Connect with us

National

Couples make history testifying against DOMA

Senate hears from spouses, activists about burdens of marriage ban; hearing first-ever in Congress on repeal of anti-gay law

Published

15 years ago

on

‘The time has come for the federal government to recognize that these married couples deserve the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples,’ said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A Senate hearing Wednesday on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act featured poignant testimony from couples in same-sex marriages, who described how the anti-gay law has harmed them.

The hearing, which took place before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the first ever before Congress on repeal of DOMA, the 1996 law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The hearing was intended to highlight the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation pending before Congress that would repeal DOMA.

Ron Wallen, an Indio. Calif., resident, who married his partner of 55 years in 2008, said he’s unable to make payments on his home following the death of his spouse, Tom Carrollo, four months ago. Had he been in an opposite-sex marriage, he would have been able to receive Social Security benefits to help pay for the cost of living.

“I am selling the last house I shared with my husband in a panic sale because I can’t afford the mortgage and expenses,” Wallen said. “I am spending my days and nights sorting through our possessions, packing boxes to move — even while I am still answering the condolence cards that come in the mail.”

Susan Murray, who lives in Ferrisburgh, Vt., with her spouse, Karen Murray, said she also faces financial inequities as a result of DOMA. Murray was the co-counsel in the lawsuit Baker v. Vermont, which established civil unions in Vermont in 2000.

One issue Murray cited was the additional tax that she and her spouse have to pay on employer-based insurance coverage provided to them through her spouse’s employer, Fletcher Allen Health Care.

“Because of DOMA, I am not considered Karen’s spouse, so the value of that health insurance coverage for me ($6,200 a year) is considered taxable income to Karen,” Murray said. “She therefore has to pay income tax, as well as FICA and Medicare tax, on that ‘phantom’ income — unlike her other married colleagues.”

Andrew Sorbo, a Cheshire, Conn., resident and retired history teacher, also testified about financial troubles he faced after his spouse, Colin Atterbury, died of pancreatic cancer in 2009. Among other things, Sorbo said he was denied the right to be included in his deceased spouse’s medical insurance plan through the federal government.

Andrew Sorbo (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

“When I retired as a teacher in 2005, I had no alternative except to pay for my insurance coverage in full through my former school district, at a much higher cost than if I could have been covered under Colin’s plan as a spouse,” Sorbo said. “Last year, my insurance payments consumed almost a third of my $24,000 teacher pension.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the committee, spoke out in his opening statement for passage of the Respect for Marriage Act and said it would allow same-sex couples married under state law to receive federal benefits.

“Nothing in this bill would obligate any person, religious organization, state, or locality to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex,” Leahy said. “What would change, and what must change, is the federal government’s treatment of state-sanctioned marriage. The time has come for the federal government to recognize that these married couples deserve the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), sponsor of the DOMA repeal legislation, maintained that the anti-gay law should be off the books because marriage, as well as other issues related to family such as adoption and divorce, have been under the jurisdiction of state law.

“Family law has traditionally been the preserve of state law,” Feinstein said. “The single exception is DOMA. Chief Justice [William] Rehnquist once wrote that family law ‘has been left to the states from time immemorial, and not without good reason.’ He was right.”

Passed by Congress in 1996, DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton. Both Clinton and the bill’s sponsor at the time, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr, have come out for repeal of the law.

DOMA has two components: one that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and another that allows states not to recognize such marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

As a result of the component of DOMA known as Section 3, married same-sex couples cannot participate in federal programs. For instance, they can’t file joint federal income taxes, receive spousal benefits under Social Security or obtain exemptions of the estate tax law upon the death of one of the spouses.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who represents a state where same-sex marriage will be available next week, emphasized the fiscal reasons for repealing DOMA and predicted that lifting the anti-gay law from the books “would, on balance, likely increase federal revenue.”

According to Schumer, in 2004 the Congressional Budget Office found that DOMA repeal at the time would have increased revenues by less than $400 million a year from 2005 through 2010, and by $500 million to $700 million annually from 2011 through 2014.

“I think that there are three fundamental principles at stake here,” Schumer continued. “Repealing DOMA makes good fiscal sense, it respects states’ rights to make their own determinations about marriage, and it treats all married people the same. It’s fair, it makes sense, and it’s time.”

The sole committee member to speak out against DOMA repeal during the hearing was Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the committee.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key

Grassley, who represents a state where same-sex marriage is legal, said he opposes the Respect for Marriage Act because he believes marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.

“The bill before us today is entitled the Respect for Marriage Act,” Grassley said. “George Orwell would have marveled at the time. A bill to restore marriage would restore marriage as it has been known — one man, one woman. That is the view of marriage that I support. This bill would undermine, not restore marriage by repealing it.”

Grassley and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) were the only Republican senators who made an appearance at the DOMA hearing. Grassley was the only GOP committee member who asked questions of the witnesses.

Witnesses who married someone of the same-sex testified about how DOMA negatively affected their relationship or their ability to receive benefits after the death of their spouse.

The hearing took place on the heels of an announcement from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday that President Obama supports the Respect for Marriage Act.

“I can tell you that the president has long called for legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people families, friends and neighbors,” Carney said. “He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act introduced by Sen. Feinstein and Congressman Nadler, which would take DOMA off the books once and for all. This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”

President Obama has previously said he supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but has yet to come out in support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which is the specific measure pending before Congress that would repeal the law.

During the hearing, Grassley erroneously said that Obama until Tuesday “was a supporter of DOMA.” During the 2008 campaign, Obama made full repeal of DOMA one of his campaign promises.

 

Experts testify before Senate

 

House members also testified on both sides of the Respect for Marriage Act. Two Democratic members — Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the sponsor of the bill, and John Lewis (D-Ga.) — favored DOMA repeal, while Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a lawmaker known for his anti-gay views, opposed it.

Nadler maintained that not just same-sex couples — but children being raised by LGBT parents — are among those who are affected by the discrimination of DOMA.

“No legitimate federal interest in the welfare of children is ever advanced by withholding protection for some children based on the desire to express mild disapproval of their parents,” Nadler said. “It defies common sense to claim that it’s necessary to harm or exclude the children of married same-sex couples in order to somehow protect the children of opposite-sex couples.”

Similarly, Lewis expressed disbelief that Congress has yet to act on something as fundamental as allowing Americans the right to marry the person they choose.

“I find it hard to believe that in the year 2011, there’s still the need to hold hearings and debate on whether or not to allow people to marry the one they love,” Lewis said.

Lewis said DOMA imposes similar discrimination that blacks endured in the South under segregation and recalled the discrimination he faced as a child growing up in Southern Alabama.

“As a child, I tasted the bitter fruits and racism and discrimination, and I did not like it,” Lewis said. “And in 1996, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, the taste of that old bitter fruit filled my mouth once again.”

King, countering those arguments, based his testimony against repeal of DOMA on the basis that marriage is intended for procreation and thus should be reserved for one man and one woman because the union can produce children.

“The other side argues that you can’t choose who you love and that the union between two men and two women is equal to that of one man and one woman,” King said. “These are the same arguments that are used to promote marriage between fathers and daughters, mothers and sons or even polygamous relationships.”

Expert witnesses on both sides of DOMA testified before lawmakers. LGBT advocates maintained DOMA should be repealed to lift the burden of discrimination against same-sex couples, while supporters of DOMA said the anti-gay law is necessary to keep marriage as between one man and one woman.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, was among the LGBT advocates who testified during the hearing. He addressed the financial burdens DOMA imposes on same-sex couples.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

“DOMA means that the many protections the federal government provides for the health and financial security of American families remain out of reach for same-sex couples and their children,” Solmonese said. “Same-sex spouses of federal employees and active members of the military are denied access to health insurance coverage and a host of other benefits. Even when private sector companies voluntarily provide spousal health benefits, they are taxed, making it financially burdensome if not impossible for gay and lesbian couples to make use of these fair-minded policies.”

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said DOMA “carves out a gay exception” in the way the U.S. government traditionally and currently treats married couples.

“DOMA divides those married at the state level into first-class marriages for those the federal government prefers and second-class marriages for those the federal government doesn’t like,” Wolfson said. “But in America, we don’t have second-class citizens, and we shouldn’t have second-class marriages either.”

Arguing in favor of DOMA, anti-gay advocates maintained the importance of keeping marriage between one man and one woman.

Austin Nimrocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the purpose of family and relationships is to procreate and raise children.

“Accordingly, from the lexicographers who have defined marriage, to the eminent scholars in every relevant academic discipline who have explained marriage, to the legislatures and courts that have given legal recognition and effect to marriage, they all demonstrate that an animating purpose of marriage in every society is to increase the likelihood that procreative relationships benefit society,” Nimrocks said. “Marriage between a man and a woman is a long standing, world-wide idea that is a building block of society.”

Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, warned that DOMA repeal could require the federal government to recognize not only same-sex marriages — but also polygamous relationships.

“If the male-female nature of traditional marriage can be dismissed as an artifact and its inherent link to procreation denied, then surely the distinction between a marriage of two persons and a marriage of three or more is all the more arbitrary and irrational,” Whelan said. “It’s doubtful that any further sliding down the slippery slope would be necessary to get to polyamory: unlike the novelty of same-sex marriage, the polygamous version of polyamory has been widely practiced throughout history — and is therefore arguably up the slope from same-sex marriage.”

Whelan previously testified in April against same-sex marriage before the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing on “Defending Marriage.”

The assertion that DOMA would institute same-sex marriage is places where it didn’t exist before didn’t go without criticism from LGBT advocates after the hearing.

Rick Jacobs, chair and co-founder of the Courage Campaign, rebuked the assertion during that DOMA repeal would expand the places where gay couples can marry and maintained the Defense of Marriage Act would simply remove the federal government from the marriage issue.

“They don’t seem to understand what DOMA is,” Jacobs said. “They just keep missing the point that all DOMA is give the states the ability to decide what marriage is.”

Mary Bonauto, civil rights projects director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, also chided anti-gay advocates’ emphasis on marriage as between one man, one woman during the hearing as she said DOMA only affects those who are already married.

“I think it’s important to talk about marriage, but I wish there had been that much more delineation between what marriage is about one hand and what DOMA does, which is simply discriminate against people who are already married,” Bonauto said. “But there’s still, particularly in the opposition witnesses, this complete conflation between DOMA and marriage.”

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family, bore the brunt of the tough questioning from the committee undermining his credibility for his position that children reared by opposite-sex parents are better off than those raised by same-sex parents.

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

“It is a strong and dramatically consistent finding in the social science, psychological and medical literature that children do best when living with their own married mother and father,” Minnery said.

In his testimony, Minnery cites a December 2010 study from the Department of Health & Human Services which he said found “children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never life in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) challenged Minnery’s assertion, saying the HHS report “actually doesn’t say what you said it says.”

“It says that nuclear families — not opposite-sex married families — are associated with those positive outcomes,” Franken said. “Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that married same-sex couple that has or had adopted kids would fall under the definition of the nuclear family in the study that you cite?”

Minnery replied that he would believe the study means nuclear families are families with opposite-sex parents, but Franken denied this speculation, saying, “It doesn’t,” eliciting laugher from those attending the hearing.

“The study defines nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and each biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family,” Franken said. “And I, frankly, don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said following the hearing the testimony of those affected by DOMA compared to apparently misleading testimony of the anti-gay law’s proponents shows why “we’re winning on this issue.”

“The families who spoke — they talked from their human experience,” Carey said. “The other side talked from technical matters, from research that actually didn’t reveal the true, full research. We’re actually — children are doing quite well in our families, thank you very much.”

 

Time for a markup?

 

Now that the Respect for Marriage Act has had a hearing in the Senate, one option to move the legislation would be to hold a markup to bring the legislation to the floor. All 10 Democrats on the committee have signaled support for the legislation, so the bill already has sufficient support to move forward.

A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the committee has yet to set a date to report out the legislation to the Senate floor.

“This hearing began to build the record for repealing DOMA, and this is the beginning of the process,” the aide said. “Sen. Leahy will continue to work with Sen. Feinstein and other supporters, and hopes there will be support from both sides of the aisle for this repeal, but I have no announcements to make today concerning any kind of timeline.”

Jacobs said he wants to see more co-sponsors for the Respect for Marriage Act — and maintained he wants “all Democrats on board” — but said the time may be right for a markup on the bill.

“I think that we should move to that pretty quickly,” Jacobs said. “I’d like to see it. I know some people don’t, but I think we need to keep the momentum going.”

Following the hearing, Solmonese expressed caution about moving to a markup and deferred the decision to the Senate Judiciary Committee leadership.

“If we are genuinely committed to a clare path to victory, to ensuring that DOMA is repealed, then I would defer to the chairman in terms of the degree to which he thinks the time is appropriate for a markup — and how that relates to a full Senate vote and the prospects in the House,” Solmonese said. “As was the case with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ as was the case with any legislative victory that we have seen through to the end, we never want to evaluate it on the merits of one action.”

Bonauto, who’s leading several lawsuits against DOMA in the federal courts, said she isn’t sure if a committee vote on DOMA repeal — or a floor vote in the Senate without action in the House — would have any effect on how the courts would evaluate the constitutionality of the anti-gay law. She cautioned that a symbolic victory in the Senate may not have the desired impact on the courts.

“It’s hard to predict,” Bonauto said. “In the 1970’s, when the Congress had approved of the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it up for ratification to the states, the Supreme Court stayed its hand and didn’t declare that gender was a suspect classification because it thought the issue was moving through the political process. I think we’ve all learned through of the failure of ratification of the ERA that because something has been approved by the Congress of even is a constitutional amendment is set forth for ratification, it doesn’t predict future results.”

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Massachusetts

EXCLUSIVE: Pressley rips State Department over LGBTQ rights rollbacks abroad

Massachusetts Democrat sent letter to Marco Rubio on Tuesday

Published

2 hours ago

on

June 30, 2026

By

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) is pushing back against Secretary of State Marco Rubio's anti-LGBTQ foreign policy. (Photo public domain)

Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the Trump-Vance administration to take urgent action to defend LGBTQ people across the globe; including in countries that are violating international human rights protections for LGBTQ individuals, putting at risk the safety of civilians and U.S. citizens working, living, and traveling abroad.

The letter, which the Washington Blade got an exclusive preview of prior to it’s sending, criticizes the Trump-Vance administration’s foreign policy direction at the State Department, arguing that it has moved to roll back LGBTQ protections that have long been part of the U.S.’s global human rights posture.

2026-06-30-Pressley-State-Dept-LGBTQI-Letter-vF-signedDownload

“Criminalizing LGBTQI+ individuals undermines democracy globally, as well as U.S. national security. Thus, we urge the State Department to take adequate measures to speak out against this criminalization and protect U.S. citizens abroad, including your staff, who may be detained or harmed under such laws, policies, and practices,” Pressley, a Democrat who represents roughly three-fourths of Boston and much of the city’s suburbs, said. “U.S. civilians, diplomatic personnel, military members, and nonprofit workers on the ground providing health care and disaster support will be affected and have their safety threatened if the U.S. does not take action. Even U.S. citizens perceived as being part of the LGBTQI+ community and traveling or living in those countries may be used as bargaining chips. This is a serious U.S. national security concern.”

In the letter, Pressley underscores what she describes as a global escalation in criminalization and violence against LGBTQ people, noting that one-third of countries still criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relationships and that 12 countries impose the death penalty. She argues that these conditions make LGBTQ travelers, diplomats, and aid workers particularly vulnerable, and calls on the State Department to reassert U.S. leadership in defending human rights abroad.

“Every person deserves to live authentically, yet several countries are violating international human rights laws that protect LGBTQI+ individuals,” she said. “One-third of countries around the world criminalize same-sex consensual acts between adults, and 12 countries allow LGBTQI+ people to be executed for being themselves.”

She also invokes the U.S. has played in promoting democratic values internationally, arguing that LGBTQ rights should remain central to that mission.

“Historically, the United States has played a critical diplomatic role in promoting democracy and freedom for all individuals, including LGBTQI+ persons. The U.S. should be a world leader promoting human rights domestically and globally.”

In a separate statement included in the letter, Pressley emphasized both the moral and national security implications of the issue, warning that rising anti-LGBTQ laws abroad are endangering lives and require a coordinated U.S. response.

“Every person deserves to show up as their true, authentic selves here in the United States and in countries across the globe — and that includes our LGBTQI+ community members,” she said.

“However, we are witnessing a deeply concerning rise in human rights violations and criminalization of LGBTQI+ individuals in other countries, endangering the lives of civilians and U.S. citizens. It is incumbent upon the United States to protect our LGBTQI+ siblings at home and abroad not only for our national security but for the safety and freedom of LGBTQI+ people everywhere.”

The letter goes on to press the State Department for concrete action, including a public reaffirmation of U.S. commitments to LGBTQ human rights, the restoration of LGBTQ analysis in annual country reports, and clearer guidance for Americans traveling abroad. It also seeks clarity on whether the department is tracking cases of U.S. citizens detained or harmed under anti-LGBTQ laws and what proactive steps are being taken to warn and protect LGBTQ travelers.

While she is not a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Pressley remains highly active in international affairs and global policy.

While the letter focuses on current policy, it also lands in the broader context of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s long record on LGBTQ issues. Rubio, a former senator from Florida, has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, calling the federal Respect for Marriage Act, which he voted against, a “stupid waste of time.” He has also expressed support for efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

During his time in the U.S. Senate and as a Florida political leader, Rubio has a long anti-LGBTQ track record. He defended state policies that LGBTQ advocates say target queer and transgender people, including Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law — commonly known by critics as “Don’t Say Gay” or “Don’t Say Trans” — which restricts classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.

He has also drawn criticism for his voting record, including a 0/100 score from the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Congressional Scorecard, reflecting opposition to expanding federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ people and for opposing adoption rights for same-sex couples.

Now serving as secretary of state, Rubio has overseen changes at the State Department that LGBTQ advocates say have reduced visibility and protections for transgender people, including the removal of trans-specific references from parts of the department’s public-facing materials and travel guidance. He has also been linked to broader restructuring efforts involving U.S. foreign assistance programs, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has historically supported global HIV prevention and LGBTQ rights initiatives in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America.

Those cuts and shifts, critics argue, have weakened programs like PEPFAR — credited with saving millions of lives worldwide — and reduced U.S. support for LGBTQ communities facing persecution abroad. The program is credited with saving at least 25 million lives.

Pressley’s own record stands in contrast, with a 100/100 on HRC’s Congressional Scorecard and a long history of legislative and advocacy work centered on LGBTQ equality. In recent years, she has secured federal funding for The Pryde, an affordable housing development for LGBTQ seniors in Boston, and has repeatedly pushed for expanded civil rights protections, including support for the Equality Act and the Equal Rights Amendment.

She has also advanced policy efforts aimed at LGBTQ survivors of violence, trans, and nonbinary individuals navigating credit and legal systems, and broader protections under housing and civil rights law — framing her work as part of a sustained effort to ensure LGBTQ people are included in federal policy at every level.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, center. (Photo courtesy of the Office of Ayanna Pressley)
Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court upholds state laws banning trans athletes from sports teams

Justices heard oral arguments in two cases in January

Published

4 hours ago

on

June 30, 2026

By

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws that ban transgender athletes from school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.

The justices in January heard oral arguments in two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — that challenged laws in Idaho and West Virginia respectively.

Both cases question the constitutionality of laws from both states that block transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools— specifically if these bans violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports.

In a 6-3 decision made on party lines, the conservative justices asserted that laws prohibiting transgender women and girls from participating in sports programs at publicly funded schools does not violate either constitutionally protected right. Notably the ruling does not require any state to categorically bar transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams, or transgender boys from participating on boys’ sports teams.

In the majority for the case, Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion. It holds that schools can determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex. It also holds that West Virginia did not violate Title IX, which bars educational programs that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sex.

“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”

The Chief Justice Roberts, along with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined Kavanaugh’s majority opinion. It permissibly maintains female sports for biological females.

In his conclusion, Kavanaugh shares his belief of the importance of sports to women and girls but also a caution that “[n]o student-athlete on either side of the issue … deserves to be ostracized or vilified.”

Justice Sotomayor opinion was concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justices Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor’s opinion.

In her dissent, Sotomayor explains that the majority opinion, while attempting to protect one groups Constitutional rights (those assigned women at birth), it puts another group’s constitutional rights (transgender women) at its expense and in principle violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor wrote, eventually pointing to how the states had evealuated issues of transgender sports participants prior to these bans as evidence of general omission. “The ban eliminated this individualized approach in favor of categorical exclusion.”

She also pointed out that these rules to not equally exclude, further bolstering her argument that the majority opinion was not created with the truest sense of the Equal Protection Clause at its center.

“Teams “designated” for “females” “shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.” Teams “designated” for “males” do not have the same restriction.”

Justice Jackson wrote in her dissent that this ban does explicitly allow for sex discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding.

“A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ just as much as a cisgender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman’s behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth,” Jackson said. “Either way, the institution has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the case centers on B.P.J., a transgender girl who was barred from competing on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams under West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, enacted in 2021. Under the law, it requires participation to be based on the athlete’s biological sex as indicated on their original birth certificate issued at the time of birth.

In Little v. Hecox, the details are slightly different, but ask the same 14th Amendment and Title IX questions but against Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. In this case Hecox, a transgender woman and student at Boise State University wished to join the women’s cross-country team, but couldn’t under the law. She, with a cisgender athlete filed a suit against the governor, arguing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment explicitly protects their rights to participate on the woman’s team.

Transgender rights activists have criticized the highest court in the land’s decision, highlighting it legally allows for discrimination based on gender identity— something they argue is a foundational element of the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause.

Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders at GLAD Law outright called the 6 conservative justices view of Equal Protection and Title IX as “wrong.” 

“Today’s ruling gets it wrong. And it’s kids who will suffer for it. By upholding these blanket bans, the Supreme Court has allowed states to deny students even the chance to try out for a school team, simply because they are transgender,” Levi told the Blade in a statement. “Policies that categorically bar students don’t advance fairness; they mandate exclusion.” 

She continued, pointing out excluding some for the protection of others does not ensure fairness as the justices are arguing in their opinion.

“When a law bars every transgender girl regardless of age, hormones, or physiology, it isn’t about competitive fairness. It’s about keeping transgender kids out. We can protect women’s sports without doing that. Most of the country already does.”  

Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (also with GLAD Law) pointed out that while disappointing, the court does not mandate discrimination as the policy.

“This ruling does not require any state to follow West Virginia’s or Idaho’s cruel, overly-broad approach, and it does not mandate categorical bans on transgender students participating in school sports,” Erchull said. “It also leaves intact broader nondiscrimination protections for transgender students in education, including Title IX’s protections against sex discrimination for LGBTQ+ students. Discrimination has no place in our schools, and we can and should ensure that every student has the opportunity to learn, to thrive, and to know that they belong.”  

Sasha Buchert, Senior Attorney and Director of the Non-Binary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal also emphasized the bad faith argument the majority opinion pushes for the sake of one exclusionary view of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” Buchert said. “Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports. Now, one population, transgender youth and collegians, are targeted for specific and baseless discrimination. We will not be deterred and will continue to fight back to secure the equal participation that all youth, including transgender youth, deserve.”

Joshua Block, Senior Counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project also echoed the lasting negative impact this ruling will have for transgender Americans.

“This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers.” Block said. “The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls. We will continue to advance the fundamental principle that all young people deserve equal opportunity to thrive and succeed.”

Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights —who himself is transgender— issued a statement, reassuring that while upon face value the decision seems to undermine the rights of transgender sports participants, it does not make that the rule.

“Today’s limited decision means that states and schools across the country still have the power to make reasonable rules to ensure fairness without banning all transgender girls,” said Minter. “Like other health or medical considerations in sports, reasonable policies for transgender student athletes rely on individual assessments rather than blanket bans. Every child deserves the chance to play sports with their friends and learn the lessons sports teach, including determination, resilience, and teamwork.” 

Kelly O’Neill, an attorney for Legal Voice’s from Idaho also provided a statement to the Blade.

“It is profoundly unfair to deny a young person the benefits of teamwork and dedication because of who they are,” O’Neill said. “We should be removing barriers for girls and women in sports, not creating new ones.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson came to a similar conclusion.

“No kid – not my kid, not your kid, not any kid – deserves to be discriminated against. Yet this ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are. When politicians convince the public that any girl could be ‘the wrong kind of girl,’ they invite harassment, intimidation, invasive questioning, or even an inspection of their body by a total stranger,” Robinson wrote in a statement shared with the Blade. “It’s sadly just the latest decision by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court to roll back protections for marginalized communities and create a second class citizenship for millions of people. We are sacrificing the dignity, privacy, and safety of America’s young people to solve a problem that was manufactured and exploited for political gain…We must continue this fight with full force until freedom, justice and equal opportunity are not flimsy promises, but nationwide guarantees.”

GLAAD’s (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis, who presides over the world’s largest LGBTQ+ media advocacy organization, issued a statement on the ruling.

“This decision is at odds with the fundamental principles of fairness, freedom, and family that define our country and our communities. By allowing sweeping restrictions on a very small number of transgender students who simply wanted to participate in sports alongside their peers, the ruling creates an unnecessarily unfair playing field,” Ellis said. “Personal freedom and opportunity are best served when our legal protections expand access and guarantee safety for everyone. Today’s decision unfairly strips the rights of a few and threatens the ability of every girl and woman to play the sports they love.”

On the other side of the ideological isle, Idaho Senator Jim Risch applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s women and girl transgender sport ban. In a statement the Republican called the court’s conservative view of as a win for “women, fairness, and the Gem State.”

“Idaho was the first state in the nation to ban biological men from competing in women’s sports and uphold the opportunities Title IX promised more than 50 years ago,” Risch said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision affirms those protections and the generations of women who fought for fair, equal athletics.”

Continue Reading

California

Gay Calif. lawmaker confronted during San Francisco Trans Pride over Gaza stance

State Sen. Scott Wiener running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat

Published

17 hours ago

on

June 29, 2026

By

California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) (Photo courtesy of the San Francisco Orchestra)

A video posted on X by user Dimitry Yakoushkin of the incident went viral, showing gay California state Sen. Wiener (D-San Francisco) being chased out of Dolores Park, while the group screamed at him. Multiple people in the protest group were wearing black ski masks that concealed their identities. 

Wiener is contending to take over Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress in the upcoming November general election.

The video started off with Yakoushkin, a local activist, highlighting how great Wiener’s LGBTQ policies and lawmaking work are. As Yakoushkin started to criticize Wiener about his housing policies, others started to gather around the politician. 

Yakoushkin and the group quickly transitioned to yelling at him about his stance on the genocide in Gaza. 

“You’ve been wonderful for trans people, and … you’ve been terrible on Gaza,” Yakoushkin is heard saying in the video. “You do not belong here (at Trans Pride) anymore, Scott.”

“I want to support someone who’s so positive on trans rights, but you’re a piece of sh*t on Gaza,” he says later in the video. “How could you do that?”

Other protestors shouted obscenities that were hard to distinguish from, but some that jumped out included cries of “f*ck you” and “You’re a piece of sh*t.”

When it was clear this would not be a one-and-done criticism, Wiener is seen on video pivoting to exit Dolores Park, with the group following behind until Wiener was out of the park.

The video garnered over 12 million views as of Monday. 

In early January of this year, Wiener declined to call Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide during a congressional debate forum, as many other politicians have. 

A week later, on Jan. 11, Wiener reversed that decision.

“For years, I’ve condemned (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu and his extremist government and the devastation they’ve inflicted on Gaza,” Wiener posted on X. “It’s why I’ve been clear I won’t support U.S. funding for the destruction of Palestinian communities. I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide, but I can’t anymore.”

This was after two years of Israeli bombing that led to thousands of Palestinian deaths in the Gaza Strip, following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.

After Friday’s incident, Wiener posted a statement, calling it “physical intimidation and harassment” by “people who had previously targeted” him with “aggressive behavior in the past.”

“Last night I attended the Trans March, as I’ve done each year for the past 22 years since the first march in 2004,” the statement said. “I attend each year in solidarity with our trans siblings, who are facing existential threats from right-wing extremists, including the President.”

“I have no objection whatsoever to anyone disagreeing with me, opposing me, or protesting me.

“All of that is core to democracy,” the statement continued. “I also have no issue when people talk to me on the street and ask questions or express opposition. That’s democracy, even when the people engaging in this conduct misrepresent my views. But when opposition and disagreement transition to harassment, including cornering me, touching me, or trying to physically bully me out of a public event, that crosses a line.”

Wiener’s congressional opponent, Supervisor Connie Chan, appeared to march without any incident.

Many critics of Wiener took to social media to point out that Wiener posted this statement and used it as a fundraising opportunity, while not posting about the heavy police presence and arrests during San Francisco’s Pride weekend. 

Independent journalist Jersey Noah made an Instagram post to Wiener saying, “What do you have to say about (San Francisco Police Department) assaulting and arresting trans people on the public streets of San Francisco for two consecutive nights? Because you haven’t said a… word.”

This is not the first time a politician has been ousted from San Francisco’s Trans Pride festivities, according to San Francisco-based outlet Mission Local.

Past politicians forced to leave over the last decade include Mayor Daniel Lurie, then-Mayor Ed Lee, City Attorney David Chiu, and then-state Sen Mark Leno, according to Mission Local.

Yakoushkin said the protest was spontaneous, saying, “It was not planned, I was walking home, and I saw him from a distance and I got my camera out to start filming,” according to Mission Local.

The California Senate Democratic Caucus and California LGBTQ+ Caucus made a joint statement of support for Wiener, denouncing the verbal harassment toward Wiener as “unacceptable.”

“Senator Wiener has spent the last 16 years in service to San Francisco,” their statement said. “In that time, he has been a fearless champion for the LGBTQ+ community even when it was not politically popular, leading on landmark legislation advancing the rights and protections for transgender, gender Expansive, and intersex people. He is a steadfast advocate for his communities.

“In California, we believe everyone deserves dignity and respect, regardless of political differences,” the statement continued.

Continue Reading

Popular