Local
Jackson petitions Supreme Court in D.C. marriage case
Local officials mum on filing opposition brief
Attorneys for Bishop Harry Jackson, the minister who has led efforts to kill D.C.’s same-sex marriage law, filed a petition last week asking the U.S. Supreme to weigh in on whether the city should allow voters to decide whether to overturn the law.
In a filing known as a petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jackson’s attorneys asked the high court to allow Jackson and six others to appeal a decision earlier this year by the D.C. Court of Appeals rejecting their lawsuit seeking to force the city to hold a ballot measure on the marriage law.
D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles, who has been praised for his strongly worded briefs defending the same-sex marriage law in court, has yet to say whether the city will file a brief opposing Jackson’s Supreme Court petition.
City officials, including presumptive Mayor-elect Vincent Gray, have said they remain strongly supportive of the same-sex marriage law and would martial all the needed resources to defend it if the Supreme Court agrees to take Jackson’s case.
Supreme Court rules say briefs opposing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari are not mandatory. One gay rights attorney said opposing parties often don’t file opposition briefs if they believe the high court is unlikely to approve a certiorari petition.
“I would think Peter Nickles might still write something,” said gay rights attorney Mark Levine. “But he may choose not to.”
Spokespersons for Nickles and the mayor’s office did immediately respond to calls asking if the city plans to file an opposition brief on the case.
The city has 30 days to file an opposing brief.
Four of the nine Supreme Court justices are needed to approve a petition for certiorari, which allows a case to come before the court for consideration on its merits. The court turns down the overwhelming majority of cases that come before it through petitions of certiorari, according to information posted on the court’s website.
Should the court agree to take the case, five of the nine justices are needed to issue a ruling in Jackson’s favor by overturning the appeals court decision.
Levine said it’s unlikely that the Supreme Court would agree to take the case, although he said its past rulings on some controversial cases have surprised legal observers.
The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the city’s Board of Elections and Ethics was correct in disqualifying Jackson’s proposed ballot measure seeking to overturn the same-sex marriage law. The election board cited a city law governing voter initiatives and referenda that it said prohibits the city from holding such a ballot measure because, if approved, it would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act’s ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Jackson and his attorneys argue that the law restricting ballot measures that go against provisions in the D.C. Human Rights Act is invalid because it violates the city’s Home Rule Charter, which Congress passed in the early 1970s.
The election board and a D.C. Superior Court judge rejected that claim as did the Court of Appeals. Each said the ballot measure restriction doesn’t violate the Home Rule Charter.
In March, before the appeals court issued its decision on the case, Jackson’s lawyers filed an emergency motion asking the Supreme Court to issue a stay preventing the same-sex marriage law from taking effect until the appeals court ruled on the matter.
Chief Justice John Roberts denied the request for a stay, saying Jackson and others opposed to the marriage law could not show that they could win the case on its merits, or that allowing the law to take effect would cause them irreparable harm at that time.
However, Roberts said in his three-page ruling that Jackson’s argument that the city acted improperly by denying a request for a ballot measure on grounds that it would violate the Human Rights Act “has some force.”
That comment by Roberts has led to speculation by legal experts that the Chief Justice might give at least some consideration to supporting a petition that the Supreme Court take the case, even though the court has a longstanding history of deferring to lower courts on matters that don’t relate to the U.S. constitution or to federal law.
In a comment that same-sex marriage supporters viewed as a hopeful sign, Roberts also stated in his ruling in March that Congress had full authority to prevent the city from adopting its law prohibiting ballot measures that violate the Human Rights Act, but Congress chose not to do so.
Nickles, who wrote the city’s briefs defending the same-sex marriage law against Jackson’s lawsuit, has argued that the law barring ballot measure that violate the Human Rights Act was adopted in full compliance with the Home Rule Charter. He noted that Congress’s decision not to overturn either the ballot measure law or the same-sex marriage law shows there is no federal or constitutional interest in either law and Jackson has no grounds for asking the courts to overturn it.
The Supreme Court is not expected to announce its decision on whether or not to take Jackson’s case until sometime next year.
In addition to Jackson, the individuals that signed on to the petition seeking Supreme Court intervention in the case include Ward 5 ANC Commissioner Robert King, local minister Anthony Evans, former D.C. congressional delegate Walter Fauntroy, Dale Wafer, Melvin Dupree, and Howard Butler.
The group is being represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative religious-oriented litigation group that has challenged same-sex marriages laws in other states.
“Today’s petition by Bishop Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court is nothing more than a last-ditch attempt by outside interests to try to eliminate marriage equality in the District,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a statement last week. “Every court that has reviewed this case, including two D.C. Superior Court judges and the full Court of Appeals, has found Jackson’s arguments to be without merit,” he said. “The Council and mayor, representing District residents, overwhelmingly approved legislation providing for marriage equality. And we will remain vigilant against any efforts to take it away.”
(Jackson photo is a Blade file photo by Michael Key)
District of Columbia
Activist hosts Diwali celebration in D.C.
More than 120 people attended Joshua Patel’s party on Nov. 9.
LGBTQ activist and businessman Joshua Patel hosted a community Diwali party on Nov. 9.
Patel organized the event as a community gathering amid the Trump-Vance administration’s policies against LGBTQ inclusion and DEI. The event, held at the Capo Deli speakeasy, drew more than 120 attendees, including local business leaders.
Patel is a franchise owner of ProMD Health, recently awarded as the best med spa by the Washington Blade. He is also a major gift officer at Lambda Legal.
