Connect with us

National

Obama says Prop 8 brief may apply in other cases

President says administration was compelled to intervene in lawsuit

Published

on

Citizens Metal, Barack Obama, gay news, Washington Blade
Citizens Metal, Barack Obama, gay news, Washington Blade

President Obama spoke about the Prop 8 brief on Friday. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Obama suggested that the Supreme Court could take the arguments presented in his brief against California’s Proposition 8 as reasoning to overturn bans on same-sex marriage in other states.

In response to questioning from the Chicago Tribune’s Christi Parsons, Obama said his administration has articulated a position that if any state ā€” not just California ā€” has a law withholding rights from same-sex couples, there should be a compelling reason for it in order to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

“Now, the court may decide that if it doesn’t apply in this case, it probably can’t apply in any case,” Obama said. “Thereā€™s no good reason for it. If I were on the court, that would probably be the view that Iā€™d put forward. But Iā€™m not a judge, Iā€™m the president. So the basic principle, though, is letā€™s treat everybody fairly and letā€™s treat everybody equally. And I think that the brief that’s been presented accurately reflects our views.”

Obama also maintained in his remarks that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was addressing the issue of Prop 8 in his remarks because that is the question before the court.

“The Solicitor General in his institutional role going before the Supreme Court is obliged to answer the specific question before them.,” Obama said. “And the specific question presented before the court right now is whether Prop 8 and the California law is unconstitutional.”

Richard Socarides, a gay New York advocate who has called on Obama to participate in the Prop 8 lawsuit, said the brief itself coupled with Obama’s remarks demonstrate he’s in favor of marriage equality throughout the country.

“It’s clear from the brief and the president’s comments that he believes in equal marriage rights for every American no matter where you live,” Socarides said. “That’s our goal and his.”

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications at the Human Rights Campaign, said he doesn’t need to review Obama’s comments because the brief already presented an expansive view on marriage equality.

“I don’t need to interpret the president’s words,” Sainz said. “What matters is that the official position of the United States government is now that marriage discrimination is unconstitutional.”

The full transcript of the exchange follows:

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Mr. President, your administration weighed in yesterday on the Proposition 8 case. A few months ago it looked like you might be averse to doing that, and I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about your deliberations and how your thinking evolved on that. Were there conversations that were important to you? Were there things that you read that influenced your thinking?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: As everybody here knows, last year, upon a long period of reflection, I concluded that we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage; that the basic principle that America is founded on ā€” the idea that we’re all created equal ā€” applies to everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, as well as race or gender or religion or ethnicity.

And I think that the same evolution that I’ve gone through is an evolution that the country as a whole has gone through. And I think it is a profoundly positive thing. So that when the Supreme Court essentially called the question by taking this case about California’s law, I didnā€™t feel like that was something that this administration could avoid. I felt it was important for us to articulate what I believe and what this administration stands for.

And although I do think that we’re seeing, on a state-by-state basis, progress being made ā€” more and more states recognizing same-sex couples and giving them the opportunity to marry and maintain all the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples do ā€” when the Supreme Court asks, do you think that the California law, which doesn’t provide any rationale for discriminating against same-sex couples other than just the notion that, well, they’re same-sex couples, if the Supreme Court asks me or my Attorney General or Solicitor General, do we think that meets constitutional muster, I felt it was important for us to answer that question honestly — and the answer is no.

TRIBUNE: And given the fact that you do hold that position about gay marriage, I wonder if you thought about just ā€” once you made the decision to weigh in, why not just argue that marriage is a right that should be available to all people of this country?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, that’s an argument that Iā€™ve made personally. The Solicitor General in his institutional role going before the Supreme Court is obliged to answer the specific question before them. And the specific question presented before the Court right now is whether Prop 8 and the California law is unconstitutional.

And what weā€™ve done is weā€™ve put forward a basic principle, which is — which applies to all equal protection cases. Whenever a particular group is being discriminated against, the Court asks the question, whatā€™s the rationale for this — and it better be a good reason. And if you don’t have a good reason, weā€™re going to strike it down.

And what weā€™ve said is, is that same-sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny, that the Supreme Court needs to ask the state why itā€™s doing it. And if the state doesn’t have a good reason, it should be struck down. That’s the core principle as applied to this case.

Now, the Court may decide that if it doesn’t apply in this case, it probably can’t apply in any case. Thereā€™s no good reason for it. If I were on the Court, that would probably be the view that Iā€™d put forward. But Iā€™m not a judge, Iā€™m the President. So the basic principle, though, is letā€™s treat everybody fairly and letā€™s treat everybody equally. And I think that the brief that’s been presented accurately reflects our views.

Watch the video here (courtesy Think Progress)

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

9th Circuit upholds lower court ruling that blocked anti-trans Ariz. law

Statute bans transgender girls from sports teams that correspond with gender identity

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a lower court’s decision that blocked enforcement of an Arizona law banning transgender girls from playing on public schools’ sports team that correspond with their gender identity.

Then-Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, in 2022 signed the law.

The Associated Press reported the parents of two trans girls challenged the law in a lawsuit they filed in U.S. District Court in Tucson, Ariz., in April 2023. U.S. District Judge Jennifer Zipps on July 20, 2023, blocked the law.

Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, who was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes is not defending the law.

A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit unanimously upheld Zipps’s ruling.

“We are pleased with the 9th Circuitā€™s ruling today, which held that the Arizona law likely violates the Equal Protection Clause and recognizes that a studentā€™s transgender status is not an accurate proxy for athletic ability and competitive advantage,ā€ said Rachel Berg, a staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, in a press release.

NCLR represents the two plaintiffs in the case.

Continue Reading

California

LGBTQ journalists convene in Los Angeles for largest-ever NLGJA conference

NLGJA hits Hollywood: Empowering diverse voices in media

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

This weekend, the heat wasn’t the only thing taking over Los Angeles. NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists was hosting its convention in Hollywood. This weekend was slated to be the biggest and most attended conference NLGJA has ever seen.

The NLGJA conference is hosted annually in a different city, focusing on uplifting and supporting LGBTQ journalists who have often been overlooked in newsrooms across the U.S. This year it’s in Los Angeles at the Loews Hollywood Hotel, right off the famous Hollywood Boulevard. The conference has an extensive range of events including networking meetings, panel discussions with LGBTQ media giants and workshops, all designed to aid LGBTQ journalists.

The mission of NLGJA is to “advance fair and accurate coverage of LGBTQ+ communities and issues” and “promote diverse and inclusive workplaces.” NLGJA has worked toward this mission since 1990, when Leroy F. Aarons founded the association.

Los Angeles last hosted the conference in 2003, the year discrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity expression became state law. It was held at the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel that year and attendance included more than 500 journalists from around the nation.

The city has a vibrant gay scene ā€” West Hollywood (often referred to as WeHo) has more than 40 percent of residents identifying within the LGBTQ community, holds the record for the earliest lesbian publication in the U.S. with Vice Versa in 1947, and hosted the first Pride parade in the U.S. (alongside New York and Chicago.)

This year has a long lineup of convention speakers touching on multiple themes. The lineup includes actors Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Zachary Quinto, who will talk about their upcoming projects; CNN national news correspondent David Culver to discuss accurate social media reporting; Los Angeles Times reporter Tracy Brown to dissect pop culture reporting; and many more.

The conference talks cover a wide variety of topics, but all center around maximizing coverage of LGBTQ communities in traditional and new age media. Other key topics include how and why outlets need to diversify newsrooms as well as how to properly cover the ongoing and nuanced fight for transgender rights in America.

Besides professional talks, the conference offers LGBTQ journalists a way to strengthen their community, much of which is achieved outside the conference halls. One way the conference does this is by hosting a “night OUT” at a local gay bar where discussions of journalist-source relations, how to navigate being the only queer person in the newsroom, and what to say to allies when they begin to encroach on unfriendly rhetoric are just some of the topics that can be heard from attendees.

In addition to talks and community building, the conference is giving out awards to LGBTQ journalists who have made significant contributions to the coverage of LGBTQ issues in the past year. Awardees include popular social media journalist Erin Reed, the Texas Newsroom’s Lauren McGaughy, “Journalist of the Year” Steven Romo and many more.

This conference is crucial for the ongoing professional development of LGBTQ journalists, providing a unique opportunity to connect with peers, share experiences and gain insights from others within their community.

For more information, visit NLGJA’s website at www.nlgja.org.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

164 members of Congress urge Supreme Court to protect trans rights

GRACE files separate brief in gender affirming care case

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A group of 164 members of Congress filed an amicus brief on Tuesday urging the U.S. Supreme Court to defend transgender Americans’ access to medically necessary healthcare as the justices prepare to hear oral arguments this fall in U.S. v. Skrmetti.

Lawmakers who issued the 27-page brief include House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (Mass.), House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (Calif.),Ā U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Congressional Equality Caucus Chair U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), along with the caucus’s 8 co-chairs and 25 vice-chairs. Ranking members of the powerful House Judiciary and House Ways and Means Committees, U.S. Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), were also among the signatories.

The case, among the most closely watched this term, will determine whether Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, along with a similar law passed in Kentucky, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In their brief, the lawmakers urge the Supreme Court to treat with skepticism “legislation banning safe and effective therapies that comport with the standard of care” and to examine the role of “animosity towards transgender people” in states’ gender affirming care bans.

ā€œDecisions about healthcare belong to patients, their doctors, and their familiesā€”not politicians,ā€ Pocan said. ā€œThe law at issue in this case is motivated by an animus towards the trans community and is part of a cruel, coordinated attack on trans rights by anti-equality extremists. We strongly urge the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionā€™s promise of equal protection under the law and strike down Tennesseeā€™s harmful ban.ā€

ā€œFor years, far-right Republicans have been leading constant, relentless, and escalating attacks on transgender Americans. Their age-old, discriminatory playbook now threatens access to lifesaving, gender-affirming care for more than 100,000 transgender and nonbinary children living in states with these bans if the Supreme Court uphold laws like Tennesseeā€™s at the heart ofĀ SkrmettiĀ fueled by ignorance and hate,” Markey said.

ā€œTransgender people deserve the same access to healthcare as everyone else,” said Nadler. “There is no constitutionally sound justification to strip from families with transgender children, and their doctors, the decision to seek medical care and give it to politicians sitting in the state capitol. I trust parents, not politicians, to decide what is best for their transgender children.ā€

Pallone warned that if Tennessee’s ban, S.B. 1, is “allowed to stand, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will open the floodgates to further discrimination against transgender Americans.ā€

ā€œUnending attacks from MAGA extremists across the nation are putting trans youth at risk with hateful laws to ban gender-affirming care,” said Merkley author of the Equality Act. “Letā€™s get politiciansā€”who have no expertise in making decisions for patientsā€”out of the exam room.Ā The Court must reject these divisive policies, and Congress must pass the Equality Act to fully realize a more equal and just union for all.ā€

Also filing an amicus brief on Tuesday was the Gender Research Advisory Council + Education (GRACE), a transgender-led nonprofit that wrote, in a press release, “SkrmettiĀ  is critically important to the transgender community because approximately 40% of trans youth live in the 25 states that have enacted such bans.”

The group argued laws like Tennessee’s S.B. 1 are cruel, discriminatory, and contradict “the position of every major medical association that such treatments are safe, effective and medically necessary for adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria.”

GRACE’s brief includes 28 families “who hope to share with the Court that they are responsible, committed parents from a variety of backgrounds who have successfully navigated their adolescentā€™s transition.”

ā€œThese parents sought medical expertise for their children with diligence regarding the best care available and input from experienced physicians and mental health professionals and they have seen firsthand the profound benefits of providing medically appropriate care to their transgender children,” said GRACE Board Member and brief co-author Sean Madden.

Left unchecked, this may start with the transgender community, but it certainly won’t end there,” added GRACE President Alaina Kupec. “Next it could be treatments for HIV or cancer.ā€

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular