News
Will Obama speak out again on marriage lawsuits?
Many advocates would welcome continued participation
From left, lawyer David Boies , plaintiffs Jeff Zarillo, Paul Katami, Kris Perry, Sandy Stier and lawyer Ted Olson at the HRC National Dinner. Olson and Boies say they’d welcome President Obama’s participation in their lawsuit (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key).
Amid a frenzy of new marriage equality lawsuits making their way to the Supreme Court, some LGBT advocates say continued participation from the Obama administration in litigation would boost their chances for success.
One advocate eager for the administration to continue its participation in litigation seeking marriage equality is Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.
“There are 20-some freedom to marry cases underway around the country now, including the two in Virginia, and President Obama’s and the Justice Department’s support for the freedom to marry and constitutional guarantees should absolutely be part of all of them,” Wolfson said.
Because the Obama administration isn’t a party to any of the lawsuits pending, under ordinary circumstances the administration would participate by filing a friend-of-the-court brief before the courts.
But at this stage, some legal experts who spoke to the Washington Blade are taking a more passive stance on whether the Obama administration should take part, saying they’d “welcome” help from the administration’s lawyers without issuing an overt call for action.
Ted Olson and David Boies, the legal duo that brought marriage equality to California by challenging Proposition 8, articulated this view during a conference call with reporters last week when asked by the Washington Blade if they want the administration’s support in Bostic v. Rainey, the lawsuit in Virginia they joined last week.
Boies, the Democratic half of the legal team representing the American Foundation for Equal Rights, said the administration’s participation would be welcome because “the views of the administration are important.”
“Exactly when they will get involved and how they will get involved and what stage they will get involved is something that is obviously up to the administration,” Boies said. “Whether they will decide to wait until we get to the Supreme Court or express views earlier is up to them. But whenever they come in, their support would be welcome.”
Boies’ comments during the conference call follow an endorsement of participation from the Obama administration in his lawsuit during a National Press Club event earlier in the day.
Echoing that sense was Olson, the Republican half of the legal duo that presented the case against Prop 8 during oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
“To have the president’s imprimatur on this issue is so very, very important to the court,” Olson said. “There are institutional reasons for why the Justice Department with the president gets in cases at particular times and we’ll wait till what they decide the right time is, but we very much welcome their support in this case.”
The administration has taken part in previous marriage lawsuits. When the case against Prop 8 came before the Supreme Court, the Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of plaintiffs and sent U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli to take part in oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
Although the administration didn’t argue the U.S. Constitution guarantees marriage rights for gay couples nationwide, it did contend Prop 8 was unconstitutional and suggested states that offer domestic partnerships should have to afford full marriage rights to gay couples.
The administration’s participation in cases against the Defense of Marriage Act has been more extensive. After announcing it would no longer defend the law in court, the administration filed briefs against the anti-gay law and sent Justice Department lawyers to argue against it in district courts, appellate courts and the Supreme Court.
The Bostic case is but one pending marriage equality lawsuit. According to a tally provided by Lambda Legal, there are 35 marriage lawsuits before 19 states. Just last week, Lambda filed an additional federal lawsuit seeking marriage equality in West Virginia.
Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, said the involvement from the administration in the marriage lawsuits would reinforce that “the lives of all Americans are deeply affected when states discriminate actively against some of their constituents.”
“The Justice Department’s participation puts additional moral force behind the claims for equality and fairness that gay and lesbian couples make in these cases,” Goldberg continued. “In that sense, the federal government’s participation in state law challenges can be important and helpful, but even if it does not participate, it is also important and helpful that the administration is on record decrying the injustice of unequal marriage rules.”
But the sense that the Obama administration should file additional friend-of-the-court briefs in the marriage lawsuits isn’t universal.
Roberta Kaplan, a lesbian attorney at Paul & Weiss who argued against DOMA before the Supreme Court, said she’s unsure additional friend-of-the-court briefs are necessary.
Courts already know the Justice Department’s position in the aftermath of the Perry case, Kaplan said, and filing additional briefs in every marriage lawsuit out there would be “frankly, a logistical pain in the butt for them.”
“What they said in Perry pretty much answers the question,” Kaplan said. “Frankly, a court knows what their position is because they’ve said it. It’s the same issue…There should be no mystery to anyone what their position is.”
Kaplan said if the administration would participate, chances are it would happen at the appellate or Supreme Court level.
“I’m sure at the Supreme Court, when and if one of these cases gets up there, they will be asked to participate and they will,” Kaplan said. “At the appellate courts, I think it pretty much depends on which case and whether they’re going to have a policy of putting in the same brief in 20 different cases that all say the same thing when they’ve already done it once.”
