News
What’s next for gay couples after court decisions on marriage?
Immigration rights, expanded partner benefits and maybe another lawsuit
Jeff Zarillo speaking to the press following the Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA and Proposition 8. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
The Supreme Court rulings against the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 are providing new momentum to the LGBT rights movement as advocates are pushing for officials to interpret the decisions as broadly as possible.
The court ruling against DOMA is complex because it means that new benefits will be available to same-sex couples if they’re married. But there still is an issue with some of these benefits even with DOMA gone.
Some of these benefits, like Social Security survivor benefits and tax benefits, are in question because federal law governing these issues looks at a state where a couple lives as opposed to whether they were legally married. That means a gay couple that marries in a state like New York, but moves to Florida, won’t be able to apply for these benefits while living there.
James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union LGBT Project, said while explaining the decision that the Obama administration can interpret the rulings in a broad manner to ensure all federal benefits flow to married same-sex couples regardless of the state in which they live.
“In almost all contexts, the Obama administration has the ability and the flexibility to move to a rule where they look to the law of the state in which you got married, not the state in which you live,” Esseks said. “So we expect and hope that the federal government is going to update those rules … and that would mean that once you get married, you’re married for federal purposes forever. That’s what we think the right rule is, and that’s the rule we think the administration can get to.”
Esseks added there “are a small number of contexts” in which the administration can’t do it alone and Congress has a statute prohibiting certain benefits from flowing to married same-sex couples so passage of the Respect for Marriage Act is necessary to address those issues.
That legislation was introduced later in the day after the Supreme Court rulings by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in the House and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in the Senate. The legislation has 161 original sponsors in the House and 41 original sponsors in the Senate.
But the sentiment that the Obama administration can make changes was expressed by Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who in a statement called on the administration to interpret the DOMA ruling broadly.
“Federal recognition for lesbian and gay couples is a massive turning point for equality, but it is not enough until every family is guaranteed complete access to the protections they need regardless of state borders,” Griffin said. “The administration must take every possible step to ensure this landmark ruling treats every lawfully married couple across the country with the equality our Constitution guarantees.”
Following the court decision against DOMA, Holder issued a statement saying he’ll “work expeditiously with other Executive Branch agencies” to ensure they comply with the court decision. President Obama issued a statement earlier in the day indicating he had given Holder this task.
“As we move forward in a manner consistent with the Court’s ruling, the Department of Justice is committed to continuing this work, and using every tool and legal authority available to us to combat discrimination and to safeguard the rights of all Americans,” Holder said.
In a subsequent statement, Griffin said he spoke with Holder over the phone about the DOMA decision and was told the administration would go through a thoughtful and deliberative process to implement the ruling.
A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama himself also held a call on Wednesday with “a group of marriage equality advocates, faith leaders, elected officials, and allies” on the rulings in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.
With the court ruling, one change is certain. Bi-national same-sex couples will now be able to apply for visas through the I-130 marriage-based green card application. Immigration law looks to the state in which a couple was married as opposed to the state in which a couple lives in determining whether a couple is eligible for a visa.
Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, said in a statement praising the court ruling that no barrier remains precluding the granting of visas to ensure bi-national same-sex couples can remain together in the United States.
“At long last, we can now tell our families that yes, they are eligible to apply for green cards,” Tiven said. “Many of our families have waited years, and in some cases decades, for the green card they need to keep their families together. Couples forced into exile will be coming home soon. Americans separated from their spouses are now able to prepare for their reunion.”
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano applauded the ruling.
“This discriminatory law denied thousands of legally married same-sex couples many important federal benefits, including immigration benefits,” she said. “ … Working with our federal partners, including the Department of Justice, we will implement today’s decision so that all married couples will be treated equally and fairly in the administration of our immigration laws.”
The ruling also means the issue of whether bi-national same-sex couples should be included as part of comprehensive immigration reform pending before the Senate is off the table. Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had filed the amendment in the event of a Supreme Court ruling against same-sex couples in the DOMA case.
Calling the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA “a major step toward full equality,” Leahy announced that he would no longer pursue the amendment for bi-national same-sex couples.
“With the Supreme Court’s decision today, however, it appears that the anti-discrimination principle that I have long advocated will apply to our immigration laws and binational couples and their families can now be united under the law,” Leahy said. “As a result of this welcome decision, I will not be seeking a floor vote on my amendment.”
Also expected to come to an end is the preclusion of major benefits — such as health and pension benefits — from flowing to gay employees with same-sex spouses.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a statement following the court decisions that the Pentagon “welcomes” the ruling on DOMA and is prepared to offer these benefits to troops with same-sex partners.
“The department will immediately begin the process of implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in consultation with the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies,” Hagel said. “The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses — regardless of sexual orientation — as soon as possible. That is now the law and it is the right thing to do.”
The Pentagon was already in the process of granting additional spousal benefits to gay troops available under current law, such as military IDs, which was expected to come to an end this year. It remains to be seen what impact the court decision will have on this process.
Elaine Kaplan, a lesbian and acting director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, said her agency is beginning to examine the issue of benefits that will be afforded to federal employees for same-sex couples, but additional waiting time is necessary.
“While we recognize that our married gay and lesbian employees have already waited too long for this day, we ask for their continued patience as we take the steps necessary to review the Supreme Court’s decision and implement it,” Kaplan said.
The situation resulting from the ruling in the Proposition 8 case is less complex because it only involves whether the State of California can resume granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But California officials say they’re prepared to recognize marriage equality in the state.
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) said in a statement he’s prepared to allow clerks to distribute marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifts its stay.
“After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California,” Brown said. “In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted.”
Both rulings have stirred calls for the expansion of marriage equality into additional states. Speaking before the Supreme Court, HRC President Chad Griffin cried out those who came to celebrate, “Let’s set a new goal: within five years, we will bring marriage equality to all 50 states in the U.S.”
Considering some states would need at least four years to lift their bans on same-sex marriage through the legislative process, Griffin’s call would likely require another lawsuit that would spread marriage equality throughout the country much like the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia brought to an end all state bans on interracial marriage.
ACLU’s Esseks said the ruling in the case against DOMA might have an impact on new litigation seeking marriage equality in all 50 states, but said Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion in a way that was restrictive in its implications.
“It certainly won’t hurt, but Kennedy was careful to write it in a way that doesn’t directly address the broader freedom to marry issue,” Esseks said.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said he thinks the decisions would make an additional lawsuit more likely to succeed.
“The best way to win is not ‘just’ to file a lawsuit, it’s to bring that lawsuit on the strength of having won more states and more support, setting the stage for victory,” Wolfson said. “That’s the winning strategy that has brought us this far, and it is the winning Freedom to Marry strategy that will bring us to victory nationwide — if we keep doing the work.”
Delaware
Vote to enshrine same-sex marriage in state constitution fails in Delaware
‘General Assembly turned its back on the people of this state’
The Delaware General Assembly on Tuesday failed to pass Senate Bill 100 (SB-100), an amendment that would add protections for same-sex and interracial marriage to the Delaware Constitution.
In order for the bill to pass, 28 out of 41 members needed to vote ‘yes,’ meaning all 27 Democrats and one Republican needed to vote in favor of the bill.
Rep. Eric Morrison (D-27) told the Blade that an anonymous Republican member agreed to vote in favor prior to the vote but ultimately did not follow through on that promise.
“It’s a shame,” said Rep. Morrison, who’s gay. He explained the difficult nature of passing this amendment with only three legislative days remaining in this session.
The bill needs to receive a two-thirds majority vote in two different sessions and the current two-year long session ends on July 1. Thus, if the bill does not pass before July 1, it will take a minimum of three years to pass the amendment.
The bill was introduced by State Sen. Russ Huxtable (D-07) on June 5, 2025.
Rep. Josue Ortega (D-03) was one of two Democrats to not vote in favor of the bill, voting ‘no.’ Rep. Ortega has not responded to the Blade’s request for comment.
Rep. Madinah Wilson-Anton (D-27) was the other Democrat missing from the ‘yes’ votes. She did not vote on the bill.
Sponsor of the measure, Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall (D-14), made a technical decision to reverse her vote from a ‘yes’ to a ‘no’ last-minute in order to keep the bill alive.
In a Facebook post, Rep. Snyder-Hall said that, “The General Assembly turned its back on the people of this state.”
“When we had the chance to add an extra layer of protection from attempts to turn back the clock and strip our constituents of the rights that Democrats fought for decades to secure, we failed,” said Snyder-Hall.
However, Snyder-Hall said that the failure to pass this bill is not the end. “There are still three legislative days left in the 153rd General Assembly and I am hopeful that we will be able to get the votes required to pass this incredibly basic — but important — bill.”
New York
Judge blocks DOJ from obtaining transgender patients’ medical records
Advocacy groups sued White House
A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted a request from multiple transgender people for a temporary restraining order, blocking the disclosure of plaintiffs’ and class members’ medical information to the Justice Department.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla approved the Temporary Restraining Order and Provisional Class Certification, preventing any further information from being provided to the Trump-led DOJ.
The medical data was requested through subpoenas issued by the Trump-Vance administration’s DOJ to multiple hospitals in New York City — most notably NYU Langone — which halted its Transgender Youth Health Program in May following a federal push to stop providing trans minors with gender-affirming care.
In May 2026, NYU Langone Hospitals received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Fort Worth, Texas, demanding that the hospitals turn over the identities and sensitive health information of any patient who had received medical treatment for gender dysphoria while under the age of 18 at NYU Langone between January 2020 and May 2026.
Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit, “Coe, et al. v. Blanche, et al.,” against the Trump-Vance administration on behalf of three families with trans youth and two trans young adults who were minors when they began care, in June 2026.
The lawsuit requests a temporary restraining order blocking the DOJ from violating the patients’ constitutional privacy rights by obtaining identifying and sensitive health information as part of its investigation into unspecified health offenses. The DOJ issued subpoenas to NYU Langone and other similar healthcare institutions in New York City, including Mount Sinai, that provide or have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans minors. All plaintiffs have filed under pseudonyms to maintain their privacy and anonymity.
Multiple leaders of organizations that helped push for the restraining order provided quotes about the ongoing situation and what it means for the fight for trans children’s access to healthcare in the U.S.
“Today’s order from the court is a victory for the basic privacy of our clients and all families like theirs across New York City. It is no secret that this administration will use every lever in its power to attack transgender people and fulfill its misguided goal to ‘end’ gender-affirming medical care — care that is legal and protected in New York State. Using subpoenas to attain the identities and sensitive health information of transgender young people to effectuate such goals should send chills down the spine of every American. Our laws and our Constitution recognize that we all have a right to confidentiality about the most intimate and private information about ourselves,” said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel and health care strategist at Lambda Legal. “Whether a young person receives any type of medical care is a decision for that patient, their family, and their doctor, not for political appointees to decide, interfere with, or know. The government cannot abuse its powers to violate the constitutional rights of transgender young people and their families. It is an enormous relief for these families that the court has stopped them from doing so as this case proceeds.”
“We’re thankful the court has granted our emergency request to protect the privacy interests of transgender New Yorkers and their families,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “Patients and families trust their doctors with their most intimate, private information and should trust in turn that this information will be protected from impermissible and harassing demands for disclosure from the federal government or anyone else. For the past year, the Trump administration has not only decided that it knows better than these families and their doctors what their medical needs are, but has also sought to obtain troves of sensitive information about patients in New York. We will continue to fight on behalf of these families and the fundamental liberty of all transgender New Yorkers and those who come here to seek needed medical care.”
“New York’s laws recognize that transgender youth deserve fundamental privacy protections for their sensitive medical records and unobstructed access to the care they need,” said Bobby Hodgson, deputy legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “As the Trump administration tries to bully transgender youth, scare families, and intimidate healthcare providers into dropping their patients, we’re thankful the court found these tactics are likely unconstitutional and put a stop to them here in New York.”
Federal Government
Trump holds housing bill hostage to anti-trans SAVE Act
President’s SAVE Act failed in the Senate
President Donald Trump is refusing to sign a new bipartisan housing bill unless his SAVE Act is approved by the legislative branch.
The bill being prevented from being enacted into law is the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.” The legislation is an attempt by Congress to make buying a home in the U.S. Senate more affordable in response to various factors — including housing shortages and regulatory constraints — that have made homeownership increasingly difficult. The total number of homeowners has nearly stopped growing, with high interest rates and surging home prices pushing more Americans toward renting.
The housing bill was considered highly bipartisan, something that is rare in this Congress. The House voted to pass the bill 358-32 on Tuesday after the Senate approved the measure 85-5 a day earlier. The legislation was led by U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the Senate and U.S. Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and French Hill (R-Ark.) in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Some of the highlights of the legislation are aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing while making homeownership more accessible. The bill would streamline environmental reviews and direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide guidance to communities on reforming zoning and land-use policies that can create barriers to housing development.
The legislation would also expand the definition of “manufactured housing,” making it cheaper and easier to mass-produce homes built in factories before being transported to their sites. To encourage additional development, the bill would provide grants and loans for the construction of new housing, the rehabilitation of aging properties, and the conversion of vacant buildings into residential units. It would also increase certain banks’ Public Welfare Investment cap, allowing them to direct more capital toward low-income and affordable housing projects.
In an effort to help more Americans purchase homes, the legislation would create a program to expand access to small-dollar mortgages, which are often used to finance lower-cost homes, while also seeking to improve housing opportunities for veterans. The bill would further promote homeownership by limiting the number of single-family homes that large institutional investors can own and requiring them to disclose how many such properties they control, a measure intended to prioritize American families over corporate buyers.
The bill the president wants enacted — the SAVE Act — is a restrictive and anti-transgender piece of proposed legislation.
The bill would impose a number of new limitations on voter registration across the country by amending the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. The bill would also limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not possess — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
Trump pushed for the SAVE Act to include a provision that would ban gender-affirming medical care for trans minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
Trump also pressed Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to eliminate the filibuster so the Republican-controlled Congress could pass the SAVE Act, saying Republicans will never win another election without it.
It is expected that Congress will override the president’s veto and pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, as it requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate — a threshold the legislation currently exceeds.
It is not expected that the SAVE Act will pass the Senate in its current form. It passed the House, but every Democrat and four Republicans voted against it in the Senate.
Vote to enshrine same-sex marriage in state constitution fails in Delaware
Judge blocks DOJ from obtaining transgender patients’ medical records
Trump holds housing bill hostage to anti-trans SAVE Act
Religion, spirituality, and humanity: finding meaning in a complex world
Queer candidates, allies win Md. primary races
PHOTOS: Baltimore Pride Festival
‘Feeling Afraid’ explores life of a neurotic stand-up comic
PHOTOS: 2026 Capital Pride Parade
Union leader files assault complaint against gay Md. delegate after fight at early-voting site
