National

Court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional

Scope of ruling limited to California; appeal planned

Published

14 years ago

February 7, 2012

In a two-to-one decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional in a federal case challenging California’s marriage ban.

The opinion, authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, affirms Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 ruling that the law passed by California voters at the ballot violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

The court also rejected the argument that Judge Walker should have recused himself from the case because of his sexual orientation and relationship status.

Legal experts began to weigh in on the meaning of the decision immediately.

“I think the biggest story is how narrow [the majority decision] really is,” Douglas NeJaime, associate professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, told the Blade Tuesday. “Which in some ways I think that might disappoint some folks who were hoping it would expand to more states, but I think in terms of setting it up for a Supreme Court review — either the Supreme Court not taking it, or approving it — for supporters of same-sex marriage, this is actually the most strategically sound way for the case to proceed.”

Legal experts agree that the decision represents a big win for same-sex couples in California, even though it was a narrow decision limited to California. The Ninth Circuit encompasses multiple Western states and some Prop 8 opponents had hoped the court’s decision would impact a wider swath of the country.

“The decision is a very narrow decision striking down Proposition 8 on grounds that are very unique to California,” NeJaime told the Blade. “What this doesn’t do is directly affect the laws of the majority of states that don’t allow same-sex couples to marry. It doesn’t announce that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the federal Constitution, and it doesn’t engage the question of whether sexual orientation-based classifications should be subjected to some heightened form of scrutiny under the federal Constitution. So it’s a very narrow ruling that only directly impacts the law in California.”

If left to stand, however, what the decision would do, NeJaime says, is allow same-sex couples to marry in California.

“What you would likely have happen is a bunch of other people would file cases in other states, and you would have more litigation, and the states that have a system most directly related to the court’s ruling here, would be states that have domestic partnership or civil union statues that allow same-sex couples to have all of the same rights and benefits of different-sex couples,” NeJaime said. “So Washington, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, those states’ laws would probably be the first to be challenged.”

Though the court sided with the plaintiffs, the ruling is stayed until the decision goes into effect, in what is called a “mandate.” This means that same-sex couples will not be able to marry in California until the Ninth Circuit lifts the stay, the Supreme Court decides to uphold the ruling or pass on the case, or the state voters decide to overturn the law at the ballot.

Proponents of Prop 8 now have 15 days to ask for what is called an ‘en banc’ decision by a larger random panel of 11 of the court’s 24 judges — a crap shoot for proponents of the law who could not guarantee the judges assigned to the panel are sympathetic. Proponents also have 90 days to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, if they so choose to skip the ‘en banc’ rehearing.

Though at the onset of the case, gay rights advocates were excited about the prospect of the case advancing to the Supreme Court where they hoped it could be used to strike down same-sex marriage bans across the nation, some legal experts say it’s not so simple.

“Everyone thought this case was going to Supreme Court, but given how narrow this ruling is, the Supreme Court might very likely just not take the case,” NeJaime told the Blade. “The Supreme Court does not have to take the case. And they might decide ‘this only affects California. We’ll let it stand. And we’ll take a case down the road.’”

“If they take the case, then the decision by the Ninth Circuit has really set it up so that the Supreme Court can affirm the decision, meaning strike down Proposition 8, by not having to reach very far.”

NeJaime said that the Reinhardt opinion, much like the Walker opinion, borrows heavily from the case law history of swing vote Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom NeJaime says the opinion “aims” for. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the Romer v. Evans case that struck down an anti-gay constitutional amendment in Colorado’s Constitution nearly 20 years ago, but that doesn’t mean the justice will help the plaintiffs change the law across the land.

“So basically because its a narrow ruling, and because the court applied the lowest form of scrutiny for equal protection purposes, the Supreme Court could affirm the decision without having to expand much on its current case law, and without having to comment on the laws of the other states. It could issue a ruling that would allow same-sex marriage in California but doesn’t affect anything else directly. That’s the preferred course of the court, is to issue narrow, incremental, case-by-case rulings, rather than broad sweeping rulings, that invalidate the majority of states’ laws in one decision.”

