National
Bi-national couples in ‘surreal’ wait for DOMA decision
150 attorneys in training to assist when ruling comes
Heather (left) and Maria “Mar” del Mar have already filed their I-130 applications in anticipating of a ruling against DOMA. (Photo courtesy of Immigration Equality)
After being together for five years, Heather and Maria “Mar” del Mar are making their final preparations in anticipation of a ruling from the Supreme Court that could mean they can stay together in the United States.
Heather, a U.S. citizen, and Mar, a Spanish national, have already completed their I-130 marriage-based green card application and have sent it to the LGBT group Immigration Equality with the expectation that the high court will strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.
“We’re actually largely done with that,” Heather said. “Our intention on that front is, of course, to file that petition the first day it’s legally viable to do so.”
Although Mar has legal status because she’s living in the United States on a work visa, it expires in November. Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, has blocked the New York City couple, who married in 2011, from a more permanent solution.
In March of last year, U.S. Customs & Immigration Enforcement denied Heather and Maria a marriage-based green card based on an earlier application, citing DOMA as the reason. They’re one of the estimated 28,500 bi-national same-sex couples in danger of separation.
That could change in the coming days. The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA as a result of pending litigation along with ruling in a separate case challenging California’s Proposition 8.
If the court rules DOMA is unconstitutional, blocking the U.S. government from enforcing it, USCIS will have no legal reason to withhold the marriage-based green card from Heather and Mar.
Heather, a marketing director for a global non-profit organization in New York, said the wait for the decision has been “kind of surreal” and what’s been on the couple’s minds in the days heading to the ruling.
“We look at each other every night before we go to bed I would say for the last few weeks, where it’s been kind of like a month countdown, and we’ve said, “Oh my God, what is it going to really be like the day after?” she said. “How much is our life going to change when this issue isn’t a huge weight on our relationship and even on our everyday thought process.”
Mar, who works in marketing for a Spanish-language newspaper in New York, said a ruling against DOMA would lift a considerable burden because they are unable to plan for the future as they fear separation.
“We are really nervous because this would be a big change in our life,” Mar said. “We are very excited.”
As of today, the Supreme Court calendar designates only June 20 and June 24 as days on which opinions will be handed down; But with 14 cases yet to be decided, it is widely expected that they will add another day to the calendar, either June 26 or June 27 and the decisions for the marriage will be announced at that time.
And Heather and Mar, who are among the plaintiffs in Immigration Equality’s lawsuit against DOMA, already have plans. On the last Saturday of the month, they’re inviting friends and family to come to their home to celebrate the moment when the federal government will view their relationship as legally equal to others.
“We actually already have — I guess this is probably superstitious; I shouldn’t say this out loud — but we actually already have a celebration planned for family and friends — we have to be optimistic — for Saturday night on the 29th,” Heather said. “So, we’re celebrating at our place.”
And what if the Supreme Court rules in favor of DOMA? Heather said it’s not an outcome they like to consider, but in that event, they’d pursue additional litigation, find a way to renew Mar’s work visa and push for the inclusion of gay couples in comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
“To be honest, it will just be devastating; all of those things are just technically the things that we’ll do,” Heather said. “I’ll tell you what we’re going to do; we’re going to start a family anyway because we refuse to live at the effect of our circumstances. We’ve already postponed things in our life much more than is fair — and we’ll consider the option of moving to Spain where our marriage is recognized.”
But Heather and Mar are just one of many bi-national same-sex couples readying for a Supreme Court ruling that would ensure they can stay together in the United States.
Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, said she’s expecting thousands of green card applications from bi-national same-sex couples in the months following a court ruling against DOMA.
“We think that there will be over the first year many thousands,” Tiven said. “I think in the remaining five months of the year, we’ll see something between 2,000 and 10,000 applications, but that’s a guess.”
In the meantime, Tiven said her organization is already preparing some applications for same-sex bi-national couples and making plans for others to renew applications that were previously denied.
“We’re preparing some families who will file immediately if the Supreme Court will enable them to do so,” Tiven said. “Other families who filed a long time ago — either because they were plaintiffs, or because it was a step to seeking deferred action — we are asking the administration, for those who were denied, we’re asking the administration to reopen those applications so they don’t have to file all over again, and don’t have to pay the fee again.”
In order to facilitate the expected increase in couples filing marriage-based green card applications, Immigration Equality’s legal team has conducted two trainings last week for attorneys who have signed up to assist couples with their petitions following a court ruling striking down Section 3 of DOMA.
Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said 150 lawyers from across the country to date have joined that network of attorneys and have taken part in one of those two trainings.
“As part of that training, our legal team discussed topics related to identifying issues that may arise for same-sex bi-national couples during implementation following the court’s ruling,” Ralls said. “A key goal is to ensure that attorneys working with LGBT families can also serve as watchdogs during that critical implementation period and report any issues they encounter with relevant government agencies in their processing of green card applications for affected families.”
Another couple making preparations in anticipation of a court ruling is Rachel Wilkins and Jennifer Blum, a New Jersey couple that married a year-and-a-half ago. Blum, a New Jersey native, is awaiting the opportunity to sponsor Wilkins, a British national, for residency in the United States.
The couple has never filed a marriage-based green card application before, but Blum, an attorney, said they’ve already hired an attorney to help them through the process in anticipation of a ruling against DOMA.
“We’ve hired an attorney to prepare our application for us,” Blum said. “So we’ve been really just trying to get all the paperwork together, and we’re excited for this decision to finally come to fruition, and we just want to move on with our lives.”
Wilkins, a curator who’s in the country on work visa, said she shares a sense of optimism that the Supreme Court will issue a decision that renders Section 3 of the the Defense of Marriage Act inoperable.
“I think we’re feeling optimistic,” Wilkins said. “We were watching the Supreme Court blog to see the orders handed down just waiting to see the right decision made.”
The couple came to D.C. when the oral arguments took place at the Supreme Court in March and had the opportunity to meet lesbian New Yorker Edith Windsor, who filed the lawsuit that’s currently before the court.
“We walked up on the steps and I lost it … because it’s just the culmination of so many people’s hard work, sweat, they’ve given so much to be able to get to this point where we could get this case in front of the Supreme Court, and for the Supreme Court to finally do the right thing, and for justice to be done,” Blum said.
Should the court strike down DOMA, Blum said they’ll celebrate by gathering at the Stonewall Inn in New York City, where riots began in 1969 that were considered the start of the modern gay rights movement.
“Legally, factually, I just can’t see the Supreme Court determining any other way,” Blum said. “Like I said, there’s no other option.”
Lavi Soloway, a gay immigration attorney at Masliah & Soloway and co-founder of The DOMA Project, said his firm worked for several months on preparing to file new marriage-based green card applications — some on the day the court issues a decision against DOMA — and has several filed in 2011 and 2012 that haven’t yet been denied.
“The couples have undertaken the preparation with the understanding that that the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA is not something that we can predict in advance, but it would be fair to say that their perspective, like mine, is cautiously optimistic,” Soloway said.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes to Jennifer Blum and Rachel Wilkins. The Blade regrets the error.
National
LGBTQ Catholic groups slam Trump over pope criticism
‘Moral truth and compassion always overcome ignorant hate’
LGBTQ Catholic groups have sharply criticized President Donald Trump over his criticisms of Pope Leo XIV.
Leo on April 13 told reporters while traveling to Algeria that he had “no fear of the Trump administration” after the president described him as “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy” in response to his opposition to the Iran war. (Trump on the same day posted to Truth Social an image that appeared to show him as Jesus Christ. He removed it on April 13 amid backlash from religious leaders.)
