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.”
Virginia
Spanberger signs bill that paves way for marriage amendment repeal referendum
Proposal passed in two successive General Assembly sessions
Virginians this year will vote on whether to repeal a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger on Friday signed state Del. Laura Jane Cohen (D-Fairfax County)’s House Bill 612, which finalized the referendum’s language.
The ballot question that voters will consider on Election Day is below:
Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to: (i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?
Voters in 2006 approved the Marshall-Newman Amendment.
Same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in Virginia since 2014. Former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who is a Republican, in 2024 signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.
Two successive legislatures must approve a proposed constitutional amendment before it can go to the ballot.
A resolution to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment passed in the General Assembly in 2025. Lawmakers once again approved it last month.
“20 years after Virginia added a ban on same-sex marriage to our Constitution, we finally have the chance to right that wrong,” wrote Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman on Friday in a message to her group’s supporters.
Virginians this year will also consider proposed constitutional amendments that would guarantee reproductive rights and restore voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their sentences.
District of Columbia
D.C. non-profits find creative ways to aid the unhoused amid funding cuts
City’s poor economic mobility makes it easier to slip into homelessness
Homelessness is unlikely to disappear entirely, but it can be minimized and controlled.
That principle guides Everyone Home Executive Director Karen Cunningham’s approach to homeless support and prevention in D.C.
“There’s always going to be some amount of people who have a crisis,” Cunningham said. “The goal is that if they become homeless, [it’s] rare, brief and non-recurring. And in order for that to be the case, we need to have steady investments in programs that we know work over time.”
Making those investments has proven to be an unprecedented challenge, however. Cunningham said non-profits and other organizations like Everyone Home are grappling with government funding cuts or stalls that threaten the work they do to support D.C.’s homeless population.
Despite a 9% decrease in homelessness from 2024 to 2025, advocates worry that stagnant funding will make that progress hard to sustain. Furthermore, D.C. has the worst unemployment rate in the country at 6.7% as of December. The city’s poor economic mobility makes it easier for people to slip into homelessness and harder to break free of it.
There’s a way forward, Cunningham said, but it’s going to take a lot of perseverance and creative solutions from those willing to stay in the fight.
Fighting through setbacks
Reduced funding from the city government has shifted the way Everyone Home operates.
In D.C.’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, homeless services and prevention programs saw stalled growth or financial reductions. Even just a few years ago, Cunningham said Everyone Home received a large influx of vouchers to help people who needed long-term supportive housing. The vouchers allowed the non-profit to break people free of the homeless cycle and secure stable housing.
However, those vouchers are scarce these days. Cunningham said the city is investing less in multi-year programs and more in programs that offer preventative and upfront support.
She said this reality has forced Everyone Home to stop operating its Family Rapid Rehab program, which helps families leave shelters and transition into permanent housing. Current funds couldn’t withstand the size of the program and Cunningham said very few organizations can still afford to run similar programs.
The Family Homelessness Prevention program, however, is thriving and expanding at Everyone Home due to its short-term nature. It provides families with 90-day support services to help them get back on track and secure stable finances and housing.
Everyone Home also offers a drop-in day center, where they provide people with emergency clothing, laundry, and meals, and has a street outreach team to support those who are chronically homeless and offer services to them.
Inconsistencies in financial support have created challenges in providing the necessary resources to those struggling. It’s led non-profits like Everyone Home to get creative with their solutions to ensuring no one has recurring or long spouts of homelessness.
“It’s really a sustained investment in these programs and services that can allow us to chip away, because if you put all these resources in and then take your foot off the gas, there’s always people entering the system,” Cunningham said. “And so we have to always be moving people out into housing.”
Getting people in and out of the homeless system isn’t easy due to D.C.’s struggle with providing accessible and affordable housing, D.C. Policy Center executive director Yesim Sayin said in a Nov. 16 Washington Blade article.
Sayin said that D.C.’s construction tailors to middle or upper class people who live in the city because work brought them there, but it excludes families and D.C. natives who may be on the verge of homelessness and have less geographic mobility.
Building more and building smarter ensures D.C.’s low-income population aren’t left behind and at risk of becoming homeless, Sayin said.
That risk is a common one in D.C. given its low economic mobility. Residents have less room to financially grow given the city’s high cost of living, making vulnerable communities more prone to homelessness.
With funding cuts for long-term programs, preventative programs have proven to be vital in supporting the homeless population. When someone becomes homeless, it can have a snowball effect on their life. They aren’t just losing a house –– they may lose their job, access to reliable transportation and food for their family.
Cunningham said resources like the Family Homelessness Prevention program allows people to grow and stabilize before losing crucial life resources.
“Helping people keep what they have and to try to grow that as much as possible is really important where there aren’t a lot of opportunities…for people to increase their income,” Cunningham said.
Through all the funding cuts and reduced services, D.C.’s homeless support organizations are still finding a path forward –– a path that many residents and families rely on to survive.
Pushing forward
Local non-profits and organizations like Everyone Home are the backbone of homeless support when all other systems fail.
When the White House issued an executive order directing agencies to remove homeless encampments on federal land, Coalition For The Homeless provided ongoing shelter to those impacted.
“We were asked by our funders to open two shelters at the time of the encampment policy announcement,” Lucho Vásquez, executive director of Coalition For The Homeless, said. “We opened the shelters on the same day of the request and have been housing 100 more people who are unhoused each night since August.”
This was achieved even after Coalition faced “severe cuts in funding for supportive and security services,” according to Vásquez. Staff members have taken on additional responsibilities to make up for the loss in security coverage and supportive services with no increase in pay, but Vásquez said they’re still trying to fill gaps left by the cuts.
Coalition offers free transitional housing, single room occupancy units and affordable apartments to people who were unhoused.
Coalition For The Homeless isn’t the only non-profit that’s had to step up its services amid dwindling resources. Thrive D.C. provides hot meals, showers, and winter clothes, which is especially important during the winter months.
Pathways to Housing D.C. offers housing services for people regardless of their situation or condition. Its “Housing First” teams house people directly from the streets, and then evaluate their mental and physical health, employment, addiction status, and education challenges to try to integrate them back into the community.
Covenant House is a homeless shelter for youth ages 18-24. They provide resources and shelter for youth “while empowering young people in their journey to independence and stability,” its website reads. Through its variety of programs, Friendship Place ended or prevented homelessness, found employment and provided life-changing services for more than 5,400 people.
These groups have made a huge local difference with little resources, but Cunningham said there are more ways for people to support those experiencing homelessness if they’re strapped for time or money. Aside from donating and volunteering, she said even simply showing compassion toward people who are struggling can go a long way.
Cunningham said compassion is something that’s been lost in the mainstream, with politicians and news anchors regularly directing hostile rhetoric toward homeless populations. But now more than ever, she said caring and understanding for fellow community members is key to moving forward and lifting those in need up.
“People sometimes feel invisible or that there’s a sense of hostility,” Cunningham said. “I think all of us can at least do that piece of recognizing people’s humanity.”
(This article is part of a national initiative exploring how geography, policy, and local conditions influence access to opportunity. Find more stories at economicopportunitylab.com.)
Colombia
LGBTQ Venezuelans in Colombia uncertain about homeland’s future
US forces seized Nicolás Maduro and his wife on Jan. 3
BOGOTÁ, Colombia — LGBTQ Venezuelans who live in Colombia remain uncertain about their homeland’s future in the wake of now former-President Nicolás Maduro’s ouster.
José Guillén is from Mérida, a city in the Venezuelan Andes that is roughly 150 miles from the country’s border with Colombia. He founded an LGBTQ organization that largely focused on health care before he left Venezuela in 2015.
Guillén, whose mother is Colombian, spoke with the Washington Blade on Jan. 9 at a coffee shop in Bogotá, the Colombian capital. His husband, who left Venezuela in 2016, was with him.
“I would like to think that (Venezuela) will be a country working towards reconstruction in a democracy,” said Guillén, responding to the Blade’s question about what Venezuela will look like in five years.
American forces on Jan. 3 seized Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their home in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, during an overnight operation.
Maduro and Flores on Jan. 5 pleaded not guilty to federal drug charges in New York. The Venezuelan National Assembly the day before swore in Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s vice president, as the country’s acting president.
Hugo Chávez died in 2013, and Maduro succeeded him as Venezuela’s president. Subsequent economic and political crises prompted millions of Venezuelans to leave the country.
The Blade in 2021 reported Venezuelan authorities raided HIV/AIDS service organizations, arrested their staffers, and confiscated donated medications for people with HIV/AIDS. Tamara Adrián, a member of the Venezuelan opposition who in 2015 became the first openly transgender person elected to the National Assembly, told the Blade she had to take security precautions during her campaign because government supporters targeted her.
The Blade on Jan. 8 spoke with a Venezuelan AIDS Healthcare Foundation client who said Maduro’s ouster “is truly something we’ve been waiting for for 26 or 27 years.” Another Venezuelan AHF client — a sex worker from Margarita Island in the Caribbean Sea who now lives in Bogotá — echoed this sentiment when she spoke with the Blade two days later.
“I love the situation of what’s happening,” she said during a telephone interview.
Sources in Caracas and elsewhere in Venezuela with whom the Blade spoke after Jan. 3 said armed pro-government groups known as “colectivos” were patrolling the streets. Reports indicate they set up checkpoints, stopped motorists, and searched their cell phones for evidence that they supported Maduro’s ouster.
“In the last few days, it seems there are possibilities for change, but people are also very afraid of the government’s reactions and what might happen,” Guillén said.
“Looking at it from an LGBT perspective, there has never been any recognition of the LGBT community in Venezuela,” he noted. “At some point, when Chávez came to power, we thought that many things could happen because it was a progressive government, but no.”
Luis Gómez is a lawyer from Valencia, a city in Venezuela’s Carabobo state. He and his family since he was a child have worked with autistic children through Fundación Yo Estoy Aquí, a foundation they created.
Gómez was in high school in 2013 when Maduro succeeded Chávez. He graduated from law school in 2018. Gómez in November 2020 fled to Colombia after he became increasingly afraid after his mother’s death that authorities would arrest him because of his criticism of the government.
The Colombian government in December 2025 recognized him as a refugee.
Gómez during a Jan. 9 interview in Bogotá discussed his initial reaction to Maduro’s ouster.
“I’m 28 years old, and 27 of those years have been in dictatorship,” Gómez told the Blade. “I had never experienced anything like this, which is why it had such a strong impact on me.”
Gómez said he initially thought the operation to seize Maduro and Flores was similar to an attempted coup that Chávez led in 1992. Gómez added he quickly realized Jan. 3 was different.
“The last thing we thought would happen was that Maduro would be wearing an orange jumpsuit in prison in New York,” he told the Blade. “It’s also important that those of us outside (of Venezuela) knew about it before those inside, because that’s the level of the lack of communication to which they have subjected all our families inside Venezuela.”
Gómez said Maduro’s ouster left him feeling “a great sense of justice” for his family and for the millions of Venezuelans who he maintains suffered under his government.
“Many Venezuelans, and with every reason, around the world started celebrating euphorically, but given our background and our understanding, we already knew at that moment what was coming,” added Gómez. “Now a new stage is beginning. What will this new stage be like? This has also generated uncertainty in us, which the entire citizenry is now experiencing.”
Trump ‘puts us in a very complex position’
U.S. chargé d’affaires Laura Dogu on Jan. 31 arrived in Caracas to reopen the American embassy that closed in February 2019.
Tens of thousands of people on Jan. 7 gathered in Bogotá and elsewhere in Colombia to protest against President Donald Trump after he threatened Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who was once a member of the now disbanded M-19 guerrilla movement. The two men met at the White House on Tuesday.
Both Gómez and Guillén pointed out Rodríguez remains in power. They also noted her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, is currently president of the National Assembly.
“Delcy has been a key figure in the regime for many years,” said Guillén. “In fact, she was one of the toughest people within the regime.”
Gómez and Guillén also spoke about Trump and his role in a post-Maduro Venezuela.
“Donald Trump, especially in this second term, has played a very particular role in the world, especially for those of us who, genuinely, not falsely or hypocritically, truly defend human rights,” said Gómez. “It puts us in a very complex position.”
Gómez told the Blade the operation to seize Maduro and Flores was “not an invasion for us.”
“It’s not a military intervention,” said Gómez. “It was the beginning, or I would even dare to say the end of the end.”
He acknowledged “there are interests at play, that the United States doesn’t do this for free.” Gómez added U.S. access to Venezuelan oil “for us, at this point, is not something that matters to us.”
“Venezuelans have received nothing, absolutely nothing from the resources generated by oil. We live without it,” he said. “The only ones getting rich from the oil are the top drug traffickers and criminals who remain in power.”
Guillén pointed out the U.S. “has always been one of the biggest buyers of oil from Venezuela, and perhaps we need that closeness to rebuild the country.”
“I also feel that there is a great opportunity with the millions of Venezuelans who left the country and who would like to be part of that reconstruction as well,” he said.
“Logically it’s sad to see the deterioration in the country, the institutions, even the universities in general,” added Guillén. “Those of us who are outside the country have continued to move forward and see other circumstances, and returning to the country with those ideas, with those new approaches, could provide an opportunity for change. That’s what I would like.”
Editor’s note: International News Editor Michael K. Lavers was on assignment in Colombia from Jan. 5-10.
Spanberger signs bill that paves way for marriage amendment repeal referendum
Blade, Pride House LA announce 2028 Olympics partnership
D.C. non-profits find creative ways to aid the unhoused amid funding cuts
Celebrate Black History Month
Calendar: February 6-12
Unconventional homes becoming more popular
Out dancer on Alvin Ailey’s stint at Warner Theatre
D.C. Council urged to improve ‘weakened’ PrEP insurance bill
LGBTQ Minnesotans speak out amid ICE crackdowns
