Connect with us

National

Calif. Supreme Court to hear Prop 8 case

Will determine if opponents have legal standing to appeal ruling on marriage issue

Published

on

The California Supreme Court voted unanimously on Wednesday to decide the question of whether supporters of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that repealed California’s same-sex marriage law, have legal standing to appeal a federal court decision last year invalidating the ballot measure.

In a statement released late Wednesday, a court spokesperson said the state Supreme Court would expedite the process for receiving legal briefs and planned to schedule oral arguments for the case in September.

Its decision, expected later in the year, would determine whether same-sex marriage opponents can proceed with their appeal of a U.S. District Court decision last year invalidating Proposition 8 on grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

The legal standing issue surfaced in 2009 when former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown, now the governor, refused to defend Prop 8 against a lawsuit filed by two same-sex couples.

The private citizens who organized Prop 8 were allowed to intervene on its behalf during the district court proceedings, including a civil trial. But gay rights attorneys challenging the ballot measure on appeal argued that only the state could defend the measure because it was a state law.

On Jan. 4, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sidestepped a ruling on whether the district court was correct in declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional and sent the lawsuit filed by the gay couples to the state’s Supreme Court for an advisory ruling on the standing question.

If the California Supreme Court rules Prop 8 supporters lack legal standing, the district court ruling would take effect, allowing same-sex couples to marry as they had during the short period of time before voters approved Prop 8 in the November 2008 election.

However, most legal observers believe the Prop 8 backers would respond immediately by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a stay to prevent same-sex marriages from resuming until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether it would take the case on its merits.

Most legal observers believe the case will ultimately wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, if the California Supreme Court rules in favor of granting legal standing to Prop 8 backers, the case would go back to the Ninth Circuit appeals court, which would then hear the case on the merits of whether Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, as gay rights attorneys and the same-sex couples who brought the lawsuit claim it does.

In its statement released today, the California Supreme Court gave a legal explanation of the question it says it will answer after deliberating over the case:

“Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.”

The court’s statement says Prop 8 supporters’ attorneys must file their opening brief for the case by March 14, and attorneys representing the same-sex couples seeking to invalidate Prop 8 must file their response by April 4.

“The California Supreme Court shortened the normal briefing schedule to expedite consideration and resolution of the issues in the matter and to accommodate oral argument as early as September 2011,” the statement says.

Jennifer Pizer, an attorney for Lambda Legal, an LGBT legal advocacy group that’s monitoring the Prop 8 case, called on the California Supreme Court to confirm that Prop 8 backers don’t have legal standing to appeal the case.

Prop 8 supporters “are not law enforcers and have the same limited rights as everyone else to litigate only when their own rights are at stake, not merely to assert their opinions about others’ rights,” Pizer said in a statement.

“Initiative proponents also cannot step into the shoes of the attorney general, the governor or other state officials,” she said. “The reason for this is basic: the governor and attorney general are elected by the people to represent all the people, not just one point of view on one issue, out of countless, competing concerns.”

A spokesperson for Prop 8 supporters, including the National Organization for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex marriage rights, could not be immediately reached for comment.

Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is financing the same-sex couples’ lawsuit seeking to overturn Prop 8, said his group is hopeful that they will prevail and same-sex marriage will be declared a constitutional right.

“AFER is challenging Prop 8 not only for our plaintiffs, two loving couples who want to marry, and not only for the thousands of loving couples like them, but for the simple reason that our laws should treat everyone equally,” he said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Trump’s shocking East Wing amputation—and the painful fallout Americans won’t ignore

Gay Social Secretary Jeremy Bernard talks about importance of civility

Published

on

Jeremy Bernard, gay news, Washington Blade
Jeremy Bernard with then-President Barack Obama (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Since Jan. 20, 2025, life in Donald Trump’s divided America has been a series of jaw-dropping split-screen scenarios, flashing at an even faster pace since the resounding anti-Trump, pro-affordability Democratic electoral victories on Nov. 4. But while the weeks before Thanksgiving have injected hope that the No Kings marches, the rule of law, and the 2026 midterms will uphold democracy, Trump’s violently oriented MAGA and Christian National base and his committed Project 2025 backers continue remaking the federal government and fighting the culture wars.

Screenshot of the New York Times’s rendering of Trump’s plans.

Luxuriating in his own narcissism, Trump ordered the clandestine demolition of the East Wing on Oct. 23 to make way for his 90,000 square foot ballroom. He apparently didn’t care about the national shock at the brutal amputation of America’s beloved cultural arm that balanced the hard political arm of the People’s House.  

“This isn’t a real estate deal. This is a living, breathing building. It actually hurts, as a citizen. It’s us. It’s our home. This doesn’t belong to anybody except the blood, the sweat and the tears of every president,” new D.C. resident Roseanne Siegel told NPR.

“For historians and for Americans who love their history, this is a big blow,” said ABC News presidential historian Mark Updegrove.

Trump rendering of ballroom (Screenshot from ABC News)

According to an Oct. 30 poll from the Washington Post, ABC News, and Ipsos, 56 percent of respondents disagreed with Trump’s move while 28 percent favored it. An earlier Yahoo/YouGov poll found 61 percent of respondents rejected Trump’s ballroom plan while 25 percent supported it. 

Trump lied. “It won’t interfere with the current building,” Trump said last July about his ballroom plans. “It will be near it, but not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of. It’s my favorite He was dishonest about his intent in terms of we’re not going to touch anything, like it’s going to be close, but not touching,” Kevin Wade, a 52-year-old tech tourist from Texas, told Reuters. “And then now we’re completely demolishing it.”

Screenshot of satellite photos of the East Wing before and after

The East Wing emptiness is now a tourist attraction, a PTSD imprint that — with the rapid developments leading up to Thanksgiving — may inspire a turning point in Trump’s presidency.  

On Tuesday, Nov. 18, after a 43-day government shutdown to avoid this moment, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 471-1 to compel the Justice Department to release all files on convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  

President Donald Trump escorts the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to a black tie dinner (Screenshot)

Meanwhile at the White House, Trump gleefully hosted Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who US intelligence believes approved the gruesome 2018 murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The president scolded ABC News journalist Mary Bruce for embarrassing “guest” MBS with “a horrible, insubordinate” question about Khashoggi’s murder. “Whether you like [Khashoggi] or didn’t like him, things happen.” 

In Bob Woodward’s 2020 book, “Rage,” Trump reportedly bragged about shielding MBS: “I saved his ass,” getting Congress “to leave him alone.” 

Meanwhile, after the House vote, Epstein survivors huddled at a news conference, holding up photos of themselves as teenagers and young women, asking if Trump is innocent, what is he hiding? Why won’t he release the files now? Suddenly, thrilled survivors learned that the U.S. Senate had unanimously passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act and sent it to Trump for his signature.

Gay Apple CEO Tim Cook and gay Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent at the MBS dinner (Screenshot)

Cut to Trump hosting a black-tie dinner for MBS with lots of rich men who do business with the Saudis. The next morning, he announced that he had signed the Epstein bill, with a 30-day deadline.

“It was a remarkable turn of events for what was once a far-fetched effort,” AP reported. “Trump did a sharp U-turn on the files once it became clear that congressional action was inevitable.” 

Trump needed a distraction. 

U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) from on her X account

Early Tuesday morning, Nov. 18, U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) posted a 90-second video on her X account calling on U.S. servicemembers to not obey unlawful orders. 

“The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution,” said Slotkin with five other fellow military veterans — U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), and U.S. Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.). “Don’t give up the ship.”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice says troops who disobey a direct order will be punished. But servicemembers and officers also have an obligation to reject any order they deem is unlawful, a reference to the “I was only following orders” Nazi defense during the Nuremberg trials. 

There is cause for concern. In his first term, Trump asked about shooting unarmed civilians protesting the murder of George Floyd. In his second term, Trump has threatened to use the Insurrection Act to deploy troops, “unleashed” police, federalized National Guard, and masked and violent ICE and Border Patrol agents in American cities.  

“The president was enraged,” Trump’s 1st term Defense Secretary Mark Esper told NPR. “We reached that point in the conversation where he looked frankly at [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and said, ‘Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?’ … It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air.”

Trump found his distraction on Thursday, Nov. 20, reposting a Washington Examiner story about the Democratic lawmakers’ video, adding that it was “really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???”  In another post he said it was “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH.” 

Trump also reposted a @P78 comment: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” Bomb and death threats against the Democratic vets “surged.” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump was ‘lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline.’”

New York Post’s Nov. 22 cover after Trump met with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani at the White House.

Cut to Friday. 34-year-old New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani met with Trump, who had vilified the Democratic Socialist. But inexplicably, the meeting turned into an Oval Office lovefest, with an almost giddy Trump, 79, saying it was “OK” that Mamdani had called him a fascist. He promised to help the city. 

That night, longtime Trump and MAGA loyalist U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) announced she’s resigning from Congress, effective Jan. 5, 2026. 

Greene criticized Trump over “America First” and health insurance policies but a major split occurred when she sided with Epstein survivors over him. Trump called her a “traitor” and vowed to back a primary challenger.

“Loyalty should be a two-way street,” Greene said in her 10-minute video. “I refuse to be a battered wife hoping it all goes away and gets better.”

No one knows what’s coming next. 

CNN graphic rendering of Epstein emails released by the House Oversight Committee

But for the LGBTQ community, there are other important split screens amid Project 2025 erasure – such as U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.)’s key role as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee focused on transparency and justice for Epstein survivors.  

Pete Williams on the cover of the Advocate

And while Trump was threatening Democratic lawmakers with death on Thursday, Pete Williams, a former NBC News correspondent and press secretary for Vice President Dick Cheney, spoke at Cheney’s funeral at the National Cathedral. Williams told the mostly old-fashioned Republicans how he offered to resign in 1991 when the Advocate was about to out him as gay. Cheney — who loved his semi-out lesbian daughter Mary — said no and checked on him after the story was published. During the horrific AIDS crisis in the early 1990s, ANGLE (Access Now for Lesbian and Gay Equality) fundraised and worked to elect pro-gay politicians. In 1991, longtime gay politico David Mixner introduced ANGLE to his friend, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, whom the group helped elect as president.

Jean O’Leary and Bruce Voeller lead the delegation exiting the historic 1977 White House meeting. (Photo by Bill Bland courtesy Michael Bedwell Collection)

Gay people were not welcome at the White House until Clinton, other than one historic visit on March 26, 1977. Decades later, when ANGLE’s Jeremy Bernard was being interviewed by first lady Michelle Obama for the job of Social Secretary, he recalled how difficult it was to get through the East Wing visitors’ entrance during Clinton’s administration.

Jewel’s Catch One Disco owner Jewel Thais-Williams at the Abraham Lincoln bust at the end of the East Colonnade in 2013. (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

“I said to Mrs. Obama, ‘It takes a lot to get in these doors. And I think it’s very important for people to feel very welcomed,’” Jeremy says during a recent conversation. 

The first lady agreed and “wanted to make sure as many people that never had been to the White House and never thought they would be, got the experience to do it.”

Jeremy Bernard with longtime Obama friend Valerie Jarrett (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

Bernard worked for Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, then as White House Liaison to the National Endowment for the Humanities before serving as Senior Advisor to the US Ambassador to France. On Feb. 25, 2011, he became the first male and first openly gay person to serve as Social Secretary.

Jeremy Bernard shows President Barack Obama the ‘Jeremy dance’ (White House photo)

“Jeremy shares our vision for the White House as the People’s House, one that celebrates our history and culture in dynamic and inclusive ways. We look forward to Jeremy continuing to showcase America’s arts and culture to our nation and the world through the many events at the White House,” Obama said in a press release.

“My office was in the East Wing, and I had what I thought was the best office. I looked over toward the South Lawn, but I also had the roof of the East Colonnade below me. I had a window that actually would open like a door, and you could walk out onto the roof as if it was a patio,” Bernard recalls, noting that he was warned to call the Secret Service before going out to avoid getting shot. 

“I was so shocked,” Bernard says about the East Wing being demolished. “When I first heard there were bulldozers, I was like, well, what is it they’re knocking down from it?” — finding out later, “the whole thing” was gone.  

