Politics
N.M. marriage heats up as clerks seek guidance from high court
Local group say judgment before the end of September wouldn’t be surprising
Santa Fe County is among those in New Mexico giving marriage licenses to gay couples (Photo by Karol M. via Wikimedia Commons).
The debate over same-sex nuptials continues to heat up in New Mexico as a total of eight counties have positioned themselves to give marriage license to gay couples and officials on both sides have filed lawsuits seeking a resolution to the issue.
On Thursday, all 33 New Mexico county clerks filed a petition with the State Supreme Court asking justices for clarification on whether granting marriage licenses to gay couples is warranted under the state constitution.
“Intervenor Clerks as a group cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples with confidence of the legality of their actions without an opinion from this Court as to the responsibility and obligation of the County Clerk and legal validity of the marriage licenses being issued, including direction or authority to change the statutory forms,” the petition states.
The Supreme Court had previously decided in response to a petition filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union that it wouldn’t immediately hear the issue of same-sex marriage, but wanted to lower courts to decide the issue on a expedited basis for a final judgment.
Pat Davis, who’s gay and executive director of ProgressNow New Mexico, told the Washington Blade the organization welcomes the move from county clerks.
“We’ve said all along that that’s the end goal of all, or the gold-standard answer that settles this once and for all,” Davis said. “So, we applaud it. We know the clerks have been looking for this as early as 2004 when the Sandoval County Clerk originally issued marriage licenses on their own, way back when. So from our perspective, it’s long overdue.”
Clerks say resolution from the New Mexico Supreme Court is needed in the wake of a decision from District Judge Alan Mallot that the state constitution requires clerks in in Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties to give marriage licenses to gay couples.
They note Mallot’s reading of the state constitution differs from two attorneys general who say same-sex marriage is unavailable under current law. They also question Mallot’s reading of how state constitution prohibits discrimination against gay couples when it explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sex, but not sexual orientation.
Davis said ideally he’d like to see the court accept the petition “very soon” to give clerks assurances on how to act.
“We’ve seen our Supreme Court act in as little as a week, and while that’s not likely in this case, it would not be surprising to a lot of us if this were settled before the end of September,” Davis said.
Meanwhile, the number of clerks in New Mexico that have decided to give out marriage licenses to gay couples — either under their own volition or under court order — continues to grow.
District Judge Sheri Raphaelson this week ordered Los Alamos County to give marriage licenses to gay couples, making it the eighth county in New Mexico where same-sex marriage is available. According to an analysis from AMERICAblog’s John Aravosis, the decision means 58.5 percent of New Mexico’s population has marriage equality.
Davis said the number of counties issuing marriage licenses to gay couples demonstrates that marriage equality is coming to the entire state at high speed.
“So, at this point, more than half of the residents of the State of New Mexico has access to the freedom to marry,” Davis said. “The ones that remain are in places where some of the clerks have indicated they would if their district court said they could. Ultimately, they all say they will if the Supreme Court does it.”
Still, Republicans have finally gone through with their announced plans to file lawsuits in New Mexico to stop same-sex marriages from happening. They’ve filed lawsuits in Dona Ana, San Miguel and Valencia counties — the three counties that are issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on their own accord as opposed to a court order.
In the petition filed in Dona Ana County, Republicans, including anti-gay State Sen. Willam Sharer, argue that the clerk should stop issuing marriage licenses because the county is operating outside state law.
“The Legislature is explicit in its prescription of the method of issuing marriage licenses; applicants must fill our an application that is substantially identical as the uniform marriage license application form, which requires both a male and female applicant,” the petition states. “Respondent has not been granted authority to issue marriage licenses in any manner that doesn’t correspond to those instructions.”
Davis said Republicans’ decision to file the petitions only in counties giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples without court order may, in fact, affirm the actions of these county clerks.
“We think it’s going to be pretty ironic, actually, that the Republican challenge may actually work to expand the legal protection for marriage equality across the state,” Davis said. “We haven’t found a single person yet who’s following this case and has any sense in constitutional law in New Mexico that thinks they’re going to prevail.”
The White House
HRC files class action over federal ban on gender-affirming care coverage
Lawsuit filed Monday challenges White House effort to restrict care
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nonprofit sister organization to the largest LGBTQ human rights lobbying and advocacy organization in the U.S., along with law firms Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed a class action lawsuit against the government as it attempts to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for federal employees.
The suit, filed on Monday, alleges that the Office of Personnel Management, run by Trump appointee Scott Kupor, is discriminating against LGBTQ federal employees (and their families and retired employees) by prohibiting health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans. There are five plaintiffs named in the complaint, but it extends to others who have those healthcare plans.
The document asserts that OPM’s prohibition on coverage for “gender transition” care in the FEHB and PSHB programs violates Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.
The policy, which was implemented on Jan. 1 following the 2025 issuing of Program Carrier Letter, mandated that insurance providers in these programs deny any coverage for gender-affirming care. In February, HRC filed a federal complaint with OPM over the change in healthcare policy, which was ultimately passed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. That complaint is now an officially filed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, indicates that this policy denying gender-affirming care will impact healthcare access for at least 39,400 current and former federal employees and their dependents.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.
“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: we’ll see you in court,” said Robinson. “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us.”
Gender-affirming care has been under constant attack by the Trump-Vance administration since its return to the White House, despite the practice being considered as extensively evidence-based but also supported by nearly every major medical organization. This type of care is provided to all people—not just transgender people—and includes things such as social affirmation, including using correct names and pronouns and wearing clothing that matches a person’s gender identity; mental health support, such as counseling to reduce depression and anxiety; and, in some cases, medical interventions such as reversible puberty blockers or hormone therapy when deemed medically appropriate.
“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” said Cathy Harris, partner at Correia & Puth. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”
“This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health, and the well-being of themselves and their families,” Robinson added. “OPM’s actions will not go unchallenged, and we’ll continue to fight so that federal employees and their families receive the dignity they deserve.”
This is not the first time the White House has directly attacked gender-affirming care.
In January 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
For more information on how to get involved with the lawsuit, visit hrc.org.
Politics
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.
“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”
“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.
Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.
In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.
In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.
In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.
Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.
Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.
He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.
This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.
In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.
The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.
The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication.
Congress
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.
The bipartisan vote was 212-217.
The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.
Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”
“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.
Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.
“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.
According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).
The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.
The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.
The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203.
Flanagan beats Craig in Minn. Senate primary after winning key LGBTQ endorsements
Gay ANC commissioner sues D.C. over police ‘failure’ to pay reward money
New LGBTQ visitor center slated for Wilmington, Del.
Jason DePuy on coping with homophobia in ‘Big Brother’ house
