National
San Francisco City Attorney speaks out
Herrera played key role in challenging Prop 8
Dennis Herrera is described as a ‘straight, devout Catholic, married man’ who has championed the cause of marriage equality. (Photo courtesy Herrera)
Dennis Herrera, San Francisco’s City Attorney since 2002, will be in the Supreme Court chambers in Washington next Tuesday observing the oral arguments over whether Proposition 8, California’s 2008 ballot measure banning gay marriage, should be upheld or overturned.
Although Herrera won’t be delivering the arguments against Proposition 8 on Tuesday, gay rights advocates in California say he has played a pivotal role since 2004 in pushing for marriage equality in that state.
Among other things, he has worked side-by-side with high profile attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies as a party to the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, which seeks to overturn Prop 8.
Jack Song, deputy press secretary for the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, said Herrera and his legal team have been involved in “every case, every court, through every procedural twist since February 2004” in efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in California.
It was in 2004, Song noted, that Herrera provided legal support for then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s highly controversial decision to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples and perform same-sex marriages at city hall.
California courts initially ruled that San Francisco lacked legal authority to perform same-sex marriages and quickly invalidated those marriages. But the action by Newsom and Herrera, which was denounced by same-sex marriage opponents, has been credited with triggering litigation by marriage equality advocates – including Herrera’s office — that led to the May 15, 2008 ruling by the California Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
In response to a campaign led by same-sex marriage opponents, California voters overturned same-sex marriage rights in the November 2008 referendum known as Prop 8 by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent.
In an interview with the Washington Blade on Tuesday, Herrera discussed his work on the Prop 8 case – in the words of his deputy press secretary Song – as a “straight, devout Catholic, married man” who has championed the cause of marriage equality.
Washington Blade: What are your thoughts on the chances that Prop 8 will be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Dennis Herrera: We’re very, very optimistic. You just need to look at what has been the course of this litigation. If we go back nine years ago, all the state court proceedings and more recently in the federal court system, I can’t tell you how gratified we were both at the District Court’s ruling and the Ninth Circuit [U.S. Court of Appeals] ruling clearly showing that there’s absolutely no constitutional justification whatsoever to discriminate when it comes to the issue of marriage equality.
And that for the community to be denied equal protection under the law when it comes to the issue of marriage strains all credulity. So we’ve been gratified by the District Court’s ruling. If you look at Judge [Vaughn] Walker’s decision – a well-reasoned, well thought-out opinion after sitting through a weeks-long trial, hearing from a variety of witnesses and hearing the Prop 8 proponents come up with virtually no argument, no evidence to support their position and then to have that decision affirmed by the Ninth Circuit – we’re very, very optimistic as we’re heading into next week’s argument.
Blade: What role has your office played in the U.S. Supreme Court case on Prop 8?
Herrera: We intervened and stood shoulder to shoulder with the Gibson Dunn firm — the David Boise firm — both at trial and at the Ninth Circuit and here as we’re leading up to the Supreme Court argument. So we have been involved in every piece of state litigation on this as well as the federal action. In fact, we were the only party allowed to intervene in the case and participate on our side as a party. We have been working alongside the lead counsel in the case and continue to do so leading up to the [U.S. Supreme Court] arguments.
Blade: Could you explain as best you can in layman’s terms what we understand to be the possible outcomes by the Supreme Court? In one outcome they can uphold Proposition 8. But is the court also being asked to rule that under the U.S. Constitution, no state can ban same-sex couples from marrying?
Herrera: I think that what you see if you look at the briefs of the plaintiffs and ours – we’re very, very complimentary. Clearly the plaintiffs in the case, as represented by Ted Olsen and David Boies, are seeking the broadest possible remedy to strike down discrimination vis-a-vis marriage equality nationwide.
And if you look at our briefs, what we do is try and make sure that we offer the full panoply in a very complimentary way. We fully agree with Ted Olsen and Boies and support their contention that heightened scrutiny should apply in this case, which would essentially, if found in the plaintiff’s favor, would basically have nationwide impact. But in addition, we have argued in our brief, while we fully agree with them, that even if you limited it to California and states similarly situated to California — the prohibition on marriage should not apply. So it’s a more limited but complimentary approach. Just so the court has the full panoply of possible avenues before it. But we’re in full support of the broad argument, but if the court wants to rule in our favor but limit it to California and other states that are similar to California, we briefed that issue as well.
Blade: How would it affect other states that are similar to California?
Herrera: If you look at the [U.S.] Solicitor General’s brief, the government’s brief, they have essentially said that states like California that have extended domestic partner benefits that allow same-sex couples to adopt, those that have been out there granting rights to same-sex couples cannot take them away through tools like Proposition 8. So there’s about seven or eight states that are similarly situated to California. And they have come in and said for those states, not just California but for those others, you can’t take an approach like folks have done with Proposition 8.
Blade: Does that include states outside Ninth Circuit?
Herrera: Yes.
Blade: Some constitutional experts that study the Supreme Court, including some who support same-sex marriage, have argued that it would be better for the court to limit an affirmative decision to just California rather than issue a ruling that would require all states to recognize same-sex marriage. They say that a ruling forcing all states to legalize same-sex marriage would create too great a shock to the culture, especially in southern and certain mid-Western states. What are your thoughts on that?
Herrera: I have heard that. But, like I said, in this case we’re working along with the lead counsel and have really offered a variety of different directions the court should go. And I would like to say this. I know that people make that argument. But think about how things have changed.
Let’s just go back. Proposition 22 that passed here in California in 2000 was against marriage equality 60 to 40. And with Proposition 8 we saw what the numbers were [52 percent for Prop 8, 48 percent against]. Recently, on the same day that the federal government – the administration – came in support of our position there was a Field Poll released here in the State of California that showed that 61 percent of people now in California favor same-sex marriage as opposed to 32 percent. …
So I’m fully in support of a broader approach and I think that would be the best thing for the country. But if in its judgment the Supreme Court does not want to go that route we have offered them and the United States government has offered them another direction to go that perhaps might be more limited but ultimately we know is going to lead to the same result nationwide.
Blade: In 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed marriages to take place at City Hall, you supported that, right?
Herrera: Yup.
Blade: But some lawmakers in Washington at the time, including Congressman Barney Frank, thought that might be jumping the gun a little bit and that it could lead to a greater push for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. That never passed, but some were worried that it could. Was that something that entered your mind back then?
Herrera: I think history has borne out that we in San Francisco were on the right side of history when you look at the tremendous progress that has been made over the course of the last several years. So I think that sometimes it is somewhat scary for people to take the unconventional approach and to push the envelope. But I think that the wisdom of that approach has been borne out by history.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