He felt “some self-sorrow” and “numb” remembering his office. “It really is a part of history, not just for those of us that worked there, but for virtually everyone – whether you were there for a state dinner, a holiday party, or a reception for St. Patrick’s Day, LGBT celebration — whatever it was, everyone came through the East Wing.” 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said it well, Bernard says. “Compared to what ICE is doing and all that, it may not rank up there, but it’s symbolic of what’s happened in our country.”

Jeremy Bernard with Michelle and Barack Obama (White House photo)

Michelle Obama said it well, too. “We always felt it was the people’s house,” she told CBS “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert. “I am confused by what are our norms? What are our standards? What are our traditions? I just feel like, what is important to us as a nation anymore? Because I’m lost.” 

And, Michelle Obama continued, “I hope that more Americans feel lost in a way that they want to be found again, because it’s up to us to find what we’re losing.”

“The West Wing was work — sometimes it was sadness, it was problems. It was the guts of the White House,” she said. “The East Wing was where you felt light.”

‘Treating People Well’ book cover

Bernard and Lea Berman, social secretary in the George W. Bush White House, have some suggestions in their book “Treating People Well,” subtitled “How to Master Social Skills and Thrive in Everything You Do.” 

“It was important to us to see that despite our differences in how we viewed policy, Lea and I and Lea’s husband — who is an operative in the Republican Party — were very close,” Bernard says.

“I think about what this must be like for kids,” Bernard says. “We always looked at these presidents as a certain type of person.”

But now people hear Trump say, “’I hate my enemies. I want revenge.’ What is that teaching kids?” Bernard asks. “The president of the United States is saying that. I think it’s really frightening. We can’t let that stand.”

“I think we’ve got to go back to the way we were brought up about how you treat other people,” Bernard says. “It’s really important that we focus on the more positive characteristics of human beings … Most communities are very different and we celebrate that. But you can only celebrate it with civility.”

Karen Ocamb is a veteran LGBTQ journalist and former news editor for the Los Angeles Blade. This article was originally posted on her Substack LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. Her extended conversation with Jeremy Bernard, who talks more about the East Wing, ANGLE and the Obamas, is embedded in the post.

Continue Reading

National

Study shows ‘pervasive mistreatment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement’

Findings claim nationwide police misconduct, including in D.C., Va., Md.

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

The LGBTQ supportive Williams Institute, an arm of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, released a report last month citing multiple research studies conducted over the past 25 years showing past and “ongoing” mistreatment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement throughout the United States.

“Findings show that LGBTQ communities – particularly LGBTQ people of color, youth, and transgender and gender nonconforming individuals – have faced profiling, entrapment, discrimination, harassment, and violence from law enforcement for decades, and this mistreatment continues to be widespread,” according to a Williams Institute statement.

“Experiences of police mistreatment may discourage LGBTQ people from reporting crimes or engaging with law enforcement,” Joshua Arrayales, the report’s lead author and Williams Institute Law Fellow said in the statement.

“Reporting crimes is essential for accurate crime statistics, proper allocation of crime prevention resources, and support services that address the unique needs of LGBTQ survivors,” he said.

The 59-page report cites the findings of two dozen or more studies and surveys of LGBTQ people’s interaction with police and law agencies for the past 25 years through 2024 conducted by various organizations, including the ACLU, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the Williams Institute, and local government agencies.

But the report does not provide a breakdown of where police abuse against LGBTQ people occurred by specific police departments or locations. Instead it provides survey research findings of large groups of LGBTQ people who responded to a survey in different  locations of the U.S.

Among other things, those surveys have found “LGBTQ people are more likely than non-LGBTQ people to report being stopped by police, searched by police, arrested, and falsely accused of an offense,” the Williams Institute statement accompanying the report says. “LGBTQ people also report substantial rates of verbal harassment, physical harassment, sexual harassment, and assault,” it says.

The report itself cites surveys of LGBTQ people’s interactions with police in D.C., Baltimore, and Virginia but does not give specific cases or identify specific police departments or agencies.   

“A 2022 study based on interviews with 19 Black transgender women from Baltimore and Washington, D.C. identified a theme of re-victimization while seeking help from police,” the report says. “One participant noted that male officers asked what she did to cause her own abuse,” according to the report.

“Other participants expressed that when a knowledgeable officer was present, such as an LGBTQ+ liaison, they felt more inclined to reach out for help,” it says. 

The report also states, “A 2024 study based on interviews with 44 transgender people in Virginia documented two instances of transgender women being pulled over for broken tail lights and then being mistreated once officers discovered they were transgender based on their IDs.” The report does not reveal the specific location in Virginia where this took place.

Other locations the report cites data on anti-LGBTQ conduct by police include New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Newark, N.J., and Austin and San Antonio in Texas.

The full report can be accessed at williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

Continue Reading

The White House

SPJ calls for take down of Trump’s ‘media offenders’ website

White House launched online database on Monday

Published

on

The Society for Professional Journalists has called out the White House for creating a website that targets individual journalists and news outlets that publish unfavorable coverage of the Trump-Vance administration.

In a letter to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday, the SPJ — the nation’s most broad-based journalism organization, which works to protect the free practice of journalism with high ethical standards — asked the White House to take down its website singling out journalists for negative coverage of the administration.

“Journalists have a constitutionally protected and societally encouraged duty to hold power to account. They are not political opponents to be tracked, cataloged or punished,” the letter signed by SPJ National President Chris Vaccaro and SPJ Ethics Committee Chair Dan Axelrod.

“By publishing reporters’ names, outlets and specific stories, the White House is naming and shaming members of the press in a highly charged political and social environment. SPJ regards this as a form of online harassment that exposes journalists to potential threats and even violence.”

The website currently lists 23 outlets as “Media Offenders of the Week,” singling out national organizations like CBS News, the Boston Globe, and the Independent. The website says these particular organizations “misrepresents and exaggerates President Trump.”

The letter goes on to explain that there are more civil ways to disagree with published stories without singling out people for doing the only constitutionally protected job in the country.

“There are well-established ways of resolving disagreements over the fairness or accuracy of stories. The White House web page attacking so-called ‘media offenders’ ignores these principles and instead denigrates and attacks reporters.”

It also highlights how Trump often attacks women journalists in particular, noting that two weeks ago he told White House correspondent Catherine Lucey from Bloomberg News to be “quiet piggy” after she asked questions related to Trump’s relationship with sex offender Jeffery Epstein on Air Force One.

“Journalists, particularly women, already face an enormous amount of online harassment, and this can convert into physical violence. As you know, women journalists have also been publicly insulted by the president in recent weeks.”

The letter also explains that attacks like this on the legitimate press can cause tensions between journalists who attempt to hold those in power responsible and the public who consumes the rhetoric.

“This page, which categorizes reporting as ‘lies,’ ‘left-wing lunacy,’ and ‘malpractice,’ has a chilling effect on coverage. It undermines the healthy democratic relationship in which journalists hold power to account.”

The letter also draws a connection to how the Russian authoritarian dictatorship references media it dislikes, saying, “The president’s new ‘media offenders’ list mirrors a 2017 initiative by the Kremlin that labeled independent journalism as ‘fake news.’ The United States should not follow that example.”

“SPJ believes civility must be restored between the media and the Administration. Removing this page would be a vital first step toward lowering the temperature and reinforcing America’s commitment to free expression.”

The SPJ’s code of ethics, widely regarded as the ethical standard for good journalism, has four main pillars: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent. The code was adopted in 1926 from the American Society of Newspaper Editors and has been revised multiple times since then, including in 1984, 1987, 1996, and most recently in 2014.

NLGJA, the The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists is the journalist-led association that works within the news media to advance fair and accurate coverage of LGBTQ+ communities and issues, provided a statement to the Blade on the website and supports the SPJ’s public call for removing the website to restore faith in journalistic freedom in the U.S.

“We stand with SPJ in urging the Trump administration to remove its website targeting so-called “media offenders.” While NLGJA believes that media organizations should be held to the highest standards of accuracy and ethical reporting, this website does nothing to support a healthy press environment,” National Board President Ken Miguel told the Blade via email. “Instead, it undermines public trust in the free press, enables the harassment and targeting of journalists, and hinders their ability to cover the news fairly and accurately. Journalists must be able to do their work without fear of government retaliation.”

The White House has not responded to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on the letter.

Continue Reading

Popular