National
Prop 8 opponents: Calif. civilians can’t defend case against state
Supporters of anti-gay law attempting to jump in to defend it after the state chose to stay out
Today the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether or not under state law civilian supporters can take the place of the state, specifically in the Federal case challenging anti-marriage equality Proposition 8.
The hour long hearing was followed by press conferences in which both sides expressed pleasure in the outcome. The court, however, still has 90 days to come to a decision, and both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 will be watching closely for any indication that that decision is ready.
In August of last year, Federal Court Judge Vaughn Walker found unconstitutional Proposition 8, the law barring marriage between two adults of the same sex created after a November 2008 ballot measure, ruling in favor of plaintiffs represented by the organization American Foundation for Equal Rights. The attorneys leading the charge against the law are former President Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, and former Al Gore lawyer David Boies who in 2000 faced off in Bush v. Gore. While plaintiffs are seeking to restore marriage equality to California, proponents of the measure are attempting to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling.
The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals put the case, Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger) on hold in January after both Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend the law in court citing their own constitutional objections. When concerned citizen groups hoping to keep the law on the books attempted to fill in for the state to defend the law, the 9th Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to rule on whether or not the concerned groups can in fact defend the law in place of the state. The legal principle at question is “standing,” which Law.com defines as “the right to file a lawsuit or file a petition under the circumstances.”
Though the 9th Circuit will make the ultimate decision, the appeals certified a question to the State Supreme Court of California on whether state law allows proponents of the ballot initiative to have the right to represent the state in the appeal in place of the state officials themselves. In February the California Supreme Court agreed to address the 9th Circuit’s question which led to today’s hearing.
If the State Supreme Court decides that the interest groups — which include a well-funded conservative website called ProtectMarriage.com — can indeed take the place of the state in defending the law, the 9th Circuit is expected to follow the guidance, allowing the case to proceed through the 9th Circuit despite the non-involvement of any agents of the state. Likewise, if the California Supreme Court decides against the proponents of Proposition 8, the 9th Circuit is expected to concur, which will end the appeals process at Judge Walker’s decision overturning the law.
The Proposition 8 ballot measure was passed in reaction to a decision by the California Supreme Court earlier in 2008 overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriages, which allowed roughly 18,000 same-sex couples to marry in California during the short window prior to the election. The Supreme Court has since upheld those marriages as valid, though new marriages can not be recognized as a consequence of the proposition. The state also passed a law following the passage of Prop 8 that allows the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of California during that same short window.
Arguing for the proponents of Prop 8, Charles Cooper argued that the interest groups would be given standing if this were a state court case, while Justices weighed whether or not the same standard ought to apply in this Federal Court matter.
Ted Olson (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Ted Olson, arguing for the plaintiffs, focused on the lack of precedent for such an intervention by an interest group, and claimed finding in favor of the Prop 8 proponents and granting their right to appeal would mean, essentially “amending” the California Constitution. He also argued that allowing Prop 8 proponents to take the place of the state in the case would set a dangerous precedent undermining the authority of the California Attorney General to make such decisions.
“Initiative proponents are elected by no one,” Olson told the justices, as reported by Adam Bink of Courage Campaign and Kate Kendell of the Center for Lesbian Rights. “Proponents took no oath to represent the people.”
When asked what the particular interest the proponents of Prop 8 had in continuing to defend the case, Charles Cooper responded to the justices, “Our interest is to protect and defend our fundamental right to propose initiatives. We have to defend that.”
In response, the justices asked “Doesn’t that right arise before the initiative is qualified?”
“This court has never recognized any distinction between before and after enactment,” Cooper responded. “That wouldn’t make any sense. What the proponents have a right to do is propose valid constitutional amendments. It is inescapable that they then have the right to defend that measure, before OR after enactment.”
However, before his time expired, Ted Olson did his best to counter Cooper’s claims.
“They sure spent a great deal of time and money, and exercised their power to ‘propose and enact.’ What they’re asking for is the power to represent themselves because of a particularized interest, which they don’t have,” Olson argued. “My understanding of California law and case law is that the legislature doesn’t have the power to defend legislation in court unless it specifically deals with the legislative power itself. There is no case, and Cooper agrees there is no case, in which the legislature has the power the proponents are claiming here. I think the initiative power is important, but the constitution of California fundamentally limits the power of the initiative and initiative proponents to exercise their right to propose and defend, that’s it.”
