National
Calif. Supreme Court to hear Prop 8 case
Will determine if opponents have legal standing to appeal ruling on marriage issue
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voted unanimously on Wednesday to decide the question of whether supporters of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that repealed California’s same-sex marriage law, have legal standing to appeal a federal court decision last year invalidating the ballot measure.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.
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.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Pappas in Senate race focuses on costs, health care, and personal freedoms
El Salvador conmemora el 17M bajo un clima de miedo y retroceso en derechos LGBTQ
WorldPride events round-up
PHOTOS: Blade Summer Kickoff Party
Ashley Biden to speak at Blade’s Summer Kickoff Party in Rehoboth Beach
Down to shuck!
Virginia 2025 GOP ticket gives DEI a bad name
Garcia confronts Noem over gay asylum seeker ‘forcibly removed’ to El Salvador
