National

Anti-gay groups file Prop 8, DOMA briefs

Attorneys cite inability of gay couples to procreate

Published

14 years ago

January 24, 2013

Chris Johnson

Anti-gay groups this week filed brief before the Supreme Court (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Anti-gay forces drew upon reasoning they’ve used the past — such as the inability of gay parents to procreate — in legal briefs filed before the Supreme Court this week in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8.

In two separate briefs filed on Tuesday, attorneys representing ProtectMarriage.com and the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group made their case for why the Supreme Court should uphold the anti-gay measures — despite multiple rulings from lower courts that have found DOMA and Prop 8 unconstitutional.

In the 65-page brief filed in the Prop 8 case, they urge the Supreme Court justices to uphold California’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, approved by California voters in 2008, because, among other reasons, the measure helps ensure children are raised by their biological parents.

“In particular, an animating purpose of marriage is to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by their own mothers and fathers,” the brief states. “Because relationships between persons of the same sex do not have the capacity to produce children, they do not implicate this interest in responsible procreation and childrearing in the same way.”

Attorneys who signed the brief include Andrew Pugno, the lead counsel for ProtectMarriage.com; Charles Cooper, a private attorney representing the group as well as lawyers from the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom.

In the brief, these lawyers maintain Prop 8 doesn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause under the U.S. Constitution for four major reasons: 1) Prop 8 advances an interest in procreation and child-rearing; 2) Prop 8 serves an interest in “proceeding with caution” before redefining a social institution; 3) Prop 8 restores democratic authority over a vital principle and 4) Prop 8 does not “dishonor” gay people.

Additionally, the brief answers the earlier posted question from the Supreme Court over whether these lawyers have standing to defend Prop 8 in lieu of California officials — Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris — who have declined to defend the law in court.

Attorneys assert they have standing because Supreme Court precedent has established that state law determines who’s authorized to defend the constitutionality of a law in that state. The brief notes the California Supreme Court determined that ProtectMarriage.com has authority to defend Prop 8.

Anti-gay language is also found in the 60-page brief in the DOMA case submitted by BLAG, a five-member panel of U.S. House members that voted 3-2 along party lines to defend the 1996 law in court. The brief makes similar arguments that the government has invested in prohibiting same-sex marriage to encourage procreation.

“Only opposite-sex relationships have the tendency to produce children without such advance planning (indeed, especially without advance planning,)” the brief states. “Thus, the traditional definition of marriage remains society’s rational response to this unique tendency of opposite-sex relationships. And in light of that understanding of marriage, it is perfectly rational not to define as marriage, or extend the benefits of marriage to, other relationships that, whatever their other similarities, simply do not have the same tendency to produce unplanned and potentially unwanted children.”

Attorneys who signed this brief include House General Counsel Kerry Kircher and private attorney Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general under the Bush administration who was hired for $520 an hour at a cost cap that has now reached $3 million to defend DOMA in court.

BLAG offers five major arguments for why the Supreme Court should uphold DOMA: 1) DOMA preserves each sovereign’s right to define marriage for itself; 2) DOMA ensures uniformity in eligibility for federal benefits; 3) DOMA preserves past legislative judgments and and conserves fiscal resources; 4) Congress proceeded with caution when enacting the law and 5) the federal government can retain marriage as one man, one woman for the same reason a state can.

The brief also goes at length to dispute the idea that laws affecting gay people should be subjected to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional, because they’re a suspect class. The view that DOMA should be subjected to this standard is held by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Obama administration.

As part of this argument, the brief denies gays are politically powerless class, citing the LGBT community’s influence on the Democratic Party and Obama, who has come out for marriage equality.

“Perhaps most critically, gays and lesbians have substantial political power, and that power is growing,” the brief states. “There is absolutely no reason to think that gays and lesbians are shut out of the political process to a degree that would justify judicial intervention on an issue as divisive and fast-moving as same-sex marriage.”

Other arguments to dispute classifying gays and lesbians as part of a suspect are sexual orientation isn’t an immutable characteristic and the histories of discrimination is different for race, ethnicity, gender and legitimacy — others groups that have been designated as suspect classes.

Evan Wolfson, president of the LGBT advocacy group Freedom to Marry, said he believes the Supreme Court would be unpersuaded by the arguments in these briefs because they’re the same earlier arguments that lower courts rejected when striking down Prop 8 and DOMA.

“Ten federal rulings — from judges appointed by presidents including Reagan, both Bushes, and even Nixon — have found these alleged justifications for discriminating in marriage insufficient to meet the constitution’s command of equal protection under the law, as have numerous state judges,” Wolfson said. “The fact that all they have to offer the Supreme Court at this late stage in the day is such old wine in new bottles should help persuade the justices that neither DOMA nor Prop 8 serves any sufficient, legitimate purpose and that both discriminatory measures must fall.”

The next deadline for briefs in these cases is Tuesday, when parties supporting the anti-gay side must file their friend-of-the-court briefs. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Prop 8 case are set for March 26 and in the DOMA case are set for March 27. The Supreme Court must deliver rulings on the constitutionality of Prop 8 and DOMA before the end of its term in June.

Related Topics:Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Homepage Headlines Paul Clement Prop 8 same-sex marriage Supreme Court

Up Next

DOD faces renewed calls to extend benefits to gay troops

Don't Miss

Will Obama include gay couples in immigration reform?

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

National

Man charged in Mall of America shooting plot inspired by Pulse massacre: report

Suspect exchanged hundreds of messages, pledged loyalty to ISIS

Published

3 days ago

October 8, 2026

Margaret Hetherman

The U.S. Department of Justice charged Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud with planning a crime of terrorism.

The U.S. Department of Justice charged Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud, 18, of Richfield, Minn., on Oct. 7 with one count of knowingly receiving a firearm and ammunition in order to commit a federal crime of terrorism. Mohamud allegedly planned to carry out a mass-casualty attack in support of ISIS, inspired in part by the Pulse nightclub massacre that took place on June 12, 2016 when then-29-year-old Omar Mateen murdered 49 people and wounded 58 – one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, and the deadliest targeting the LGBTQ+ community.

According to a DOJ statement release, Mohamud was arrested on Oct. 6 by the FBI, which had arranged to sell him an AK-47 assault rifle, magazines, and ammunition through an undercover FBI employee. Mohamud was arrested shortly after paying $600 in cash and taking possession of those items; he reaffirmed his intention to shoot people at the Mall of America during the transaction.

“Mohamud allegedly sought to carry out a mass-casualty shooting at the Mall of America, expressing a desire to emulate some of the most horrific ISIS-inspired attacks in the United States, including the atrocities at Pulse Nightclub and 2025 New Year’s Day attack in New Orleans,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg in the statement by the DOJ. “The National Security Division will continue to work closely with the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force to track down and prosecute ISIS-inspired terrorists in the United States.”

According to the complaint, beginning on or about December 2024, Mohamud had exchanged hundreds of messages through multiple social media and messaging apps with a confidential source, and expressed a desire to travel to Somalia to join a designated foreign terrorist organization to fight on their behalf.

The defendant stated many times that if he was unable to travel overseas because of a lack of funds, he planned to carry out a mass-casualty event in Minnesota in support of ISIS.

According to the DOJ, “In July 2026, Mohamud sent messages discussing his intent to carry out a mass-casualty shooting attack at the Mall of America because he claimed it was owned by Jews. He wrote that [he] wanted to kill 30 to 60 people so no one would go there.”

“During the course of his communications, Mohamud stated that he wanted to commit an attack similar to those of the Pulse Nightclub mass-shooting in Orlando, the Bondi Beach mass-shooting in Australia, and the New Year’s Day vehicle-ramming attack in New Orleans.”

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Ryan White of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Bejar for the District of Minnesota.

California

Calif. GOP gubernatorial candidate ad ‘disgusting attempt to exploit lesbian intimacy’

Activists, anti-LGBTQ religious leaders criticized Steve Hilton spot

Published

3 days ago

October 8, 2026

Caleb Kaufman

(Screenshot of Steven Hilton ad)

Two women sit on a bed, a Pride flag hanging behind them. One is nervous; the other tells her to be calm and that she’ll do “all the work.” The music swells. The two hold hands and — fill out a ballot voting for Steve Hilton?

This is the new advertisement from the Hilton gubernatorial campaign that is drawing rebuke from both sides of the aisle, but for very different reasons.

Jorge Reyes Salinas, the communications director at Equality California, said the ad was an insult to the queer community.

“This ad is a disgusting attempt to exploit lesbian intimacy for political attention,” he said. The advertisement plays on media tropes that Salinas says “reduce lesbian and bisexual women … to sexual entertainment,” rather than showing them as well-rounded characters. “Any group of the LGBTQ+ community deserves the same dignity and respect as everyone else,” he said.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Caleb Kaufman (@caleb_kaufman_photography)

The ad is truly hyper-sexualized. It ends with one woman telling the other, “Now lick it.” The two pause and stare before she reveals an envelope to send the ballot, and large text pops up saying, “Just try it!”

Salinas characterized the ad as a desperate attempt to get attention from a candidate who is trailing far behind in the polls in heavily Democratic California. The Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, who is endorsed by Equality California, holds a 25-point lead over Hilton according to recent polling by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

Conservatives have also criticized the ad.

Influential evangelical Pastor Jack Hibbs thought the ad was distasteful and said, “lesbianism among college girls and some high school girls that right now is an actual pandemic of social ill.” Republican attorney general candidate Michael Gates said it undermines “the sanctity of the relationship between parents and their children.” This criticism is rather confusing because although the ad features two relatively young women, they both appear to be adults, not minors.

“The comments from Pastor Jack Hibbs should be criticized because there is nothing wrong with two women being attracted to each other,” Salinas said. “We’re calling out the ad’s stereotypes, while also rejecting the homophobia in the response to it … by other Republicans.”

The backlash from Hilton’s own party and supporters shows that an advertisement full of queer innuendo was ill-considered, considering the national GOP’s attacks on LGBTQ people in recent years. Hilton himself has been campaigning against transgender girls and women competing in school sports and using locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity. This context might be why Hilton’s political base responded to the ad just as poorly as the liberal voters he was attempting to court.

Hilton says the ad is part of a new series rolling out before Election Day, showing stereotypical California liberal archetypes voting for Hilton. He claims these ads are authentically filmed with real actors, as opposed to being A.I. generated, like many of his previous ads. One other advertisement has been released so far by the campaign showing a man at a spiritual retreat also being swayed to vote for Hilton, although it is notably absent of sexual innuendo.

Caleb Kaufman is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows.

2026 Midterm Elections

Trump uses anti-trans slur against Democratic Senate candidate

President mocked Annie Andrews

Published

3 days ago

October 7, 2026

Joe Reberkenny

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump used an anti-trans slur against Democratic South Carolina Senate candidate Annie Andrews on Monday as he sought to rally support for Republicans in the state’s Senate race.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump attacked Andrews three times, referring to her as “trannie” while promoting U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.)’s campaign.

Andrews is running against Graham for a Senate seat in the solidly Republican state.

Earlier this year, Graham was specially appointed to the seat following the death of her brother, Lindsey Graham, who represented South Carolina in the Senate from 2003 to 2026.

Andrews, the Democratic nominee from the state, is a pediatrician that lives in Charleston with her three children. She told NBC News that she will “work with anyone to put South Carolina first.”

“As a mom and a pediatrician, I’m in this race to fight for my patients, my three kids, and South Carolina,” Andrews said, adding that “lowering costs and making life better for families across our state is going to take all of us working together.”

Andrews used the attention from the president’s attack to emphasize what she described as a focus on policy issues rather than the culture wars that have dominated much of the political debate.

“If you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you,” she added.

Trump’s remarks have drawn criticism from leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned Trump’s words Monday night on social media, calling his attacks on Andrews “despicable.”

“Annie Andrews is a mom and pediatrician who’s always put her community first — and she’s exactly who South Carolina needs representing them in the Senate,” Schumer said on X.

Former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, also criticized the president’s attack on Andrews, urging voters to “reject politics based on division and hate.”

“This is abhorrent. Elections don’t have to be about cruelty and lies. South Carolina deserves better,” Beasley wrote Monday night on X.

South Carolina has not elected a Democratic senator in nearly three decades.

Andrews’s campaign website does not mention her positions on LGBTQ issues.

The Washington Blade reached out to Andrews’s campaign for comment on Trump’s attack and her positions on transgender rights but did not hear back by time of publication.