National
Prop 8 opponents: Calif. civilians can’t defend case against state
Supporters of anti-gay law attempting to jump in to defend it after the state chose to stay out
Today the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether or not under state law civilian supporters can take the place of the state, specifically in the Federal case challenging anti-marriage equality Proposition 8.
The hour long hearing was followed by press conferences in which both sides expressed pleasure in the outcome. The court, however, still has 90 days to come to a decision, and both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 will be watching closely for any indication that that decision is ready.
In August of last year, Federal Court Judge Vaughn Walker found unconstitutional Proposition 8, the law barring marriage between two adults of the same sex created after a November 2008 ballot measure, ruling in favor of plaintiffs represented by the organization American Foundation for Equal Rights. The attorneys leading the charge against the law are former President Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, and former Al Gore lawyer David Boies who in 2000 faced off in Bush v. Gore. While plaintiffs are seeking to restore marriage equality to California, proponents of the measure are attempting to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling.
The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals put the case, Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger) on hold in January after both Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend the law in court citing their own constitutional objections. When concerned citizen groups hoping to keep the law on the books attempted to fill in for the state to defend the law, the 9th Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to rule on whether or not the concerned groups can in fact defend the law in place of the state. The legal principle at question is “standing,” which Law.com defines as “the right to file a lawsuit or file a petition under the circumstances.”
Though the 9th Circuit will make the ultimate decision, the appeals certified a question to the State Supreme Court of California on whether state law allows proponents of the ballot initiative to have the right to represent the state in the appeal in place of the state officials themselves. In February the California Supreme Court agreed to address the 9th Circuit’s question which led to today’s hearing.
If the State Supreme Court decides that the interest groups — which include a well-funded conservative website called ProtectMarriage.com — can indeed take the place of the state in defending the law, the 9th Circuit is expected to follow the guidance, allowing the case to proceed through the 9th Circuit despite the non-involvement of any agents of the state. Likewise, if the California Supreme Court decides against the proponents of Proposition 8, the 9th Circuit is expected to concur, which will end the appeals process at Judge Walker’s decision overturning the law.
The Proposition 8 ballot measure was passed in reaction to a decision by the California Supreme Court earlier in 2008 overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriages, which allowed roughly 18,000 same-sex couples to marry in California during the short window prior to the election. The Supreme Court has since upheld those marriages as valid, though new marriages can not be recognized as a consequence of the proposition. The state also passed a law following the passage of Prop 8 that allows the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of California during that same short window.
Arguing for the proponents of Prop 8, Charles Cooper argued that the interest groups would be given standing if this were a state court case, while Justices weighed whether or not the same standard ought to apply in this Federal Court matter.
Ted Olson (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Ted Olson, arguing for the plaintiffs, focused on the lack of precedent for such an intervention by an interest group, and claimed finding in favor of the Prop 8 proponents and granting their right to appeal would mean, essentially “amending” the California Constitution. He also argued that allowing Prop 8 proponents to take the place of the state in the case would set a dangerous precedent undermining the authority of the California Attorney General to make such decisions.
“Initiative proponents are elected by no one,” Olson told the justices, as reported by Adam Bink of Courage Campaign and Kate Kendell of the Center for Lesbian Rights. “Proponents took no oath to represent the people.”
When asked what the particular interest the proponents of Prop 8 had in continuing to defend the case, Charles Cooper responded to the justices, “Our interest is to protect and defend our fundamental right to propose initiatives. We have to defend that.”
In response, the justices asked “Doesn’t that right arise before the initiative is qualified?”
“This court has never recognized any distinction between before and after enactment,” Cooper responded. “That wouldn’t make any sense. What the proponents have a right to do is propose valid constitutional amendments. It is inescapable that they then have the right to defend that measure, before OR after enactment.”
However, before his time expired, Ted Olson did his best to counter Cooper’s claims.
“They sure spent a great deal of time and money, and exercised their power to ‘propose and enact.’ What they’re asking for is the power to represent themselves because of a particularized interest, which they don’t have,” Olson argued. “My understanding of California law and case law is that the legislature doesn’t have the power to defend legislation in court unless it specifically deals with the legislative power itself. There is no case, and Cooper agrees there is no case, in which the legislature has the power the proponents are claiming here. I think the initiative power is important, but the constitution of California fundamentally limits the power of the initiative and initiative proponents to exercise their right to propose and defend, that’s it.”
After the hearing, representatives from the American Foundation for Equal Rights were confident and expressed pleasure with the hearing.
“Good justices ask hard questions,” Olson said after the hearing, according to Bink and the Courage Campaign. Olson expressed pleasure with the Supreme Court justices, but emphasized he believes that no matter which direction the Supreme Court decides, the opponents of Prop 8 will prevail.
“We’re sure the US Supreme Court will agree with us,” Olson concluded.
Legal Director from Lambda Legal, Jon Davidson seemed to concur.
“It is often impossible to predict from the questions asked by appellate judges how they will rule and today was no different,” Davidson said in a statement. “All of the judges on the California Supreme Court asked probing questions and seemed concerned about the implications of any decision they might make. We continue to hope that the Court will ultimately decide that small groups of unelected individuals who are answerable to no one should not be able to act on behalf of the state.”
However, Shannon Minter legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who has argued before the California Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage, struck a more cautious tone when discussing her reaction to the hearing with veteran LGBT community journalist, Karen Ocamb.
“I was concerned by the tenor of many of the justices’ questions today,” Minter told Ocamb. “The court has a responsibility to enforce the California Constitution, which gives elected state officials—not private initiative sponsors—the authority to decide whether to appeal a federal court decision invalidating a state law.”
Minter continued, “Both conservative and progressive elected officials have occasionally exercised that discretion in the past by choosing not to expend state resources to defend invalidated measures. Permitting special interest groups to usurp that decision-making authority would dramatically change the current law and take a giant step down the road of turning California into a mobocracy.”
Minter expressed concern that a decision in favor of the Prop 8 proponents could have far reaching effects, going beyond just LGBT issues.
“I was disappointed that, with some notable exceptions, too many of the court’s questions today did not address the specific legal questions before them, but rather seemed to glorify the initiative process in the abstract and to abdicate a searching examination of the California Constitution in favor of emotional appeals to ‘the people.’ The initiative process is already frequently misused to target vulnerable groups, due in part to the Court’s past reluctance to enforce any meaningful limits on the process, even when those limits are mandated by the California Constitution,” Minter concluded.
“I sincerely hope the Court does not compound that mistake by now giving initiative proponents an unprecedented new power to step outside of their proper legislative role and usurp the power that our Constitution gives only to elected state officials in the executive branch.”
Federal Government
RFK Jr.’s HHS report pushes therapy, not medical interventions, for trans youth
‘Discredited junk science’ — GLAAD
A 409-page report released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services challenges the ethics of medical interventions for youth experiencing gender dysphoria, the treatments that are often collectively called gender-affirming care, instead advocating for psychotherapy alone.
The document comes in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order barring the federal government from supporting gender transitions for anyone younger than 19.
“Our duty is to protect our nation’s children — not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions,” National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said in a statement. “We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.”
While the report does not constitute clinical guidance, its findings nevertheless conflict with not just the recommendations of LGBTQ advocacy groups but also those issued by organizations with relevant expertise in science and medicine.
The American Medical Association, for instance, notes that “empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression.”
Gender-affirming care for transgender youth under standards widely used in the U.S. includes supportive talk therapy along with — in some but not all cases — puberty blockers or hormone treatment.
“The suggestion that someone’s authentic self and who they are can be ‘changed’ is discredited junk science,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement. “This so-called guidance is grossly misleading and in direct contrast to the recommendation of every leading health authority in the world. This report amounts to nothing more than forcing the same discredited idea of conversion therapy that ripped families apart and harmed gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people for decades.”
GLAAD further notes that the “government has not released the names of those involved in consulting or authoring this report.”
Janelle Perez, executive director of LPAC, said, “For decades, every major medical association–including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics–have affirmed that medical care is the only safe and effective treatment for transgender youth experiencing gender dysphoria.
“This report is simply promoting conversion therapy by a different name – and the American people know better. We know that conversion therapy isn’t actually therapy – it isolates and harms kids, scapegoats parents, and divides families through blame and rejection. These tactics have been used against gay kids for decades, and now the same people want to use them against transgender youth and their families.
“The end result here will be a devastating denial of essential health care for transgender youth, replaced by a dangerous practice that every major U.S. medical and mental health association agree promotes anxiety, depression, and increased risk of suicidal thoughts and attempts.
“Like being gay or lesbian, being transgender is not a choice, and no amount of pressure can force someone to change who they are. We also know that 98% of people who receive transition-related health care continue to receive that health care throughout their lifetime. Trans health care is health care.”
“Today’s report seeks to erase decades of research and learning, replacing it with propaganda. The claims in today’s report would rip health care away from kids and take decision-making out of the hands of parents,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. “It promotes the same kind of conversion therapy long used to shame LGBTQ+ people into hating themselves for being unable to change something they can’t change.”
“Like being gay or lesbian, being transgender is not a choice—it’s rooted in biology and genetics,” Minter said. “No amount or talk or pressure will change that.”
Human Rights Campaign Chief of Staff Jay Brown released a statement: “Trans people are who we are. We’re born this way. And we deserve to live our best lives and have a fair shot and equal opportunity at living a good life.
“This report misrepresents the science that has led all mainstream American medical and mental health professionals to declare healthcare for transgender youth to be best practice and instead follows a script predetermined not by experts but by Sec. Kennedy and anti-equality politicians.”
The White House
Trump nominates Mike Waltz to become next UN ambassador
Former Fla. congressman had been national security advisor
President Donald Trump on Thursday announced he will nominate Mike Waltz to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Waltz, a former Florida congressman, had been the national security advisor.
Trump announced the nomination amid reports that Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, were going to leave the administration after Waltz in March added a journalist to a Signal chat in which he, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and other officials discussed plans to attack Houthi rebels in Yemen.
“I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States ambassador to the United Nations,” said Trump in a Truth Social post that announced Waltz’s nomination. “From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role.”
Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as interim national security advisor, “while continuing his strong leadership at the State Department.”
“Together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to make America, and the world, safe again,” said Trump.
Trump shortly after his election nominated U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Trump in March withdrew her nomination in order to ensure Republicans maintained their narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
U.S. Federal Courts
Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy
Two of seven plaintiffs live in Md.
Lambda Legal on April 25 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people who are challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy.
The lawsuit, which Lambda Legal filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, alleges the policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers “has caused and is causing grave and immediate harm to transgender people like plaintiffs, in violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection.”
Two of the seven plaintiffs — Jill Tran and Peter Poe — live in Maryland. The State Department, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the federal government are defendants.
“The discriminatory passport policy exposes transgender U.S. citizens to harassment, abuse, and discrimination, in some cases endangering them abroad or preventing them from traveling, by forcing them to use identification documents that share private information against their wishes,” said Lambda Legal in a press release.
Zander Schlacter, a New York-based textile artist and designer, is the lead plaintiff.
The lawsuit notes he legally changed his name and gender in New York.
Schlacter less than a week before President Donald Trump’s inauguration “sent an expedited application to update his legal name on his passport, using form DS-5504.”
Trump once he took office signed an executive order that banned the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers. The lawsuit notes Schlacter received his new passport in February.
“The passport has his correct legal name, but now has an incorrect sex marker of ‘F’ or ‘female,'” notes the lawsuit. “Mr. Schlacter also received a letter from the State Department notifying him that ‘the date of birth, place of birth, name, or sex was corrected on your passport application,’ with ‘sex’ circled in red. The stated reason was ‘to correct your information to show your biological sex at birth.'”
“I, like many transgender people, experience fear of harassment or violence when moving through public spaces, especially where a photo ID is required,” said Schlacter in the press release that announced the lawsuit. “My safety is further at risk because of my inaccurate passport. I am unwilling to subject myself and my family to the threat of harassment and discrimination at the hands of border officials or anyone who views my passport.”
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.
Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an “X” gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.
Lambda Legal represented Zzyym.
The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.
Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January. Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.
A federal judge in Boston earlier this month issued a preliminary injunction against the executive order. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.
Cozy Night In Ideas And Inspiration
Episcopal bishop to speak at WorldPride human rights conference
Pabllo Vittar to perform at WorldPride
RFK Jr.’s HHS report pushes therapy, not medical interventions, for trans youth
Trump nominates Mike Waltz to become next UN ambassador
Chronicling disastrous effects of ‘conversion therapy’
Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy
We must show up to WorldPride 2025 in D.C.
Ruby Corado sentencing postponed for third time
A room with Pride: D.C.’s LGBTQ history finds a new home at the Eaton
-
Books4 days agoChronicling disastrous effects of ‘conversion therapy’
-
U.S. Federal Courts4 days agoSecond federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy
-
Opinions4 days agoWe must show up to WorldPride 2025 in D.C.
-
District of Columbia4 days agoRuby Corado sentencing postponed for third time