After the hearing, representatives from the American Foundation for Equal Rights were confident and expressed pleasure with the hearing.
“Good justices ask hard questions,” Olson said after the hearing, according to Bink and the Courage Campaign. Olson expressed pleasure with the Supreme Court justices, but emphasized he believes that no matter which direction the Supreme Court decides, the opponents of Prop 8 will prevail.
“We’re sure the US Supreme Court will agree with us,” Olson concluded.
Legal Director from Lambda Legal, Jon Davidson seemed to concur.
“It is often impossible to predict from the questions asked by appellate judges how they will rule and today was no different,” Davidson said in a statement. “All of the judges on the California Supreme Court asked probing questions and seemed concerned about the implications of any decision they might make. We continue to hope that the Court will ultimately decide that small groups of unelected individuals who are answerable to no one should not be able to act on behalf of the state.”
However, Shannon Minter legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who has argued before the California Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage, struck a more cautious tone when discussing her reaction to the hearing with veteran LGBT community journalist, Karen Ocamb.
“I was concerned by the tenor of many of the justices’ questions today,” Minter told Ocamb. “The court has a responsibility to enforce the California Constitution, which gives elected state officials—not private initiative sponsors—the authority to decide whether to appeal a federal court decision invalidating a state law.”
Minter continued, “Both conservative and progressive elected officials have occasionally exercised that discretion in the past by choosing not to expend state resources to defend invalidated measures. Permitting special interest groups to usurp that decision-making authority would dramatically change the current law and take a giant step down the road of turning California into a mobocracy.”
Minter expressed concern that a decision in favor of the Prop 8 proponents could have far reaching effects, going beyond just LGBT issues.
“I was disappointed that, with some notable exceptions, too many of the court’s questions today did not address the specific legal questions before them, but rather seemed to glorify the initiative process in the abstract and to abdicate a searching examination of the California Constitution in favor of emotional appeals to ‘the people.’ The initiative process is already frequently misused to target vulnerable groups, due in part to the Court’s past reluctance to enforce any meaningful limits on the process, even when those limits are mandated by the California Constitution,” Minter concluded.
“I sincerely hope the Court does not compound that mistake by now giving initiative proponents an unprecedented new power to step outside of their proper legislative role and usurp the power that our Constitution gives only to elected state officials in the executive branch.”
The White House
USCIS announces it now only recognizes ‘two biological sexes’
Immigration agency announced it has implemented Trump executive order
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on Wednesday announced it now only “recognizes two biological sexes, male and female.”
A press release notes this change to its policies is “consistent with” the “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” executive order that President Donald Trump signed shortly after he took office for the second time on Jan. 20.
“There are only two sexes — male and female,” said DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin in a statement. “President Trump promised the American people a revolution of common sense, and that includes making sure that the policy of the U.S. government agrees with simple biological reality.”
“Proper management of our immigration system is a matter of national security, not a place to promote and coddle an ideology that permanently harms children and robs real women of their dignity, safety, and well-being,” she added.
The press release notes USCIS “considers a person’s sex as that which is generally evidenced on the birth certificate issued at or nearest to the time of birth.”
“If the birth certificate issued at or nearest to the time of birth indicates a sex other than male or female, USCIS will base the determination of sex on secondary evidence,” it reads.
The USCIS Policy Manuel defines “secondary evidence” as “evidence that may demonstrate a fact is more likely than not true, but the evidence does not derive from a primary, authoritative source.”
“Records maintained by religious or faith-based organizations showing that a person was divorced at a certain time are an example of secondary evidence of the divorce,” it says.
USCIS in its press release notes it “will not deny benefits solely because the benefit requestor did not properly indicate his or her sex.”
“This is a cruel and unnecessary policy that puts transgender, nonbinary, and intersex immigrants in danger,” said Immigration Equality Law and Policy Director Bridget Crawford on Wednesday. “The U.S. government is now forcing people to carry identity documents that do not reflect who they are, opening them up to increased discrimination, harassment, and violence. This policy does not just impact individuals — it affects their ability to travel, work, access healthcare, and live their lives authentically.”
“By denying trans people the right to self-select their gender, the government is making it harder for them to exist safely and with dignity,” added Crawford. “This is not about ‘common sense’—it is about erasing an entire community from the legal landscape. Transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people have always existed, and they deserve to have their identities fully recognized and respected. We will continue to fight for the rights of our clients and for the reversal of this discriminatory policy.”
Federal Government
Mass HHS layoffs include HIV/AIDS prevention, policy teams
Democratic states sue over cuts
Tuesday began a series of mass layoffs targeting staff, departments, and whole agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who reportedly plans to cut a total of 10,000 jobs.
On the chopping block, according to reports this week, is the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy. A fact sheet explaining on the restructuring says “a new Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) will consolidate the OASH, HRSA, SAMHSA, ATSDR, and NIOSH, so as to more efficiently coordinate chronic care and disease prevention programs and harmonize health resources to low-income Americans.”
The document indicates that “Divisions of AHA include Primary Care, Maternal and Child Health, Mental Health, Environmental Health, HIV/AIDS, and Workforce, with support of the U.S. Surgeon General and Policy team.”
“Today, the Trump administration eliminated the staff of several CDC HIV prevention offices, including entire offices conducting public health communication campaigns, modeling and behavioral surveillance, capacity building, and non-lab research,” said a press release Tuesday by the HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute.
The organization also noted the “reassignments” of Jonathan Mermin, director of the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, and Jeanne Marrazzo, director of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both were moved to the Indian Health Service.
“In a matter of just a couple days, we are losing our nation’s ability to prevent HIV,” said HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute Executive Director Carl Schmid. “The expertise of the staff, along with their decades of leadership, has now been destroyed and cannot be replaced. We will feel the impacts of these decisions for years to come and it will certainly, sadly, translate into an increase in new HIV infections and higher medical costs.”
The group added, “We are still learning the full extent of the staff cuts and do not know how the administration’s announced reorganization of HHS will impact all HIV treatment, prevention, and research programs, including President Trump’s Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative,” but “At the moment, it seems that we are in the middle of a hurricane and just waiting for the next shoe to drop.”
A group of 500 HIV advocates announced a rally planned for Wednesday morning at 8 a.m., at the U.S. Capitol lawn across from the Cannon House Office Building, which aims to urge Congress to help stop the cuts at HHS.
“Over 500 advocates will rally on Capitol Hill and meet with members of Congress and Hill staff to advocate for maintaining a strong HIV response and detail the potential impact of cuts to and reorganization of HIV prevention and treatment programs,” the groups wrote.
The press release continued, “HHS has stated that it is seeking to cut 10,000 employees, among them 2,400 CDC employees, many doing critical HIV work. It also seeks to merge HIV treatment programming into a new agency raising concerns about maintaining resources for and achieving the outstanding outcomes of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program.”
On Tuesday a group of Democratic governors and attorneys general from 23 states and D.C. filed a lawsuit against HHS and Kennedy seeking a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief to halt the funding cuts.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention withdrew approximately $11.4 billion in funding for state and community health departments during the COVID-19 pandemic response, along with $1 billion to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
“Slashing this funding now will reverse our progress on the opioid crisis, throw our mental health systems into chaos, and leave hospitals struggling to care for patients,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said.
State Department
Former US envoy for global LGBTQ, intersex rights slams Trump
Former President Joe Biden appointed Jessica Stern in 2021
Jessica Stern, the former special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights, says the work that she and her colleagues did under the Biden-Harris administration is “being systematically dismantled.”
“As the person who was responsible for leading U.S. foreign policy on LGBTQI+ issues, it’s been very difficult for the past two months to see that work being systematically dismantled,” she told the Washington Blade on March 19 during a telephone interview.
Stern was the executive director of Outright International, a global LGBTQ and intersex advocacy group, when then-President Joe Biden appointed her in June 2021.
The promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights was a cornerstone of the Biden-Harris administration’s overall foreign policy. These efforts specifically included the decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations and marriage equality efforts in countries where activists said they were possible through the legislative or judicial processes.
The Trump-Vance administration’s decision to freeze most U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days has had a devastating impact on the global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement. President Donald Trump’s executive order that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers has prompted Germany and several other European countries to issue travel advisories for transgender and nonbinary people who are planning to visit the U.S.
Stern said the Trump-Vance administration “has studied the anti-LGBTQI strategies of other countries and basically imported the worst ideas from around the world: The most violent, the most dehumanizing, the most targeting strategies.” Stern added these policies have emboldened Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Argentine President Javier Milei and other anti-LGBTQ heads of state.
“It’s one thing when a small country that has limited global reach implements anti-LGBTQI laws and policies. It’s another thing when one of the world’s superpowers does so,” Stern told the Blade. “There’s no question that the U.S.’s regression on LGBTQI rights is actually going to accelerate backlash against LGBTQI people around the world.”
“We provide political legitimacy to those ideas, but also we’re forging new alliances and coalitions, and we’re pushing these ideas on other countries,” she added. “So, it’s not a passive action. The U.S. government currently is actively funding and disseminating anti-LGBTQI hatred around the world.”
Former State Department colleagues ‘afraid every day’
The Trump-Vance administration in a Feb. 3 statement that defended its efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development noted examples of the organization’s “waste and abuse” included $2 million for “sex changes and ‘LGBT activism'” in Guatemala and $1.5 million to “advance diversity, equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month said 83 percent of USAID contracts have been cancelled, and the remaining will “now be administered more effectively under the State Department.”
Rubio after the Trump-Vance administration froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending issued a waiver that allowed the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate.
The Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya, South Africa, and elsewhere have suspended services and even shut down because of a lack of U.S. funding. UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima on March 24 said 6.3 million more people around the world will die of AIDS-related complications over the next four years if the U.S. does not fully restore its foreign assistance.
Stern said her former State Department colleagues are “afraid every day.”
“They never know, ‘Am I going to be fired today?’ “Am I going to be put on administrative leave?’,” she said. “I cannot even imagine what it’s like to go to work every day.”
Stern told the Blade her former colleagues tell her that “there’s not a lot of foreign policy work happening because there’s so much disruption being caused by DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency).”
“Entire departments have been decimated,” she said, noting one of them has lost 60 people. “It’s almost inconceivable to figure out how to restructure your work when your resources have been decimated.”
Stern described herself as “an eternal optimist” when the Blade asked whether she thinks the U.S. can ever stand for LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad.
“You have to believe in human rights,” she said.
Stern said former Secretary of State Antony Blinken as “an ally on LGBTQI issues.” Stern also said many of her now former State Department colleagues thanked her and her team for their work before they left government.
“There’s so much compassion from straight and cisgendered allies, from career officials, people that are not human rights experts or specialists, people that don’t focus on the well-being of LGBTQI people, but people that care very much about the United States standing for its values, the rule of law, equality for all, and this notion that it is in our national interest to ensure that there is safety, prosperity, and well-being for people around the world,” she said.
“The situation we find ourselves in will not last forever,” added Stern. “What we have to do is figure out how to hold the line right now, and how to organize for the future.”
She stressed ways to “hold the line” include litigation, protests, letters-to-the-editor, demanding accountability from lawmakers.
“There’s so much to do,” said Stern.
Stern is currently teaching at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and is writing about her experience as the “first-ever human rights expert to be the special U.S. envoy for LGBTQI rights.” Stern also told the Blade that she is working to launch a new organization.
“I love being an activist again,” she said. “If there was ever a time when activists are needed, it’s now.”
“I am really proud to have rejoined the resistance,” added Stern.
PHOTOS: La Loca
Kylie brings ‘Tension’ tour to D.C.
New trends for old kitchens
Spring cleaning your rental relationship
Boston sanctuary designation must be backed by policy changes
Sexy small town secrets surface in twisty French ‘Misericordia’
USCIS announces it now only recognizes ‘two biological sexes’
LGBTQ seniors in Argentina face uncertain future
Cory Booker’s missed moral moment
