Connect with us

National

Advocacy groups welcome Supreme Court decision to hear marriage cases

Couples in four New England states challenged DOMA in federal court

Published

on

Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade

State groups welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of DOMA, Proposition 8. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Same-sex couples and others who challenged the Defense of Marriage Act on Friday welcomed the U.S. Supreme Courtā€™s decision to consider the constitutionality of DOMA and Californiaā€™s Proposition 8.

ā€œIā€™ve been waiting 64 years for this happen,ā€ Sandisfield, Mass., resident Herb Burtis, who married his partner of nearly 60 years in 2004 once Massachusettsā€™ same-sex marriage law took effect, said.

The Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in 2009 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Burtis, whose husband died from Parkinsonā€™s disease in 2008, two other gay widows and eight same-sex couples who challenged the federal governmentā€™s denial of marital and survivor benefits to them under DOMA. The group in 2010 brought a second suit on behalf of five same-sex couples and a gay widow who legally married in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont.

The court has yet to announce whether it will hear these and two other DOMA-related cases.

President Obama announced in Feb. 2011 his administration would no longer defend the Clinton-era law in federal court.

ā€œAfter his death, I found that I would be denied any federal benefits that any other married couple would receive, and thatā€™s when I became involved in the Gill case with GLAD,ā€ said Burtis. ā€œIā€™m very happy the court is going to hear at least one case that has to do with the constitutionality of DOMA.ā€

Joanne Pedersen, who worked for the U.S. Navy for 30 years, married Ann Meitzen in Connecticut in 2008 after the stateā€™s same-sex marriage law took effect. She said after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases filed on behalf of New York widow Edith Windsor, who paid $363,000 in federal estate taxes in 2009 after her wifeā€™s death, and same-sex couples who challenged Prop 8ā€™s constitutionality that her inability to place Meitzen on her health insurance policy ā€œreally hurts us financially.ā€

ā€œJoanne and I are a regular couple,ā€ Meitzen added. ā€œWe mow our law. We pay our bills. Weā€™ve paid our taxes our whole life and the fed government is treating us like our marriage doesnā€™t exist. Weā€™re very happy that the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that has to do with the constitutionality of marriages.ā€

State advocates welcome Supreme Courtā€™s review of marriage cases

The U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear the Windsor and Prop 8 cases a day after same-sex couples in Washington and Maryland began receiving same-sex marriage licenses. Gays and lesbians can begin to legally marry in the two states on Sunday and on Jan. 1 respectively.

The same-sex marriage law that Maine voters approved last month takes effect on Dec. 29.

ā€œI hope the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA and allow all married same-sex couples in Maryland to be treated equally under federal law,ā€ Equality Maryland Executive Director Carrie Evans told the Washington Blade.

Kara Suffredini, executive director of MassEquality, also welcomed the Supreme Courtā€™s decision to hear the two cases.

ā€œMarriages of same-sex couples in Massachusetts are still not recognized by the federal government because of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act,ā€ she said. ā€œIn addition to being immoral, this inequality means that married same-sex couples do not have access to many of the safety nets afforded other married couples: social security survivor benefits; Medicaid long-term care benefits; spousal veteran benefits; or rights of inheritance. The continued enforcement of DOMA has created an indefensible two-tiered system of treatment for married couples based solely on the gender of the spouses.ā€

Nathan M. Schaefer, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, agreed.

Even though same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in New York since July 2011, Schaefer stressed ā€œour commitments are not honored and our families are not protected by the federal governmentā€ because of DOMA.

ā€œWe are hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant all married couples, in New York and other states, the recognition they deserve by upholding the multiple lower court rulings that have already declared sections of DOMA unconstitutional,ā€ he said. ā€œWe view these deliberations as a critical step toward ending discrimination and advancing equality for all Americans.ā€

Eight states and D.C. currently have laws that allow same-sex couples to legally marry. The U.S. Supreme Courtā€™s decision to hear the two cases comes as lawmakers in Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island are poised to debate the issue.

ā€œWhile the cases progress in the Supreme Court, we must not lose sight of the work that remains at the state level,ā€ Equality Illinois CEO Bernard Cherkasov said. ā€œOur opponents are likely to make every effort during this period to try to stymie progress in Illinois, saying we should wait to hear from the court. Given the success of marriage equality initiatives in the General Election and growing support for it throughout the country including Illinois, we need to continue to press for action in our state.ā€

As for the U.S. Supreme Court itself; Mary Bonauto, director of GLADā€™s Civil Rights Project, remains confident the justices will ultimately decide these issues outlined in the two cases the justices agreed to consider.

ā€œWe have certainly seen since weā€™ve had Massachusetts with marriage in ā€˜04 and in the other states that these federal protections affect nearly every area of live and death and are a very important part of peopleā€™s security and stability so we are very happy that this issue will be addressed by the court in the Windsor case,ā€ she said. ā€œOn DOMA I think itā€™s extremely important to remember that we have a case that really can appeal to all members of the court, in addition to the fact this is discrimination against people who are already married by the state. Thereā€™s a federalism component to the case because it is states that decide who can marry and not the Congress and not the federal government in states like Connecticut and Massachusetts have agreed that committed same-sex couples can marry. The real question is what interest does the federal government have in overturning the state decision for purposes of all federal laws.ā€

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Michigan

Mich. Democrats spar over LGBTQ-inclusive hate crimes law

Lawmakers disagree on just what kind of statute to pass

Published

on

Members of the Michigan House Democrats gather to celebrate Pride month in 2023 in the Capitol building. (Photo courtesy of Michigan House Democrats)

Michigan could soon become the latest state to pass an LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime law, but the stateā€™s Democratic lawmakers disagree on just what kind of law they should pass.

Currently, Michiganā€™s Ethnic Intimidation Act only offers limited protections to victims of crime motivated by their ā€œrace, color, religion, gender, or national origin.ā€ Bills proposed by Democratic lawmakers expand the list to include ā€œactual or perceived race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, physical or mental disability, age, national origin, or association or affiliation with any such individuals.ā€ 

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have both advocated for a hate crime law, but house and senate Democrats have each passed different hate crimes packages, and Nessel has blasted both as being too weak.

Under the house proposal that passed last year (House Bill 4474), a first offense would be punishable with a $2,000 fine, up to two years in prison, or both. Penalties double for a second offense, and if a gun or other dangerous weapons is involved, the maximum penalty is six years in prison and a fine of $7,500. 

But that proposal stalled when it reached the senate, after far-right news outlets and Fox News reported misinformation that the bill only protected LGBTQ people and would make misgendering a trans person a crime. State Rep. Noah Arbit, the bill’s sponsor, was also made the subject of a recall effort, which ultimately failed.

Arbit submitted a new version of the bill (House Bill 5288) that added sections clarifying that misgendering a person, ā€œintentionally or unintentionallyā€ is not a hate crime, although the latest version (House Bill 5400) of the bill omits this language.

That bill has since stalled in a house committee, in part because the Democrats lost their house majority last November, when two Democratic representatives resigned after being elected mayors. The Democrats regained their house majority last night by winning two special elections.

Meanwhile, the senate passed a different package of hate crime bills sponsored by state Sen. Sylvia Santana (Senate Bill 600) in March that includes much lighter sentences, as well as a clause ensuring that misgendering a person is not a hate crime. 

Under the senate bill, if the first offense is only a threat, it would be a misdemeanor punishable by one year in prison and up to $1,000 fine. A subsequent offense or first violent hate crime, including stalking, would be a felony that attracts double the punishment.

Multiple calls and emails from the Washington Blade to both Arbit and Santana requesting comment on the bills for this story went unanswered.

The attorney generalā€™s office sent a statement to the Blade supporting stronger hate crime legislation.

ā€œAs a career prosecutor, [Nessel] has seen firsthand how the stateā€™s weak Ethnic Intimidation Act (not updated since the late 1980ā€™s) does not allow for meaningful law enforcement and court intervention before threats become violent and deadly, nor does it consider significant bases for bias.  It is our hope that the legislature will pass robust, much-needed updates to this statute,ā€ the statement says.

But Nessel, who has herself been the victim of racially motivated threats, has also blasted all of the bills presented by Democrats as not going far enough.

ā€œTwo years is nothing ā€¦ Why not just give them a parking ticket?ā€ Nessel told Bridge Michigan.

