National

Prop 8 attorneys confident court will strike down marriage ban

Olson hopes U.S. gov’t will take part in lawsuit

Published

11 years ago

December 7, 2012

Ted Olson said U.S. government intervention in the Prop 8 case would have “great effect’ on its outcome (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The organizers behind the lawsuit challenging California’s Proposition 8 are excited and optimistic about the prospects for a Supreme Court ruling against the anti-gay measure as one attorney on the team said he hopes the Obama administration will assist in the effort.

Ted Olson, a co-counsel in the Prop 8 lawsuit, made the remarks during a conference call on Friday in response to a question from Politico’s Josh Gerstein. Olson said a friend-of-the-court brief from the Justice Department would have “great effect” in the effort to overturn Prop 8.

“I would hate to predict what the United States government is doing, but given the stand the president of the United States and the attorney general of the United States made with respect to marriage equality, we would certainly hope that they would participate,” Olson said. “And I’m quite confident that if they did participate, they would support our position in this case because the denial of equal rights is subject to close scrutiny by the courts and cannot withstand that scrutiny.”

Olson said if the Obama administration were to file a brief before the Supreme Court in the Prop 8 case, it would do so at about the same time it would file a brief in the DOMA case. The Justice Department has already filed briefs against DOMA in lower courts.

The Obama administration has thus far stayed out of the Prop 8 case. Asked in September by the Washington Blade whether the U.S. government would weigh in, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had no comment and Nanda Chitre, a spokesperson for the Justice Department, said, “We are not a party to this litigation and would decline further comment.”

That might change now that the Supreme Court has taken up the case. Like other interested parties, the Justice Department will have an opportunity to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the upcoming days as the court accepts other briefs in the lawsuit.

The organization behind the lawsuit, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, held the conference call in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the Prop 8 case as well as one of the cases against the Defense of Marriage Act known as Windsor v. United States.

Olson was confident about a positive outcome for same-sex couples, saying the denial of their marriage rights will receive significant attention simply by being before the Supreme Court.

“We have an exhaustive record on which to build this case, and it will be an education for the American people,” Olson said. “We are very confident the outcome of this case will be to support the rights of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.”

David Boies, co-counsel in the lawsuit, said the decision of the Supreme Court to take up the case means only a short time remains before a final resolution is reached in the Prop 8 case.

“We are now literally within months of getting a final resolution of this case that began three-and-a-half years ago,” Boies said. “I think we are encouraged and excited about the prospect that we will finally get a decision on the merits with respect to marriage equality. This is a momentous case; I think the attention that it has already received by the Supreme Court indicates their recognition of the importance of this issue.”

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who co-founded AFER, also expressed excitement about the prospects of a victory at the Supreme Court on the conference call.

“Today is nothing short of a milestone moment, quite frankly, for equality,” Griffin said. “We are gratified that the court has taken this challenge to Prop 8. We should also mention the challenge to the ridiculously named Defense of Marriage Act. Millions of loving couples — married and unmarried — have been waiting for their day in court, and now they’re finally going to have it.”

Also taking part in the conference call were the two plaintiff couples in the case: Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, who tried to obtain a marriage license in Alameda County, as well as Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami, who tried to obtain a marriage license in Los Angeles.

Had the Supreme Court decided not to take up Prop 8, a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the measure would have been allowed to stand and same-sex marriage would have returned to California.

But plaintiffs in the case didn’t express disappointment. Asked whether she’s unhappy the Supreme Court took up the case, Perry replied, “You may find this a little surprising: the answer is ‘no’.”

“We’ve always been very patient and understanding of this process,” Perry said. “We always wanted the biggest, boldest outcome possible, and that can only happen if the Supreme Court listens to the case.”

Stier echoed those remarks, saying she feels “zero disappointment,” but instead hope that areas affected by discrimination other than in California will obtain relief as a result of the case.

Also during the conference call, Olson and Boies answered questions about the the Supreme Court’s request for additional briefings on whether opponents of Prop 8 have standing to defend the law in court. California state officials aren’t defending the law in court, and anti-gay groups have taken up defense of the anti-gay measure instead.

Olson said that question may present an opportunity for the Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8 on the grounds that anti-gay groups can’t defend the law in court as opposed to deciding the case on the merits. Such a ruling would abrogate a ruling against Prop 8 from the Ninth Circuit that allowed anti-gay groups and let stand a district court ruling against the measure.

“If the court were to decide this on standing as far as the Perry case is concerned, that would reinstate the 134-page opinion from District Judge Vaughn Walker, which decided all of the issues comprehensively in favor of the constitutional rights of marriage equality,” Olson said.

Asked by Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner whether attorneys would actively argue that proponents of Prop 8 don’t have standing in court, Boies said that would indeed be the case.

“We will be making the standing argument,” Boies said. “We think the standing argument is strongly supported by existing Supreme Court precedent.”

The Prop 8 attorneys had previously filed a brief with the Supreme Court asking justices not to hear the case, but Olson said during the conference call his team has maintained at the same time that the lawsuit would be “the perfect vehicle” for deciding the right to marriage equality throughout the country.

“Gay and lesbians and all citizens have the right to have this issue … before the court with a fully developed record, with evidence on history, the importance of marriage, the damage done by discrimination and the fact that all Americans will benefit by the fact that people will be treated equally throughout this country to marry the person that they love,” Olson said.

In response to a question from The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein on whether opponents of Prop 8 would be better off if a ruling against DOMA came first, Olson denied sequencing would be a problem, saying, “We have never agreed with those concerns.”

“In short, the record is so complete that we have always felt that if the issue of marriage equality was going to be before the Supreme Court, the Proposition 8 Perry case should be a part of it because it has vastly more developed evidentiary record and specific thoughtful findings by a district judge who listened to all the evidence, and there was no evidence of any persuasive effect on the other side,” Olson said.

The opportunity for the court to hear the Prop 8 lawsuit means the Supreme Court may make a national ruling on same-sex marriage that affects not just California, but every state in the country with a ban on same-sex marriage.

Asked by The Advocate’s Julie Bolcer about scenarios in which a Supreme Court ruling might have an impact outside California, Boies said may justices may issue a ruling with larger reach depending on the way they examine the case.

Boies said if the Supreme Court addresses in its ruling the “fundamental merit” issue of whether discrimination against gays and lesbians is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, that ruling would mean “there would be a fundamental right to marry in every state in the country because obviously the federal Constitution applies to every state in the country.”

Still, Boies said the ruling would be limited to California if justices decide the case on same narrow ground as the Ninth Circuit or simply determine that proponents of Prop 8 don’t have standing to defend the law in court. Even so, Boies said such rulings would establish precedent that would have an impact on other marriage cases throughout the country.

NOTE: An additional quote from Olson was added to this piece following its initial publication that better reflected his confidence the Supreme Court would strike down Prop 8 on its merits.

Up Next

DOJ official: Fight against anti-trans bias is top priority

Don't Miss

Advocacy groups welcome Supreme Court decision to hear marriage cases

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

Federal Government

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

New rules to take effect Aug. 1

Published

22 hours ago

April 19, 2024

Christopher Kane

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.”

Michigan

Mich. Democrats spar over LGBTQ-inclusive hate crimes law

Lawmakers disagree on just what kind of statute to pass

Published

2 days ago

April 18, 2024

Rob Salerno

Members of the Michigan House Democrats gather to celebrate Pride month in 2023 in the Capitol building. (Photo courtesy of Michigan House Democrats)

Michigan could soon become the latest state to pass an LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime law, but the state’s Democratic lawmakers disagree on just what kind of law they should pass.

Currently, Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation Act only offers limited protections to victims of crime motivated by their “race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.” Bills proposed by Democratic lawmakers expand the list to include “actual or perceived race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, physical or mental disability, age, national origin, or association or affiliation with any such individuals.”

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have both advocated for a hate crime law, but house and senate Democrats have each passed different hate crimes packages, and Nessel has blasted both as being too weak.

Under the house proposal that passed last year (House Bill 4474), a first offense would be punishable with a $2,000 fine, up to two years in prison, or both. Penalties double for a second offense, and if a gun or other dangerous weapons is involved, the maximum penalty is six years in prison and a fine of $7,500.

But that proposal stalled when it reached the senate, after far-right news outlets and Fox News reported misinformation that the bill only protected LGBTQ people and would make misgendering a trans person a crime. State Rep. Noah Arbit, the bill’s sponsor, was also made the subject of a recall effort, which ultimately failed.

Arbit submitted a new version of the bill (House Bill 5288) that added sections clarifying that misgendering a person, “intentionally or unintentionally” is not a hate crime, although the latest version (House Bill 5400) of the bill omits this language.

That bill has since stalled in a house committee, in part because the Democrats lost their house majority last November, when two Democratic representatives resigned after being elected mayors. The Democrats regained their house majority last night by winning two special elections.

Meanwhile, the senate passed a different package of hate crime bills sponsored by state Sen. Sylvia Santana (Senate Bill 600) in March that includes much lighter sentences, as well as a clause ensuring that misgendering a person is not a hate crime.

Under the senate bill, if the first offense is only a threat, it would be a misdemeanor punishable by one year in prison and up to $1,000 fine. A subsequent offense or first violent hate crime, including stalking, would be a felony that attracts double the punishment.

Multiple calls and emails from the Washington Blade to both Arbit and Santana requesting comment on the bills for this story went unanswered.

The attorney general’s office sent a statement to the Blade supporting stronger hate crime legislation.

“As a career prosecutor, [Nessel] has seen firsthand how the state’s weak Ethnic Intimidation Act (not updated since the late 1980’s) does not allow for meaningful law enforcement and court intervention before threats become violent and deadly, nor does it consider significant bases for bias. It is our hope that the legislature will pass robust, much-needed updates to this statute,” the statement says.

But Nessel, who has herself been the victim of racially motivated threats, has also blasted all of the bills presented by Democrats as not going far enough.

“Two years is nothing … Why not just give them a parking ticket?” Nessel told Bridge Michigan.

Nessel blames a bizarre alliance far-right and far-left forces that have doomed tougher laws.

“You have this confluence of forces on the far right … this insistence that the First Amendment protects this language, or that the Second Amendment protects the ability to possess firearms under almost any and all circumstances,” Nessel said. “But then you also have the far left that argues basically no one should go to jail or prison for any offense ever.”

The legislature did manage to pass an “institutional desecration” law last year that penalizes hate-motivated vandalism to churches, schools, museums, and community centers, and is LGBTQ-inclusive.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Justice, reported hate crime incidents have been skyrocketing, with attacks motivated by sexual orientation surging by 70 percent from 2020 to 2022, the last year for which data is available.

Twenty-two states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime laws. Another 11 states have hate crime laws that include protections for “sexual orientation” but not “gender identity.”

Michigan Democrats have advanced several key LGBTQ rights priorities since they took unified control of the legislature in 2023. A long-stalled comprehensive anti-discrimination law was passed last year, as did a conversion therapy ban. Last month the legislature updated family law to make surrogacy easier for all couples, including same-sex couples.

A bill to ban the “gay panic” defense has passed the state house and was due for a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday.

Indiana

Drag queen announces run for mayor of Ind. city

Branden Blaettne seeking Fort Wayne’s top office

Published

2 days ago

April 18, 2024

Brody Levesque

Branden Blaettner being interviewed by a local television station during last year’s Pride month. (WANE screenshot)

In a Facebook post Tuesday, a local drag personality announced he was running for the office of mayor once held by the late Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry, who died last month just a few months into his fifth term.

Henry was recently diagnosed with late-stage stomach cancer and experienced an emergency that landed him in hospice care. He died shortly after.

WPTA, a local television station, reported that Fort Wayne resident Branden Blaettne, whose drag name is Della Licious, confirmed he filed paperwork to be one of the candidates seeking to finish out the fifth term of the late mayor.

Blaettner, who is a community organizer, told WPTA he doesn’t want to “get Fort Wayne back on track,” but rather keep the momentum started by Henry going while giving a platform to the disenfranchised groups in the community. Blaettner said he doesn’t think his local fame as a drag queen will hold him back.

“It’s easy to have a platform when you wear platform heels,” Blaettner told WPTA. “The status quo has left a lot of people out in the cold — both figuratively and literally,” Blaettner added.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported that state Rep. Phil GiaQuinta, who has led the Indiana House Democratic caucus since 2018, has added his name to a growing list of Fort Wayne politicos who want to be the city’s next mayor. A caucus of precinct committee persons will choose the new mayor.

According to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, the deadline for residents to file candidacy was 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday. A town hall with the candidates is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday at Franklin School Park. The caucus is set for 10:30 a.m. on April 20 at the Lincoln Financial Event Center at Parkview Field.

At least six candidates so far have announced they will run in the caucus. They include Branden Blaettne, GiaQuinta, City Councilwoman Michelle Chambers, City Councilwoman Sharon Tucker, former city- and county-council candidate Palermo Galindo, and 2023 Democratic primary mayoral candidate Jorge Fernandez.