Connect with us

News

Nevada AG invokes bigamy, incest to defend marriage ban

State interest is ‘to protect and perpetuate traditional marriage’

Published

on

Nevada, Catherine Cortez Masto, gay news, Washington Blade
Nevada, Catherine Cortez Masto, gay news, Washington Blade

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. (Photo public domain)

Ask the attorney general of Nevada about the definition of marriage, and she’ll tell you it doesn’t include the union of a same-sex couple. But in the same breath, she’ll tell you it also doesn’t include incest or bigamy either.

In a 55-page brief filed on Tuesday, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto urges the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the basis that it reflects the will of the people.

“The interest of the State in defining marriage in this manner is motivated by the state’s desire to protect and perpetuate traditional marriage,” Masto writes. “In establishing this criterion and others — e.g., age, consanguinity, unmarried status, etc. — the state exercises its prerogative as a State, and that exercise is entitled to respect.”

But in a section titled “Marriage Defined” explaining “what marriage is” and “what marriage is not,” Masto reminds the court that in addition to not being for same-sex couples under Nevada law, marriage is also not for those engaging in bigamy or incest.

Screen Shot 2014-01-23 at 11.02.07 AM

The invocation of bigamy and incest in Nevada’s brief before the Ninth Circuit recalls the first legal brief the Obama administration filed in support of the Defense of Marriage Act when it was still defending the law in court. That brief invoked bigamy and pedophilia to assert the constitutionality of the ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage, which riled LGBT advocates.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, took Masto to task for making an implicit comparison between same-sex marriage and bigamy or incest while saying she makes no solid argument against allowing gay nuptials in Nevada.

“Marriage is not ‘defined’ by who is denied it, and nothing in the brief explains why loving and committed couples of the same sex should be denied the legal commitment and bundle of obligations and protections that are available to different-sex couples,” Wolfson said. “To invoke bigamy and incest, as the attorney general does — at least she stopped short of bestiality! — doesn’t supply an explanation; it makes clear that the state has nothing to offer to justify the discrimination against same-sex couples in Nevada.

But Wolfson said he concurs with another argument within the attorney general’s brief: domestic partnerships, which are permitted under Nevada law, aren’t equivalent to and don’t provide a substitute for marriage.

The brief was filed in the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, a challenge filed by Lambda Legal against Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2012.

Jon Davidson, Lambda’s legal director, said “of course, we find any such comparison objectionable” between same-sex marriage and bigamy or incest. The organization is slated to file its formal response to the attorney general’s brief next month.

Masto is a Democrat and has served in the role of attorney general for Nevada since 2007. Other Democrats holding the office in other states — most recently Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring — have elected not to defend marriage bans in the state on the basis that they’re unconstitutional.

Notably, Masto argues at length that the Ninth Circuit shouldn’t apply heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption a law is unconstitutional, to the ban on same-sex marriage. That argument is somewhat dated after the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday applied heightened scrutiny in ruling that a juror cannot be excluded from a trial based on sexual orientation — a decision that will have precedent in the marriage case.

“Under an objective application of due process and equal protection analyses, there is no basis for heightened review of the State’s purpose in defining marriage by its traditional meaning,” Masto writes. “There exists neither fundamental right, nor suspect or quasi- suspect class, justifying a different standard of review.”

But the invocation of bigamy and incest isn’t the only part of the brief that is raising concerns among LGBT advocates.

Responding to the various friend-of-the-court briefs filed in the case on behalf of same-sex marriage, Masto takes issue with the way some say marriage is about children and others say it isn’t.

“There is some irony in the inconsistency in certain arguments made by amici,” Masto writes. “A brief by the Family Equality Council, et al., posits that the policy issue is primarily about children, presenting ‘testimonials from the children raised in such families [those with same-sex parents].’ In a separate brief, Family Law Professors (who are ‘scholars of family law’) argue that marriage is not about children.”

Masto concludes these divergent views on the role of children in marriage serve to “reinforce the conclusion that the state’s legislature is the democratic crucible where the issues should be debated and decided.”

Emily Hecht-McGowan, the Family Equality Council’s director of public policy, slammed the attorney general for her interpretation of its brief in favor of marriage equality.

“The Attorney General is missing the primary point of our Voices of Children brief, which is not that marriage is primarily about children but rather that the denial of marriage equality fundamentally harms children being raised by same-sex couples by rendering them and their families second-class citizens,” Hecht-McGowan said. “We trust that the Justices reading our brief and hearing oral arguments will reach the same conclusion that Justice Kennedy reached in his majority opinion in U.S. v. Windsor — that laws denying marriage recognition to same-sex couples ‘humiliate children’ and are a violation of equal protection under the law.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

D.C. bar Rush facing eviction on charge of failing to pay rent

Landlord says $201,324 owed in back payments, late fees

Published

on

(Photo courtesy of Rush)

The owners of the building at 14th and U Streets, N.W. where D.C.’s newest LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush opened on Dec. 5, 2025, filed a complaint in D.C. Superior Court on Feb. 3 seeking Rush’s eviction on grounds that the bar has failed to pay its required rent since last May.

According to the court filing by building owners Thomas and Ioanna Tsianakas Family Trust and Thomas Tsianakas Trustee, Rush owes $141,338.18 in back rent, $19,086.19 for utilities, and $40,900 in late fees, coming to a total of $201,324.37.

Rush owner Jackson Mosley didn’t immediately respond to a Feb. 5 phone message from the Washington Blade seeking comment on the court filing seeking his eviction from the building located at 200114th Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street.   

WUSA 9 TV news reported in a Feb. 5 broadcast that Mosley said he “doesn’t see why the eviction notice is news and called it a ‘formality.’” The WUSA report adds that Mosley said he and the Rush landlord “have no bad blood” and if the action did reach the point of eviction he would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to restructure the lease and his debts.

The eviction court filing follows a decision by the city’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board on Dec. 17 to suspend Rush’s liquor license on grounds that its payment check for the liquor licensing fee was “returned unpaid.” The liquor board reissued the license three days later after Mosley paid the fee with another check

He told the Blade at the time that the first check did not “bounce,” as rumors in the community claimed. He said he made a decision to put a “hold” on the check so that Rush could change its initial decision to submit a payment for the license for three years and instead to arrange for a lower payment for just one year at a time.

Around that same time several Rush employees posted social media messages saying the staff was not paid for the bar’s first month’s pay period. Mosley responded by posting a message on the Rush website saying employees were not paid because of a “tax related mismatch between federal and District records,” which, among other things, involved the IRS.

“This discrepancy triggered a compliance hold within our payroll system,” his statement said. “The moment I became aware of the issue I immediately engaged our payroll provider and began working to resolve it,” he said.

 But WUSA 9 reports in its Feb. 5 broadcast about the eviction issue that at least some of the now former employees say they still have not been paid since their first paycheck failed to come on Dec. 15.   

Superior Court online records for the eviction case show that a “Remote Initial Hearing” for the case has been scheduled for March 30 before a Landlord & Tenant Judge.  

Continue Reading

National

Human Rights Watch sharply criticizes US in annual report

Trump-Vance administration ‘working to undermine … very idea of human rights’

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Yariel Valdés González)

Human Rights Watch Executive Director Philippe Bolopion on Wednesday sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over its foreign policy that includes opposition to LGBTQ rights.

“The U.S. used to actually be a government that was advancing the rights of LGBT people around the world and making sure that it was finding its way into resolutions, into U.N. documents,” he said in response to a question the Washington Blade asked during a press conference at Human Rights Watch’s D.C. offices. “Now we see the opposite movement.”

Human Rights Watch on Wednesday released its annual human rights report that is highly critical of the U.S., among other countries.

“Under relentless pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms,” said Bolopion in its introductory paragraph. “To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.”

From left: Human Rights Watch Executive Director Philippe Bolopion and Human Rights Watch Washington Director Sarah Yager at a press conference at Human Rights Watch’s D.C. offices on Feb. 4, 2026. (Photo courtesy of Human Rights Watch)

The report, among other things, specifically notes the U.S. Supreme Court’s Skrmetti decision that uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical interventions for minors.

The Trump-Vance administration has withdrawn the U.S. from the U.N. LGBTI Core Group, a group of U.N. member states that have pledged to support LGBTQ and intersex rights, and the U.N. Human Rights Council. Bolopion in response to the Blade’s question during Wednesday’s press conference noted the U.S. has also voted against LGBTQ-inclusive U.N. resolutions.

Maria Sjödin, executive director of Outright International, a global LGBTQ and intersex advocacy group, in an op-ed the Blade published on Jan. 28 wrote the movement around the world since the Trump-Vance administration took office has lost more than $125 million in funding.

The U.S. Agency for International Development, which funded myriad LGBTQ and intersex organizations around the world, officially shut down on July 1, 2025. The Trump-Vance administration last month announced it will expand the global gag rule, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services, to include organizations that promote “gender ideology.”

“LGBTQ rights are not just a casualty of the Trump foreign policy,” said Human Rights Watch Washington Director Sarah Yager during the press conference. “It is the intent of the Trump foreign policy.”

The report specifically notes Ugandan authorities since the enactment of the country’s Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2023, which punishes “‘carnal knowledge’ between people of the same gender” with up to life in prison, “have perpetrated widespread discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, their families, and their supporters.” It also highlights Russian authorities “continued to widely use the ‘gay propaganda’ ban” and prosecuted at least two people in 2025 for their alleged role in “‘involving’ people in the ‘international LGBT movement’” that the country’s Supreme Court has deemed an extremist organization.

The report indicates the Hungarian government “continued its attacks on and scapegoating of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people” in 2025, specifically noting its efforts to ban Budapest Pride that more than 100,000 people defied. The report also notes new provisions of Indonesia’s penal code that took effect on Jan. 2 “violate the rights of women, religious minorities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, and undermine the rights to freedom of speech and association.”

“This includes the criminalization of all sex outside of marriage, effectively rendering adult consensual same-sex conduct a crime in Indonesia for the first time in the country’s history,” it states.

Bolopion at Wednesday’s press conference said women, people with disabilities, religious minorities, and other marginalized groups lose rights “when democracy is retreating.”

“It’s actually a really good example of how the global retreat from the U.S. as an actor that used to be very imperfectly — you know, with a lot of double standards — but used to be part of this global effort to advance rights and norms for everyone,” he said. “Now, not only has it retreated, which many people expected, but in fact, is now working against it, is working to undermine the system, is working to undermine, at times, the very idea of human rights.”

“That’s definitely something we are acutely aware of, and that we are pushing back,” he added.

Continue Reading

2026 Midterm Elections

LGBTQ Victory Fund looks beyond Washington for change in 2026

Vice President of Political Programs Daniel Hernández spoke with Blade

Published

on

Former Arizona state Rep. Daniel Hernández, right, campaigning for Joe Biden in 2020. (Photo courtesy of Daniel Hernández)

As the Trump-Vance administration enters its second year, LGBTQ people from around the country are running for public office amid fears of the removal of federal civil rights laws that could lead to rollbacks in protections.

The Washington Blade sat down with Daniel Hernández Jr., the newly made vice president of political programs for the LGBTQ Victory Fund, a nonpartisan political action committee dedicated to electing openly LGBTQ individuals to all levels of government, to discuss why now is more important than ever to actualize LGBTQ political power.

Hernández is often credited with saving the life of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) while working as her 20-year-old intern in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011. He served on the Pima County School Board and in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2017-2023, advocating for LGBTQ rights, healthcare access, and education.

Founded in 1991, the Victory Fund was created by a group of prominent LGBTQ political voices, including Dallas gay rights activist William Waybourn and former Human Rights Campaign Fund Executive Director Vic Basile, who were inspired by the success of EMILY’s List, a PAC that works to elect Democratic women to office.

Since its founding, the Victory Fund has worked with LGBTQ advocates and LGBTQ-supportive donors who recognized the need to prepare LGBTQ people to run for office nationwide.

When asked where LGBTQ people and allies need to focus looking ahead, Hernández emphasized that 2026 will be won or lost at the state and local level.

“One of the bigger things that people may not be paying as close attention to as we really should is the impact of state and local races. Federal races are crucial, obviously, but the folks who are actually able to have an impact in a meaningful way right now are not the people in the U.S. House or Senate,” Hernández said. “It can take years before a bill even moves through Congress. Meanwhile, state and local leaders are the ones standing up and fighting for our rights today. Especially during this Trump administration, that’s where the real action is happening.”

He expanded on that point, saying that at this moment in the U.S. political landscape, statewide races matter far more than they are often given credit for — particularly as 2026 is a midterm year under President Donald Trump. People who win elected office in midterm years, Hernández explained, are many times viewed as legislators pushing back against the administration at the top.

“Looking at 2026 in particular, because it’s a midterm year, people sometimes forget just how many critical statewide races are on the ballot. We have people like Chris Mayes in Arizona, who won by less than 300 votes in a battleground state and is now running for reelection,” he said. “These are the races that protect democracy and protect people’s rights in real time. If we ignore them, we’re doing so at our own peril. Statewide offices are where so much power actually lives.”

Hernández also urged LGBTQ voters and donors to think critically about where their time, money, and energy are going — particularly as resources remain limited heading into 2026 and not every race is winnable.

“I think one thing we don’t do enough as a community is pause and ask whether our resources are actually going where they can have an impact. If someone is running against a Republican in a plus-20 Republican state that hasn’t elected a Democrat in decades, do I really need to give my limited resources there? Or does it make more sense to support candidates in competitive states like Arizona or Wisconsin? In 2026, we have to be more strategic, because our resources are not unlimited. Winning matters.”

That calculation, Hernández said, also means moving away from what he described as emotionally driven donations and toward a more deliberate strategy.

“Our community is incredible at rallying when we’re angry, and I call that ‘rage giving.’ Someone awful is in office, a challenger pops up, and we all open our wallets. But what we really need to be doing is asking where that money will actually move the needle. In 2026, it’s not enough to feel good about donating — we have to make sure those donations help candidates who can realistically win. That’s how we protect LGBTQ rights long term.”

Asked how the Victory Fund determines which candidates receive endorsements — especially amid a growing field of openly LGBTQ contenders — Hernández emphasized that viability is central to the organization’s approach in 2026.

“One of the things we’re really focused on in 2026 is viability. We’re not endorsing people who have a zero-percent chance of winning. We’re looking at candidates who are running strong campaigns, who have plans, who are fundraising, and who are doing the work. That’s important because our community deserves guidance it can trust. When you see a Victory endorsement, it means we believe that candidate can actually win.”

Hernández also pushed back on the long-standing notion that being openly LGBTQ is a political liability — an argument that has resurfaced amid right-wing attacks on LGBTQ candidates.

“There’s been this long-standing perception that being LGBTQ is a liability and that it can cost Democrats elections. But when you actually look at the data, that just isn’t true. The reality is that being LGBTQ is not a risk — it’s often a strength. Voters care about roads, health care, affordability, and jobs, not fear-based caricatures. In 2026, we’re seeing more LGBTQ candidates than ever because people understand that now.”

That shift, he added, has helped reframe what LGBTQ candidates are actually campaigning on — despite efforts by conservatives to reduce them to culture-war issues.

“The so-called ‘gay agenda’ is not bathrooms. It’s making sure people have access to health care, that roads are safe, and that families can afford to live. LGBTQ candidates are talking about the same bread-and-butter issues as everyone else. That’s why the idea that LGBTQ candidates cost elections just doesn’t hold up. In fact, we’re seeing them lead on some of the most important issues facing voters right now.”

As misinformation and fear-based narratives continue to dominate right-wing messaging, Hernández said openly LGBTQ elected officials play a crucial role in countering those attacks — both through policy and presence.

“First and foremost, any elected official’s responsibility is to their constituents. That’s what we’re seeing from LGBTQ officials who are focused on affordability, health care access, and consumer protections while Republicans obsess over culture-war nonsense,” Hernández said. “But there’s also a responsibility to be authentic. Being honest about who you are and why you fight matters. That authenticity cuts through fear-based disinformation.”

Looking ahead to 2026, Hernández pointed to transgender elected officials as a particular source of momentum and optimism, even amid intensified political attacks.

“Our trans elected officials are honestly at the forefront of some of the biggest battles we’re facing right now. Despite relentless attacks and vilification, they are still delivering results for their communities. That tells me something incredibly powerful about where the country is headed. Even in this political climate, trans leaders are winning and governing. That gives me a lot of hope for 2026.”

Ultimately, Hernández said the stakes of the upcoming cycle extend far beyond a single election, shaping the future of LGBTQ political leadership nationwide.

“The leaders we elect at the state and local level today are the members of Congress and senators of tomorrow. People don’t just wake up one day and run for Congress — they come from city councils, state legislatures, and school boards. That’s why 2026 is so important. If we invest now, we’re not just defending our rights in the moment, we’re building the next generation of LGBTQ leadership.”

Victory Fund’s endorsed candidates

Incumbents Endorsed: January 2026

  • Helen Grant (they/them) – Norman City Council, Ward 4, Okla.
  • Louie Minor (he/him) – Bell County Commission, Precinct 4, Texas
  • Jonathan West (he/him) – Manchester Selectboard, Vt.
  • George Leach (he/him) – Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County Judge, Ohio
  • John Fredrickson (he/him) – Nebraska State Senate, District 20
  • Ben Bowman (he/him) – Oregon House of Representatives, District 25
  • Jeffrey Prang (he/him) – Los Angeles County Assessor, Calif.
  • Amie Carter (she/her) – Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools, Calif.
  • Elinor Levin (she/her) – Iowa House of Representatives, District 89
  • Ken Carlson (he/him) – Contra Costa County Supervisor, District 4, Calif.
  • Emma Pinter (she/her) – Adams County Commission, District 3, at-large, Colo.
  • Justin Chenette (he/him) – York County Commission, District 3, Maine
  • Kris Fair (he/him) – Maryland House of Delegates, District 3
  • Jennifer Cornell (she/her) – Ann Arbor City Council, Ward 5, Mich.
  • Darlene Martinez (she/her) – Constable, El Centro – Downtown Phoenix, Ariz.
  • Brian Garcia (he/him) – Arizona House of Representatives, District 8
  • Christian Phelps (he/him) – Wisconsin State Assembly, District 93
  • Jack Patrick Lewis (he/him) – Massachusetts House of Representatives, 7th Middlesex
  • Will Brownsberger (he/him) – Massachusetts State Senate, Suffolk and Middlesex Counties
  • Julian Cyr (he/him) – Massachusetts State Senate, Cape & Islands District
  • CM Hall (she/they) – Newport City Council, Ore.
  • Jimmy Mack (he/him) – Southampton Town Trustee, N.Y.
  • Michael Vargas (he/him) – Elk Grove USD Board of Education, Area 2, Calif.
  • Lisa Grafstein (she/her) – North Carolina State Senate
  • Hector Bustos (he/him) – Trustee, Santa Ana Unified School District, Calif.

Newly Endorsed Candidates – January 2026

  • Kirk McPike (he/him) – Virginia House of Delegates, District 5
  • Winn Decker (he/him) – North Carolina House of Representatives, District 37
  • Jonathan Lambert-Melton (he/him) – Wake Co. Board of Commissioners, At-Large, N.C.
  • Karen Stegman (she/her) – Orange County Board of Commissioners, At-Large, N.C.
  • Landon Campbell (he/him) – Hays County Criminal District Attorney, Texas
  • Christine Castillo (she/her) – Bexar County District Clerk, Texas
  • Nicholas “Nico” Costilla (he/him) – Hays County Clerk, Texas
  • Davis Mendoza Darusman (he/him) – Harris Co. Justice of the Peace, Pct. 5, Pl. 2, Texas
  • Nicholas Palmer (he/him) – Justice, Fifth Court of Appeals, Texas
  • José “Che-Che” Wilson (he/him) – Cook County Board of Commissioners, District 12, Ill.
  • Sarah Bury (she/her) – Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Board of Commissioners, Ill.

For more information of the LGBTQ Victory Fund’s endorsments, qualifications, or on how to register to receive an endorsement, visit the organization’s website at victoryfund.org

Continue Reading

Popular