Nessel blames a bizarre alliance far-right and far-left forces that have doomed tougher laws.

ā€œYou have this confluence of forces on the far right ā€¦ this insistence that the First Amendment protects this language, or that the Second Amendment protects the ability to possess firearms under almost any and all circumstances,ā€ Nessel said. ā€œBut then you also have the far left that argues basically no one should go to jail or prison for any offense ever.ā€

The legislature did manage to pass an ā€œinstitutional desecrationā€ law last year that penalizes hate-motivated vandalism to churches, schools, museums, and community centers, and is LGBTQ-inclusive.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Justice, reported hate crime incidents have been skyrocketing, with attacks motivated by sexual orientation surging by 70 percent from 2020 to 2022, the last year for which data is available. 

Twenty-two states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime laws. Another 11 states have hate crime laws that include protections for ā€œsexual orientationā€ but not ā€œgender identity.ā€

Michigan Democrats have advanced several key LGBTQ rights priorities since they took unified control of the legislature in 2023. A long-stalled comprehensive anti-discrimination law was passed last year, as did a conversion therapy ban. Last month the legislature updated family law to make surrogacy easier for all couples, including same-sex couples. 

A bill to ban the ā€œgay panicā€ defense has passed the state house and was due for a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday.

Continue Reading

Indiana

Drag queen announces run for mayor of Ind. city

Branden Blaettne seeking Fort Wayne’s top office

Published

on

Branden Blaettner being interviewed by a local television station during last yearā€™s Pride month. (WANE screenshot)

In a Facebook post Tuesday, a local drag personality announced he was running for the office of mayor once held by the lateĀ Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry, whoĀ died last monthĀ just a few months into his fifth term.

Henry was recently diagnosed with late-stage stomach cancer and experienced an emergency that landed him in hospice care. He died shortly after.

WPTA, a local television station, reported that Fort WayneĀ resident Branden Blaettne, whose drag name is Della Licious, confirmed he filed paperwork to beĀ one of the candidatesĀ seeking to finish out the fifth term of the late mayor.

Blaettner, who is a community organizer, told WPTA he doesnā€™t want to ā€œget Fort Wayne back on track,ā€ but ratherĀ keep the momentum started by HenryĀ going while giving a platform to the disenfranchised groups in the community. Blaettner said he doesnā€™t think his local fame as a drag queen will hold him back.

ā€œItā€™s easy to have a platform when you wear platform heels,ā€ Blaettner told WPTA. ā€œThe status quo has left a lot of people out in the cold ā€” both figuratively and literally,ā€ Blaettner added.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported that state Rep. Phil GiaQuinta, who has led the Indiana House Democratic caucus since 2018, has added his name to a growing list of Fort Wayne politicos who want to be the cityā€™s next mayor. A caucus of precinct committee persons will choose the new mayor.

According to theĀ Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, the deadline for residents to file candidacy was 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday. A town hall with the candidates is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday at Franklin School Park. The caucus is set for 10:30 a.m. on April 20 at the Lincoln Financial Event Center at Parkview Field.

At least six candidates so far have announced they will run in the caucus. They include Branden Blaettne, GiaQuinta, City Councilwoman Michelle Chambers, City Councilwoman Sharon Tucker, former city- and county-council candidate Palermo Galindo, and 2023 Democratic primary mayoral candidate Jorge Fernandez.

Continue Reading

Arizona

Ariz. governor vetoes anti-transgender, Ten Commandments bill

Katie Hobbs has pledged to reject anti-LGBTQ bills that reach her desk

Published

on

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs speaks with reporters at an April 8, 2024 press conference. (Photo courtesy of Hobbsā€™s Facebook page)

BY CAITLIN SIEVERS | A slew of Republican bills, including those that would have allowed discrimination against transgender people and would have given public school teachers a green light to post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms, were vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs on Tuesday. 

Hobbs, who has made it clear that sheā€™ll use her veto power on any bills that donā€™t have bipartisan support ā€” and especially ones that discriminate against the LGBTQ community ā€” vetoed 13 bills, bringing her count for this year to 42.

