27.
The event, to be held at Philadelphia’s Independence Visitor Center, will honor Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases who is credited with playing a leading role in the fight against HIV/AIDS and COVID-19. Equality Forum was to present Fauci with its International Role Model Award.
The Equality Forum, which operates programs focusing on LGBT history and the people who play a leading role in historic undertakings, will also present its Frank Kameny Award to Erica Deuso, who in 2025 won election as the first openly transgender mayor in the state of Pennsylvania as mayor of the town of Downington, Pa.
A statement released by the Equality Forum points out that LGBT History Month, held each year, celebrates the achievements of 31 lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender icons throughout the month of October. “Each day in October, a new LGBT icon is featured with a video, bio, bibliography, downloadable images, and other resources,” the statement says.
Although the statement releases the name and a short background description of each of this year’s 31 LGBT icons, the icons were scheduled to be officially announced and honored at the Sept. 27 event.
“The LGBT community is the only community worldwide that is not taught its history at home, in public schools or in religious institutions,” the statement says. “LGBT History Month provides role models, builds community and makes the civil rights statement about our extraordinary national and international contributions,” it says.
This year’s Icons include designer Calvin Klein, media mogul Barry Diller, U.S. Senate hopeful Chris Pappas, and perhaps most notably President Abe Lincoln.
Additional information about the event and a list of the 2026 LGBT Icons can be accessed at lgbthistorymonth.com.
Netherlands
Dutch prime minister visits Stonewall Inn
Rob Jetten is the Netherlands’ first openly gay prime minister
Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten on Monday visited the Stonewall Inn in New York.
“The Stonewall Inn is not just a gay bar in New York, but the place where in 1969 riots took place as a reaction to years of discrimination and police violence,” wrote Jetten on X. “This is seen as the starting point of the global LGBTIQ+ emancipation and activism. Nowadays, the bar is a national monument, dedicated to the LGBTIQ+ rights movement.”
“For me, it is impressive and moving to be here tonight. And also fitting, because the defense of human rights is an important part of our foreign policy,” he added. “The Netherlands stands alongside the Stonewall Inn community when it comes to everyone’s right to live openly, safely, and with pride, no matter who you are or who you love.”
De Stonewall Inn is niet zomaar een gay bar in New York, maar de plaats waar in 1969 rellen plaatsvonden als reactie op jarenlange discriminatie en geweld van de politie. Dit wordt gezien als startpunt van de wereldwijde lhbtiq+-emancipatie en activisme. Tegenwoordig is de bar… pic.twitter.com/hJmFYjF91Z
— Rob Jetten (@MinPres) September 23, 2026
Jetten in February became the Netherlands’s first openly gay prime minister.
He opened last month’s World Pride Human Rights Conference in Amsterdam. Jetten also participated in a panel with former Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, former San Marino Captain Regent Paolo Rondelli, and other current and former heads of government who are gay or lesbian.
Jetten is scheduled to speak to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday.
Former Capital Pride board member reiterates sexual harassment allegation
Grace Meng sharply criticizes DOJ over hospital settlements
‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ star Celia Rose Gooding breaks down that finale time travel twist
Center for Black Equity’s annual gala to take place Oct. 3
