Connect with us

National

BREAKING: Obama drops defense of DOMA

Controversial Clinton-era law deemed unconstitutional

Published

on

Attorney General Eric Holder (Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Justice Department on Wednesday announced it will no longer defend the controversial Defense of Marriage Act in two court cases.

In a statement, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Obama that based on a number of factors, including “a documented history of discrimination,” that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened scrutiny in court.

“The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional,” Holder said. “Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.”

The Obama administration made the decision as it faced two new pending cases against DOMA — Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, which was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and Windsor v. United States, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The administration had deadline of March 11 to respond to the lawsuits.

But in the Second Circuit, where the cases are pending, there is no precedent for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. The situation opened the door for the president to drop defense of DOMA.

LGBT rights groups quickly praised the decision. Many of them were critical on the president to discontinue his defense of DOMA in previous cases.

“The administration today acknowledges that there is no legitimate reason for this discrimination and therefore it cannot be defended under the Constitution,” said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry. “This a momentous step forward toward Freedom to Marry’s goal of ending federal marriage discrimination and fully protecting all loving and committed couples.”

But Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said in an e-mail blast to followers that the decision from the Obama administration amounted to “a constitutional outrage.”

“Why do we even have courts if the President himself gets to decide which laws are constitutional?” he said.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, criticized the administration for continuing its defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in court as it ceased to defend DOMA.

“This is just one more example of the Obama administration talking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to equality for all Americans,” Cooper said. “Today Log Cabin Republicans call upon the Department of Justice to also admit that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is indefensible.”

The Justice Department reported its decision to Congress; it’s now possible that anti-LGBT members of Congress could take up defending DOMA.

Still, Republican leadership in the U.S. House expressed displeasure over the decision. Michael Steel, a spokesperson for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized the timing of the announcement.

“While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation,” he said.

In a statement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the decision from the Obama administration “a victory for civil rights, fairness, and equality for the LGBT community and all Americans.”

“Since its inception, the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act has long been viewed as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” she said. “Today, the president made clear that he agrees – and I commend him for taking this bold step forward to ensure the federal government is no longer in the business of defending an indefensible statute.”

DOMA, passed in 1996, defines marriage as between a man and woman and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdiction. The federal law denies more than 1,000 benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Results from key Tuesday primary races

Published

on

Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener (Photo courtesy of Scott Wiener)

State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election. 

The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump. 

In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.

In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.

In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.  

The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple. 

Continue Reading

National

White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting

‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’

Published

on

The scene inside April’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner after shots rang out. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.

Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.

“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members. 

She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing. 

Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.  

This post will be updated as more details are announced.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels

New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22

Published

on

(Photo by REDPIXEL.PL/Bigstock)

The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ characters.

On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”

This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”

The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”

It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”

LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.

“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”

Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.

GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.

“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.

“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.

“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”

Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.

“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”

PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.

“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”

This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.

Continue Reading

Popular