National
Legal effort to overturn DOMA offers ‘promising path’
Attorneys prepare for May court hearing in Boston
The organization spearheading a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act is busy with preparations for what could be a monumental court case for LGBT Americans.
Lawyers on both sides of Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management will come before the Federal District Court in Boston on May 6 to argue their cases.
The litigation, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, aims to overturn Section 3 of DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, said the GLAD litigation is “a very important, very well prepared case” and “offers a very promising path to beginning to undo the destructive and unconstitutional so-called Defense of Marriage Act.”
“GLAD thought through very carefully the best way to present the core concerns, powerful stories and a smart remedy to maximize our chances of winning in the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.
Wolfson said he’s certain that GLAD’s attorneys will “be very forceful” in explaining why the federal government’s treatment of same-sex married couples is “unacceptable and unconstitutional.”
The plaintiffs in the case are seven married same-sex couples and three widowers, including Dean Hara, the spouse of Gerry Studds, the late Massachusetts congressman and first openly gay person to serve in Congress.
GLAD contends that as a result of DOMA, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, these plaintiffs have been harmed in various ways, including the denial of survivor benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security benefits, as well as being forced to pay additional federal income taxes. The litigation contends DOMA violates plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
Gary Buseck, GLAD’s legal director, said preparations for the court appearance involve submitting several documents to the court to make their case before Judge Joseph Tauro.
The documents, he said, include memoranda of law to the court, a series of affidavits from the plaintiff couples and widowers, and expert affidavits showing why these couples should be treated as a suspect class for heightened scrutiny from the court.
“What we’re trying to think about is best arguments and how to succinctly present our best arguments,” he said. “We’re trying to think about — given what the government has put to writing — what are they likely to lead with, and are we content with the responses that we’ve written, and trying to imagine what the judge might ask.”
Representing the seven married same-sex couples and three widowers seeking federal marriage benefits in Massachusetts will be Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights project director.
Six years ago, Bonauto was the lead attorney in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the state lawsuit that brought same-sex marriage to Massachusetts, making the Bay State the first in the country to legalize gay nuptials.
Buseck said Bonauto is working on being “as heavily as prepared as possible” so she can “answer any question.”
Buseck said the court appearance on May 6 for the GLAD case wouldn’t be the same as the trial earlier this year for Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a lawsuit in California aimed at overturning Proposition 8.
Because the U.S. government filed a motion to dismiss and GLAD filed a request for summary judgment, Buseck said he’s expecting about 45 minutes to an hour of courtroom activity May 6 instead of a trial lasting several weeks, as in the Perry case.
“We don’t know exactly how much time we’re going to have,” he said. “It’s not like an appeals court where they give you a set of block of time and that’s what you get. This is going to be a little more informal than that.”
The Justice Department didn’t respond to DC Agenda’s request to discuss the case.
Buseck said GLAD can guess how the U.S. government will present itself during the court appearance because of the briefs the Justice Department has already issued.
He noted the Obama administration has said it doesn’t agree with the findings Congress presented in 1996 when it passed DOMA and that it considers the statute is discriminatory, but will nonetheless defend the statute because it believes the statute is constitutional.
Buseck predicted that the government will argue it was rational for Congress to enact DOMA in 1996 in an effort to maintain the status quo and “wait and see how this cultural debate plays out.”
“That’s been their fundamental argument to date, and presumably that’s where they’re going to stick,” he said. “So we’re ready for that. We’ve had to respond to those arguments in writing already.”
Legal experts following the case of Gill v. OPM expect it to reach the U.S. Supreme Court and, if successful, the lawsuit would force the U.S. government to recognize same-sex marriages for federal tax purposes and for Social Security benefits.
Buseck said he thinks it’s possible a decision could come down from a trial court in the summer, but more likely a ruling will be issued this fall.
Following the decision, Buseck said the case would likely go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals at the beginning of next year with a possible decision in Spring 2012. If the case were to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could go on the 2012 term and be decided in June 2013.
But Buseck emphasized that those dates were a “ballpark” estimate and said “there’s a lot of things that could change those dates.”
Running concurrently with the Gill lawsuit in the Federal District Court in Boston is another case challenging DOMA last year by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
Like the Gill case, the state lawsuit challenges the section of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, but contends that it violates Massachusetts’ state right to regulate marriage under the Tenth Amendment.
The Commonwealth case will be heard in the same court and by the same judge, but the court date is scheduled for May 26.
Buseck said the Commonwealth case and the Gill case “complement each other” but “are in different boxes as far as legal theories go.”
“My sense is the judge will probably just for efficiencies’ sake somehow work on these cases together and it’s been my guess — but I’ve no reason to know that — I won’t be surprised if we get decisions on the same day,” Buseck said.
Federal Government
GLAAD catalogues LGBTQ-inclusive pages on White House and federal agency websites
Trump-Vance administration to take office Monday
GLAAD has identified and catalogued LGBTQ-inclusive content or references to HIV that appear on WhiteHouse.gov and the websites for several federal government agencies, anticipating that these pages might be deleted, archived, or otherwise changed shortly after the incoming administration takes over on Monday.
The organization found a total of 54 links on WhiteHouse.gov and provided the Washington Blade with a non-exhaustive list of the “major pages” on websites for the Departments of Defense (12), Justice (three), State (12), Education (15), Health and Human Services (10), and Labor (14), along with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (10).
The White House web pages compiled by GLAAD range from the transcript of a seven-minute speech delivered by President Joe Biden to mark the opening of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center to a readout of a roundtable with leaders in the LGBTQ and gun violence prevention movements and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s 338-page FY2024 budget summary, which contains at least a dozen references to LGBTQ-focused health equity initiatives and programs administered by agencies like the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Just days after Trump took office in his first term, news outlets reported that LGBTQ related content had disappeared from WhiteHouse.gov and websites for multiple federal agencies.
Chad Griffin, who was then president of the Human Rights Campaign, accused the Trump-Pence administration of “systematically scrubbing the progress made for LGBTQ people from official websites,” raising specific objection to the State Department’s removal of an official apology for the Lavender Scare by the outgoing secretary, John Kerry, in January 2017.
Acknowledging the harm caused by the department’s dismissal of at least 1,000 employees for suspected homosexuality during the 1950s and 60s “set the right tone for the State Department, he said, adding, “It is outrageous that the new administration would attempt to erase from the record this historic apology for witch hunts that destroyed the lives of innocent Americans.”
In response to an inquiry from NBC News into why LGBTQ content was removed and whether the pages would return, a spokesperson said “As per standard practice, the secretary’s remarks have been archived.” However, NBC noted that “a search of the State Department’s website reveals not much else has changed.”
U.S. Federal Courts
Appeals court hears case challenging Florida’s trans healthcare ban
District court judge concluded the law was discriminatory, unconstitutional
Parties in Doe v. Ladapo, a case challenging Florida’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth and restrictions on the medical interventions available to trans adults, presented oral arguments on Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.
The case was appealed by defendants representing the Sunshine State following a decision in June 2024 by Judge Robert Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, who found “the law and rules unconstitutional and unenforceable on equal protection grounds,” according to a press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is involved in the litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The district court additionally found the Florida healthcare ban unconstitutional on the grounds that it was “motivated by purposeful discrimination against transgender people,” though the ban and restrictions will remain in effect pending a decision by the appellate court.
Joining NCLR in the lawsuit are attorneys from GLAD Law, the Human Rights Campaign, Southern Legal Counsel, and the law firms Lowenstein Sandler and Jenner and Block.
“As a mother who simply wants to protect and love my child for who she is, I pray that the Eleventh Circuit will affirm the district court’s thoughtful and powerful order, restoring access to critical healthcare for all transgender Floridians,” plaintiff Jane Doe said. “No one should have to go through what my family has experienced.”
“As a transgender adult just trying to live my life and care for my family, it is so demeaning that the state of Florida thinks it’s their place to dictate my healthcare decisions,” said plaintiff Lucien Hamel.
“Members of the legislature have referred to the high quality healthcare I have received, which has allowed me to live authentically as myself, as ‘mutilation’ and ‘an abomination’ and have called the providers of this care ‘evil,’” Hamel added. “We hope the appellate court sees these rules and laws for what truly are: cruel.”
“Transgender adults don’t need state officials looking over their shoulders, and families of transgender youth don’t need the government dictating how to raise their children,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. “The district court heard the evidence and found that these restrictions are based on bias, not science. The court of appeals should affirm that judgment.”
Noting Hinkle’s conclusion that the ban and restrictions were “motivated by animus, not science or evidence,” Simone Chris, who leads Southern Legal Counsel’s Transgender Rights Initiative, said, “The state has loudly and proudly enacted bans on transgender people accessing healthcare, using bathrooms, transgender teachers using their pronouns and titles, and a slough of other actions making it nearly impossible for transgender individuals to live in this state.”
Lowenstein Sandler Partner Thomas Redburn said, “The defendants have offered nothing on appeal that could serve as a valid basis for overturning that finding” by the district court.
“Not only does this dangerous law take away parents’ freedom to make responsible medical decisions for their child, it inserts the government into private health care matters that should be between adults and their providers,” said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law.
State Department
LGBTQ rights abroad not discussed during Marco Rubio confirmation hearing
Senate expected to confirm Fla. Republican as next secretary of state
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Wednesday did not speak about LGBTQ rights abroad during his confirmation hearing to become the next secretary of state.
The Florida Republican in his opening statement to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee noted President-elect Donald Trump “returns to office with an unmistakable mandate from the voters.”
“They want a strong America, a strong America engaged in the world, but guided by a clear objective to promote peace abroad and security and prosperity here at home,” said Rubio.
“The direction he has given for the conduct of our foreign policy is clear,” he added. “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”
Trump nominated Rubio a week after Vice President Kamala Harris conceded she lost the presidential election.
Rubio in 2022 defended Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed. The Florida Republican that year also voted against the Respect for Marriage Act that passed with bipartisan support.
LGBTQ rights a cornerstone of Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy
President Joe Biden in February 2021 signed a memo that committed the U.S. to promoting LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad as part of his administration’s overall foreign policy. A few months later he named Jessica Stern, the former executive director of Outright International, a global advocacy group, as special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad.
Ned Price, who was the State Department’s first openly gay spokesperson, during a May 2021 interview with the Washington Blade noted the decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations was one of the administration’s priorities in its efforts to promote LGBTQ rights abroad.
Trump during his first administration tapped then-U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, who has been tapped as special missions envoy, to lead an initiative that encouraged countries to decriminalize homosexuality. Activists with whom the Blade has previously spoken questioned whether this effort had any tangible results.
Stern in 2022 noted the Biden-Harris administration also supported marriage equality efforts in countries where activists said they were possible through legislation or the judicial process.
Brittney Griner in December 2022 returned to the U.S. after Russia released her in exchange for a convicted arms dealer. The lesbian WNBA star had been serving a nine-year prison sentence in a penal colony after a court earlier that year convicted her on the importation of illegal drugs after Russian customs officials found vape canisters containing cannabis oil in her luggage at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport.
The State Department in 2022 began to issue passports with an “X” gender marker.
The Biden-Harris administration in response to the signing of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act sanctioned officials and removed the country from a program that allows sub-Saharan African countries to trade duty-free the U.S. Harris during a 2023 press conference with then-Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo in Accra, the Ghanaian capital, spoke about LGBTQ rights.
Chantale Wong, the U.S. director of the Asian Development Bank, in 2022 became the first openly lesbian woman ambassador. David Pressman, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Hungary, and Scott Miller, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, are two of the other American ambassadors who Biden nominated that are gay.
Outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken in 2021 appointed former U.S. Ambassador to Malta Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley as the State Department’s first chief diversity and inclusion officer.
U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), who chairs the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, criticized the State Department’s DEI efforts during Rubio’s confirmation hearing.
“The Biden administration often undercut effective foreign policy by inserting ideological and political requirements into the fabric of personnel decisions and policy execution,” said Risch.
“Rather than making hires or promotions based on merit and effectiveness, the department created new diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) requirements that distracted from this mission, undermined morale, and created an unfair and opaque process for promotions and performance evaluations,” he added. “Fealty to progressive politics became the benchmark for success. As we look around the United States that view is diminishing very quickly amongst even large progressive cooperations.”
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
D.C. police demoted gay captain for taking parental leave: Lawsuit
-
Politics5 days ago
Biden to leave office revered as most pro-LGBTQ president in history
-
Uganda5 days ago
Ugandan minister: Western human rights sanctions forced country to join BRICS
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
Many LGBTQ residents escaping D.C. for inauguration weekend