Republicans responded with obvious outrage to Hobbsā€™s veto of their ā€œArizona Womenā€™s Bill of Rights,ā€ which would have eliminated any mention of gender in state law, replacing it with a strict and inflexible definition of biological sex. The bill would have called for the separation of sports teams, locker rooms, bathrooms, and even domestic violence shelters and sexual assault crisis centers by biological sex, not gender identity, green-lighting discrimination against trans Arizonans.

ā€œAs I have said time and again, I will not sign legislation that attacks Arizonans,ā€ Hobbs wrote in a brief letter explaining why she vetoed Senate Bill 1628

The Arizona Senate Republicansā€™ response to the veto was filled with discriminatory language about trans people and accused them of merely pretending to be a gender different than they were assigned at birth. 

ā€œWith the radical Left attempting to force upon society the notion that science doesnā€™t matter, and biological males can be considered females if they ā€˜feelā€™ like they are, Katie Hobbs and Democrats at the Arizona State Legislature are showing their irresponsible disregard for the safety and well-being of women and girls in our state by killing the Arizona Womenā€™s Bill of Rights,ā€ Senate Republicans wrote in a statement. 

The Senate Republicans went on to accuse the Democrats who voted against the bill of endangering women. 

ā€œInstead of helping these confused boys and men, Democrats are only fueling the dysfunction by pretending biological sex doesnā€™t matter,ā€ Senate President Warren Petersen said in the statement. ā€œOur daughters, granddaughters, nieces, and neighbors are growing up in a dangerous time where they are living with an increased risk of being victimized in public bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms because Democrats are now welcoming biological males into what used to be traditionally safe, single-sex spaces.ā€

But trans advocates say, and at least one study has found, that thereā€™s no evidence allowing trans people to use the bathroom that aligns with their identity makes those spaces less safe for everyone else who uses them. 

In the statement, the billā€™s sponsor, Sen. Sine Kerr (R-Buckeye), claimed that the bill would have stopped trans girls from competing in girls sports, something she said gives them an unfair advantage. But Republicans already passed a law to do just that in 2022, when Republican Gov. Doug Ducey was still in office, though that law is not currently being enforced amidst a court challenge filed by two trans athletes. 

Republicans also clapped back at Hobbsā€™ veto of Senate Bill 1151, which would have allowed teachers or administrators to teach or post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, a measure that some Republicans even questioned as possibly unconstitutional. 

In a statement, the billā€™s sponsor, Sen. Anthony Kern (R-Glendale), accused Hobbs of ā€œabandoning Godā€ with her veto. 

ā€œAs society increasingly strays away from God and the moral principles our nation was founded upon, Katie Hobbs is contributing to the cultural degradation within Arizona by vetoing legislation today that would have allowed public schools to include the Ten Commandments in classrooms,ā€ Kern said in the statement. 

In her veto letter, Hobbs said she questioned the constitutionality of the bill, and also called it unnecessary. During discussion of the bill in March, several critics pointed out that posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, tenets of Judeo-Christian religions, might make children whose families practice other religions feel uncomfortable. 

ā€œSadly, Katie Hobbsā€™ veto is a prime example of Democratsā€™ efforts to push state-sponsored atheism while robbing Arizonaā€™s children of the opportunity to flourish with a healthy moral compass,ā€ Kern said. 

Another Republican proposal on Hobbsā€™s veto list was Senate Bill 1097, whichĀ would have madeĀ school board candidates declare a party affiliation. School board races in Arizona are currently nonpartisan.Ā 

ā€œThis bill will further the politicization and polarization of Arizonaā€™s school district governing boards whose focus should remain on making the best decisions for students,ā€ Hobbs wrote in her veto letter. ā€œPartisan politics do not belong in Arizonaā€™s schools.ā€

******************************************************************************************

Caitlin Sievers

Caitlin joined the Arizona Mirror in 2022 with almost 10 years of experience as a reporter and editor, holding local government leaders accountable from newsrooms across the West and Midwest. She’s won statewide awards in Nebraska, Indiana and Wisconsin for reporting, photography and commentary.

******************************************************************************************

The preceding piece was previously published by the Arizona Mirror and is republished with permission.

Amplifying the voices of Arizonans whose stories are unheard; shining a light on the relationships between people, power and policy; and holding public officials to account.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, the nationā€™s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular