Connect with us

National

EXCLUSIVE: Outed sheriff ‘110 percent in the race for Congress’

Babeu pledges to change ‘beliefs, perceptions’ about gays

Published

on

The recently outed gay sheriff of Pinal County, Ariz., says if he’s elected to Congress he’ll support pro-LGBT initiatives and help change perceptions lawmakers have about gay people.

In an exclusive interview with the Washington Blade, Paul Babeu, who’s running to represent Arizona’s 4th congressional district in Congress, said his election would be “very impactful and helpful” in changing “the views, perceptions, beliefs about who we are.”

“If they know me first as a sheriff, as a police officer who has responded to, literally, thousands and thousands of emergencies, has fought criminals, has actually saved lives and served our country in the military for 20-plus years … and when regular people see those accomplishments and those results first, then understand at a later point that I am gay, it changes people’s beliefs and perceptions and understanding,” Babeu said.

The Blade interview marks the first time Babeu has spoken to the LGBT media since he came out during a news conference earlier this month.

Babeu, elected as sheriff in 2008 and considered a rising star in the Republican Party, gained national attention after the Phoenix New Times on Feb. 17 published allegations that he threatened to deport his ex-boyfriend, Jose Orozco, a Mexican national and campaign volunteer, after their relationship soured. The article included semi-nude photos he reportedly sent to Orozco and a picture from what appears to be his adam4adam profile.

In a news conference following the article’s publication, Babeu denied the allegations against him save for one: he publicly acknowledged that he’s gay. Babeu has since accused Orozco of identity theft, which Orozco’s attorney has denied.

Asked to comment on Babeu’s assertions about the situation, A.D. Horan, Orozco’s lawyer, told the Blade, “Jose denies the allegations and intends to cooperate fully with the state’s investigation.” Horan declined to comment further.

Although his race to win the Republican nomination will likely be more difficult while facing these allegations, Babeu told the Blade he’s “110 percent in the race for Congress.”

“It will be a harder fight, and I never turn from a fight,” Babeu said. “I shall stand and work harder than I ever have in my life on my accomplishments, on my service.”

Babeu said he believes voters in his district will accept him because “we’re different as Americans” and “we’re exceptional people.”

“When though we’ve overcome many hurdles and obstacles, and none of us are perfect, in America, we define ourselves by the value we add in our communities,” Babeu said. “We see our differences as a strength, whether it’s our religion, our ethnicity, our gender, our [sexual] orientation. Those are the same liberties and freedoms I personally defend and fought for, and that’s why I continue to stand up and fight now.”

Babeu said he’s “not ashamed” of his sexual orientation, but added, “I’m just not going to define myself solely on the fact that I am gay.”

If elected to Congress, Babeu said he’ll be “a strong fiscal conservative” and advocate for “spending within our means,” but also will support pro-LGBT legislative measures.

Among the initiatives Babeu said he supports is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, noting he’s “in favor of eliminating any discrimination” and adding that workers should be evaluated solely on their performance and merit.

Asked whether he supports the idea of President Obama issuing an executive order requiring federal contractors to have LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies, Babeu said he’d have to “look into it” but would support such a directive “on the surface.”

Additionally, Babeu said he would “certainly vote to repeal” the Defense of Marriage Act and said he thinks the anti-gay law exceeds the authority of the government under the U.S. Constitution.

“I’m a strict constitutionalist as well,” Babeu said. “As a strict constitutionalist, this has no business at the federal level. This should go to the states.”

The sheriff said his opposition to DOMA is in line with his belief that the government shouldn’t tell religions which individuals they can or can’t marry.

“The issue of marriage is a deeply religious ceremony, and this is where the government shouldn’t tell certain faiths, say like Catholics, that they have to marry two men or two women, in the same way that they shouldn’t tell other faiths or religions that they can’t,” Babeu said. “This isn’t a role for the government to enter into. This is an issue of religious freedom.”

Babeu also said “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should remain off the books, drawing on his service as an Army veteran of the Iraq war in opposing the now-ended policy. The sheriff, who retired with the rank of major, said he had gay soldiers under his command who were “exemplary in their service.”

“I had to live under that,” Babeu said. “Anyone who wants to wear the uniform of our country and put their own personal safety and life on the line to protect Americans, they should be allowed to and they should be honored for that service.”

But Babeu said he couldn’t yet declare support for another piece of legislation, the Uniting American Families Act, because he wasn’t familiar with it. The immigration-related bill would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign born same-sex partners for residency in the United States.

