National
Prop 8 attorneys file brief before Supreme Court
Lawyers argue measure labels LGBT families as ‘second-rate’
Ted Olson was among attorneys who signed AFER’s brief against Prop 8. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The legal team behind the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 filed its brief on Thursday before the Supreme Court asking it to declare the anti-gay measure unconstitutional.
The 54-page brief, signed by co-counsels Ted Olson and David Boies on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, asserts that Prop 8 — a ballot initiative passed by California voters in 2008 — should be struck down because prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying in California violates due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.
“It denies gay men and lesbians their identity and their dignity; it labels their families as second-rate,” the brief concludes. “That outcome cannot be squared with the principle of equality and the unalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is the bedrock promise of America from the Declaration of Independence to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the dream of all Americans.”
The brief is divided into three sections. The first maintains proponents of Prop 8, such as ProtectMarriage.com, don’t have standing to defend the measure before the Supreme Court because they won’t be harmed if gay couples marry in California. Attorneys also argue their desire to defend the law is insufficient to meet standing requirements under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
A substantial part of the brief is devoted to arguing that Prop 8 is unconstitutional based on the merits. The second section of the brief maintains the measure violates due process because the right to marry is fundamental. This section also tears into the argument that proponents outlined in their brief before the Supreme Court the purpose of marriage is procreation is incorrect based on the trial record in the case.
“Indeed, many persons become parents through adoption or assisted reproduction and exercise their constitutional rights to marry and raise those children in a recognized family unit,” the brief states. “Yet Proponents’ assertions about marriage — and that is all that they are — would leave adoptive parents and infertile couples without any constitutional protection against a State that prohibits them from marrying.”
The third section of the brief argues that denying gay couples the right to marry violates their equal protection rights — not to mention the constitutional rights of the estimated 40,000 children raised in same-sex households.
This argument is divided into three sections: 1) discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny, or greater assumption such laws are unconstitutional ; 2) laws that prohibit gay men from marrying don’t meet the lesser standard of rational basis review and heightened scrutiny; and 3) Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it was motivated out of desire to make gay people unequal to straight people.
“The absence of any rational justification for depriving gay men and lesbians of their right to marry, and marking their relationships as inferior to those of heterosexual couples, leads inexorably to the conclusion that Proposition 8’s principal purpose was to advance the majority’s moral disapproval of gay relationships,” the brief states.
Notably, the brief is along the lines of the ruling from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker against the anti-gay brief. It doesn’t delve into the narrower ruling made against Prop 8 by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the measure is unconstitutional because it took away marriage rights from gay couples after they once enjoyed them in the state after the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality in 2008.
But during a conference call with reporters on the same day the brief was filed, Olson assured the media that the argument that attorneys are “embracing” the Ninth Circuit ruling in their brief and it’s important to all arguments against Prop 8 are being made from the top down.
The brief from AFER wasn’t the only one filed on Thursday in the Prop 8 case. The Supreme Court allowed San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart to participate in the case. They articulated arguments against Prop 8 in a 62-page document.
That brief makes arguments along the lines made by AFER that Prop 8 violated due process and equal protection, but the brief also makes the case that Prop 8 can be invalidated even as the national debate continues on same-sex marriage.
“Petitioners’ argument derogates the most im- portant role this Court serves in our democracy: to protect the constitutional rights of minorities from encroachment by an unsympathetic majority,” the brief states. “The responsibility to protect individual rights does not transfer to the political process when the dispute happens to be “controversial.”
The next step in the process for the Prop 8 case is for opponents of the measure to file their friends-of-the-court brief before the Feb. 28 — one week from the day these briefs were filed. Opponents of Prop 8 are hoping the Obama administration will be among those filing such a brief. Oral arguments in the Prop 8 case are set for March 26.
The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected].
Congratulations to Gil Pontes III on his recent appointment to the Financial Advisory Board for the City of Wilton Manors, Fla. Upon being appointed he said, “I’m honored to join the Financial Advisory Board for the City of Wilton Manors at such an important moment for our community. In my role as Executive Director of the NextGen Chamber of Commerce, I spend much of my time focused on economic growth, fiscal sustainability, and the long-term competitiveness of emerging business leaders. I look forward to bringing that perspective to Wilton Manors — helping ensure responsible stewardship of public resources while supporting a vibrant, inclusive local economy.”
Pontes is a nonprofit executive with years of development, operations, budget, management, and strategic planning experience in 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and political organizations. Pontes is currently executive director of NextGen, Chamber of Commerce. NextGen Chamber’s mission is to “empower emerging business leaders by generating insights, encouraging engagement, and nurturing leadership development to shape the future economy.” Prior to that he served as managing director of The Nora Project, and director of development also at The Nora Project. He has held a number of other positions including Major Gifts Officer, Thundermist Health Center, and has worked in both real estate and banking including as Business Solutions Adviser, Ironwood Financial. For three years he was a Selectman, Town of Berkley, Mass. In that role, he managed HR and general governance for town government. There were 200+ staff and 6,500 constituents. He balanced a $20,000,000 budget annually, established an Economic Development Committee, and hired the first town administrator.
Pontes earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.
Kansas
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
A new Kansas bill requires transgender residents to have their driver’s licenses reflect their sex assigned at birth, invalidating current licenses.
Transgender people across Kansas received letters in the mail on Wednesday demanding the immediate surrender of their driver’s licenses following passage of one of the harshest transgender bathroom bans in the nation. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit to block the ban and protect transgender residents from what advocates describe as “sweeping” and “punitive” consequences.
Independent journalist Erin Reed broke the story Wednesday after lawmakers approved House Substitute for Senate Bill 244. In her reporting, Reed included a photo of the letter sent to transgender Kansans, requiring them to obtain a driver’s license that reflects their sex assigned at birth rather than the gender with which they identify.
According to the reporting, transgender Kansans must surrender their driver’s licenses and that their current credentials — regardless of expiration date — will be considered invalid upon the law’s publication. The move effectively nullifies previously issued identification documents, creating immediate uncertainty for those impacted.
House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 also stipulates that any transgender person caught driving without a valid license could face a class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. That potential penalty adds a criminal dimension to what began as an administrative action. It also compounds the legal risks for transgender Kansans, as the state already requires county jails to house inmates according to sex assigned at birth — a policy that advocates say can place transgender detainees at heightened risk.
Beyond identification issues, SB 244 not only bans transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity in government buildings — including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops — with the possibility for criminal penalties, but also allows for what critics have described as a “bathroom bounty hunter” provision. The measure permits anyone who encounters a transgender person in a restroom — including potentially in private businesses — to sue them for large sums of money, dramatically expanding the scope of enforcement beyond government authorities.
The lawsuit challenging SB 244 was filed today in the District Court of Douglas County on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas, and Ballard Spahr LLP. The complaint argues that SB 244 violates the Kansas Constitution’s protections for personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and freedom of speech.
Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a temporary restraining order on behalf of the anonymous plaintiffs, arguing that the order — followed by a temporary injunction — is necessary to prevent the “irreparable harm” that would result from SB 244.
State Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat and the only transgender member of the Kansas Legislature, told the Kansas City Star on Wednesday that “persecution is the point.”
“This legislation is a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans,” said Monica Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas. “It undermines our state’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and persecution.”
“SB 244 is a cruel and craven threat to public safety all in the name of fostering fear, division, and paranoia,” said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “The invalidation of state-issued IDs threatens to out transgender people against their will every time they apply for a job, rent an apartment, or interact with police. Taken as a whole, SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”
“SB 244 presents a state-sanctioned attack on transgender people aimed at silencing, dehumanizing, and alienating Kansans whose gender identity does not conform to the state legislature’s preferences,” said Heather St. Clair, a Ballard Spahr litigator working on the case. “Ballard Spahr is committed to standing with the ACLU and the plaintiffs in fighting on behalf of transgender Kansans for a remedy against the injustices presented by SB 244, and is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights jeopardized by this new law.”
National
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Top editorial staff let go last week
Former staff members at the Advocate and Out magazines revealed that parent company Equalpride laid off a number of employees late last week.
Those let go included Advocate editor-in-chief Alex Cooper, Pride.com editor-in-chief Rachel Shatto, brand partnerships manager Erin Manley, community editor Marie-Adélina de la Ferriére, and Out magazine staff writers Moises Mendez and Bernardo Sim, according to a report in Hollywood Reporter.
Cooper, who joined the company in 2021, posted to social media that, “Few people have had the privilege of leading this legendary LGBTQ+ news outlet, and I’m deeply honored to have been one of them. To my team: thank you for the last four years. You’ve been the best. For those also affected today, please let me know how I can support you.”
The Advocate’s PR firm when reached by the Blade said it no longer represents the company. Emails to the Advocate went unanswered.
Equalpride on Friday announced it acquired “Them,” a digital LGBTQ outlet founded in 2017 by Conde Nast.
“Equalpride exists to elevate, celebrate and protect LGBTQ+ storytelling at scale,” Equalpride CEO Mark Berryhill said according to Hollywood Reporter. “By combining the strengths of our brands with this respected digital platform, we’re creating a unified ecosystem that delivers even more impact for our audiences, advertisers, and community partners.”
It’s not clear if “Them” staff would take over editorial responsibilities for the Advocate and Out.
Comings & Goings
Kansas passes bathroom bounty hunter bill
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Spring into sold
New book profiles LGBTQ Ukrainians, documents war experiences
PHOTOS: Queen of Hearts
Two very different views of the State of the Union
Va. activists preparing campaign in support of repealing marriage amendment
