News
Marriage equality in all 50 states?
Some say Obama’s post-DOMA decisions pushing country in that direction

President Obama is implementing the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA in a way that is speeding the pace toward national marriage equality. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key).
New policy decisions from the Obama administration in the wake of the Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act are providing benefits for gay couples in a way that some observers say is advancing the pace toward national marriage equality.
In the months after the ruling in June, the U.S. government has announced historic decisions in affording the federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples who are legally wed. Shortly after the decision, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management granted spousal health and pension benefits to gay federal employees, and just last week, the Pentagon announced it was implementing the benefits along the same lines for gay U.S. service members.
But to receive these benefits, gay couples must be in legal marriages as opposed to any other form of legally recognized relationship, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships. OPM announced in a series of memos in July couples in these unions aren’t eligible for federal benefits. And part of its rollout for same-sex spousal benefits, the Pentagon granted up to 10 days leave to allow same-sex couples to travel to a marriage-equality state to wed as opposed to honoring domestic partnerships for the purposes of benefits — retracting a pledge earlier in the year to provide them.
These changes mean gay couples living in the seven states that only offer civil unions or domestic partnerships — Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, Nevada, Hawaii and Wisconsin — will be left out in the cold in terms of federal benefits unless they travel to a marriage-equality state to wed and return. That doesn’t take into account rules for certain benefits — Social Security, taxes and family and medial leave — that for the time being extend only to legally married gay couples only if they currently reside in a state that recognizes their union and not to those who apply for them in non-marriage equality states.
The Obama administration’s insistence that gay couples be married to receive federal benefits is creating the policy that some observers say is leading the way toward national marriage equality by encouraging more states to adopt marriage rights for gay couples.
Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, a lesbian and director of social policy and politics for the centrist group known as Third Way, said this approach is an “organized way” to implement he Supreme Court’s decision against DOMA, but may also strategically advance marriage equality. In particular, she said it’ll demonstrate before the state courts hearing marriage equality litigation that civil unions aren’t marriage under the law.
“I think that’s pretty smart for state litigation purposes and also for ease of administration,” Erickson Hatalsky said. “The more we continue to make kind of a second-class status available at the federal level, the harder it’s going to be to take that step to what we all know is the goal. So, I think this is a pretty strategic way to kick things in that direction, whereas if you offer essentially a federal domestic partnership or civil unions, it undermines some of those arguments for why we do need marriage.”
In addition to battling for marriage equality in state courts in New Jersey, New Mexico and Illinois, LGBT advocates are pushing ahead with the legislative route for marriage equality in numerous states.
In New Jersey, advocates are seeking to overturn Gov. Chris Christie’s veto, and in Illinois, there’s a push underway to pass same-sex marriage legislation in the State House before the extended legislative session ends on Aug. 30. Lawmakers in Hawaii have also recently also met about passing marriage equality in the Aloha State. Each of these states already has civil unions.
Dan Pinello, who’s gay and a political scientist at the City University of New York, said the Obama administration’s decision to grant benefits only to legally married couples provides an incentive for lawmakers in these states to legalize same-sex marriage.
“The practical political effect of limiting federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples will be substantially to increase the pressure on states like Illinois and New Jersey to embrace marriage equality fully,” Pinello said.
But the prevailing notion among observers is that the Obama administration is extending benefits only to married gay couples because the Windsor decision allotted for that change and any push toward national marriage equality as a result of that implementation is incidental.
Richard Socarides, a gay New York attorney who was an LGBT adviser for former President Clinton, said he thinks the Obama administration is not intending to advance same-sex marriage or to undermine civil unions through its implementation of the DOMA decision.
“Probably neither intentionally,” Socarides said. “Just doing what they think is legally appropriate.”
CUNY’s Pinello similarly said the Obama administration had little room in the way it’s implementing the decision because the majority opinion made no mention of civil unions.
“I don’t think that the Obama administration has much choice in the matter, because Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in U.S. v. Windsor explicitly limits the Court’s decision to marriages,” Pinello said. “Civil unions and domestic partnerships aren’t within the holding of the ruling.”
Asked whether the administration had intended to advance marriage equality through its implementation of the DOMA ruling, a White House official, speaking on condition on anonymity, said the administration “is working to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling in compliance with the law.”
“The president has directed the attorney general to work with the Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision and its implications for federal benefits and obligations are implemented swiftly and smoothly,” the official added.
Still, the administration’s method of enhancing marriage rights for gay couples is a drastic change from President Obama’s declaration as a candidate in 2008 that civil unions “represent the best way to secure that equal treatment,” a position he held before evolving to embrace marriage equality last year.
And implementing the DOMA decision only for married couples doesn’t explain why the Pentagon withdrew domestic partners benefits after pledging to implement them in February. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in the memo last week announcing the implementation of the benefits that domestic partnership benefits are “no longer necessary to remedy the inequity that was caused by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.”
Christie says couples in civil unions should receive fed’l benefits

Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum is Chris Christie, whose recent brief in the New Jersey lawsuit seeking marriage equality, known as Garden State Equality v. Dow, contends civil unions within New Jersey should be included among the unions to which the federal government awards benefits. The argument is made in a brief arguing that the court shouldn’t grant summary judgment in favor of marriage equality in New Jersey.
“The examples are endless,” the brief states. “Suffice it to say that a sizable, but indeterminate, number of the over 1,000 benefits and responsibilities that were inapplicable to civil union couples because of DOMA are now available to them because they are spouses, husbands, wives, widows or widowers under New Jersey law.”
Arguably, his attorney’s brief is shifting the debate another way by encouraging the expansion of civil unions in its argument that states with civil unions should be rewarded with the federal benefits of marriage.
Gregory Angelo, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, refuted the assertion of his organization’s sometime ally Christie, saying says marriage equality is the way to go in New Jersey and would clear up any confusion about awarding federal benefits of marriage in the state.
“Civil unions are not the same as civil marriage,” Angelo said. “In the wake of the DOMA decision we said that the focus was going to be on the states and that’s where we’re focused. The Obama administration’s decision to grant federal marriage benefits to gay couples also shows that there are gray areas emerging since the Court overturned Section 3 of DOMA. The best, cleanest, strongest way to ensure benefits is through legislative action.”
Plans are also set for a legislative fix to ensure that couples in domestic partnerships and civil unions can receive certain federal benefits. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) earlier this month introduced the Social Security Equality Act, which in addition to clarifying that married gay couples nationwide should receive Social Security benefits would also ensure they flow to couples in civil unions.
Additionally, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) is expected to soon reintroduce the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act — and the new version, according to a House aide in his office, is slated to provide gay federal employees in civil unions or domestic partnerships, like those in Wisconsin, with the federal benefits of marriage.
As this discussion is underway, the Human Rights Campaign is arguing that the federal benefits of marriage in some circumstances — notably Social Security benefits — should be available to gay couples in civil unions if they’re living in a state that recognizes them as spouses.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, an HRC spokesperson, said his organization is pursuing a dual track advocating for marriage equality in all 50 states as it pushes for federal recognition of civil unions for certain benefits.
“Under most federal laws, benefits are designed to flow to married couples, which is why civil unions and domestic partnerships have always been insufficient,” Cole-Schwartz said. “The issue is that marriage needs to be available to couples in every state so that no couple is denied recognition from the federal government. However there are cases where if a state recognizes a member of a civil union as a spouse under state law, federal benefits can flow to that person. We are advocating that those benefits be available to couples in civil unions and we await further guidance from federal agencies as to their plans for those situations.”
District of Columbia
Capital Stonewall Democrats endorses Janeese Lewis George for D.C. mayor
Group also backed D.C. Council, Congressional delegate, AG candidates
The Capital Stonewall Democrats, D.C.’s largest local LGBTQ political organization, announced on May 14 that it has endorsed D.C. Councilmember Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) for mayor in the city’s June 16 Democratic primary.
Lewis George along with former D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (D-At-Large) are considered by political observers to be the two leading candidates among the seven candidates competing in the Democratic primary election for mayor.
Both have strong, long-standing records of support on LGBTQ issues, indicating Capital Stonewall Democrats members, like LGBTQ voters across the city, are likely choosing a candidate based on non-LGBTQ related issues.
In a May 14 statement, the group announced its endorsements in seven other Democratic primary races, including D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson, who is running unopposed in the primary. Also endorsed is D.C. Councilmember Robert White (D-At-Large), who is one of five Democratic candidates competing for the position of D.C. delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.
D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) is among the four candidates competing with White for that pos, and who like White has a strong record of support on LGBTQ issues.
In the At-Large D.C. Council race for which incumbent Anita Bonds is not running for re-election, Capital Stonewall Democrats has endorsed community activist and LGBTQ ally Oye Owolewa in a nine candidate race.
For the Ward 1 D.C. Council election, in which five LGBTQ supportive candidates are competing, the group did not make an endorsement because none of the candidate received a required 60 percent of the endorsement vote cast by Capital Stonewall Democrats members, according to the group’s former president, Howard Garrett.
The statement announcing its endorsements shows that it decided to list its “Preferred Ranking” of each of the Ward 1 Democratic candidates as part of the city’s newly implemented ranked choice voting system. It lists gay candidate Miguel Trindade Deramo as first, bisexual candidate Aparna Raj second, Jackie Reyes Yanes third, Rashida Brown fourth, and Terry Lynch fifth.
In the remaining ward Council races, Capital Stonewall Democrats endorsed Councilmember Matt Fruman (D-Ward 3), who is running unopposed for re-election; Councilmember Zachary Parker (D-Ward ), the Council’s only gay member who is being challenged by two opponents; and Councilmember Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who is running unopposed for re-election.
The group also chose not to make an endorsement in the special election for another At-Lage D.C. Council seat that became vacant when then-Independent Councilmember McDuffie resigned to enable him to run for mayor as a Democrat. Under the city’s Home Rule Charge adopted by Congress, that at large sweat is restricted to a “non-majority party” candidate, meaning a non-Democrat.
The three candidates running for the seat, all Independents, include incumbent Doni Crawford, who was appointed to the seat earlier this year; former D.C. Councilmember Elissa Silverman; and Jacque Patterson. All three have expressed support on LGBTQ related issues.
“The organization’s endorsement process included candidate questionnaires, public forums, and direct voting by active CSD members,” the statement announces its endorsements says. “Each endorsement reflects the collective voice of 173 LGBTQ+ Democrats who voted in the process and are committed to building lasting political power in the District,” according to the statement. “Candidates that reached 60 percent support received the endorsement.”
Garrett, the group’s former president, acknowledged that with nearly all candidates running in D.C. elections expressing strong support for the LGBTQ community, many if not most of the group’s members most likely chose a candidate based on issues other than LGBTQ related issues.
He said he believes Lewis George, who he is supporting and is viewed as a progressive candidate who self-identifies as a Democratic Socialist, compared to McDuffie, who is viewed as a moderate Democrat, captured the group’s endorsement based on the view that she is the best person to lead the city going forward.
“I believe that Capital Stonewall members voted for Janeese Lewis George because we’re tired of the status quo and we need a new, bold leader to not only move or city forward but also to stand up to Donald Trump and his administration,” Garrett told the Washington Blade.
McDuffie’s LGBTQ supporters, including former Capital Stonewall Democrats presidents David Meadows and Kurt Vorndran, have argued that McDuffie’s positions on a wide range of issues, including LGBTQ issues, show him to be the best candidates to lead the city at this time and In future years.
The group’s endorsement of Lewis George comes one week after GLAA DC, a nonpartisan LGBTQ advocacy group, awarded her its highest candidate rating of +10.
United Kingdom
UK government makes trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban a legislative priority
King Charles III on Wednesday delivered King’s Speech
King Charles III on Wednesday said a transgender-inclusive ban on so-called conversion therapy in England and Wales is among the British government’s legislative priorities.
“My government will bring forward a bill to speed up remediation for people living in homes with unsafe cladding [Remediation Bill] and a draft bill to ban abusive conversion practices [Draft Conversion Practices Bill],” said Charles in his King’s Speech that he delivered in the British House of Lords.
The government writes the King’s Speech, which outlines its legislative agenda. The British monarch delivers it at Parliament’s ceremonial opening.
“Conversion practices are abuse, and the government will deliver the manifesto commitment to bring forward a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices,” said the government in an addendum to the speech.
Then-Prime Minister Theresa May’s government in 2018 announced it would “bring forward proposals to end the practice of conversion therapy in the U.K.”
Then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government in 2022 said it would support a ban that did not include gender identity. The decision sparked outrage among British advocacy groups, and prompted them to boycott a government-sponsored LGBTQ conference that was ultimately cancelled.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party ahead of the 2024 elections included a conversion therapy ban in its manifesto. Charles delivered the King’s Speech against the backdrop of growing calls for Starmer to resign after the Labour Party lost more than 1,000 council seats in local and regional elections that took place on May 7.
Stonewall, a British advocacy group, on April 30 said the government “has failed to meet its own timeline to publish a draft bill to ban conversion practices.”
“We should not have to wait any longer,” said Stonewall CEO Simon Blake in his group’s statement. “Conversion practices are abuse. LGBTQ+ people do not need fixing or changing. They need to hear and feel that government is going to protect their safety and dignity. Not at some random date in the future. No more delays.”
Commentary
‘Live Your Pride’ is much more than a slogan
Waves Ahead forced to cancel May 17 event in Puerto Rico
On May 5, I spoke by phone with Wilfred Labiosa, executive director of Waves Ahead, a Puerto Rico-based LGBTQ community organization that for years has provided mental health services, support programs, and safe spaces for vulnerable communities across the island. During our conversation, Labiosa confirmed every concern described in the organization’s public statement announcing the cancellation of “Live Your Pride,” an event scheduled for Sunday in the northwestern municipality of Isabela. But beyond the financial struggles and organizational challenges, what stayed with me most was the emotional weight behind his words. There was pain in his voice while describing what it means to watch spaces like these slowly disappear.
This was not simply the cancellation of a community event.
“Live Your Pride” had been envisioned as a celebration and affirming gathering for LGBTQ older adults and their allies in Puerto Rico. In a society where many LGBTQ elders spent decades hiding parts of themselves in order to survive, spaces like this carry enormous emotional and social significance. They become places where people can finally exist openly, without fear, apology, or shame.
That is why this cancellation matters far beyond Isabela.
What is happening in Puerto Rico cannot be separated from the broader political climate unfolding across the U.S. and its territories, where programs connected to diversity, inclusion, education, mental health, and LGBTQ visibility increasingly find themselves under political attack. These changes do not always arrive through dramatic announcements. More often, they happen quietly. Funding disappears. Community organizations weaken. Safe spaces become harder to sustain. Eventually, the absence itself begins to feel normal.
That normalization is dangerous.
For years, organizations like Waves Ahead have stepped into gaps left behind by institutions and governments, particularly in communities where LGBTQ people continue facing discrimination, social isolation, economic instability, and mental health struggles. Their work has never been limited to organizing events. It has involved accompanying people through loneliness, trauma, rejection, depression, aging, and survival itself.
“Live Your Pride” represented much more than entertainment. It represented visibility for LGBTQ older adults, many of whom survived decades of family rejection, religious exclusion, workplace discrimination, violence, and silence. These are individuals who came of age during years when living openly could cost someone employment, housing, relationships, or personal safety. Many learned to survive by making themselves invisible.
When spaces like this disappear, something deeply human is lost.
A gathering is canceled, yes, but so is an opportunity for healing, connection, recognition, and dignity. For many LGBTQ older adults, especially in smaller municipalities across Puerto Rico, these events are not secondary luxuries. They are reminders that their lives still matter in a society that too often treats aging and queer existence as disposable.
There are still political and religious sectors that portray the rainbow as some kind of ideological threat. But the rainbow does not erase anyone. It illuminates people and stories that society has often tried to ignore. It reflects the lives of young people forced out of their homes, transgender individuals targeted by violence, older adults aging in silence, and families that spent years defending their right to exist openly.
Perhaps that is precisely why the rainbow unsettles some people so deeply.
Its colors expose abandonment, hypocrisy, inequality, and fear. They force societies to confront realities that are easier to ignore than to address honestly. They reveal how fragile human dignity becomes when political agendas decide that certain communities are no longer worthy of protection, funding, or visibility.
The greatest concern here is not solely the cancellation of one event in one Puerto Rican town. The deeper concern is the message quietly taking shape behind decisions like these — the idea that some communities can wait, that some lives deserve fewer resources, and that safe spaces for vulnerable people are expendable during moments of political tension.
History has shown repeatedly how social regression begins. Rarely with one dramatic act. More often through exhaustion, silence, budget cuts, and the slow dismantling of organizations doing essential community work.
Even so, Waves Ahead made one thing clear in its statement. Although “Live Your Pride” has been canceled, the organization will continue providing mental health and community support services through its centers across Puerto Rico. That commitment matters because people do not survive on slogans alone. They survive because somewhere there are still open doors, trained professionals, supportive communities, and people willing to remain present when the world becomes colder and more hostile.
Puerto Rico should pay close attention to what this moment represents. No healthy society is built by weakening the organizations that care for vulnerable people. No government should feel comfortable watching community groups struggle to survive while attempting to provide services and compassion that public institutions themselves often fail to offer.
The rainbow has never been the problem.
The real problem is the discomfort created when its colors force society to confront the wounds, inequalities, and human realities that too many people would rather keep hidden.
-
National3 days agoAmerica’s broken pipeline of mental healthcare for trans youth
-
Federal Government4 days agoSenate Democrats press DOJ over anti-trans prison directives
-
Music & Concerts5 days agoDJ Chanel Santini is bringing the heat and some gender-fluid diversity to XBIZ Miami
-
Theater5 days agoNational tour of ‘Gatsby’ comes to National Theatre
