National
2012 could prove landmark year for marriage rights
Will Washington, New Jersey, Maryland legalize gay nuptials?
This could be a landmark year in the marriage equality movement, as several states appear close to enacting marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Advocates are working to legalize marriage rights for gay couples in Washington State, Maryland and New Jersey; efforts are also underway to pursue civil unions in Colorado. Meanwhile, opponents are hoping to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.
Washington State could be in the strongest position among other states where advocates are undertaking efforts to legalize marriage equality. The legislation was introduced last week by request from Gov. Chris Gregoire (D), who announced her support in a news conference Jan. 4.
“I’m announcing my support for a law that gives our same-sex couples in our state the right to receive a marriage license in Washington — the same right given to our heterosexual couples,” Gregoire said. “It is time, it’s the right thing to do — and I will introduce the bill to make it happen.”
The number of co-sponsors for the legislation in the House already exceeds the votes needed for passage there. In the Senate, the legislation has 23 co-sponsors, which is two supporters short of 25 votes needed for passage.
Josh Friedes, marriage equality director for Equal Rights Washington, said he’s “really delighted” with the level of support the legislation has found upon introduction — especially from two Republican state senators who’ve already signed on in support.
“That was really important because it shows Republicans in Washington State that the moral arc is bending toward support for marriage,” Friedes said.
The Washington State Legislature is meeting only for a 60-day period this year, so if legislation is to make it to Gregoire’s desk, the marriage bills would have to pass by March 8. Per legislative rules, one version of the legislation would have to pass either the House or Senate by Feb. 14. Committee hearings are scheduled Monday.
In Maryland, Gov. Martin O’Malley is set to introduce marriage equality legislation as part of his legislative package for 2012. Last year, the bill legislation passed the Senate, but advocates pulled the bill from the House floor after they determined they didn’t have enough votes for passage.
Lesbian Del. Mary Washington (D-Baltimore City) said chances for passage in the House have “greatly improved” now that O’Malley has made marriage a legislative priority.
“We’ve had the whole summer to talk to people, we’ve got more people involved and I think it will have a better shot,” Washington said.
Washington added that assigning the bill jointly to two panels — the Health & Government Operations Committee and the Judiciary Committee — would broaden the number of lawmakers who will hear testimony on marriage.
“I think as more delegates get to see what impact the current exclusion of gays and lesbians from the right to marry is doing for Maryland families, I think they’ll understand that passing civil marriage will be the right thing to do,” Washington said.
As far as timing for the vote, Washington said she thinks the vote on the marriage bill will take place before March — when it happened last year — because of the heavy workload lawmakers face this time around.
But Washington State and Maryland will face additional challenges even if the governors in those states sign the marriage legislation into law because residents there could put the measures on the ballot in November through a voter-initiated referendum process.
In Washington State, the signatures needed to bring a measure to referendum is 4 percent of the total votes from the last gubernatorial election, which in terms of absolute numbers would be 120,577 names. In Maryland, a total of just 55,736 signatures is necessary to put a law on the ballot in the upcoming election.
Washington said a referendum on the marriage bill in Maryland is a possibility for which advocates of same-sex marriage must prepare.
“I’m hoping that it doesn’t go to referendum, but if it does, I’m confident the citizens of Maryland will know that it’s time for all families and people to be treated equally under the Maryland Constitution,” Washington said.
Friedes said advocates in Washington State are taking “nothing for granted” after previous losses of same-sex marriage at the ballot and encouraged LGBT families to talk to others there about “why marriage matters.”
“We need to grow the number of people who support marriage equality and make sure that those who do, vote,” Friedes said. “The thing that would hurt us the most is if people become over-confident.”
Another state where advocates are hoping for passage of same-sex marriage is New Jersey, where legislation was introduced last week in both chambers of the legislature. A Senate committee is set to hold a hearing on the legislation Tuesday and the Assembly is expected to have one afterward.
But New Jersey is unlike Washington State or Maryland in that its governor, Republican Chris Christie, campaigned on a promise to veto any such bill that reached his desk.
However, when asked about the marriage bill this month, Christie didn’t reiterate his pledge to veto and made comments suggesting that his tune may have changed on the issue.
“When forced to make a decision, if forced to make a decision on it, I’ll make a decision,” Christie reportedly told NJ.com in Camden, N.J.
Gay Assembly member Reed Gusciora (D-Princeton) said he “wouldn’t rule the governor out” as someone who would sign the marriage bill if it reaches his desk.
“In the last several weeks, he’s visited four out of the six states that have marriage equality: Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York,” Gusciora said. “I don’t think he saw any diminishment in the institution of marriage other than when Newt Gingrich was around.”
Gusciora added he thinks the legislation has a “good shot of passage” in the legislature and the bill should reach Christie’s desk by the end of February.
New Jersey has no voter-initiated referendum process, so if Christie signs or allows the legislation to become law, it’ll stay on the books.
In Colorado, advocates are pressing to push civil unions legislation into law. Last year, the legislation was approved by the Senate, but a House committee voted 6-5 against reporting it out to the floor.
Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said the legislation will have to go through the Senate once again because the House committee voted to kill the bill last year.
“All indicators suggest had it gotten out of committee, it would have passed on the floor of the House, which is why advocates felt comfortable enough to really push to have it come up again rather than waiting until after elections and then having new legislators in place,” Warbelow said.
Warbelow added Colorado has a longer legislative session that extends until May, so the civil unions bill may not be acted upon as soon as the marriage bills in other jurisdictions.
Advocates are pursuing civil unions in Colorado as opposed to marriage rights because the state constitution has an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
While progress on relationship recognition could come in those states, there is also the potential for repeal of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.
Gov. John Lynch (D), who signed marriage equality into law in 2009, has pledged to veto repeal, but the Republican supermajority of the legislature may have enough votes to override his veto.
Warbelow said the legislature is “highly likely” to pass the repeal legislation in the first round, but “all the effort” has been focused on making sure there aren’t enough votes to overturn Lynch’s veto.
The legislature has pushed back the timing for the repeal vote. According to the Eagle Tribune, House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt said he won’t bring up the repeal measure until February.
“We must deal with some critical financial and economic-related legislation first, as well as legislative redistricting, prior to any discussion of gay marriage,” Bettencourt was quoted as saying. “It’s critical to keep legislative priorities in their proper order.”
Other bills related to advancing marriage rights for same-sex couples could emerge in Illinois and Rhode Island; both states passed civil unions last year.
The White House
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
Trans former assistant health secretary’s name changed on official portrait
Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that works to advance democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement, filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to release information related to the alteration of former Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.
The lawsuit comes in response to the slow pace of HHS’s handling of multiple Freedom of Information Act requests — requests that federal law requires agencies to respond to within 20 working days. While responses can take longer due to backlogs, high request volumes, or the need for extensive searches or consultations, Democracy Forward says HHS has failed to provide any substantive response.
Democracy Forward’s four unanswered FOIA requests, and the subsequent lawsuit against HHS, come days after someone in the Trump-Vance administration changed Levine’s official portrait in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building to display her deadname — the name she used before transitioning and has not used since 2011.
According to Democracy Forward, HHS “refused to release any records related to its morally wrong and offensive effort to alter former Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.” Levine was the highest-ranking openly transgender government official in U.S. history and served as assistant secretary for health and as an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps from 2021 to 2025.
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman spoke about the need to hold the Trump-Vance administration accountable for every official action, especially those that harm some of the most targeted Americans, including trans people.
“The question every American should be asking remains: what is the Trump-Vance administration hiding? For an administration that touts its anti-transgender animus and behavior so publicly, its stonewalling and silence when it comes to the people’s right to see public records about who was behind this decision is deafening,” Perryman said.
“The government’s obligation of transparency doesn’t disappear because the information sought relates to a trailblazing former federal official who is transgender. It’s not complicated — the public is entitled to know who is making decisions — especially decisions that seek to alter facts and reality, erase the identity of a person, and affect the nation’s commitment to civil rights and human dignity.”
“HHS’s refusal to respond to these lawful requests raises more serious concerns about transparency and accountability,” Perryman added. “The public has every right to demand answers — to know who is behind this hateful act — and we are going to court to get them.”
The lawsuit also raises questions about whether the alteration violated federal accuracy and privacy requirements governing Levine’s name, and whether the agency improperly classified the change as an “excepted activity” during a lapse in appropriations. By failing to make any determination or produce any records, Democracy Forward argues, HHS has violated its obligations under federal law.
The case, Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal team includes Anisha Hindocha, Daniel McGrath, and Robin Thurston.
The Washington Blade reached out to HHS, but has not received any comment.
The lawsuit and four FOIA requests are below:
The White House
Empty seats, canceled shows plague Kennedy Center ahead of Trump renaming
It would take an act of Congress to officially rename the historic music venue, despite the Trump-appointed board’s decision.
The board of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., voted to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center, according to the White House Press Office.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the decision in a post on X Thursday, thanking the president for his work on the cultural center “not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation.”
Speaking to reporters later that day at the White House, Trump said he was “surprised” and “honored” by the board’s vote.
“This was brought up by one of the very distinguished board members, and they voted on it, and there’s a lot of board members, and they voted unanimously. So I was very honored,” he said.
Earlier this year, GOP Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho introduced an amendment that would have renamed the building after first lady Melania Trump, later saying she had not been aware of his efforts prior to the amendment’s public introduction.
Despite the board’s vote (made up of Trump-appointed loyalists), the original laws guiding the creation of the Kennedy Center during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations explicitly prohibit renaming the building. Any change to its name would require an act of Congress.
Trump has exerted increasing control over the center in recent months. In February, he abruptly fired members of the Kennedy Center’s board and installed himself as chair, writing in a Truth Social post at the time, “At my direction, we are going to make the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C., GREAT AGAIN.”
In that post, Trump specifically cited his disapproval of the center’s decision to host drag shows.
He later secured more than $250 million from the Republican-controlled Congress for renovations to the building.
Since Trump’s takeover, sales of subscription packages are said to have declined, and several touring productions — including “Hamilton” — have canceled planned runs at the venue. Rows of empty seats have also been visible in the Concert Hall during performances by the National Symphony Orchestra.
“The Kennedy Center Board has no authority to actually rename the Kennedy Center in the absence of legislative action,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters.
For decades, the Kennedy Center has hosted performances by LGBTQ artists and companies, including openly queer musicians, choreographers, and playwrights whose work helped push LGBTQ stories into the cultural mainstream. Those artists include the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, Harvey Fierstein, and Tennessee Williams.
In more recent years, the center has increasingly served as a space for LGBTQ visibility and acceptance, particularly through Pride-adjacent programming and partnerships.
That legacy was on display at this year’s opening production of Les Misérables, when four drag performers — Tara Hoot, Vagenesis, Mari Con Carne, and King Ricky Rosé — attended in representation of Qommittee, a volunteer network uniting drag artists to support and defend one another amid growing conservative attacks.
“We walked in together so we would have an opportunity to get a response,” said Tara Hoot, who has performed at the Kennedy Center in full drag before. “It was all applause, cheers, and whistles, and remarkably it was half empty. I think that was season ticket holders kind of making their message in a different way.”
The creation of the Kennedy Center is outlined in U.S. Code, which formally designates the institution as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
As a result, it appears unlikely that Congress will come together to pass legislation allowing the historic venue to be renamed.
The White House
HHS to restrict gender-affirming care for minors
Directive stems from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Thursday that it will pursue regulatory changes that would make gender-affirming healthcare for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible, to access.
The shift in federal healthcare policy 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 executive order outlines a broader effort to align HHS with the Trump–Vance administration’s policy goals and executive actions. Those actions include defunding medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to minors by restricting federal research and education grants, withdrawing the 2022 HHS guidance supporting gender-affirming care, requiring TRICARE and federal employee health plans to exclude coverage for gender-affirming treatments for minors, and directing the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and enforcement related to such care.
HHS has claimed that gender-affirming care can “expose them [children] to irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.” The nation’s health organization published a report in November, saying that evidence on pediatric gender-affirming care is “very uncertain.”
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is now in the process of proposing new rules that would bar hospitals from performing what the administration describes as sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18 as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in Medicare and Medicaid. HHS said that “this action is designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a statement alongside the announcement.
“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said. “This administration will protect America’s most vulnerable. Our children deserve better — and we are delivering on that promise.”
Those claims stand in direct opposition to the positions of most major medical and healthcare organizations.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest and most influential physician organization, has repeatedly opposed measures that restrict access to trans healthcare.
“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.”
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, warned the proposed changes would cause significant harm.
“Parents of transgender children want what all parents want: to see their kids thrive and get the medical care they need. But this administration is putting the government between patients and their doctors. Parents witness every day how their children benefit from this care — care backed by decades of research and endorsed by major medical associations across the country. These proposed rules are not based on medical science. They are based on politics. And if allowed to take effect will serve only to drive up medical costs, harm vulnerable children, and deny families the care their doctors say they need. These rules elevate politics over children — and that is profoundly unAmerican.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson echoed Levi’s sentiments.
“The Trump administration is relentless in denying health care to this country, and especially the transgender community. Families deserve the freedom to go to the doctor and get the care that they need and to have agency over the health and wellbeing of their children,” Robinson said. “But these proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping health care decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe. Make no mistake: these rules aim to completely cut off medically necessary care from children no matter where in this country they live. It’s the Trump administration dictating who gets their prescription filled and who has their next appointment canceled altogether.
The announcement comes just days after U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) advanced legislation in Congress that would make it a felony to provide gender-affirming care to a child.
Comings & Goings
Advocates say MTG bill threatens trans youth, families, and doctors
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
New research shows coming out is still risky
Empty seats, canceled shows plague Kennedy Center ahead of Trump renaming
LGBTQ Democrats say they’re ready to fight to win in 2026
Brian Footer suspends campaign for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat
Far-right José Antonio Kast elected Chile’s next president
In real estate, trust the process