Patel noted that upon moving from New York to Washington in 2022, he desired a chance for community-based Diwali celebrations. He stated that the city offered minimal chances for gatherings beyond religious institutions, unless one was invited to the White House’s Diwali party.
“With our current administration, that gathering too has ended — where we cannot expect more than Kash Patel and President Trump lighting a ‘diya’ candle on Instagram while simultaneously cutting DEIB funding,” Patel said.
In addition to celebrating the festival of lights and good over evil, Patel saw the event as a moment to showcase “rich, vibrant culture” and “express gratitude.”
Patel coined the celebration a “unifier.”
“From a spiritual angle, Shiva was the world’s first transgender God, taking the form of both “male” and “female” incarnations,” Patel said. “The symbolism of our faith and concepts are universal and allows for all to rejoice in the festivities as much or little as they desire.”
Savor Soiree, DMV Mini Snacks and Capo Deli catered the event. DJ Kush spun music and Elisaz Events decorated the Diwali celebration.
The Diwali party also featured performances by former Miss Maryland Heather Young Schleicher, actor Hariqbal Basi, Patel himself and Salatin Tavakoly and Haseeb Ahsan.
Maryland
Harford school board appeals state’s book ban decision to circuit court
5-2 ruling in response to ‘Flamer’ directive
By KRISTEN GRIFFITH | Marking a historic moment in Maryland’s debate over school library censorship, Harford County’s school board voted Thursday to appeal the state’s unprecedented decision overturning its ban of a young adult graphic novel, pushing the dispute into circuit court.
The 5-2 vote followed a recent ruling from the state board overturning Harford’s ban of the book “Flamer.” In a special meeting Thursday afternoon, board members weighed whether to seek reconsideration or take the matter to circuit court — ultimately opting to appeal.
The book “Flamer” is by Mike Curato, who wrote about his experience being bullied as a kid for being gay.
The rest of this article can be found on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Maryland
Salisbury, Md. rainbow crosswalk removed on Veterans Day
Mayor’s order denounced by LGBTQ activists as act of bigotry
Under the directive of its mayor and over strong objections from LGBTQ rights advocates and their supporters, the city of Salisbury, Md. on Nov. 11 removed a rainbow crosswalk from a prominent intersection across from the mayor’s office and the city’s public library.
Salisbury LGBTQ rights advocate Mark DeLancey, who witnessed the crosswalk removal, said instead of painting over it as other cities have done in removing rainbow crosswalks, a powerful grinding machine was used to rip apart the asphalt pavement under the crosswalk in what he believes was an effort by the mayor to “make a point.”
Like officials in other locations that have removed rainbow crosswalks, Salisbury Mayor Randy Taylor said the crosswalk removal was required under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations put in place by the Trump administration that do not allow “political” messages on streets and roadways.
“Since taking office, I’ve been transparent about my concerns regarding the Pride crosswalks installed in Downtown Salisbury,” Taylor said in a statement. “While I have made every effort to respect the decisions of previous administrations and the folks that supported them, it has become clear that a course of correction – as planned – is necessary to align with current Department of Transportation standards for roadway markings,” he said in his Nov. 7 statement that was posted on the city’s Facebook page.
DeLancey is among the activists and local public officials in many cities and states that dispute that the federal Department of Transportation has legal authority to ban the Pride crosswalks. D.C. and the Northern Virginia jurisdictions of Arlington and Alexandria are among the localities that have refused to remove rainbow crosswalks from their streets.
“He decided to take this on himself,” DeLancey said of Taylor’s action. “It’s not a law. It’s not a ruling of any kind. He just said that was something that should happen.”
DeLancey points out that Salisbury became the first jurisdiction in Maryland to install a rainbow crosswalk on a public street in September 2018.
“This is another blatant attempt by our Republican mayor to remove any references to groups that don’t fit with his agenda,” Salisbury LGBTQ advocate Megan Pomeroy told the local publication Watershed Observer. “The rainbow crosswalk represents acceptance for everyone. It tells them, ‘You matter. You are valued. You are welcome here,’” she was quoted as saying.
The publication Delmarva Now reports that a longtime Salisbury straight ally to the LGBTQ community named K.T. Tuminello staged a one-person protest on Nov. 10 by sitting on the sidewalk next to the rainbow crosswalk holding a sign opposing its removal.
“Tuminello said Nov. 10 he had been at the embattled crosswalk since 12 a.m. that morning, and only three things could make him leave: ‘I get arrested, I have to get into an ambulance because of my medical difficulties, or Randy Taylor says you can keep that one rainbow crosswalk,’” the Delaware Now article states.
DeLancey said he has known Tuminello for many years as an LGBTQ ally and saw him on the night he staged his sit-in at the site of the crosswalk.
“I actually went to him last night trying to give him some water,” DeLancey told the Washington Blade. “He was on a hunger strike as well. He was there for a total of 40 hours on strike, not eating, no sleeping in the freezing cold”
Added DeLancey, “He has been supporting our community for decades. And he is a very strong ally, and we love his contribution very much.”
Political observers have pointed out that Salisbury for many years has been a progressive small city surrounded by some of Maryland’s more conservative areas with mostly progressive elected officials.
They point out that Taylor, a Trump supporter, won election as mayor in November 2023 with 36.6 percent of the vote. Two progressive candidates split the vote among themselves, receiving a combined total of 70.8 percent of the vote.
-
Politics3 days agoPro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
-
U.S. Military/Pentagon5 days agoServing America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
-
Opinions3 days agoDemocratic Socialism won’t win the whole country
-
The White House5 days agoTrump targets LGBTQ workers in new loan forgiveness restrictions
