National
Iowa court issues pro-gay parenting decision
Ruling requires names of both parents to appear on child’s birth certificate

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the names of married same-sex parents must appear on their children’s birth certificates.
The Iowa State Supreme Court on Friday issued a pro-gay adoption ruling that requires the names of both same-sex parents to appear on the birth certificates of their children ā provided the couple is married.
In a unanimous 29-page decision, the seven justices ruled that the names of married lesbian parents ā the birthing mother and non-birthing mother ā must be shown on their child’s birth certificate.
Justice David Wiggins, who wrote the decision, based the ruling on the same reasoning the led to the court’s 2009 decision to establish same-sex marriage in the Hawkeye State.
“By naming the non-birthing spouse on the birth certificate of a married lesbian couple’s child, the child is ensured support from that parent and the parent establishes fundamental legal rights at the moment of birth,” Wiggins wrote. “Therefore, the only explanation for not listing the non-birthing lesbian spouse on the birth certificate is stereotype or prejudice.”
In the wake of the ruling, Iowa now has policy that accords with every other state that has marriage equality or allows some kind of legal relationship recognition for same-sex couples. According to Lambda Legal, all those statesĀ require that birth certificates for same-sex parents in a legal relationship be the same as they are for married opposite-sex parents.
The case, Gartner v. Newton, was filed in 2010 by Lambda Legal on behalf ofĀ Mackenzie Gartner, who was born in September 2009 to Heather and Melissa Gartner, a lesbian couple who legally wed in Iowa.Ā After receiving a birth certificate that listed Heather, the birth mother, as the only parent, the couple requested a corrected birth certificate listing both of them as Mackenzie’s parents. However, Iowa’s Department of Public Health denied the request on the ground that Melissa isn’t Mackenzie’s genetic parent.
In January 2012, the Iowa District Court for Polk County determined that state law required the department to issue a birth certificate with both lesbian parents’ names to Mackenzie. The department did so while appealing the court’s decision.
The Supreme Court didn’t interpret state law in the same way as the lower court did, but ruled that the equal protection under the Iowa State Constitution invalidates that law and requires both names of same-sex parents to appear on their child’s birth certificate.
Camilla Taylor, a marriage project director for LambdaĀ Legal, said the Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces what it earlier determined in the 2009 ruling for marriage equality: same-sex couples must be treated equally under the law.
“Same-sex couples and their children do not get marriage-lite,” Taylor said. “Marriage is marriage and equal is equal. We take for granted that a husband is the father of a child born to his wife through reproductive technology ā regardless of whether he is his child’s genetic parent. The same marital protection for both parents’ relationships to their child holds true for same-sex couples and their children.”
Nancy Politkoff, a lesbian and law professor at American University Washington College of Law, acknowledged the ruling will be helpful for same-sex parents in Iowa, but expressed frustration over its limitations, including fact that itĀ won’t help unmarried lesbian couples in Iowa.
“The law we have in the District of Columbia is that when a lesbian couple has a child through donor insemination, they are both parents, they get their names on the birth certificates ā and they don’t have to be married, and that’s very clear,” Politkoff said. “So our law helps all lesbian couples having children in D.C. and what has been obtained in Iowa helps only married lesbian couples. Our approach is a better approach because heterosexual couples don’t have to be married to have both people recognized as parents, and same-sex couples shouldn’t have to either.”
U.S. Federal Courts
Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy
Two of seven plaintiffs live in Md.

Lambda Legal on April 25 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people who are challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy.
The lawsuit, which Lambda Legal filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, alleges the policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers “has caused and is causing grave and immediate harm to transgender people like plaintiffs, in violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection.”
Two of the seven plaintiffs ā Jill Tran and Peter Poe ā live in Maryland. The State Department, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the federal government are defendants.
“The discriminatory passport policy exposes transgender U.S. citizens to harassment, abuse, and discrimination, in some cases endangering them abroad or preventing them from traveling, by forcing them to use identification documents that share private information against their wishes,” said Lambda Legal in a press release.
Zander Schlacter, a New York-based textile artist and designer, is the lead plaintiff.
The lawsuit notes he legally changed his name and gender in New York.
Schlacter less than a week before President Donald Trump’s inauguration “sent an expedited application to update his legal name on his passport, using form DS-5504.”
Trump once he took office signed an executive order that banned the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers. The lawsuit notes Schlacter received his new passport in February.
“The passport has his correct legal name, but now has an incorrect sex marker of ‘F’ or ‘female,'” notes the lawsuit. “Mr. Schlacter also received a letter from the State Department notifying him that ‘the date of birth, place of birth, name, or sex was corrected on your passport application,’ with ‘sex’ circled in red. The stated reason was ‘to correct your information to show your biological sex at birth.'”
“I, like many transgender people, experience fear of harassment or violence when moving through public spaces, especially where a photo ID is required,” said Schlacter in the press release that announced the lawsuit. “My safety is further at risk because of my inaccurate passport. I am unwilling to subject myself and my family to the threat of harassment and discrimination at the hands of border officials or anyone who views my passport.”
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.
Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an āXā gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.
Lambda Legal represented Zzyym.
The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.
Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January. Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.
A federal judge in Boston earlier this month issued a preliminary injunction against the executive order.Ā The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.
Federal Government
HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth
Trevor Project warns the move will ‘put their lives at risk’