The Justice Department hasn’t responded to repeated requests for comment. The answering machine at the public affairs line says it will respond to calls in the aftermath of the government shutdown.
The administration may not be able to participate in a marriage equality case as long as the government remains closed. According to the shutdown plan on the Justice Department website, civil litigation, the category of litigation for marriage lawsuits, will be “curtailed or postponed.”
“Litigators will need to approach the courts and request that active cases, except for those in which postponement would compromise to a significant degree the safety of human life or the protection of property, be postponed until funding is available,” the website states. “If a court denies such a request and orders a case to continue, the government will comply with the court’s order, which would constitute express legal authorization for the activity to continue.”
But if the Obama administration were to file a brief in a marriage case before an appellate court, the one for which the opportunity is coming soon is in the case challenging the same-sex marriage ban in Nevada known as Sevcik v. Sandoval. The case, filed by Lambda, is pending before the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals and is one of the cases that has thus far advanced the furthest. Friend-of-the-court briefs are due Oct. 25.
Lisa Hardaway, a Lambda spokesperson, said the attorney working on the case would welcome support from the administration.
“Tara Borelli, our lead attorney on the Sevcik matter, says that we would welcome a brief from the Obama administration,” Hardaway said.
Considering Lambda in the Sevcik case is arguing the ban on same-sex marriage in Nevada is unconstitutional because the state is relegating gay couples to second-class domestic partnerships, the case seems like a natural fit for an administration that has previously said all civil union states should offer marriage to gay couples.
But Kaplan said the more interesting question is whether the administration will articulate a response in the marriage lawsuits that are contending a state must recognize a same-sex marriage from another jurisdiction. Among these cases is Whitewood v. Corbett, the marriage lawsuit pending in Pennsylvania.
“I think the more interesting issues are, frankly, like when the issues come up about recognition…of marriages in states that don’t permit,” Kaplan said. “That at least presents a different question than something they’ve already put out.”
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said “it goes without saying” that he shares Olson and Boies’ views and predicted the Obama administration would come on board based on its previous actions and stated commitment to LGBT rights.
“The administration not only stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act, as you know, but weighed in as we all hoped they would, and encouraged them to, in the Prop 8 case, going the distance there in that case before the Supreme Court,” Griffin said. “And again, we’re just announcing this case today and it still has a distance to go, but I’m optimistic that at the right time, the administration will be there in support of this.”
Congress
MTG resigns after years of anti-LGBTQ attacks amid Trump feud
Greene’s abrupt departure adds fresh uncertainty to an already fractured Republican Party.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced on Friday that she is resigning from Congress.
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), the Georgia 14th Congressional District representative announced her sudden decision to resign from office.
The nearly 11-minute-long video shows Rep. Greene stating she will step down from her role representing one of Georgia’s most Republican districts on Jan. 5, 2026. She cited multiple reasons for this decision, most notably her very public separation from Trump.
In recent weeks, Greene — long one of the loudest and most supportive MAGA members of Congress — has butted heads with the president on a slew of topics. Most recently, she supported pushing the DOJ to release the Epstein Files, becoming one of only four Republicans to sign a discharge petition, against Trump’s wishes.
She also publicly criticized her own party during the government shutdown. Rep. Greene had oddly been supportive of Democratic initiatives to protect healthcare tax credits and subsidies that were largely cut out of national healthcare policy as a result of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” passed in July.
“What I am upset over is my party has no solution,” Greene said in October.
Trump recently said he would endorse a challenger against the congresswoman if she ran for reelection next year, and last week went as far as to declare, “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Green is a disgrace to our GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY!” on his Truth Social platform.
Trump told ABC News on Friday night that Greene’s resignation is “great news for the country,” and added that he has no plans to speak with Greene but wishes her well.
Despite her recent split with the head of the Republican Party, Rep. Greene has consistently taken a staunch stance against legislation supporting the LGBTQ community — notably a hardline “no” on any issue involving transgender people or their right to gender-affirming care.
Rep. Greene has long been at odds with the LGBTQ community. Within her first month in office, she criticized Democrats’ attempts to pass the Equality Act, legislation that would bar anti-LGBTQ employment discrimination. She went as far as to suggest an apocalypse-like scenario if Congress passed such a measure.
“God created us male and female,” she said on the House floor. “In his image, he created us. The Equality Act that we are to vote on this week destroys God’s creation. It also completely annihilates women’s rights and religious freedoms. It can be handled completely differently to stop discrimination without destroying women’s rights, little girls’ rights in sports, and religious freedom, violating everything we hold dear in God’s creation.”
Greene, who serves one of the nation’s most deeply red districts in northwest Georgia, attempted to pass legislation dubbed the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which would have criminalized gender-affirming care for minors and restricted federal funding and education related to gender-affirming care in 2023. The bill was considered dead in January 2025 after being referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Her push came despite multiple professional medical organizations, including the nation’s largest and most influential — the American Medical Association — stating that withholding gender-affirming care would do more harm than any such care would.
She has called drag performers “child predators” and described the Democratic Party as “the party of killing babies, grooming and transitioning children, and pro-pedophile politics.”
Greene has also publicly attacked Delaware Rep. Sarah McBride, the nation’s first and only transgender member of Congress. She has repeatedly misgendered and attacked McBride, saying, “He’s a man. He’s a biological male,” adding, “he’s got plenty of places he can go” when asked about bathrooms and locker rooms McBride should use. Greene has also been vocal about her support for a bathroom-usage bill targeting McBride and transgender Americans as a whole.
She has repeatedly cited false claims that transgender people are more violent than their cisgender counterparts, including falsely stating that the 2022 Robb Elementary School shooter in Texas was transgender.
The former MAGA first lady also called for an end to Pride month celebrations. She criticized the fact that the LGBTQ community gets “an entire” month while veterans get “only one day each year” in an X post, despite November being designated as National Veterans and Military Families Month.
Under Georgia law, Gov. Brian Kemp (R) must hold a special election within 40 days of the seat becoming vacant.
The Washington Blade reached out to both the White House and Greene’s office for comment, but has not heard back.
The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected].
The Comings & Goings column also invites LGBTQ+ college students to share their successes with us. If you have been elected to a student government position, gotten an exciting internship, or are graduating and beginning your career with a great job, let us know so we can share your success.
Congratulations to David Mack onbeing named the inaugural executive director of the IN series. On accepting the position Mack said, “I’m excited to join the D.C. community as IN Series’ inaugural executive director as the company enters its adventurous next chapter. I’m eager to meet audiences across the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. area in order to help expand access to innovative opera — whether they’re longtime enthusiasts or discovering it for the first time. Thank you … to the IN Series hiring committee for inviting me into your world with open arms, and such generosity of spirit.”
Mack is a seasoned arts executive and producer, with more than 15 years of leadership experience in innovative performing arts organizations, including the African American Art &Culture Complex; Joe Goode Performance Group; and Invertigo Dance Theatre. As a strategic arts consultant, his clients have included LA Dance Project, Diavolo, Architecture in Motion, and Center Theatre Group. As general manager of The Industry, he produced Invisible Cities at LA’s Union Station in collaboration with the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Mack has served on the boards of the LA Producer’s League, Western Arts Alliance, and Creative West, and advocated on behalf of artists as a member of the SF Arts Alliance, and Greater Bay Area Arts Coalition. Mack was co-founder of Theatre Magnet, Artist Magnet and Artist Magnet Justice Alliance, a series of Oakland-based arts service and consulting organizations. He is currently a DeVos Institute of Arts & Nonprofit Management Global Executive fellow. He earned his master’s in theater at the California Institute of the Arts.
Congratulations also to Chord Bezerra who is returning to the U.S. Pharmacopeia as Senior Design Manager. Upon accepting the position he said, “Returning to U.S. Pharmacopeia as Senior Design Manager feels like coming home to a mission I care deeply about — using design to make complex science clearer, more human, and more accessible to the people it serves.”
Bezerra has more than 20 years of experience in design leadership and management. He has most recently been manager, Brand and Advertising, CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prior to that he was Senior Lead Designer (contractor) CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield. His initial stint with Pharmacopeia in Rockville, Md., was as a senior graphic designer. While there, he oversaw award-winning design (2020 Hermes & Marcom Awards); mentored and directed junior designers; and fostered visual storytelling solutions by directing junior designers for two years. He has served as chair and founding member of eQuality Alliance, USP’s first LGBTQIA+ Affinity Group.
Bezerra had his own company for many years, Chord Bezerra Creative in D.C. Clients included national and non-profit organizations such as American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, The Limited, Columbia Business School, Victory Fund, Zengo Cycling, Capital Pride, and Andrew Christian, among others. He earned his bachelor’s degree in communications from the University of Delaware.
