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.”
Federal Government
Holiday week brings setbacks for Trump-Vance trans agenda
Federal courts begin to deliver end-of-year responses to lawsuits involving federal transgender healthcare policy.
While many Americans took the week of Christmas to rest and relax, LGBTQ politics in the U.S. continued to shift. This week’s short recap of federal updates highlights two major blows to the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
19 states sue RFK Jr. to end gender-affirming care ban
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced on Tuesday that the NYAG’s office, along with 18 other states (and the District of Columbia), filed a lawsuit to stop U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from restricting gender-affirming care for minors.
In the press release, Attorney General James stressed that the push by the Trump-Vance administration’s crusade against the transgender community — specifically transgender youth — is a “clear overreach by the federal government” and relies on conservative and medically unvalidated practices to “punish providers who adhere to well-established, evidence-based care” that support gender-affirming care.
“At the core of this so-called declaration are real people: young people who need care, parents trying to support their children, and doctors who are simply following the best medical evidence available,” said Attorney General James. “Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online, and no one should lose access to medically necessary health care because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors’ offices. My office will always stand up for New Yorkers’ health, dignity, and right to make medical decisions free from intimidation.”
The lawsuit is a direct response to HHS’ Dec. 18 announcement that it will pursue regulatory changes that would make gender-affirming health care for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible, to access. It would also restrict federal funding for any hospital that does not comply with the directive. KFF, an independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism, found that in 2023 federal funding covered nearly 45% of total spending on hospital care in the U.S.
The HHS directive stems directly from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 Executive Order, Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, which formally establishes U.S. opposition to gender-affirming care and pledges to end federal funding for such treatments.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest and most influential physician organization, has repeatedly opposed measures like the one pushed by President Trump’s administration that restrict access to trans health care.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” a statement on the AMA’s website reads. “Improving access to gender-affirming care is an important means of improving health outcomes for the transgender population.”
The lawsuit also names Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin as having joined New York in the push against restricting gender-affirming care.
At the HHS news conference last Thursday, Jim O’Neill, deputy secretary of the department, asserted, “Men are men. Men can never become women. Women are women. Women can never become men.”
DOJ stopped from gaining health care records of trans youth
U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon blocked an attempt by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to gain “personally identifiable information about those minor transgender patients” from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), saying the DOJ’s efforts “fly in the face of the Supreme Court.”
Journalist Chris Geidner originally reported the news on Dec. 25, highlighting that the Western District of Pennsylvania judge’s decision is a major blow to the Trump-Vance administration’s agenda to curtail transgender rights.
“[T]his Court joins the others in finding that the government’s demand for deeply private and personal patient information carries more than a whiff of ill intent,” Bissoon wrote in her ruling. “This is apparent from its rhetoric.”
Bissoon cited the DOJ’s “incendiary characterization” of trans youth care on the DOJ website as proof, which calls the practice politically motivated rather than medically sound and seeks to “…mutilate children in the service of a warped ideology.” This is despite the fact that a majority of gender-affirming care has nothing to do with surgery.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court ruled along party lines that states — namely Tennessee — have the right to pass legislation that can prohibit certain medical treatments for transgender minors, saying the law is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not involve suspect categories like race, national origin, alienage, and religion, which would require the government to show the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored, sending decision-making power back to the states.
“The government cannot pick and choose the aspects of Skrmetti to honor, and which to ignore,” Judge Bissoon added.
The government argued unsuccessfully that the parents of the children whose records would have been made available to the DOJ “lacked standing” because the subpoena was directed at UPMC and that they did not respond in a timely manner. Bissoon rejected the timeliness argument in particular as “disingenuous.”
Bissoon, who was nominated to the bench by then-President Obama, is at least the fourth judge to reject the DOJ’s attempted intrusion into the health care of trans youth according to Geidner.
District of Columbia
Reasons to be optimistic about 2026
Local thought leaders offer hope for the New Year
It was a year like no other. It began with Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2025 and included a takeover of D.C. police, ICE raids, challenges for the local economy, and other events that have many queer Washingtonians ready for 2026.
As we prepare to welcome the New Year, the Blade asked a range of local thought leaders about what makes them optimistic for 2026. Here are their responses.
June Crenshaw
Deputy Director, Capital Pride Alliance
What gives me optimism for 2026 is the way our LGBTQIA2S+ community supports one another – across identities, neighborhoods, and movements – and because we continue to build our collective powers; we demand and create safer, more inclusive spaces.
Zachary Parker
Ward 5 DC. Council member
I’m optimistic about the upcoming elections and the District’s continued fight for local autonomy. One thing I know for sure is that Washingtonians are tough and persistent, and we’re ready to face any challenge as we keep fighting for D.C. statehood.
Sister Jeannine Gramick
Co-founder of LGBTQ supportive New Ways Ministry
As a nun who thinks politically about the Catholic Church, I’m extremely optimistic that Pope Leo XIV will continue to welcome LGBTQ people. At the conclave, most cardinals knew Pope Francis had (then) Cardinal Proost in mind!
Adam Ebbin
Virginia State Senator representing parts of Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax Counties
I am excited about 2026 bringing the return of the pro-equality governor to Virginia. I believe that Abigail Spanberger will be a champion for LGBT people and it will also be the year that we can finally pass the necessary legislation to send a constitutional amendment to the voters that would guarantee marriage equality in the Virginia Constitution.
Howard Garrett
President, Capital Stonewall Democrats
In 2026, our community can be optimistic because we’ve proven, again and again, that when we organize, we win: at the ballot box, in the courts, and in our neighborhoods. Even amid challenge, LGBTQ+ Washingtonians and our allies are building stronger coalitions, electing champions, and advancing real protections that make daily life safer and more affirming for everyone.
Paul Kuntzler
D.C. LGBTQ activist since the early 1960s, co-founder of Capital Stonewall Democrats
Last Nov. 4, 11 states held elections and Democrats won almost all of the elections. Next Nov. 3, 2026, Democrats will win control of both the House and Senate …An Economist poll reported that 15 percent to 20 percent of those who voted for Trump no longer support him. The results of the elections of Nov. 3, 2026, will be the beginning of the end of Trump and his racist and criminal regime.
Kelley Robinson
President, Human Rights Campaign
This past year has brought relentless attacks against the LGBTQ+ community, but it has also shown the resiliency of queer folks. While this administration has worked tirelessly to oppress us, we’ve met that oppression with courage. As we step into 2026, my hope is that we carry that energy forward and continue protecting one another, fighting back against injustice, and celebrating queer joy. If 2026 is anything like 2025, we know the challenges will be intense, but our community is more determined than ever to meet hate with resilience, and to turn struggle into strength.
Freddie Lutz
Owner, Freddie’s Beach Bar in Arlington and Rehoboth Beach
I am optimistic that the current president will fulfill his promise to boost the economy. We are all suffering – businesses in D.C. I just read it is 17 to 18 percent down. And I’m hoping the president will boost the economy. I always try to remain optimistic.
Nicholas F. Benton
Owner & Editor, Falls Church News-Press
My optimism stems from my belief in the human capacity and generosity of spirit. Those who are committed to those qualities will find a way.
Richard Rosendall
Former president, D.C. Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance
MAGA efforts to demonize LGBTQ people are dangerous but will fail overall because understanding and acceptance have grown and endured. The blue wave in November 2026 will show this.
TJ Flavell
Organizer, Go Gay DC
Hope springs eternal. Nurturing your own wellness is vital to the New Year, including enjoying social and cultural activities through such groups as Go Gay DC – Metro DC’s LGBTQ Community. Also, 2026 ushers in a new tax deduction for charitable giving. Check the IRS website for details. You can make a positive impact in the New Year by supporting good charitable causes like the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center, a safe, inclusive, and affirming space where all members of our community can thrive.
Rayceen Pendarvis
Leader of Team Rayceen D.C. LGBTQ support organization
I have experienced many trials and tribulations in my lifetime, throughout which my spirit has enabled me to find peace despite the turbulence around me. Being optimistic allows me to be a beacon of light for those who may be lost in the darkness.
Zar
Team Rayceen organizer
My reason for optimism is this: death. Life is a cycle of time, change, and destruction. Everything is impermanent; the time any person rules is finite and eventually all empires end.
DJ Honey
Team Rayceen supporter
Despite the noise, I see 2026 as a year where queer people continue choosing community over isolation. Even when challenged, our culture keeps evolving. We are more visible, more creative and intentional about building spaces that protect each other and center joy without asking permission.
Nick Tsusaki
Owner, Spark Social House, D.C. LGBTQ café and bar
I’m optimistic for 2026 because it feels like the tide is turning and we’re coming together as a community.
District of Columbia
Rush reopens after renewing suspended liquor license
Principal owner says he’s working to resolve payroll issue for unpaid staff
The D.C. LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush reopened and was serving drinks to customers on Saturday night, Dec. 20, under a renewed liquor license three days after the city’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board suspended the license on grounds that Rush failed to pay a required annual licensing fee.
In its Dec. 17 order suspending the Rush liquor license the ABC Board stated the “payment check was returned unpaid and alternative payment was not submitted.”
Jackson Mosley, Rush’s principal owner, says in a statement posted on the Rush website that the check did not “bounce,” as rumors circulating in the community have claimed. He said a decision was made to put a “hold” on the check so that Rush could change its initial decision to submit a payment for the license for three years and instead to pay a lower price for a one-year payment.
“Various fees and fines were added to the amount, making it necessary to replace the stop-payment check in person – a deadline that was Wednesday despite my attempts to delay it due to these circumstances,” Mosley states in his message.
He told the Washington Blade in an interview inside Rush on Saturday night, Dec. 20, that the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) quickly processed Rush’s liquor license renewal following his visit to submit a new check.
He also reiterated in the interview some of the details he explained in his Rush website statement regarding a payroll problem that resulted in his employees not being paid for their first month’s work at Rush, which was scheduled to take place Dec. 15 through a direct deposit into the employees’ bank accounts.
Several employees set up a GoFundMe appeal in which they stated they “showed up, worked hard, and were left unpaid after contributing their time, labor, and professional skills to Rush, D.C.’s newest LGBTQ bar.”
In his website statement Mosley says employees were not paid because of a “tax related mismatch between federal and District records,” which, among other things, involves the IRS. He said the IRS was using his former company legal name Green Zebra LLC while D.C. officials are using his current company legal name Rainbow Zebra LLC.
“This discrepancy triggered a compliance hold within our payroll system,” he says in his statement. “The moment I became aware of the issue, I immediately engaged our payroll provider and began working to resolve it,” he wrote.
He added that while he is the founder and CEO of Rush’s parent and management company called Momentux, company investors play a role in making various decisions, and that the investors rather than he control a “syndicated treasury account” that funds and operates the payroll system.
He told the Blade that he and others involved with the company were working hard to resolve the payroll problem as soon as possible.
“Every employee – past or present – will receive the pay they are owed in accordance with D.C. and federal law,” he says in his statement. “That remains my priority.”
In a follow-up text message to the Blade on Sunday night, Dec. 21, Mosley said, “All performers, DJs, etc. have been fully paid.”
He said Rush had 21 employees but “2 were let go for gross misconduct, 2 were let go for misconduct, 1 for moral turpitude, 2 for performance concerns.” He added that all of the remaining 14 employees have returned to work at the time of the reopening on Dec. 20.
Rush held its grand opening on Dec. 5 on the second and third floors of a building at 2001 14th Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street next to the existing LGBTQ dance club Bunker.
With at least a half dozen or more LGBTQ bars located within walking distance of Rush in the U Street entertainment corridor, Mosley told the Blade he believes some of the competing LGBTQ bars, which he says believe Rush will take away their customers, may be responsible along with former employees of “rumors” disparaging him and Rush.
Holiday week brings setbacks for Trump-Vance trans agenda
Your guide to D.C.’s queer New Year’s Eve parties
Long-awaited ‘Pillion’ surpasses the sexy buzz
Trump’s ‘American people derangement syndrome’
Reasons to be optimistic about 2026
Reasons to be optimistic about 2026
Long-awaited ‘Pillion’ surpasses the sexy buzz
Protecting the trans community is not optional for elected allies and candidates
Trump’s ‘American people derangement syndrome’
