Connect with us

National

Lawyers cite procreation in defending Prop 8

Judges grill marriage ban supporters in televised court case

Published

on

A lawyer defending California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage told a three-judge federal appeals court panel Monday that the ban must be upheld to protect the institution of marriage, which he said is essential for procreation and child rearing.

In a hearing that lasted more than two hours, the panel of judges for the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals fired sharp questions at lawyers backing and opposing Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that repealed the state’s same-sex marriage law.

But two of the three judges appeared to subject the lawyers defending Proposition 8 to greater scrutiny and a stronger challenge of their arguments. That led some legal observers to predict the liberal-leaning court would likely uphold a decision in August by a U.S. District Court judge declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, is considered one of the court’s strongest liberals and is expected to act favorably toward the two same-sex couples challenging Prop 8 in a case known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Judge Michael Hawkins, a Clinton appointee, is also considered a liberal with a likely favorable leaning toward the gay plaintiffs in the case. The third judge on the panel, N. Randy Smith, was appointed by President George W. Bush and served as chair of the Idaho Republican Party. Legal observers expect him to vote to uphold Prop 8.

Smith is a graduate of Brigham Young University and media reports identified him as a Mormon. The Mormon Church supported the passage of Prop 8 and received criticism from gay activists for encouraging church members to contribute millions of dollars into the Prop 8 election campaign.

Both the plaintiffs in the case — two same-sex couples who are challenging the gay marriage ban — and supporters of Prop 8 have said they would appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if the Ninth Circuit appeals court rules against them. That would bring the question of whether gay marriage is protected by the Constitution before the high court for the first time.

“The key reason that marriage has existed at all in any society and at any time is that sexual relationships between men and women naturally produce children,” said Charles Cooper, one of two attorneys defending Proposition 8 before the appeals court hearing Monday.

Cooper sought to use the procreation element of traditional heterosexual marriage as one of several “rational” reasons why California could ban same-sex marriage without violating the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in August that Proposition 8 violated the federal Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses, in part, because there was no rational reason to deny marital rights to same-sex couples.

In his arguments, Cooper told the judges that when a relationship between a man and a woman becomes a sexual one, “society immediately has a vital interest in that.” Among other things, “society needs the creation of new life for the next generation,” he said.

Society’s vital interests are also threatened by the possibility of “unintentional and unwanted pregnancy” and single parent households in which children have “poorer outcomes,” he said.

“That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce,” Judge Hawkins said, drawing laughter from the courtroom audience.

“But how does it relate to having two males or two females marry each other and raise children as they can in California and form a family unit where children have a happy, healthy home?” Hawkins asked. “I don’t understand how that argument says we ought to prohibit that.”

Cooper responded by reiterating his procreation argument. “The point and the question is whether or not the State of California has a rational reason for drawing a distinction between same-sex couples who cannot, without the intervention of a third party of the opposite sex, procreate, and opposite-sex couples who … can procreate.”

Theodore Olson, a prominent Republican attorney and constitutional law expert who surprised his GOP colleagues by joining the legal team challenging Proposition 8, strongly disputed claims that same-sex marriage would harm or inhibit procreation or the institution of marriage.

“Same-sex marriage is not going to discourage heterosexual people with heterosexual marriage,” he told the judges Monday. “It is not going to keep them from getting divorced. It is not going to have an effect at all on their choice about having children. On the other hand, the elimination of Proposition 8 cannot possibly hurt the heterosexual relationship at all,” he said.

While Olson argued the merits of why the appeals court should uphold the lower court’s finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, attorney David Boies, a prominent Democrat who teamed up with Olsen in the legal challenge of Prop 8, argued that Prop 8 supporters lacked legal standing to appeal the lower court ruling.

At the time he issued his ruling in August overturning Prop 8 on constitutional grounds, Judge Walker said a decision by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state’s attorney general, Jerry Brown, not to appeal his ruling meant it was unlikely that another party could emerge with legal standing to challenge Walker’s decision.

Walker issued a stay on his own ruling so that the appeals court would have a chance to determine whether the same-sex marriage ban should remain in effect during the appeals process. The Ninth Circuit court extended the stay until it issues its own decision in the case.

But at Monday’s hearing, the judges appeared sympathetic to Boies’ arguments that the conservative political advocacy groups that organized the election campaign for passage of Prop 8 in 2008 did not have legal standing to appeal the lower court ruling.

Boies noted that Prop 8 was a state law in the form of a state constitutional amendment that could only be defended in court at the appeals level by the state or an agent of the state.

A second attorney defending Prop 8 before the Ninth Circuit appeals court Monday argued that a deputy clerk who processes marriage licenses in California’s conservative leaning Imperial County had joined the defense team for the proposition. The attorney, Robert Tyler, told the judges that the deputy clerk was a legitimate representative of the state and thus had legal standing to appeal the case.

But Judge Hawkins appeared to join Boies in expressing strong doubt that the deputy clerk had such standing.

Hawkins and the other appeals court judges said Monday that they would issue a decision on the legal standing matter before they consider the case on its merits. If they determine the Prop 8 supporters and their legal team don’t have standing, they will send the case back to Judge Walker, who likely would order state officials to cease enforcing Prop 8.

However, Prop 8 backers would then be expected to immediately appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and ask the high court to reinstate a stay to keep Prop 8 on the books until the Supreme Court issues its own decision in the case.

“I think the arguments made even clearer to all of us that the judges are wrestling with whether this litigation even can continue with the only party seeking to appeal being those who do not appear to have legally recognizable interests in this case,” said Jennifer Pizer, an attorney with Lambda Legal.

“So I would not be at all surprised if they decide that the appeal should not proceed” based on a lack of legal standing, Pizer said.

Meanwhile, one of the leading groups supporting Prop 8 issued a statement Monday denouncing Ninth Circuit Judge Reinhardt for refusing to recuse himself from the case because his wife is a prominent attorney with the ACLU who has worked to oppose Prop 8.

“This hearing makes a mockery of the federal judiciary,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “Citizens are entitled to a guarantee of impartiality from their judiciary,” he said. “Yet here we have the spectacle of a federal appeals court justice ruling on a case in which his wife represents a group that is a participant.”

Reinhardt issued his own statement last month saying his wife’s views on the case would not detract from his ability to be fair and impartial in his ruling on the case.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

State Department

State Department releases annual human rights report

Antony Blinken reiterates criticism of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act

Published

on

(Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday once again reiterated his criticism of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act upon release of the State Department’s annual human rights report.

“This year’s report also captures human rights abuses against members of vulnerable communities,” he told reporters. “In Afghanistan, the Taliban have limited work opportunities for women, shuttered institutions found educating girls, and increasing floggings for women and men accused of, quote, ‘immoral behavior,’ end quote. Uganda passed a draconian and discriminatory Anti-Homosexuality Act, threatening LGBTQI+ individuals with life imprisonment, even death, simply for being with the person they loved.”

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni last May signed the law, which contains a death penalty provision for “aggravated homosexuality.”

The U.S. subsequently imposed visa restrictions on Ugandan officials and removed the country from a program that allows sub-Saharan African countries to trade duty-free with the U.S. The World Bank Group also announced the suspension of new loans to Uganda.

Uganda’s Constitutional Court earlier this month refused to “nullify the Anti-Homosexuality Act in its totality.” More than a dozen Ugandan LGBTQ activists have appealed the ruling.

Clare Byarugaba of Chapter Four Uganda, a Ugandan LGBTQ rights group, on Monday met with National Security Council Chief-of-Staff Curtis Ried. Jay Gilliam, the senior LGBTQI+ coordinator for the U.S. Agency for International Development, in February traveled to Uganda and met with LGBTQ activists who discussed the Anti-Homosexuality Act’s impact. 

“LGBTQI+ activists reported police arrested numerous individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity and subjected many to forced anal exams, a medically discredited practice with no evidentiary value that was considered a form of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and could amount to torture,” reads the human rights report.

The report, among other things, also notes Ugandan human rights activists “reported numerous instances of state and non-state actor violence and harassment against LGBTQI+ persons and noted authorities did not adequately investigate the cases.”

Report highlights anti-LGBTQ crackdowns in Ghana, Hungary, Russia

Ghanaian lawmakers on Feb. 28 approved the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill. The country’s president, Nana Akufo-Addo, has said he will not sign the measure until the Ghanaian Supreme Court rules on whether it is constitutional or not.

The human rights report notes “laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults” and “crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or intersex persons” are among the “significant human rights issues” in Ghana. 

The report documents Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and members of his right-wing Fidesz party’s continued rhetoric against “gender ideology.” It also notes Russia’s ongoing crackdown against LGBTQ people that includes reports of “state actors committed violence against LGBTQI+ individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, particularly in Chechnya.”

The report specifically notes Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 24 signed a law that bans “legal gender recognition, medical interventions aimed at changing the sex of a person, and gender-affirming care.” It also points out Papua New Guinea is among the countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized.

The Hungarian Parliament on April 4, 2024. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his right-wing Fidesz party in 2023 continued their anti-LGBTQ crackdown. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

The Cook Islands and Mauritius in decriminalized homosexuality in 2023.

The report notes the Namibia Supreme Court last May ruled the country must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed outside the country. The report also highlights the Indian Supreme Court’s ruling against marriage equality that it issued last October. (It later announced it would consider an appeal of the decision.)

Congress requires the State Department to release a human rights report each year. 

The Biden-Harris administration in 2021 released a memorandum that committed the U.S. to promoting LGBTQ+ and intersex rights abroad.

The full report can be read here.

Continue Reading

National

Same-sex couples vulnerable to adverse effects of climate change

Williams Institute report based on Census, federal agencies

Published

on

Beach erosion in Fire Island Pines, N.Y. (Photo courtesy of Savannah Farrell / Actum)

A new report by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law finds that same-sex couples are at greater risk of experiencing the adverse effects of climate change compared to different-sex couples.

LGBTQ people in same-sex couple households disproportionately live in coastal areas and cities and areas with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources, making them more vulnerable to climate hazards.

Using U.S. Census data and climate risk assessment data from NASA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, researchers conducted a geographic analysis to assess the climate risk impacting same-sex couples. NASA’s risk assessment focuses on changes to meteorological patterns, infrastructure and built environment, and the presence of at-risk populations. FEMA’s assessment focuses on changes in the occurrence of severe weather events, accounting for at-risk populations, the availability of services, and access to resources.

Results show counties with a higher proportion of same-sex couples are, on average, at increased risk from environmental, infrastructure, and social vulnerabilities due to climate change.

“Given the disparate impact of climate change on LGBTQ populations, climate change policies, including disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plans, must address the specific needs and vulnerabilities facing LGBTQ people,” said study co-author Ari Shaw, senior fellow and director of international programs at the Williams Institute. “Policies should focus on mitigating discriminatory housing and urban development practices, making shelters safe spaces for LGBT people, and ensuring that relief aid reaches displaced LGBTQ individuals and families.”

“Factors underlying the geographic vulnerability are crucial to understanding why same-sex couples are threatened by climate change and whether the findings in our study apply to the broader LGBTQ population,” said study co-author Lindsay Mahowald, research data analyst at the Williams Institute. “More research is needed to examine how disparities in housing, employment, and health care among LGBT people compound the geographic vulnerabilities to climate change.”

Read the report

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Lambda Legal praises Biden-Harris administration’s finalized Title IX regulations

New rules to take effect Aug. 1

Published

on

U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona (Screen capture: AP/YouTube)

The Biden-Harris administration’s revised Title IX policy “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” Lambda Legal said in a statement praising the U.S. Department of Education’s issuance of the final rule on Friday.

Slated to take effect on Aug. 1, the new regulations constitute an expansion of the 1972 Title IX civil rights law, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding.

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County case, the department’s revised policy clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination as defined under the law.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said during a call with reporters on Thursday.

While the new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, the question is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.

The administration’s new policy also reverses some Trump-era Title IX rules governing how schools must respond to reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely seen as imbalanced in favor of the accused.

Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said during Thursday’s call that the department sought to strike a balance with respect to these issues, “reaffirming our longstanding commitment to fundamental fairness.”

“We applaud the Biden administration’s action to rescind the legally unsound, cruel, and dangerous sexual harassment and assault rule of the previous administration,” Lambda Legal Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project Director Sasha Buchert said in the group’s statement on Friday.

“Today’s rule instead appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity,” she said. “Schools must be places where students can learn and thrive free of harassment, discrimination, and other abuse.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular