National
Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments on marriage
Attorneys in Prop 8, DOMA cases prepare for next week’s showdown
All eyes will be on the Supreme Court next week when it hears arguments in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases. (Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)
At a time of intense national debate, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time ever will hear oral arguments next week on whether marriage rights for gay couples are protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Attorneys on both sides will make their arguments in two separate cases, on two separate days and regarding two separate anti-gay measures, but the state of marriage equality across the country could be altered depending on the rulings in either of the cases.
On Tuesday, the court will hear arguments on Proposition 8, a ballot measure approved by California voters in 2008 that stripped away existing marriage rights in the state for same-sex couples. The next day, the court will listen to arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Chris Stoll, a senior staff attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the oral arguments provide an opportunity for observers to glean what justices are thinking based on their line of questioning.
“It’s true that appellate courts, I would say, mostly base their decisions on the written submissions on the briefs,” Stoll said. “The main purpose of oral argument is to let the justices have questions that they have answered by the lawyers, and so, what the lawyers come in to say isn’t really the focus; it’s really what the justices want to have answered.”
Mary Bonauto, civil rights director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said oral arguments are a “filtering process” that provide justices the opportunity to explore possible outcomes of their rulings and persuade each other.
“That’s part of why they’re so active,” Bonauto said. “They’re trying to influence each other’s votes and perspectives on it, and, effectively, argue the case themselves. If you ever read a Supreme Court transcript, it’s usually very difficult to read because there are so many interruptions.”
In the Prop 8 case, known as Hollingsworth v. Perry, Ted Olson, a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, will argue against the constitutionality of the measure on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Based on the legal brief he filed, Olson will likely argue against the merits of Prop 8 on the basis that it violates due process and equal protection of gay plaintiff couples under the U.S. Constitution.
The ban on same-sex marriage will be defended by anti-gay groups, such as ProtectMarriage.com, because California state officials have declined to defend the marriage ban. The lawyer arguing on behalf of the anti-gay measure will likely be private attorney Charles Cooper, who defended Prop 8 during the district court trial in 2010.
Depending on the scope, a ruling in the Prop 8 case in favor of the plaintiffs could be a jackpot for same-sex couples. Justices could affirm the limited ruling from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affected only California; determine that the nine states, including California, that offer domestic partnerships must offer same-sex marriage; or issue a sweeping ruling that brings marriage equality to all 50 states.
In the DOMA case, known as Windsor v. United States, Roberta Kaplan, a New York-based attorney, is set to argue against the constitutionality of the anti-gay law in a coordinated effort with the American Civil Liberties Union. Kaplan’s client is Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian who was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes upon the death in 2009 of her spouse, Thea Spyer, because of DOMA.
James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project, said preparations have been underway for oral arguments, including moot courts where individuals impersonate justices to ask possible questions that the real ones may pose.
“People do that for Supreme Court arguments, people do that for appeals court arguments, people do that for trial court arguments ā we’ve done that all along,” Esseks said. “It’s just the normal thing that people do.”
On the other side of the DOMA case will be Paul Clement, another former U.S. solicitor general from the Bush administration. He was hired at a rate of $520 an hour by the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend DOMA in court.
The stakes in the DOMA case are high as well. A ruling striking down DOMA would have multiple impacts on married gay couples. Among other things, they’d have access to medical leave if their spouses need attention because they’re gravely ill or injured and Social Security survivor benefits would become available.
A ruling that strikes down DOMA would also remove a barrier for gay service members seeking spousal benefits in the wake of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. According to a report published last month from the Center for American Progress and OutServe-SLDN, the average gay military family pays $5,615 out-of-pocket each year for health care insurance because they aren’t eligible for military coverage known as TRICARE.
Both oral arguments will share a common participant: U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Since the Obama administration stopped defending DOMA in court, it has participated in litigation against DOMA and will have speaking time in arguments before the Supreme Court. Similarly, in the wake of filing a friend-of-the-court brief against Prop 8, the Justice Department will also have speaking time to argue against it thanks to a request.
In either or both cases, the Supreme Court could determine as part of its ruling that laws related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional. That’s the view the Justice Department has articulated in legal briefs against DOMA and Prop 8.
Such a decision would also have a sweeping impact because it would create a precedent that guides other courts when evaluating the constitutionality of anti-gay laws, such as bans on same-sex marriage.
But the merits issue ā the question of whether Prop 8 and DOMA are constitutional ā will only form part of the discussion in the cases as other issues such as standing and jurisdiction must be addressed. These issues may ultimately form the basis of the court’s rulings.
In the Prop 8 case, the question is whether proponents of the measure have standing to defend the measure in court. It’s possible ā as Olson and his team have argued ā the court would rule they lack standing because they aren’t harmed by Prop 8. Such a ruling would leave unanswered questions about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in California, but likely restore same-sex marriage in that state.
The questions about standing and jurisdiction in the DOMA case are more complex. The court asked attorneys when taking up the case whether BLAG has standing to participate and whether the Obama administration’s agreement with lower courts that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. It’s unclear what the fate of DOMA would be if the court decides to rule on those grounds.
GLAD’s Bonauto said she thinks the stronger argument is the court has jurisdiction to consider DOMA and will decide on the merits ā but noted “they asked the question for a reason” and questions emerge if the court decides to rule on DOMA on the basis of standing.
“Most people think the Second Circuit decision goes away, then the question is what happens to the district court ruling,” Bonauto said. “Does Edie get her money back, or is there an argument that the district court ruling goes away because the U.S. switched positions in the district court. I’d like to think, at a minimum, Edie would get her money back.”
Vicki Jackson, a Harvard law professor hired by the court, will argue BLAG doesn’t have standing in the lawsuit and the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case. Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinavasan is set to address the standing issue on behalf of the Justice Department. BLAG also has been allocated time to assert it has standing in the case, but Windsor’s attorneys weren’t granted time to talk about jurisdiction or standing.
NCLR’s Stoll said any decision from justices that would extend rights to gay couples ā whether on the merits or through issues of standing ā would be a “milestone” for the LGBT community.
“We have already been seeing tremendous changes in society and the level of acceptance for gay and lesbian people and for legal recognition of them through marriage,” Stoll said. “I think that if the Supreme Court ruled in whatever way in favor of the plaintiffs in these cases, that it would be a real milestone and landmark moment for our movement.”
National
House Republicans propose steep cuts in federal AIDS budget
Advocacy groups say move would eliminate āEnding HIV Epidemicā initiative
The Republican-controlled U.S. House Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies approved a spending bill on June 26 that calls for cutting at least $419 million from federal AIDS programs that AIDS activists say would have a devastating impact on efforts to greatly reduce the number of new HIV infections by 2030.
The subcommitteeās proposed bill, which includes billions of dollars in cuts in a wide range of other federal health, education, and human services related programs, is scheduled to be considered by the full House Appropriations Committee on July 10. Officials with AIDS advocacy groups say they are hopeful that the full committee, like last year, will refuse to approve the proposed cuts in the AIDS budget.
The proposed GOP cuts would eliminate $214 million from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventionās HIV prevention programs, $190 million from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, and $15 million from the Department of Health and Human Services Secretaryās Minority HIV/AIDS Program.
Activists say the impact of those cuts would kill the federal governmentās Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, which among other things, calls for reducing the number of new HIV infections in the U.S. by 75 percent by 2025 and by 90 percent by 2030. The activists point out that ironically the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative was launched during the administration of President Donald Trump.
āInstead of providing new investments in ending HIV by increasing funding for testing, prevention programs, such as PrEP, and life-saving care and treatment, House Republicans are again choosing to go through a worthless exercise of cutting programs that the American people depend on and will never pass,ā said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute.
āWhile we vigorously fight these cuts, we look forward to working with the entire Congress in a bipartisan fashion on spending bills that can actually become law,ā Schmid said in a statement.
Schmid noted that the bill also includes provisions known as āpolicy ridersā that would take away rights and protections from women, such as access to birth control and abortion, and for minorities, including LGBTQ people.
According to a statement released by the office of Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who is the ranking minority member of the House Appropriations Committee, one of the policy riders would āblock the Biden administrationās policies to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.ā The statement says another policy rider would āprevent policies or programs intended to promote diversity, equality, or inclusion.ā
Most political observers believe the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate would also kill the GOP proposed policy riders and cuts in the AIDS budget if the full Republican-controlled House were to approve the budget bill passed by the appropriations subcommittee.
Rep, Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who serves as chair of the full House Appropriations Committee, released a statement on June 27 defending the subcommitteeās bill and its proposed spending cuts. āThe bill provides appropriate and fiscally responsible funding to ensure these departments can continue to perform their core missions while also acknowledging the fiscal realities facing our nation,ā he said.
āImportantly, the bill pushes back on the Biden administrationās out-of-touch progressive policy agenda, preventing this White House from finalizing or implementing controversial rules or executive orders,ā Cole said in his statement. āIt also preserves long standing bipartisan policy provisions protecting the right to life.ā
U.S. Supreme Court
Concern over marriage equality in US grows two decades after first Mass. same-sex weddings
Gay and lesbian couples began to marry in Bay State in 2004
Two decades after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, a new study reveals both significant progress and ongoing challenges for married LGBTQ couples in the U.S., with a growing sense of insecurity about the future of their rights.
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law surveyed 484 married same-sex couples from all 50 states and D.C. The study, released Monday, marks the 20th anniversary of legal same-sex marriage in the U.S.
Researchers found that 93 percent of respondents cited love as a primary reason for marrying, with 75 percent also mentioning legal protections. Over 83 percent reported positive changes in their sense of security, and 74.6 percent noted improved life satisfaction since marrying.
However, the study also highlighted persistent discrimination and growing concerns about the future. About 11 percent of couples who had a wedding reported facing prejudice during the planning process.
Alarmingly, nearly 80 percent of respondents expressed concern about the potential overturning of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This anxiety has been exacerbated by initiatives like Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint that some fear could roll back LGBTQ rights if implemented.
The possibility of a former President Donald Trump victory in the upcoming election has further intensified these concerns. Many respondents cited Trump’s previous U.S. Supreme Court appointments and his statements on LGBTQ issues as reasons for their apprehension. One participant stated, “The thought of another Trump presidency keeps me up at night. We’ve come so far, but it feels like our rights could be stripped away at any moment.”
The current political climate has 29 percent of respondents considering moving to another state, with 52.9 percent citing socio-political concerns as a primary reason. This reflects a growing sense of insecurity among LGBTQ couples about their rights and freedoms.
Brad Sears, founding executive director of the Williams Institute, noted, “The data clearly show that marriage equality has had a profound positive impact on same-sex couples and their families. However, it also reveals ongoing challenges and serious concerns about the future of these rights in light of current political trends and the upcoming election.”
Christy Mallory, legal director at the Williams Institute and lead author of the study, added, “This research provides crucial insights into the lived experiences of same-sex couples two decades after marriage equality began in the U.S. The high level of concern about potential loss of rights underscores the continued importance of legal protections and public support for LGBTQ+ equality.”
The study found that 30 percent of surveyed couples have children, with 58.1 percent of those parents reporting that marriage provided more stability for their families. However, many of these families now worry about the security of their legal status in the face of potential policy changes and shifting political landscapes.
As the nation reflects on two decades of marriage equality, the study underscores both the transformative power of legal recognition and the ongoing need for vigilance in protecting LGBTQ+ rights. The findings highlight the complex reality faced by same-sex couples in America today: Celebrating hard-won progress while grappling with uncertainty about the future, particularly in light of upcoming political events and potential shifts in leadership.
State Department
State Department hosts meeting on LGBTQ rights and foreign policy
Event took place before Pride Month reception
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday hosted a group of LGBTQ activists and politicians from around the world at the State Department.
The event ā described as a “Convening on U.S. Foreign Policy: National Security, Inclusive Development, and the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons” ā took place before the State Department’s annual Pride Month reception. Participants included:
ā¢ Jessica Stern, the special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights
ā¢ U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield
ā¢ U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai
ā¢ U.S. Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti
ā¢ Suzanne Goldberg, senior advisor to the Under Secretary of State for Civil Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
ā¢ Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya
ā¢ U.S. Agency for International Development Senior LGBTQI+ Coordinator Jay Gilliam
ā¢ USAID Counselor Clinton D. White
ā¢ National Security Council Senior Director for Democracy and Human Rights Kelly Razzouk
ā¢ Assistant U.S. Secretary of Health Adm. Rachel Levine
ā¢ National Security Council Human Rights Director Jess Huber
ā¢ U.N. Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Ilze Brandt Kehris
ā¢ Icelandic Ambassador to the U.S. BergdĆs EllertsdĆ³ttir
ā¢ Council for Global Equality Co-Executive Director Mark Bromley
ā¢ Outright International Senior Advisor for Global Intersex Rights Kimberly Zieselman
ā¢ Essy Adhiambo, executive director of the Institute for Equality and Non Discrimination in Kenya
ā¢ Pau GonzĆ”lez, co-chair of Hombres Trans PanamĆ” and PFLAG-PanamĆ”
“Forty-five years ago, thousands gathered in D.C. in what became the first national march for LGBTQI+, demanding their voices be heard,” said Thomas-Greenfield in a post to her X account that showed her speaking at the event. “We must continue to carry forward the spirit of these pioneers and fight for equal rights and dignity for all.”
Forty-five years ago, thousands gathered in DC in what became the first national march for LGBTQI+, demanding their voices be heard.
We must continue to carry forward the spirit of these pioneers and fight for equal rights and dignity for all. š³ļøāšš³ļøāā§ļø pic.twitter.com/oph2Ahmfhq
— Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield (@USAmbUN) June 28, 2024
President Joe Biden in 2021 signed a memo that committed the U.S. to promoting LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad as part of his administrationās overall foreign policy.
“LGBTQI+ rights are human rights,” said Blinken. “Our government has a responsibility to defend them, to promote them ā here and everywhere.”
Blinken noted consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized in 64 countries, with the death penalty in 11 of them.
He specifically highlighted Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor OrbĆ”n’s government’s “smearing scapegoating, stigmatizing LGBTQI+ persons ā vilifying them with degrading labels, denying them equal rights, normalizing violence against them.” (Gay U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman this month marched in the annual Budapest Pride parade.)
Blinken noted Iraqi MPs earlier this year “passed legislation that punishes same-sex relations with up to 15 years in prison.” He also pointed out that Indonesian lawmakers approved a new criminal code banning extramarital sex.
“In a nation where same-sex couples cannot marry, these laws effectively make all same-sex conduct illegal and they undermine privacy for all Indonesians,” said Blinken.
“Weāre defending and promoting LGBTQI+ rights around the world,” he said.
Blinken noted seven countries ā Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Namibia, Singapore, the Cook Islands ā have decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations over the last two years. He also highlighted Greece, Liechtenstein, and Thailand this year extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, and other countries are banning so-called “conversion therapy.”
“These achievements are possible because of incredibly courageous human rights defenders and government partners on the ground, but I believe Americaās support is indispensable,” said Blinken. “When we engage ā sometimes publicly, sometimes privately, sometimes both ā when we share our own knowledge and experience, we can and we do achieve change.”
Blinken also announced the U.S. now considers sexual orientation and gender identity are part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that took effect in 1976.
“This is one of the key treaties committing nations to upholding universal rights,” he said.
“In our regular reporting to the council on human rights, we will continue to include incidents of discrimination or abuse committed against LGBTQI+ persons, now with the clear framework of this well-supported interpretation,” added Blinken.Ā “That will further empower our efforts.”
Blinken reiterated this point and the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad when he spoke at the State Department’s Pride Month event.
“Defending, promoting LGBTQI+ rights globally is the right thing to do, but beyond that, itās the smart and necessary thing to do for our country, for our national security, for our well-being,” he said.
Chilean capital Pride parade participants, activists attacked
Transgender nonbinary sprinter Nikki Hiltz makes Team USA
Rehobothās Purple Parrot still soaring after 25 years
Vote Democratic or July 4, 2025 will look very different
House Republicans propose steep cuts in federal AIDS budget
Toronto Pride parade cancelled after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt it
Stephen Mark Lukas makes sublime turn in āFunny Girlā
Despite record crowds, Baltimore Prideās LGBTQ critics say organizers dropped the ball
Haters troll official Olympics Instagram for celebrating gay athlete and boyfriend
Members of Congress introduce resolution to condemn Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act
-
Canada2 days agoToronto Pride parade cancelled after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt it
-
Theater5 days agoStephen Mark Lukas makes sublime turn in āFunny Girlā
-
Baltimore4 days agoDespite record crowds, Baltimore Prideās LGBTQ critics say organizers dropped the ball
-
Sports4 days agoHaters troll official Olympics Instagram for celebrating gay athlete and boyfriend