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is planning to retire the national 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth on Oct. 1, according to a preliminary budget document obtained by the Washington Post.
Introduced during the Biden-Harris administration in 2022, the hotline connects callers with counselors who are trained to work with this population, who are four times likelier to attempt suicide than their cisgender or heterosexual counterparts.
āSuicide prevention is about risk, not identity,” said Jaymes Black, CEO of the Trevor Project, which provides emergency crisis support for LGBTQ youth and has contracted with HHS to take calls routed through 988.
“Ending the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifelineās LGBTQ+ youth specialized services will not just strip away access from millions of LGBTQ+ kids and teens ā it will put their lives at risk,ā they said in a statement. āThese programs were implemented to address a proven, unprecedented, and ongoing mental health crisis among our nationās young people with strong bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Trump himself.ā
“I want to be clear to all LGBTQ+ young people: This news, while upsetting, is not final,” Black said. “And regardless of federal funding shifts, the Trevor Project remains available 24/7 for anyone who needs us, just as we always have.ā
The service for LGBTQ youth has received 1.3 million calls, texts, or chats since its debut, with an average of 2,100 contacts per day in February.
āI worry deeply that we will see more LGBTQ young people reach a crisis state and not have anyone there to help them through that,ā said Janson Wu, director of advocacy and government affairs at the Trevor Project. āI worry that LGBTQ young people will reach out to 988 and not receive a compassionate and welcoming voice on the other end ā and that will only deepen their crisis.ā
Under Trump’s HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the agency’s departments and divisions have experienced drastic cuts, with a planned reduction in force of 20,000 full-time employees. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has been sunset and mental health services consolidated into the newly formed Administration for a Healthy America.
The budget document reveals, per Mother Jones, “further sweeping cuts to HHS, including a 40 percent budget cut to the National Institutes of Health; elimination of funding for Head Start, the early childhood education program for low-income families; and a 44 percent funding cut to the Centers for Disease Control, including all the agencyās chronic disease programs.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears oral arguments in LGBTQ education case
Mahmoud v. Taylor plaintiffs argue for right to opt-out of LGBTQ inclusive lessons

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case about whether Montgomery County, Md., public schools violated the First Amendment rights of parents by not providing them an opportunity to opt their children out of reading storybooks that were part of an LGBTQ-inclusive literacy curriculum.
The school district voted in early 2022 to allow books featuring LGBTQ characters in elementary school language arts classes. When the county announced that parents would not be able to excuse their kids from these lessons, they sued on the grounds that their freedom to exercise the teachings of their Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths had been infringed.
The lower federal courts declined to compel the district to temporarily provide advance notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the LGBTQ inclusive curricula, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks compelled them to violate their religion.
āLGBTQ+ stories matter,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement Tuesday. āThey matter so students can see themselves and their families in the books they read ā so they can know theyāre not alone. And they matter for all students who need to learn about the world around them and understand that while we may all be different, we all deserve to be valued and loved.”
She added, “All students lose when we limit what they can learn, what they can read, and what their teachers can say. The Supreme Court should reject this attempt to silence our educators and ban our stories.ā
GLAD Law, NCLR, Family Equality, and COLAGE submitted a 40-page amicus brief on April 9, which argued the storybooks “fit squarely” within the district’s language arts curriculum, the petitioners challenging the materials incorrectly characterized them as “specialized curriculum,” and that their request for a “mandated notice-and-opt-out requirement” threatens “to sweep far more broadly.”
Lambda Legal, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, PFLAG, and the National Womenās Law Center announced their submission of a 31-page amicus brief in a press release on April 11.
āAll students benefit from a school climate that promotes acceptance and respect,ā said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal. āEnsuring that students can see themselves in the curriculum and learn about students who are different is critical for creating a positive school environment. This is particularly crucial for LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ family members who already face unique challenges.ā
The organizations’ brief cited extensive social science research pointing to the benefits of LGBTQ-inclusive instruction like “age-appropriate storybooks featuring diverse families and identities” benefits all students regardless of their identities.
Also weighing in with amici briefs on behalf of Montgomery County Public Schools were the National Education Association, the ACLU, and the American Psychological Association.
Those writing in support of the parents challenging the district’s policy included the Center for American Liberty, the Manhattan Institute, Parents Defending Education, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Trump-Vance administration’s U.S. Department of Justice, and a coalition of Republican members of Congress.
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
D.C. police seek help in identifying suspect in anti-gay threats case
-
Virginia2 days ago
Youngkin calls on gay Va. GOP LG candidate to exit race over alleged ‘porn’ scandal
-
Opinions5 days ago
On Pope Francis, Opus Dei and ongoing religious intolerance
-
Commentary4 days ago
A conversation about queers and class