Vice President JD Vance, who is Catholic, during a Fox News Channel interview on the same day said “in some cases, it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of what’s going on with the Catholic church, and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy.” Vance on April 14 once again discussed Leo during an appearance at a Turning Point USA event in Athens, Ga., saying he should “be careful when he talks about matters of theology.”
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni; former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Miguel Díaz; and Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are among those who have criticized Trump over his comments. The president, for his part, has said he will not apologize to Leo.
“The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants,” said Leo on Thursday at a cathedral in Bamenda, Cameroon.
Francis DeBernardo is the executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based LGBTQ Catholic organization. He told the Washington Blade on Thursday that Trump’s comments about Leo “are one more example of the ridiculous hubris of this leader (Trump) whose entire record shows that he is nothing more than a middle-school bully.”
“LGBTQ+ adults were often bullied as children, and they have learned the lesson that bullies act when they feel frightened or threatened,” said DeBernardo. “But secular power does not threaten the Vicar of Christ, and Pope Leo’s response illustrates this truth perfectly.”
DeBernardo added Trump “is obviously frightened that Pope Leo, an American, has more power and influence than the president on the world stage.”
“Like most Trumpian bullying, this strategy will backfire,” DeBernardo told the Blade. “Moral truth and compassion always overcome ignorant hate. Trump’s actions are not an example of his power, but of his impotence.”
Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, an LGBTQ Catholic organization, echoed DeBernardo.
“He [Trump] has demonstrated throughout both presidencies that he doesn’t understand the basic concepts of any faith system that is founded on the dignity of human beings, the importance of common good,” Duddy-Burke told the Blade on Thursday during a telephone interview. “It’s just appalling.”
Duddy-Burke praised Leo and the American cardinals who have publicly criticized Trump.
“The pope’s popularity — given how much more respect Pope Leo has than the man sitting in the White House — is a blow to his ego,” Duddy-Burke told the Blade. “That seems to be a sore sport for him.”
“It’s such an imperialistic world view,” she added.
Leo ‘is the real peacemaker’
The College of Cardinals last May elected Leo to succeed Pope Francis after his death.
Leo, who was born in Chicago, is the first American pope. He was the bishop of the Diocese of Chiclayo in Peru from 2015-2023.
Francis made him a cardinal in 2023.
Juan Carlos Cruz — a gay Chilean man and clergy sex abuse survivor who Francis appointed to the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors — has traveled to Ukraine several times with Dominican Sister Lucía Caram since Russia launched its war against the country in 2022. Cruz on Thursday responded to Trump’s criticism of Leo in a text message he sent to the Blade from Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital.
“I am in Ukraine under many attacks,” said Cruz. “Trump is an asshole and has zero right to criticize the Pope who is the real peacemaker.”
Tennessee
Charlie Kirk Act advances in Tenn.
Bill would limit protests, protects speakers opposing ‘transgender’ identities
The Tennessee legislature has passed Senate Bill 1741 / House Bill 1476, dubbed the “Charlie Kirk Act,” which, if signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, would reshape how public colleges and universities regulate speech on campus.
The measure targets all public higher education institutions and requires them to adopt a “free expression” policy modeled on the University of Chicago’s framework. That framework emphasizes that universities should not shield students from controversial or offensive ideas and requires state schools to formally embrace institutional neutrality — meaning they do not publicly take a stance on political or social issues.
Under the legislation, publicly funded schools cannot disinvite or cancel invited speakers based on their viewpoints or in response to protests from students or faculty. Student organizations, however — like Turning Point USA, an American nonprofit that advocates for conservative politics on high school, college, and university campuses, founded by Charlie Kirk, and often lack widely represented liberal counterparts — would retain broad authority to bring speakers to campus regardless of controversy.
The law includes broad protections for individuals and organizations expressing religious or ideological beliefs, including opposition to abortion, homosexuality, or transgender identity, regardless of whether those views are rooted in religious or secular beliefs. It further prohibits public institutions from retaliating against faculty for protected speech or scholarly work.
The bill, which has been hailed by supporters as an effort to “preserve campus free speech,” ironically also limits protest activity. Shouting down speakers, blocking sightlines, staging disruptive walkouts, or physically preventing entry to events are now considered “substantial interference” under the legislation, making those who engage in such actions subject to discipline.
Some of those disciplinary consequences include probation, suspension, and even expulsion for students, while faculty who protest in ways deemed to violate the policy could face unpaid suspensions and termination after repeated violations.
Supporters of the bill argue it strengthens free expression on campus. State Rep. Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood), the bill’s sponsor, said it reinforces a commitment to “civil and robust” debate at public universities.
“The Charlie Kirk Act creates critical safeguards for students and faculty and renews the idea that our higher education institutions should be centers of intellectual debate,” Bulso told Fox 17. “This legislation honors the legacy of Charlie Kirk by promoting thoughtful engagement and defending religious freedom.”
Critics, including Democratic lawmakers, have raised concerns that the legislation effectively elevates certain ideological viewpoints — particularly those tied to religious objections to LGBTQ identities — while exposing students and faculty to punishment for protest or dissent.
“It’s ironic that this body is talking about free speech when we had professors in Tennessee schools expelled and suspended when they did not mourn the death of Charlie Kirk — when they said that his statements were problematic and that the way he died did not redeem the way he lived,” state Rep. Justin Jones (D-Nashville) told WKRN.
Kirk, the right-wing activist and founder of Turning Point USA, for whom the bill is named, was assassinated in September 2025 at a public event at Utah Valley University. His legacy and rhetoric remain deeply polarizing, particularly among LGBTQ advocates, who have cited his history of anti-LGBTQ statements in opposing his campus appearances.
The bill now heads to Lee’s desk for his signature.
National
Demonstrators disrupt OMB director hearing over PEPFAR
Capitol Police arrested five protesters
A group of protesters interrupted Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought during his testimony before Congress on Wednesday.
Vought was at the Cannon House Office Building to give testimony to the House Budget Committee.
Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) began the hearing by touting what he described as economic accomplishments of the Trump-Vance administration’s economic accomplishments. Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) disputed those claims in his opening statement.
Boyle went on to admonish Vought for not attending a committee hearing in the previous year.
Vought, the “Project 2025” architect, was invited to speak after Arrington and Boyle made their statements.
Shortly after Vought began reading his statement, Housing Works CEO Charles King stood up in the gallery and began shouting, “PEPFAR saves lives: spend the money!”
The U.S. Capitol Police moved quickly to escort King from the room. Other activists began chanting with King as they unfolded signs bearing a picture of Vought’s face and statements such as, “Vought’s cuts kill people with AIDS,” and “Protect PEPFAR from Vought.”
The group of HIV/AIDS activists included independent activists, former U.S. Agency for International Development and PEPFAR staff, members of Health GAP, Housing Works, and the Treatment Action Group. Six activists were escorted from the hearing and the U.S. Capitol Police detained five of them.
The HIV/AIDS treatment activists protested at the hearing in response to the dismantling of global health programs, including PEPFAR, a federally-funded program credited with saving millions of lives from HIV/AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
“Russell Vought is directly responsible for illegally withholding Congressionally appropriated funds for PEPFAR and related global health initiative,” King said in a statement provided to the Washington Blade. “These funding disruptions have already contributed to preventable deaths and threaten to reverse decades of progress in the fight against HIV worldwide. Enough is enough. Congress must ensure Vought stops this deadly sabotage.”
LGBTQ Catholic groups slam Trump over pope criticism
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
Charlie Kirk Act advances in Tenn.
Belarusian president signs bill to allow LGBTQ rights crackdown
‘The Pitt’ stars discuss what season two gets right about queer representation
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Viktor Orbán ousted in Hungarian elections
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