“To be honest with you, I haven’t read the legislation,” Babeu said. “I’d be happy to read it and give you an answer after that. You know where I stand on all these other issues, which are consistent with being an advocate for equality.”

Known for taking a hard line on immigration, Babeu is a proponent of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, which requires immigrants to have registration documents in their possession at all times. The law has come under fire from immigration rights advocates and the U.S. Justice Department has filed suit against the statute.

Babeu said he doesn’t see any connection between the immigration advocacy community and the LGBT community in their struggle for equal rights.

“It’s a difference between civil rights for citizens versus legal status,” Babeu said. “Though these may be good and decent people in terms of illegal immigrants, the fact is that they’re illegal. In our community, we’re talking citizens. … It’s a very different issue; it’s not like an oppressed people or disenfranchised or people who’ve had their rights taken away. They’re here illegally, so it’s about the rule of law.”

Asked whether he supports the passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation, Babeu said Congress should approve the 10-point border security plan introduced in the Senate last year by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). Among the 10 points are deploying 3,000 National Guard troops to the Arizona border, providing additional funds to border security personnel as well as completing 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico and constructing double- and triple- layer fencing at certain locations.

Despite his pledge to work as an LGBT advocate, as a Republican candidate, Babeu noted he would vote for Republican leadership if elected to the House. Under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), pro-LGBT initiatives have seen no progress.

Still, Babeu said he thinks pro-LGBT initiatives will be able to see movement in the 113th Congress even with Republicans in the majority if he’s elected because he’ll work to influence lawmakers.

“This is where I can be an influence, the voice of reason,” Babeu said. “And I can tell you that I have far more credibility with a record of accomplishment and a record of service. I can say and can stand as a recent veteran, as somebody who has actually commanded soldiers from every nationality, every ethnic group, every faith and gender and sexual orientation.”

Until the allegations against him made headlines, Babeu was also affiliated with Mitt Romney’s presidential bid and served as co-chair of his Arizona campaign. Babeu resigned that position after the New Times story was published.

Although he’s no longer with the campaign, Babeu said he believes “in the end” Romney would be a friend to LGBT Americans if elected to the White House.

“Even though [Mitt Romney] has his deep religious views, I can tell you that a lot of Mormons support me and still do, and this changes nothing for a lot of these individuals,” Babeu said.

Babeu said he’s already voted for Romney via early voting in the Arizona primary, which takes place on Tuesday, and intends to continue supporting the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign. When the New Times story broke, Babeu said the Romney campaign told him he didn’t need to resign his post, but he wanted to leave to address the allegations against him.

Asked whether he’s bothered that Romney opposes same-sex marriage and backs a U.S. constitutional amendment banning marriage rights for gay couples, Babeu said he doesn’t agree with the candidate on every issue, but noted President Obama isn’t perfect on LGBT issues because of his position on marriage.

Babeu referenced a 1996 questionnaire with the Windy City Times in which Obama, then a candidate for Illinois state Senate, said he supported legalizing same-sex marriage. Since running for national office, Obama hasn’t supported marriage rights for gay couples.

“He said that in local office, and then he had a different position when he ran for president,” Babeu said. “For all these leaders, we literally have to demand and advocate for issues, and I believe that effort is growing, and it’s becoming a groundswell nationally. We have to create an environment in which either President Obama or Mitt Romney makes a decision that is right and consistent with the Constitution.”

Since coming out, Babeu said he’s been in contact with numerous national LGBT leaders. Among them are heads of conservative groups: R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, and Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud.

Babeu said he’s reached out to the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and has friends at the organization. On Saturday evening, Babeu said he was set to talk via phone with Chuck Wolfe, the Victory Fund’s CEO.

Babeu said he hasn’t spoken to the Human Rights Campaign, but said he’s a member of the organization and is on its mailing list. The sheriff said he’s made contributions to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and has been a member “in the past.”

Babeu could face a rocky road to elected office, even though polls had him ahead of his opponents prior to the publication of the Phoenix New Times piece.

The sheriff is facing two investigations: one that he requested with Arizona Attorney General Tom Hume and another that was initiated by Pinal County’s top prosecutor, James Walsh.

Babeu said he called for the investigation with the attorney general because he wants to “clear [his] name because there was never any threat” of him retaliating against Orozco. Babeu said Orozco is in the United States legally.

Additionally, Babeu said Orozco tried to shop his story around “to every media outlet in metro Phoenix, and even in Tucson,” but no other media outlet besides the Phoenix New Times would touch it because “it’s not against the law being gay.”

Babeu maintained that the only correspondence that he or his lawyer, Chris DeRose, had with Orozco was sending him a cease-and-desist letter to stop him from accessing online media for the campaign. Babeu categorically denied that he ever asked Orozco to sign an agreement that he wouldn’t tell anyone about Babeu’s sexual orientation.

“I’ve never asked him to do anything of the sort,” Babeu said. “I’ve never asked anybody.”

Babeu emphasized the distinction between how he and his ex-boyfriend are acting in the aftermath of the publication of the New Times piece.

“I’m the one who’s standing and defending myself,” Babeu said. “I’m the one who’s talking and he’s got his got his face blocked out, his voice altered and is nowhere to be found. He won’t talk to anybody. That seems highly suspicious to me. I’m the one asking for the investigation. It is very easy to attack and to malign. But the business that I’m in is that you’re innocent until proven guilty.”

Babeu said he believes Orozco went public with the story because he was hurt after their relationship ended and because his political opponents helped facilitate the effort. The sheriff said he’ll do whatever he can to help prosecute Orozco.

The New Times piece also insinuates a relationship between Babeu and Matt Heinz, a Democratic state lawmaker who’s also pursuing a congressional bid.

The piece states that Heinz broke with Democratic ranks to vote to approve $5 million in funds for Babeu for border security work. The article includes a text message allegedly from Babeu saying that he was planning to spend the night at the home of Heinz and his boyfriend, suggesting some kind of sexual payoff.

But Babeu denied that the relationship with Heinz was anything other than friendship.

“It’s simply outrageous that they would write such a thing,” Babeu said. “Matt Heinz is a good and decent man. He’s a physician who is well respected and we have a purely platonic friendship.”

Despite the allegations and the investigations he faces, Babeu said the reaction from Arizona Republicans to his coming out has been positive and “pretty overwhelming.”

Babeu said he was greeted with applause during an appearance last week in Yuma, Ariz., a conservative, rural city in his district, where he talked about how he wants to continue pressing economic issues and government spending while asking people to judge him on his commitment to his country.

“How I should be judged is the value I bring to my community and to my country, my service, in the same way that you would want to be judged is how I want to be judged by that service and by the value that I add,” Babeu said. “And nearly everyone in that room came up and signed my papers, which you can only sign for one candidate. And these are the most active Republicans. They are the ones that go out and do all the campaign work and so forth.”

Babeu said military veterans shook his hand and looked him in the eye, saying “Paul, I’m with you. Sheriff Paul, you’ve got my support. This changes nothing.” Additionally, he said at least 15 women hugged and kissed him, saying, “I think you’re great, I support you and we’re going to win.” Babeu said one of the precinct committee members told him, “My only sister is gay. I think it’s great that you’re gay.”

“There will be some people who react coldly, that shall not deter me,” Babeu said. “I’m the same sheriff today that I was 10 days ago. And who I was then is who I am today. So, I’m confident not just in terms of who I am, but what I believe and why I ran in the first place.”

UPDATE: Following the Blade’s interview with Babeu, an ABC News affiliate in Arizona published a report containing new allegations against the sheriff.

According to ABC15, while Babeu was headmaster and executive director of DeSisto Private Boarding School, complaints were filed that officials administered harsh punishments for students. Additionally, the report quotes Babeu’s sister, Lucy Babeu, who claims he was involved in a relationship with a 17-year-old male student at the school.

Lucy Babeu said she found a student from DeSisto living with the now-sheriff. According to Lucy, her brother told her the student was his boyfriend. ABC15 didn’t identify the former student. At the time, the student was reportedly 17, which is the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts Office of Child Care Services launched an investigation into repeated allegations of abuse, according to the report; during Babeu’s tenure the school wasn’t licensed. Babeu left the school in 2001; the state investigation forced DeSisto to shut down in 2004.

Among the alleged punishments at the school was being “sheeted,” or being forced to strip down to nothing but a sheet and stand before peers. Another alleged punishment was being “cornered,” which required sitting and facing a wall for hours, days and sometimes weeks.

“In one case, records show a student with bi-polar disorder, ADHD and impulse control disorder was ‘cornered’ for ‘weeks on end,'” the report states. “The student’s medication was not monitored properly. He began to “urinate and defecate” on himself. He was also taken to the hospital for pneumonia.

Days later, that same student was returned to DeSisto and sent back to the corner.”

Holli Nielsen, a student at DeSisto while Babeu was headmaster, was quoted in the report as saying Babeu was “certainly aware” of the kind of punishments happening at the school under his watch.

Chris DeRose, a Babeu campaign adviser, told the Blade that the allegations in the report “are false.” According to DeRose, Lucy Babeu has a history of mental illness, and the news station “knowingly exploited a mentally ill woman for the sake of airing a sensational story.”

DeRose said Lucy Babeu has been declared insane and was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward on multiple occasions and stripped of custody of her children for severe mental illness. Additionally, DeRose contends Lucy’s children have obtained multiple orders of protection against her for threatening to kill them, and that a court order was issued based on the threat of immediate harm.

According to DeRose, Lucy has a history of threatening or filing frivolous lawsuits against previous employers and has called law enforcement officials to “report imaginary conspiracy theories.” DeRose said Lucy has a history of illegal drug abuse.

DeRose said ABC 15 was offered the opportunity to review this information, but didn’t accept and aired the story anyway. According to DeRose, at least five Arizona media outlets declined to use Lucy as a source.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Pennsylvania

Erica Deuso elected as Pa.’s first openly transgender mayor

‘History was made.’

Published

on

Erica Deuso (Photo courtesy of LPAC)

Erica Deuso will become the first openly transgender mayor in Pennsylvania.

Voters in Downingtown elected Deuso on Tuesday with 64 percent of the vote, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. The Democrat ran against Republican Richard Bryant.

Deuso, 45, currently works at Johnson & Johnson and has lived in Downingtown since 2007. The mayor-elect is originally from Vermont and graduated from Drexel University.

Deuso released a statement following her election, noting that “history was made.”

“Voters chose hope, decency, and a vision of community where every neighbor matters,” Deuso stated. “I am deeply honored to be elected as Pennsylvania’s first openly transgender mayor, and I don’t take that responsibility lightly.”

According to a LGBTQ+ Victory Institute report released in June, the U.S. has seen a 12.5 percent increase in trans elected officials from 2024 to 2025. Still, Deuso’s campaign did not heavily focus on LGBTQ policy or her identity. She instead prioritized public safety, environmental resilience, and town infrastructure, according to Deuso’s campaign website.

Deuso has served on the boards of the Pennsylvania Equality Project, PFLAG West Chester/Chester County, and Emerge Pennsylvania, according to the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund. She is also an executive member of the Chester County Democratic Committee.

“This victory isn’t about one person, it’s about what happens when people come together to choose progress over fear. It’s about showing that leadership can be compassionate, practical, and focused on results. Now the real work begins, building a Downingtown that is safe, sustainable, and strong for everyone who calls it home,” Deuso said.

Downingtown has a population of more than 8,000 people and is a suburb of Philadelphia. The town’s current mayor, Democrat Phil Dague, did not seek a second term.

Janelle Perez, the executive director of LPAC, celebrated Deuso’s victory. The super PAC endorses LGBTQ women and nonbinary candidates with a commitment to women’s equality and social justice, including Deuso.

“Downingtown voters delivered a resounding message today, affirming that Erica represents the inclusive, forward-looking leadership their community deserves, while rejecting the transphobic rhetoric that has become far too common across the country,” Perez said. “Throughout her campaign, Erica demonstrated an unwavering commitment to her future constituents and the issues that matter most to them. LPAC is proud to have supported her from the beginning of this historic campaign, and we look forward to the positive impact she will have as mayor of Downingtown.”

Deuso will be sworn in as mayor on Jan. 7.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

LGBTQ legal leaders to Supreme Court: ‘honor your president, protect our families’

Experts insist Kim Davis case lacks merit

Published

on

Protesters outside of the Supreme Court fly an inclusive Pride flag in December 2024. (Washington Blade Photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court considered hearing a case from Kim Davis on Friday that could change the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Davis, best known as the former county clerk for Rowan County, Ky., who defied federal court orders by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — and later, to any couples at all — is back in the headlines this week as she once again attempts to get Obergefell v. Hodges overturned on a federal level.

She has tried to get the Supreme Court to overturn this case before — the first time was just weeks after the initial 2015 ruling — arguing that, in her official capacity as a county clerk, she should have the right to refuse same-sex marriage licenses based on her First Amendment rights. The court has emphatically said Davis, at least in her official capacity as a county clerk, does not have the right to act on behalf of the state while simultaneously following her personal religious beliefs.

The Washington Blade spoke with Karen Loewy, interim deputy legal director for litigation at Lambda Legal, the oldest and largest national legal organization advancing civil rights for the LGBTQ community and people living with HIV through litigation, education, and public policy, to discuss the realistic possibilities of the court taking this case, its potential implications, and what LGBTQ couples concerned about this can do now to protect themselves.

Loewy began by explaining how the court got to where it is today.

“So Kim Davis has petitioned the Supreme Court for review of essentially what was [a] damages award that the lower court had given to a couple that she refused a marriage license to in her capacity as a clerk on behalf of the state,” Loewy said, explaining Davis has tried (and failed) to get this same appeal going in the past. “This is not the first time that she has asked the court to weigh in on this case. This is her second bite at the apple at the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2020, the last time that she did this, the court denied review.”

Davis’s entire argument rests on her belief that she has the ability to act both as a representative of the state and according to her personal religious convictions — something, Loewy said, no court has ever recognized as a legal right.

“She’s really claiming a religious, personal, religious exemption from her duties on behalf of the state, and that’s not a thing.”

That, Loewy explained, is ultimately a good thing for the sanctity of same-sex marriage.

“I think there’s a good reason to think that they will, yet again, say this is not an appropriate vehicle for the question and deny review.”

She also noted that public opinion on same-sex marriage remains overwhelmingly positive.

“The Respect for Marriage Act is a really important thing that has happened since Obergefell. This is a federal statute that mandates that marriages that were lawfully entered, wherever they were lawfully entered, get respect at the federal level and across state lines.”

“Public opinion around marriage has changed so dramatically … even at the state level, you’re not going to see the same immediate efforts to undermine marriages of same-sex couples that we might have a decade ago before Obergefell came down.”

A clear majority of U.S. adults — 65.8 percent — continue to support keeping the Obergefell v. Hodges decision in place, protecting the right to same-sex marriage. That support breaks down to 83 percent of liberals, 68 percent of moderates, and about half of conservatives saying they support marriage equality. These results align with other recent polling, including Gallup’s May 2025 estimate showing 68 percent support for same-sex marriage.

“Where we are now is quite different from where we were in terms of public opinion … opponents of marriage equality are loud, but they’re not numerous.”

Loewy also emphasized that even if, by some chance, something did happen to the right to marry, once a marriage is issued, it cannot be taken back.

“First, the Respect for Marriage Act is an important reason why people don’t need to panic,” she said. “Once you are married, you are married, there isn’t a way to sort of undo marriages that were lawfully licensed at the time.”

She continued, explaining that LGBTQ people might feel vulnerable right now as the current political climate becomes less welcoming, but there is hope — and the best way to respond is to move thoughtfully.

“I don’t have a crystal ball. I also can’t give any sort of specific advice. But what I would say is, you know, I understand people’s fear. Everything feels really vulnerable right now, and this administration’s attacks on the LGBTQ community make everybody feel vulnerable for really fair and real reasons. I think the practical likelihood of Obergefell being reversed at this moment in time is very low. You know, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other, you know, case vehicles out there to challenge the validity of Obergefell, but they’re not on the Supreme Court’s doorstep, and we will see how it all plays out for folks who feel particularly concerned and vulnerable.”

Loewy went on to say there are steps LGBTQ couples and families can take to safeguard their relationships, regardless of what the court decides. She recommended getting married (if that feels right for them) and utilizing available legal tools such as estate planning and relationship documentation.

“There are things, steps that they can take to protect their families — putting documentation in place and securing relationships between parents and children, doing estate planning, making sure that their relationship is recognized fully throughout their lives and their communities. Much of that is not different from the tools that folks have had at their disposal prior to the availability of marriage equality … But I think it behooves everyone to make sure they have an estate plan and they’ve taken those steps to secure their family relationships.”

“I think, to the extent that the panic is rising for folks, those are tools that they have at their disposal to try and make sure that their family and their relationships are as secure as possible,” she added.

When asked what people can do at the state and local level to protect these rights from being eroded, Loewy urged voters to support candidates and initiatives that codify same-sex marriage at smaller levels — which would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for a federal reversal of Obergefell to take effect.

“With regard to marriage equality … states can be doing … amend state constitutions, to remove any of the previous language that had been used to bar same-sex couples from marrying.”

Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings echoed Loewy’s points in a statement regarding the possibility of Obergefell being overturned:

“In the United States, we can proudly say that marriage equality is the law,” he said via email. “As the Supreme Court discusses whether to take up for review a challenge to marriage equality, Lambda Legal urges the court to honor what millions of Americans already know as a fundamental truth and right: LGBTQ+ families are part of the nation’s fabric.

“LGBTQ+ families, including same-sex couples, are living in and contributing to every community in this country: building loving homes and small businesses, raising children, caring for pets and neighbors, and volunteering in their communities. The court took note of this reality in Obergefell v. Hodges, citing the ‘hundreds of thousands of children’ already being raised in ‘loving and nurturing homes’ led by same-sex couples. The vows that LGBTQ+ couples have taken in their weddings might have been a personal promise to each other. Still, the decision of the Supreme Court is an unbreakable promise affirming the simple truth that our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law to all, not just some.”

He noted the same things Loewy pointed out — namely that, at minimum, the particular avenue Davis is attempting to use to challenge same-sex marriage has no legal footing.

“Let’s be clear: There is no case here. Granting review in this case would unnecessarily open the door to harming families and undermine our rights. Lower courts have found that a government employee violates the law when she refuses to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples as her job requires. There is no justifiable reason for the court to revisit settled law or destabilize families.”

He also addressed members of the LGBTQ community who might be feeling fearful at this moment:

“To our community, we say: this fight is not new. Our community has been fighting for decades for our right to love whom we love, to marry and to build our families. It was not quick, not easy, not linear. We have lived through scary and dark times before, endured many defeats, but we have persevered. When we persist, we prevail.”

And he issued a direct message to the court, urging justices to honor the Constitution over one person’s religious beliefs.

“To the court, we ask it to honor its own precedent, to honor the Constitution’s commands of individual liberty and equal protection under the law, and above all, to honor the reality of LGBTQ families — deeply rooted in every town and city in America. There is no reason to grant review in this case.”

Kenneth Gordon, a partner at Brinkley Morgan, a financial firm that works with individuals and couples, including same-sex partners, to meet their legal and financial goals, also emphasized the importance of not panicking and of using available documentation processes such as estate planning.

“From a purely legal standpoint, overturning Obergefell v. Hodges would present significant complications. While it is unlikely that existing same-sex marriages would be invalidated, particularly given the protections of the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, states could regain the authority to limit or prohibit future marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That would create a patchwork of laws across the country, where a couple could be legally married in one state but not recognized as married if they moved to or even visited another state.

“The legal ripple effects could be substantial. Family law issues such as adoption, parental rights, inheritance, health care decision-making, and property division all rely on the legal status of marriage. Without uniform recognition, couples could face uncertainty in areas like custody determinations, enforcement of spousal rights in medical emergencies, or the ability to inherit from a spouse without additional legal steps.

“Courts generally strive for consistency, and creating divergent state rules on marriage recognition would reintroduce conflicts that Obergefell was intended to resolve. From a legal systems perspective, that inconsistency would invite years of litigation and impose significant personal and financial burdens on affected families.”

Finally, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson issued a statement about the possibility of the Supreme Court deciding to hear Davis’s appeal:

“Marriage equality isn’t just the law of the land — it’s woven into the fabric of American life,” said Robinson. “For more than a decade, millions of LGBTQ+ couples have gotten married, built families, and contributed to their communities. The American people overwhelmingly support that freedom. But Kim Davis and the anti-LGBTQ+ extremists backing her see a cynical opportunity to attack our families and re-litigate what’s already settled. The court should reject this paper-thin attempt to undermine marriage equality and the dignity of LGBTQ+ people.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court rules White House can implement anti-trans passport policy

ACLU, Lambda Legal filed lawsuits against directive.

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday said the Trump-Vance administration can implement a policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.

President Donald Trump once he took office signed an executive order that outlined the policy. A memo the Washington Blade obtained directed State Department personnel to “suspend any application where the applicant is seeking to change their sex marker from that defined in the executive order pending further guidance.”

The White House only recognizes two genders: male and female.

The American Civil Liberties Union in February filed a lawsuit against the passport directive on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.

A federal judge in Boston in April issued a preliminary junction against it. A three-judge panel on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September ruled against the Trump-Vance administration’s motion to delay the move.

A federal judge in Maryland also ruled against the passport policy. (Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans people.)

 “This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights,” said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, in a statement. “Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance. We will continue to fight this policy and work for a future where no one is denied self-determination over their identity.”

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The Supreme Court ruling is here.

Continue Reading

Popular