The White House
Trans workers take White House to court over bathroom policy
Federal lawsuit filed Thursday
Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union, two organizations focused on protecting Americans’ constitutional rights, filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday in federal court challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s bathroom ban policies.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of LeAnne Withrow, a civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard, challenges the administration’s policy prohibiting transgender and intersex federal employees from using restrooms aligned with their gender. The policy claims that allowing trans people in bathrooms would “deprive [women assigned female at birth] of their dignity, safety, and well-being.”
The lawsuit responds to the executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. It alleges that the order and its implementation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Title VII protects trans workers from discrimination based on sex.
Since its issuance, the executive order has faced widespread backlash from constitutional rights and LGBTQ advocacy groups for discriminating against trans and intersex people.
The lawsuit asserts that Withrow, along with numerous other trans and intersex federal employees, is forced to choose between performing her duties and being allowed to use the restroom safely.
“There is no credible evidence that allowing transgender people access to restrooms aligning with their gender identity jeopardizes the safety or privacy of non-transgender users,” the lawsuit states, directly challenging claims of safety risks.
Withrow detailed the daily impact of the policy in her statement included in the lawsuit.
“I want to help soldiers, families, veterans — and then I want to go home at the end of the day. At some point in between, I will probably need to use the bathroom,” she said.
The filing notes that Withrow takes extreme measures to avoid using the restroom, which the Cleveland Clinic reports most people need to use anywhere from 1–15 times per day depending on hydration.
“Ms. Withrow almost never eats breakfast, rarely eats lunch, and drinks less than the equivalent of one 17 oz. bottle of water at work on most days.”
In addition to withholding food and water, the policy subjects her to ongoing stress and fear:
“Ms. Withrow would feel unsafe, humiliated, and degraded using a men’s restroom … Individuals seeing her enter the men’s restroom might try to prevent her from doing so or physically harm her,” the lawsuit states. “The actions of defendants have caused Ms. Withrow to suffer physical and emotional distress and have limited her ability to effectively perform her job.”
“No one should have to choose between their career in service and their own dignity,” Withrow added. “I bring respect and honor to the work I do to support military families, and I hope the court will restore dignity to transgender people like me who serve this country every day.”
Withrow is a lead Military and Family Readiness Specialist and civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard. Previously, she served as a staff sergeant and has received multiple commendations, including the Illinois National Guard Abraham Lincoln Medal of Freedom.
The lawsuit cites the American Medical Association, the largest national association of physicians, which has stated that policies excluding trans individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have harmful effects on health, safety, and well-being.
“Policies excluding transgender individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have detrimental effects on the health, safety and well-being of those individuals,” the lawsuit states on page 32.
Advocates have condemned the policy since its signing in January and continue to push back against the administration. Leaders from ACLU-D.C., ACLU of Illinois, and Democracy Forward all provided comments on the lawsuit and the ongoing fight for trans rights.
“We cannot let the Trump administration target transgender people in the federal government or in public life,” said ACLU-D.C. Senior Staff Attorney Michael Perloff. “An executive order micromanaging which bathroom civil servants use is discrimination, plain and simple, and must be stopped.”
“It is absurd that in her home state of Illinois, LeAnne can use any other restroom consistent with her gender — other than the ones controlled by the federal government,” said Michelle Garcia, deputy legal director at the ACLU of Illinois. “The Trump administration’s reckless policies are discriminatory and must be reversed.”
“This policy is hateful bigotry aimed at denying hardworking federal employees their basic dignity simply because they are transgender,” said Kaitlyn Golden, senior counsel at Democracy Forward. “It is only because of brave individuals like LeAnne that we can push back against this injustice. Democracy Forward is honored to work with our partners in this case and is eager to defeat this insidious effort to discriminate against transgender federal workers.”
Pioneering gay journalist takes on Trump 2.0 in new book
In real estate, it’s déjà vu all over again
New take on ‘Some Like It Hot’ offers diverse casting
MTG resigns after years of anti-LGBTQ attacks amid Trump feud
Theater classic gets sapphic twist in provocative ‘Hedda’
New LGBTQ bar Rush set to debut
Repealing marriage amendment among Va. House Democrats’ 2026 legislative priorities
MTG should keep up the pressure on Trump, MAGA
PEPFAR delivers first doses of groundbreaking HIV prevention drug to two African countries
Guillermo Diaz on his role as a queer, Latino actor in Hollywood
-
District of Columbia3 days agoNew LGBTQ bar Rush set to debut
-
Virginia5 days ago
Repealing marriage amendment among Va. House Democrats’ 2026 legislative priorities
-
Opinions3 days ago
MTG should keep up the pressure on Trump, MAGA
-
Eswatini4 days ago
PEPFAR delivers first doses of groundbreaking HIV prevention drug to two African countries