In 2008, more than 18,000 same-sex couples were married in California during a brief period following the decision by the California Supreme Court that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the California Constitution. The weddings were halted by the November 2008 voter-enacted law, but the court ruled that the 18,000 marriages performed should remain valid.

For now, same-sex couples in California who did not get married during the narrow 2008 window are in legal limbo, waiting for the stay on the original Judge Walker decision to be lifted once and for all, but that could take some time.

“The mandate would issue seven days after the time for filing a petition for rehearing expires, or seven days after the denial of a petition for a rehearing,” NeJaime told the Blade. “They have 14 days to file the petition, so technically, it could issue as soon as 21 days. But more likely it will be later than that, and if they take it for a rehearing, it would be even later than that, so the soonest would be within three weeks.

“But in the meantime, there’s probably going to be additional motions to stay, so that doesn’t mean that once the mandate is issued, same-sex couples can marry,” NeJaime added.

Despite the continued wait, LGBT rights organizations were quick to hail the victory.

“Today’s decision heartens and gives hope to the 15,698 loving couples in California who are raising more than 30,000 children,” said Family Equality Council Executive Director Jennifer Chrisler. “They, like all Americans, understand that while love makes a family, there is no denying that marriage strengthens it. These parents have raised their children to love their country, support their friends and treat their neighbors with respect. Now they only ask for the fundamental American freedom to demonstrate their love and commitment to their family through marriage.”

California-based Courage Campaign also weighed in minutes after the announcement of the ruling upholding Judge Walker’s decision.

“The 9th Circuit did what it must: it ruled that Judge Walker is competent, not somehow diminished for being gay and it ruled that the Constitution of the United States indeed provides equal protection and due process to all Americans, not just some Americans,” said Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the Courage Campaign.

Even the LGBT military group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network weighed in with a statement by outgoing executive director and Army veteran Aubrey Sarvis.

“SLDN welcomes today’s important ruling by the Ninth Circuit affirming the lower court decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional; indeed, fairness and equality have carried the day,” said Sarvis. “This victory strengthens our case on behalf of married gay and lesbian service members and veterans as we seek to gain equal recognition, support, and benefits for them and their families. This is an historic win for supporters of full equality in the military and in our country.”

“We’re thrilled that today the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that under our Constitution, all loving couples must be allowed to marry, regardless of the gender of either partner,” said Transgender Law Center Executive Director Masen Davis. “The state should not be in the business of policing who can marry based on gender. I’m optimistic that full equality for all our families is on the horizon.”

Up Next

Reporters grill Carney on marriage, Prop 8 ruling

Don't Miss

Tuesday vigil set for slain trans woman

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

New York

N.Y. governor’s race presents stark contrast on LGBTQ rights

Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul expected to face Republican Bruce Blakeman

Published

1 day ago

June 18, 2026

Joe Reberkenny

Kathy Hochul (Photo courtesy of the then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office)

As states across the country grapple with a rapidly changing federal landscape under President Donald Trump, governors have increasingly become the first line of defense — or enforcement — on issues ranging from healthcare and education to LGBTQ rights.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in New York, Trump’s home state, where the 2026 gubernatorial race is shaping up as a high-profile battle over the future of LGBTQ protections.

Incumbent Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul is seeking a second full term as New York’s 57th governor and the state’s first female governor. She enters the race with strong support from LGBTQ advocates and organizations, including an endorsement from the Stonewall Democrats of New York City. Earlier this year, Hochul was also endorsed by progressive leaders like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is running alongside New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams as her lieutenant governor candidate.

Throughout her tenure, Hochul has signed a series of measures aimed at strengthening protections for LGBTQ New Yorkers, particularly transgender residents.

Among the most notable is New York’s “Trans Safe Haven Act,” which protects out-of-state trans youth, their parents, and medical providers who travel to New York to access legally protected gender-affirming care. Hochul has also signed legislation requiring health insurance plans to cover HIV prevention medications, including PrEP and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), without out-of-pocket costs.

Additionally, Hochul signed a Long-Term Care Bill of Rights that prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ seniors and people living with HIV in long-term care facilities.

“As the birthplace of the LGBTQ+ rights movement, New York has long been at the forefront of advancing equality,” Hochul said in a statement during Pride month. “During Pride month, we celebrate New York’s vibrant LGBTQ+ community and acknowledge the importance of protecting the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ New Yorkers. This month and every month, we proudly stand with the LGBTQ+ community and remain committed to building a more inclusive and equitable future for all where everyone can live freely with dignity, safety, and respect.”

On the Republican side, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman has emerged as the party’s leading candidate. Blakeman is running with Madison County Sheriff Todd Hood as his lieutenant governor pick.

Blakeman, Nassau County’s 10th county executive, was first elected in 2021 after defeating Democratic incumbent Laura Curran. He previously served as a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a Nassau County legislator, and a Hempstead town councilman.

A longtime supporter of Trump, Blakeman appeared alongside the president during a 2024 event honoring slain NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller.

LGBTQ advocates have frequently criticized Blakeman for his positions on trans issues, particularly his opposition to trans women participating in women’s sports.

In February 2024, Blakeman signed an executive order barring women’s sports teams that include trans women from using Nassau County athletic facilities. The policy applies to youth, collegiate, and professional teams. Teams that include trans men were not affected. The order has since been halted by the New York State Appellate Division swiftly issued an injunction halting enforcement while the plaintiffs appeal the decision

Ahead of announcing the order, Blakeman repeatedly referred to trans women as “biological males” and argued they should compete on men’s or co-ed teams. LGBTQ rights groups condemned the policy, saying it discriminates against trans athletes and contributes to the marginalization of trans youth.

Trump endorsed Blakeman’s gubernatorial campaign in December 2025, shortly after U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) announced she would not seek the Republican nomination. The president made his endorsement via Truth Social that “Bruce is MAGA all the way, and has been with me from the very beginning.”

The Washington Blade contacted Blakeman’s campaign seeking comment on his LGBTQ policy priorities and views on issues including nondiscrimination protections, trans rights, and healthcare access. The campaign did not respond.

The race highlights two sharply different approaches to LGBTQ policy in a state widely regarded as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, home to the 1969 Stonewall uprising that helped launch the contemporary movement for LGBTQ equality.

Despite the ideological contrast, early polling suggests Hochul remains the clear favorite. Most public surveys show the incumbent holding a double-digit advantage over her potential Republican challengers, with some polls placing her lead at roughly 20 percentage points ahead of the November election.

Illinois

Obama Center opens with tributes to marriage equality, LGBTQ progress

19.3 acre campus honors 44th president’s legacy

Published

1 day ago

June 18, 2026

Joe Reberkenny

The Obama Presidential Center in Chicago on June 14, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

The Barack Obama Presidential Center held media previews on Thursday ahead of its official Juneteenth opening, marking the debut of the first presidential center dedicated to the 44th and only Black U.S. president.

The 19.3-acre campus, located on Chicago’s South Side within historic Jackson Park, features a museum, garden, basketball court, and a new branch of the Chicago Public Library.

Multiple artifacts related to the LGBTQ rights movement appear in the presidential museum’s collection, though none appeared to be on display at the time of publication, according to the center’s website.

Among the objects in the collection are the pen Obama used to sign the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prohibited gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from serving openly in the military; a set of Harvey Milk commemorative stamps honoring the first openly gay elected official in San Francisco; and an Out2Enroll rainbow sweat wristband used to connect communities — specifically LGBTQ people and their families, friends, and allies — with health insurance coverage options available under the Affordable Care Act.

The artifacts reflect a broader LGBTQ legacy associated with the Obama presidency.

