National

San Francisco City Attorney speaks out

Herrera played key role in challenging Prop 8

Published

11 years ago

March 20, 2013

Dennis Herrera is described as a ‘straight, devout Catholic, married man’ who has championed the cause of marriage equality. (Photo courtesy Herrera)

Dennis Herrera, San Francisco’s City Attorney since 2002, will be in the Supreme Court chambers in Washington next Tuesday observing the oral arguments over whether Proposition 8, California’s 2008 ballot measure banning gay marriage, should be upheld or overturned.

Although Herrera won’t be delivering the arguments against Proposition 8 on Tuesday, gay rights advocates in California say he has played a pivotal role since 2004 in pushing for marriage equality in that state.

Among other things, he has worked side-by-side with high profile attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies as a party to the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, which seeks to overturn Prop 8.

Jack Song, deputy press secretary for the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, said Herrera and his legal team have been involved in “every case, every court, through every procedural twist since February 2004” in efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in California.

It was in 2004, Song noted, that Herrera provided legal support for then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s highly controversial decision to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples and perform same-sex marriages at city hall.

California courts initially ruled that San Francisco lacked legal authority to perform same-sex marriages and quickly invalidated those marriages. But the action by Newsom and Herrera, which was denounced by same-sex marriage opponents, has been credited with triggering litigation by marriage equality advocates – including Herrera’s office — that led to the May 15, 2008 ruling by the California Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

In response to a campaign led by same-sex marriage opponents, California voters overturned same-sex marriage rights in the November 2008 referendum known as Prop 8 by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent.

In an interview with the Washington Blade on Tuesday, Herrera discussed his work on the Prop 8 case – in the words of his deputy press secretary Song – as a “straight, devout Catholic, married man” who has championed the cause of marriage equality.

Washington Blade: What are your thoughts on the chances that Prop 8 will be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Dennis Herrera: We’re very, very optimistic. You just need to look at what has been the course of this litigation. If we go back nine years ago, all the state court proceedings and more recently in the federal court system, I can’t tell you how gratified we were both at the District Court’s ruling and the Ninth Circuit [U.S. Court of Appeals] ruling clearly showing that there’s absolutely no constitutional justification whatsoever to discriminate when it comes to the issue of marriage equality.

And that for the community to be denied equal protection under the law when it comes to the issue of marriage strains all credulity. So we’ve been gratified by the District Court’s ruling. If you look at Judge [Vaughn] Walker’s decision – a well-reasoned, well thought-out opinion after sitting through a weeks-long trial, hearing from a variety of witnesses and hearing the Prop 8 proponents come up with virtually no argument, no evidence to support their position and then to have that decision affirmed by the Ninth Circuit – we’re very, very optimistic as we’re heading into next week’s argument.

Blade: What role has your office played in the U.S. Supreme Court case on Prop 8?

Herrera: We intervened and stood shoulder to shoulder with the Gibson Dunn firm — the David Boise firm — both at trial and at the Ninth Circuit and here as we’re leading up to the Supreme Court argument. So we have been involved in every piece of state litigation on this as well as the federal action. In fact, we were the only party allowed to intervene in the case and participate on our side as a party. We have been working alongside the lead counsel in the case and continue to do so leading up to the [U.S. Supreme Court] arguments.

Blade: Could you explain as best you can in layman’s terms what we understand to be the possible outcomes by the Supreme Court? In one outcome they can uphold Proposition 8. But is the court also being asked to rule that under the U.S. Constitution, no state can ban same-sex couples from marrying?

Herrera: I think that what you see if you look at the briefs of the plaintiffs and ours – we’re very, very complimentary. Clearly the plaintiffs in the case, as represented by Ted Olsen and David Boies, are seeking the broadest possible remedy to strike down discrimination vis-a-vis marriage equality nationwide.

And if you look at our briefs, what we do is try and make sure that we offer the full panoply in a very complimentary way. We fully agree with Ted Olsen and Boies and support their contention that heightened scrutiny should apply in this case, which would essentially, if found in the plaintiff’s favor, would basically have nationwide impact. But in addition, we have argued in our brief, while we fully agree with them, that even if you limited it to California and states similarly situated to California — the prohibition on marriage should not apply. So it’s a more limited but complimentary approach. Just so the court has the full panoply of possible avenues before it. But we’re in full support of the broad argument, but if the court wants to rule in our favor but limit it to California and other states that are similar to California, we briefed that issue as well.

Blade: How would it affect other states that are similar to California?

Herrera: If you look at the [U.S.] Solicitor General’s brief, the government’s brief, they have essentially said that states like California that have extended domestic partner benefits that allow same-sex couples to adopt, those that have been out there granting rights to same-sex couples cannot take them away through tools like Proposition 8. So there’s about seven or eight states that are similarly situated to California. And they have come in and said for those states, not just California but for those others, you can’t take an approach like folks have done with Proposition 8.

Blade: Does that include states outside Ninth Circuit?

Herrera: Yes.

Blade: Some constitutional experts that study the Supreme Court, including some who support same-sex marriage, have argued that it would be better for the court to limit an affirmative decision to just California rather than issue a ruling that would require all states to recognize same-sex marriage. They say that a ruling forcing all states to legalize same-sex marriage would create too great a shock to the culture, especially in southern and certain mid-Western states. What are your thoughts on that?

Herrera: I have heard that. But, like I said, in this case we’re working along with the lead counsel and have really offered a variety of different directions the court should go. And I would like to say this. I know that people make that argument. But think about how things have changed.

Let’s just go back. Proposition 22 that passed here in California in 2000 was against marriage equality 60 to 40. And with Proposition 8 we saw what the numbers were [52 percent for Prop 8, 48 percent against]. Recently, on the same day that the federal government – the administration – came in support of our position there was a Field Poll released here in the State of California that showed that 61 percent of people now in California favor same-sex marriage as opposed to 32 percent. …

So I’m fully in support of a broader approach and I think that would be the best thing for the country. But if in its judgment the Supreme Court does not want to go that route we have offered them and the United States government has offered them another direction to go that perhaps might be more limited but ultimately we know is going to lead to the same result nationwide.

Blade: In 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed marriages to take place at City Hall, you supported that, right?

Herrera: Yup.

Blade: But some lawmakers in Washington at the time, including Congressman Barney Frank, thought that might be jumping the gun a little bit and that it could lead to a greater push for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. That never passed, but some were worried that it could. Was that something that entered your mind back then?

Herrera: I think history has borne out that we in San Francisco were on the right side of history when you look at the tremendous progress that has been made over the course of the last several years. So I think that sometimes it is somewhat scary for people to take the unconventional approach and to push the envelope. But I think that the wisdom of that approach has been borne out by history.

Up Next

Michelle Shocked shocks audience with rant

Don't Miss

110 House lawmakers call for ENDA executive order

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

Federal Government

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

New rules to take effect Aug. 1

Published

16 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.