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.”
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Viktor Orbán ousted in Hungarian elections
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Cuba bajo presión y sin respuestas
Log Cabin Republicans to honor Scott Presler
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