During the televised opening ceremony, former first lady Michelle Obama thanked her husband for “standing up for marriage equality.”

During his presidency, Obama took a number of actions affecting LGBTQ Americans, including repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” signing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, directing the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court, expanding federal benefits and leave to same-sex domestic partners of federal and Foreign Service employees, broadening Affordable Care Act coverage for LGBTQ health issues, including HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, and signing a 2014 executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The opening event drew numerous celebrities, including Stevie Wonder, Christina Aguilera, Oprah Winfrey, and Tom Hanks.

It also attracted political figures from both sides of the aisle. One notable exception was President Donald Trump, who was not invited to the ceremony. All other living former presidents were invited and attended.

The Obama Presidential Center will open to the public on June 19, with tickets available on its website.

Florida

Intersex teacher alleges Fla. school fired him over perceived trans identity

Shepard Scalf filed a complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Published

1 day ago

June 18, 2026

Emma LaPointe

Intersex flag (Bigstock photo)

An intersex teacher in Florida who was fired is alleging in a new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filing that he was terminated based on assumptions that he was transgender.

Shepard Scalf in the filing says he was assigned female at birth but identifies as male.

According to Monday’s filing with the EEOC, submitted on Scalf’s behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, and the law firm of Chanfrau & Chanfrau P.L., the school district fired Scalf on the basis of his sex and the presumption that he is trans.

Scalf was hired for the 2025-2026 school year at Patriot Oaks Academy in the St. Johns County School District to teach language arts to 6th- and 7th-graders, after previously working in another Florida school district.

During the hiring process, Scalf submitted paperwork that disclosed he had been assigned female at birth. He was born with an intersex variation with XY chromosomes, and he lives as and presents as a man.

On Aug. 28, 2025, Patriot Oaks Academy Principal Drew Chiodo scheduled an emergency meeting with Scalf. The principal was directed to read a letter from the school district superintendent informing Scalf that he must either submit his resignation or be fired.

According to the ACLU, Scalf was provided with no legitimate reason for his termination and had not received any prior warnings or disciplinary actions. At the time of his termination, Chiodo told Scalf his work was “exemplary” and that Scalf had “met every expectation.”

“Receiving this ultimatum was confusing and overwhelming. Everything had been going so well — I couldn’t understand why this was happening,” Scalf said. “The start of a school year is always brimming with promise and excitement, and I was looking forward to continuing my teaching career at Patriot Oaks until I was cornered into resigning. It became clear to me that being fired had nothing to do with my qualifications or teaching — it was about who I am.”

According to the filing, Scalf received communications that the termination followed complaints from a parent about his gender identity. However, the filing also claims that his gender identity, sex assigned at birth, and intersex status were never mentioned in his classroom.

In a 2020 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County found employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The ACLU is claiming that under that ruling, Scalf’s rights under Title VII were violated.

“Six years ago, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that employers cannot fire someone for being gay or transgender because doing so is discrimination because of sex,” said Shana Knizhnik, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, in a press release from the ACLU. “The same reasoning protects intersex people, who have long faced discrimination because their bodies and lives do not conform to narrow expectations about what a man or a woman is supposed to be. Mr. Scalf was an exemplary teacher, but despite his performance and qualifications, he was forced out of his job because he did not fit those expectations. As politicians and institutions increasingly seek to police sex and gender, intersex people are too often caught in the crossfire alongside transgender people — but federal civil rights law protects everyone from this kind of discrimination.”

Samantha Past, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Florida, stated in a press release that Florida’s public school system is increasingly hostile towards LGBTQ people.

“At a time when Florida’s public schools are increasingly targeted by disruptive state policies and in the midst of a teacher shortage crisis, St. Johns County School District chose to unlawfully oust a qualified and respected educator. Everyone deserves the opportunity to work and contribute to their community without fear of being targeted because of who they are. Mr. Scalf is no exception,” Past stated.