Connect with us

News

Will the 6th Circuit allow Michigan marriages to continue?

Weddings halted until at least Wednesday, but no decision on stay pending appeal

Published

on

Regnerus, gay juror, National LGBT Bar Association, Gay News, Washington Blade

The Sixth Circuit will consider whether to stay marriages in Michigan this week. (Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

Marriage equality advocates are watching the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this week as it decides whether to stay same-sex weddings in Michigan or allow them to continue as the court considers marriage equality litigation.

Experts say the Sixth Circuit ā€” and the Supreme Court if the stay request is appealed ā€” have room to allow the Michigan same-sex weddings to continue because the Supreme Court’s stay on weddings following a similar ruling in Utah isn’t controlling and many district courts have now ruled in favor of marriage equality.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, was among those saying he doesn’t believe a stay is warranted in the case, known as DeBoer v. Snyder.

“The Supreme Court did not explain the reasons for its stay in the Utah case, so it provides little guidance and certainly should not be construed as requiring stays in other cases,” Minter said. “Utah was the first federal court in the country to strike down a state marriage ban post-Windsor, but many others have since followed suit, so the legal landscape is already quite different than when the Supreme Court issued a stay in that case.”

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, a Reagan appointee, issued the ruling striking down Michigan’s 2004 constitutional ban on same-sex marriages on Friday, but unlike similar rulings against laws in Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma, Friedman didn’t include a stay in his ruling.

Vickie Henry, a senior staff attorney at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who helped plaintiffs for the Michigan trial, said the lack of a stay from the judge came as no surprise given the concern he stated in his ruling for children raised by same-sex couples.

“At this point, all the recent decisions have all come out the same way,” Henry said. “So at some point I think you recognize there’s a high human cost, a high people cost, in the denial of these rights. I can’t speculate what he was thinking, but that seems like a great reason to not enter a stay.”

But Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a stay request before the Sixth Circuit to halt the same-sex marriages in Michigan as he and Gov. Rick Snyder filed notice they would file an appeal to the court.

After allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to the stay request by Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on the same-sex weddings until at least Wednesday ā€” but only after an estimated 315 gay couples received marriage licenses on Saturday.

A similar situation has happened before just recently. After U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby struck down Utah’s marriage ban in the case of Kitchen v. Herbert, Gov. Gary Herbert sought a stay request from the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court denied the stay, but the Supreme Court later instituted it after U.S. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor referred the matter to the entire bench.

Henry said she thinks the same outcome won’t necessarily befall Michigan despite the stay from the Supreme Court in the Utah case.

“It’s not directly controlling,” Henry said. “In other words, the Sixth Circuit’s not bound by it, but it’s certainly suggestive to the court of what at least one member of the Supreme Court would want them to do.”

Equality Michigan is circulating a petition calling on Snyder and Schuette to drop their appeal of the ruling. As of Monday afternoon, the petition had more than 10,000 signatures.

“We must end the second-class treatment of LGBT families in Michigan,” the petition states. “Rather than siding with the people of Michigan, Schuette and Snyder are wasting taxpayer dollars defending a ban on marriage equality that harms Michigan families ā€” and that the people of Michigan no longer even want.”

But now that the Michigan case has been appealed, all four states in the Sixth Circuit ā€” Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky ā€” have marriage equality cases before the appeals court.

The Sixth Circuit has ruled on an LGBT-relevant case before, but the outcome and the precedent it set wasn’t favorable to LGBT people.

In the case of Equality Federation v. Cincinnati, the court in 1996 upheld an anti-gay ordinance in Cincinnati forbidding the city from enforcing civil rights ordinances based on sexual orientation. The judges issued this decision despite the Supreme Court ruling in 1992 in Romer v. Evans, which found that a similar measure, Colorado’s Amendment 2, was unconstitutional.

But the Cincinnati ordinance has since been repealed in 2004, and that ruling was delivered years ago before the Supreme Court issued precedent protecting gay people in Lawrence and Windsor.

If the Sixth Circuit denies a stay, state officials could appeal the stay request to the Supreme Court justice responsible for stays in the Sixth Circuit: U.S. Associate Justice Elena Kagan. In that event, Kagan could refer the request to the entire court. If she declines a stay on her own, the state could ask any justice on the court for a stay, including anti-gay U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, expressed uncertainty about whether the Supreme Court would take similar action as it did with the Utah same-sex marriages.

“The Supreme Court did not explain why they issued the stay in Kitchen previously, however, so there is no way of knowing for sure what motivated them to do that or whether a majority of them would do the same thing in the face of the tidal wave of decisions in favor of marriage equality that we are seeing in the lower courts,” Davidson said.

Not all legal experts foresee a possibility in which neither the Sixth Circuit nor the Supreme Court would refuse to grant a stay on same-sex weddings.

Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, predicted the Supreme Court would continue to issue stays on same-sex marriages throughout the country until it delivers it final determination on same-sex marriage.

“My view is that the Supreme Court will continue to grant stays until they resolve a case on the merits,” Hunter said. “Earliest that is likely to happen is June 2015.”

In the event a stay is granted by either the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court, another question would emerge similar to the situation in Utah: Would the federal government and state of Michigan recognize the same-sex marriages already conducted in the state?

In Utah, the decision was split. Herbert announced that his state wouldn’t recognize the estimated 1,300 same-sex marriages conducted in Utah pending the final outcome of the litigation. But U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama administration would consider those marriages valid for the purposes of federal benefits. Several state attorneys general, including Maryland’s Doug Gansler, announced their states would also recognize the marriages.

According to the Associated Press, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is holding off on the determination on whether his state will recognize the unions. His spokesperson is quoted as saying the governor will wait for a stay decision to be reached before deciding whether Michigan will recognize the marriages.

Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum and East Lansing Mayor Nathan Triplett, who performed same-sex marriages in Michigan over the weekend, sent a letter Monday to Holder insisting the federal government should recognize those unions.

“Many of the couples that were married on March 22 waited decades for that opportunity,” Byrum and Triplett write. “Their marriages complied with Judge Friedman’s order and all relevant provisions of Michigan law and should be recognized as such by state and federal authorities without delay.”

The Justice Department didn’t yet have a definitive answer in response to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on whether the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages performed in Michigan.

“We are closely monitoring the situation,” said Allison Price, a Justice Department spokesperson.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

House Republicans propose steep cuts in federal AIDS budget

Advocacy groups say move would eliminate ā€˜Ending HIV Epidemicā€™ initiative

Published

on

The Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative was launched during the administration of President Donald Trump.

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 subcommitteeā€™s 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 Preventionā€™s HIV prevention programs, $190 million from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, and $15 million from the Department of Health and Human Services Secretaryā€™s Minority HIV/AIDS Program.

Activists say the impact of those cuts would kill the federal governmentā€™s 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.

 ā€œInstead 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.

ā€œWhile 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 ā€œpolicy 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 ā€œblock the Biden administrationā€™s policies to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.ā€™  The statement says another policy rider would ā€œprevent 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  subcommitteeā€™s bill and its proposed spending cuts. ā€œThe 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.

ā€œImportantly, the bill pushes back on the Biden administrationā€™s 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. ā€œIt also preserves long standing bipartisan policy provisions protecting the right to life.ā€

Continue Reading

Virginia

Man went on ā€˜homophobic rantā€™ inside Va. pub that displayed Pride flags

Suspect arrested on charges of public intoxication, assaulting police officer

Published

on

Justin Wayne Hendricks was arrested in the case. (Photo courtesy of the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center)

The Hawk & Griffin British Pub located in Vienna, Va.,  posted a message on Facebook last week saying a man was arrested after going on a ā€œhomophobic rantā€ inside the pub on June 28 when he saw that LGBTQ Pride flags were displayed at the pub for Pride month.

ā€œLast night we had an incident here at the pub when a man came off the street to accost patrons in our beer garden because of our flags displayed for pride month,ā€ the Hawk & Griffin Facebook posting says. ā€œHe then spit on our windows and came inside to confront our staff and patrons with homophobic rants,ā€ the posting continues.

ā€œOur manager and staff handled the situation very professionally and police were called to investigate and later arrested a man a couple of blocks away,ā€ the message says. ā€œWe want to thank the Vienna Police Department for their quick response. We are and will continue to be community focused and we will never stop working to create and maintain a place of inclusion and tolerance,ā€ the statement concludes.

Vienna police charged Justin Wayne Hendricks, of no known address, with misdemeanor counts of being ā€œdrunk in publicā€ and  providing false identification to a police officer and with a felony count of assault on a police officer. A police spokesperson said Hendricks was also found to be in violation of an outstanding arrest warrant from Alexandria, Va., related to a prior charge of failing to register as a sex offender.

The spokesperson, Juan Vazquez, said Hendricks is currently being held without bond at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center. Online records for the Fairfax County General District Court show that Hendricks is scheduled to appear at a preliminary hearing on Oct. 9.

ā€œOn Friday, June 28, around 9:28 p.m. the Vienna Police Department responded to reports of an intoxicated individual threatening customers of the Hawk & Griffin,ā€ a Vienna police statement says. ā€œUpon the arrival of the officers the individual had already left the premises but was promptly located at an address nearby,ā€ according to the statement.

The statement adds that Hendricks was subsequently charged with being drunk in public, providing false information about his identity to police, and assault on a police officer along with being served with the outstanding warrant related to the prior charge in Alexandria of failing to register as a sex offender.

Details of the prior sex offender charge couldnā€™t immediately be obtained from online court records. However, the online records show that Hendricks has at least a dozen or more prior arrests between 2014 and 2023 on charges including public intoxication, trespassing, and failing to register as a sex offender.

Police spokesperson Vazquez said it would be up to prosecutors with the office of the Fairfax County Commonwealthā€™s Attorney to determine if a subsequent hate crime related charge would be filed in the case.

Continue Reading

Politics

HRC slams White House over position opposing gender affirming surgeries for minors

ā€˜Biden administration is flat wrong on thisā€™

Published

on

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson issued a strong rebuke on Tuesday of the Biden-Harris administration’s position opposing gender affirming surgeries for minors.

The New York Times reported on June 28 that the White House, which broadly supports making medical interventions available for transgender youth, had expressed opposition to surgeries for patients under 18, having previously declined to take a specific position on the question.

ā€œHealth care decisions for young people belong between a patient, their family, and their health care provider. Trans youth are no exception,” Robinson responded. 

ā€œThe Biden administration is flat wrong on this. Itā€™s wrong on the science and wrong on the substance. Itā€™s also inconsistent with other steps the administration has taken to support transgender youth. The Biden administration, and every elected official, need to leave these decisions to families, doctors and patientsā€”where they belong,” she added. “Although transgender young people make up an extremely small percentage of youth in this country, the care they receive is based on decades of clinical research and is backed by every major medical association in the U.S. representing over 1.3 million doctors.”

Robinson said the “administration has committed to fight any ban on healthcare for transgender youth and must continue this without hesitationā€”the entire community is watching.” 

ā€œNo parent should ever be put in the position where they and their doctor agree on one course of action, supported by the overwhelming majority of medical experts, but the government forbids it,ā€ she added.

HRC is a prominent backer of Biden’s 2024 reelection campaign, having pledged $15 million to support efforts in six battleground states. The organization has a strong relationship with the White House, with the president and first lady headlining last year’s National Dinner.

A White House spokesperson declined to respond to Robinson’s statement.

Campaign for Southern Equality President Allison Scott also issued a statement.

ā€œThis is a cowardly statement from an administration that promised to support transgender people. It is a troubling concession to the right-wing assault on transgender Americans, falling for their false narratives about surgical care and betraying a commitment to equality and trust in the medical community,ā€ said Scott.

ā€œLetā€™s be very, very clear: Government has no business inserting itself into private medical decisions that should be exclusively between patients, their providers, and the patientsā€™ parent or guardian,” Scott added.

“It is dangerous to begin endorsing categorical bans or limits on healthcare, and there is no justification for restricting transgender youthā€™s access to the very same care that many cisgender youth receive every year ā€” thatā€™s literally the definition of discrimination,” Scott concluded. “We demand the Biden administration retract this thoughtless statement and work to undo its damage.ā€ 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular