National
Lawyers cite procreation in defending Prop 8
Judges grill marriage ban supporters in televised court case
A lawyer defending California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage told a three-judge federal appeals court panel Monday that the ban must be upheld to protect the institution of marriage, which he said is essential for procreation and child rearing.
In a hearing that lasted more than two hours, the panel of judges for the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals fired sharp questions at lawyers backing and opposing Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that repealed the state’s same-sex marriage law.
But two of the three judges appeared to subject the lawyers defending Proposition 8 to greater scrutiny and a stronger challenge of their arguments. That led some legal observers to predict the liberal-leaning court would likely uphold a decision in August by a U.S. District Court judge declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, is considered one of the court’s strongest liberals and is expected to act favorably toward the two same-sex couples challenging Prop 8 in a case known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Judge Michael Hawkins, a Clinton appointee, is also considered a liberal with a likely favorable leaning toward the gay plaintiffs in the case. The third judge on the panel, N. Randy Smith, was appointed by President George W. Bush and served as chair of the Idaho Republican Party. Legal observers expect him to vote to uphold Prop 8.
Smith is a graduate of Brigham Young University and media reports identified him as a Mormon. The Mormon Church supported the passage of Prop 8 and received criticism from gay activists for encouraging church members to contribute millions of dollars into the Prop 8 election campaign.
Both the plaintiffs in the case — two same-sex couples who are challenging the gay marriage ban — and supporters of Prop 8 have said they would appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if the Ninth Circuit appeals court rules against them. That would bring the question of whether gay marriage is protected by the Constitution before the high court for the first time.
“The key reason that marriage has existed at all in any society and at any time is that sexual relationships between men and women naturally produce children,” said Charles Cooper, one of two attorneys defending Proposition 8 before the appeals court hearing Monday.
Cooper sought to use the procreation element of traditional heterosexual marriage as one of several “rational” reasons why California could ban same-sex marriage without violating the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in August that Proposition 8 violated the federal Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses, in part, because there was no rational reason to deny marital rights to same-sex couples.
In his arguments, Cooper told the judges that when a relationship between a man and a woman becomes a sexual one, “society immediately has a vital interest in that.” Among other things, “society needs the creation of new life for the next generation,” he said.
Society’s vital interests are also threatened by the possibility of “unintentional and unwanted pregnancy” and single parent households in which children have “poorer outcomes,” he said.
“That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce,” Judge Hawkins said, drawing laughter from the courtroom audience.
“But how does it relate to having two males or two females marry each other and raise children as they can in California and form a family unit where children have a happy, healthy home?” Hawkins asked. “I don’t understand how that argument says we ought to prohibit that.”
Cooper responded by reiterating his procreation argument. “The point and the question is whether or not the State of California has a rational reason for drawing a distinction between same-sex couples who cannot, without the intervention of a third party of the opposite sex, procreate, and opposite-sex couples who … can procreate.”
Theodore Olson, a prominent Republican attorney and constitutional law expert who surprised his GOP colleagues by joining the legal team challenging Proposition 8, strongly disputed claims that same-sex marriage would harm or inhibit procreation or the institution of marriage.
“Same-sex marriage is not going to discourage heterosexual people with heterosexual marriage,” he told the judges Monday. “It is not going to keep them from getting divorced. It is not going to have an effect at all on their choice about having children. On the other hand, the elimination of Proposition 8 cannot possibly hurt the heterosexual relationship at all,” he said.
While Olson argued the merits of why the appeals court should uphold the lower court’s finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, attorney David Boies, a prominent Democrat who teamed up with Olsen in the legal challenge of Prop 8, argued that Prop 8 supporters lacked legal standing to appeal the lower court ruling.
At the time he issued his ruling in August overturning Prop 8 on constitutional grounds, Judge Walker said a decision by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state’s attorney general, Jerry Brown, not to appeal his ruling meant it was unlikely that another party could emerge with legal standing to challenge Walker’s decision.
Walker issued a stay on his own ruling so that the appeals court would have a chance to determine whether the same-sex marriage ban should remain in effect during the appeals process. The Ninth Circuit court extended the stay until it issues its own decision in the case.
But at Monday’s hearing, the judges appeared sympathetic to Boies’ arguments that the conservative political advocacy groups that organized the election campaign for passage of Prop 8 in 2008 did not have legal standing to appeal the lower court ruling.
Boies noted that Prop 8 was a state law in the form of a state constitutional amendment that could only be defended in court at the appeals level by the state or an agent of the state.
A second attorney defending Prop 8 before the Ninth Circuit appeals court Monday argued that a deputy clerk who processes marriage licenses in California’s conservative leaning Imperial County had joined the defense team for the proposition. The attorney, Robert Tyler, told the judges that the deputy clerk was a legitimate representative of the state and thus had legal standing to appeal the case.
But Judge Hawkins appeared to join Boies in expressing strong doubt that the deputy clerk had such standing.
Hawkins and the other appeals court judges said Monday that they would issue a decision on the legal standing matter before they consider the case on its merits. If they determine the Prop 8 supporters and their legal team don’t have standing, they will send the case back to Judge Walker, who likely would order state officials to cease enforcing Prop 8.
However, Prop 8 backers would then be expected to immediately appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and ask the high court to reinstate a stay to keep Prop 8 on the books until the Supreme Court issues its own decision in the case.
“I think the arguments made even clearer to all of us that the judges are wrestling with whether this litigation even can continue with the only party seeking to appeal being those who do not appear to have legally recognizable interests in this case,” said Jennifer Pizer, an attorney with Lambda Legal.
“So I would not be at all surprised if they decide that the appeal should not proceed” based on a lack of legal standing, Pizer said.
Meanwhile, one of the leading groups supporting Prop 8 issued a statement Monday denouncing Ninth Circuit Judge Reinhardt for refusing to recuse himself from the case because his wife is a prominent attorney with the ACLU who has worked to oppose Prop 8.
“This hearing makes a mockery of the federal judiciary,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “Citizens are entitled to a guarantee of impartiality from their judiciary,” he said. “Yet here we have the spectacle of a federal appeals court justice ruling on a case in which his wife represents a group that is a participant.”
Reinhardt issued his own statement last month saying his wife’s views on the case would not detract from his ability to be fair and impartial in his ruling on the case.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
