Connect with us

National

Supporters camp out for 3 days awaiting marriage cases

Undaunted by snow forecast, some determined to see Supreme Court in action

Published

on

Supreme Court, gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, gay news, Washington Blade
Supreme Court, gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, gay news, Washington Blade

A line formed at the Supreme Court on Saturday in anticipation of oral arguments in the marriage cases. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Three days before justices will hear oral arguments on California’s Proposition 8, supporters of marriage equality were already lined up before the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday to ensure they’ll have a seat for the historic event.

Jeffrey DeSoto, a gay 33-year-old computer programmer from New York, stood cross-legged in line next to his sign reading: “I AM A 2ND CLASS CITIZEN: NOH8.” Near him was his sleeping bag, air mattress, blanket and solar cell to charge his cell phone.

“New York State does have marriage equality, but I would want marriage equality across the entire country,” DeSoto said. “That’s an outside outcome to this, but it is there, so I definitely would want to have been at the case where that happens.”

Jordan Haedtler, a straight 24-year-old resident of Oakland, Calif., said he’s closely watched the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, from its beginnings and attended oral arguments in the case when they were before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I’m kind of a public policy and politics junkie,” Haedtler said. “I’ve been to several oral arguments in other cases as well, but this case holds a lot of importance for me because I really think that gay rights and marriage equality are one of the main civil rights issues of our time.”

As of Saturday afternoon, about 15 people were camped out outside the building awaiting entry to Tuesday’s hearing. Wearing coats and hats to keep warm in a lingering winter cold, those in line occupied themselves with journal writing, conversation and newspaper reading to pass the time.

For DeSoto, simply coming early on Tuesday morning wasn’t enough. He arrived Friday afternoon to wait in line before the Supreme Court with days remaining before the arguments for an assurance he would have access to the courtroom.

“Actually, I did a little research,” DeSoto said. “I found the names of people who waited in line for the Affordable Care Act, and then I found them on Facebook and messaged a couple of them. One girl messaged me back, and I asked her how far in advance she had come. I think she said four days, so I pretty much tried to match that.”

DeSoto said those waiting in line have a “good amount of camaraderie.” As if living in a commune on the sidewalk of First Street, he said they’re offering food to each other and keeping an eye on each other’s possessions as they wait.

Among them are a gay couple seeking a ruling in favor of their marriage rights; college students with an affinity for legal cases and equality issues; a group of older black men at the front of the line played a game of dominoes to pass the time.

Tyrone Henderson, Supreme Court, gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, gay news, Washington Blade

D.C. resident Tyrone Henderson supports marriage equality. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Tyrone Henderson, a 48-year-old D.C. resident, talked about his personal support for marriage equality as he glanced over the Metro section of the Washington Post.

“I think people should have the choice of what they want to do,” Henderson said. “You should be able to be with who you want to be with instead of trying to predict who you should be with. I figure you should have the choice whether you want to marry a man or a woman.”

Each of the people in line was a supporter of marriage equality. No opponents of marriage rights for gay couples were waiting outside and braving the chilly weather to attend the arguments. There was one protester who was wearing a sandwich sign, but he was speaking out against the Obama administration’s extrajudicial killing of suspected terrorists overseas by drone attack.

DeSoto said he was heckled by a passer-by who deemed marriage rights for gay couples an unimportant issue.

“I did have one person come by — a heckler, a dissident, whatever,” DeSoto said. “He didn’t like my sign. He pretty much said marriage equality was not a serious issue and that we’re all throwing a hissy fit.”

Those in line were also undaunted by weather reports indicating that they would be snowed upon as they awaited a place in the courtroom. Differing forecasts ranged from cold rain to a few inches of snow on Sunday and Monday.

Dariann Powers, Supreme Court, gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, gay news, Washington Blade

Darienn Powers came from New York to watch the Prop 8 oral arguments. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Darienn Powers, a 19-year-old straight student from the State University of New York at New Paltz, said she came early in the morning on Saturday prepared in the event of inclement weather.

“I’ve heard that it might be snowing,” Powers said. “I’m wearing my rubberized rain boots, so my feet will be dry, and I have an umbrella. Otherwise, I’m just taking it as it comes.”

A common theme among those waiting in line was a plan to stay for oral arguments for Prop 8 on Tuesday, but leave without attending the arguments on Wednesday for the Defense of Marriage Act. The reasoning — aside from the need to return to work — was the belief the Prop 8 proceedings were more historic than the DOMA case.

Still, that didn’t take away from the historic nature of what they’d be able to see on the first day of oral arguments on marriage equality.

Dexter Smith, a gay junior political science major at Georgia State University, said he expects an intense experience on that day for those on both sides of the marriage equality movement.

“I think it’s going to be packed,” Smith said. “You’re going to have protesters out here. People saying crazy things; you already having people saying crazy things. It’s going to be crazy, and I just want to be here to be in the thick of things.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy

Two of seven plaintiffs live in Md.

Published

on

Lambda Legal on April 25 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people who are challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy.

The lawsuit, which Lambda Legal filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, alleges the policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers “has caused and is causing grave and immediate harm to transgender people like plaintiffs, in violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection.”

Two of the seven plaintiffs — Jill Tran and Peter Poe — live in Maryland. The State Department, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the federal government are defendants.

“The discriminatory passport policy exposes transgender U.S. citizens to harassment, abuse, and discrimination, in some cases endangering them abroad or preventing them from traveling, by forcing them to use identification documents that share private information against their wishes,” said Lambda Legal in a press release.

Zander Schlacter, a New York-based textile artist and designer, is the lead plaintiff.

The lawsuit notes he legally changed his name and gender in New York.

Schlacter less than a week before President Donald Trump’s inauguration “sent an expedited application to update his legal name on his passport, using form DS-5504.”

Trump once he took office signed an executive order that banned the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers. The lawsuit notes Schlacter received his new passport in February.

“The passport has his correct legal name, but now has an incorrect sex marker of ‘F’ or ‘female,'” notes the lawsuit. “Mr. Schlacter also received a letter from the State Department notifying him that ‘the date of birth, place of birth, name, or sex was corrected on your passport application,’ with ‘sex’ circled in red. The stated reason was ‘to correct your information to show your biological sex at birth.'”

“I, like many transgender people, experience fear of harassment or violence when moving through public spaces, especially where a photo ID is required,” said Schlacter in the press release that announced the lawsuit. “My safety is further at risk because of my inaccurate passport. I am unwilling to subject myself and my family to the threat of harassment and discrimination at the hands of border officials or anyone who views my passport.”

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an ā€œXā€ gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.

Lambda Legal represented Zzyym.

The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.

Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January. Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.

A federal judge in Boston earlier this month issued a preliminary injunction against the executive order.Ā  The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth

Trevor Project warns the move will ‘put their lives at risk’

Published

on

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. appears on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in April 2024. (Screen capture via YouTube)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is planning to retire the national 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth on Oct. 1, according to a preliminary budget document obtained by the Washington Post.

Introduced during the Biden-Harris administration in 2022, the hotline connects callers with counselors who are trained to work with this population, who are four times likelier to attempt suicide than their cisgender or heterosexual counterparts.

ā€œSuicide prevention is about risk, not identity,” said Jaymes Black, CEO of the Trevor Project, which provides emergency crisis support for LGBTQ youth and has contracted with HHS to take calls routed through 988.

“Ending the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ youth specialized services will not just strip away access from millions of LGBTQ+ kids and teens — it will put their lives at risk,ā€ they said in a statement. ā€œThese programs were implemented to address a proven, unprecedented, and ongoing mental health crisis among our nation’s young people with strong bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Trump himself.ā€

“I want to be clear to all LGBTQ+ young people: This news, while upsetting, is not final,” Black said. “And regardless of federal funding shifts, the Trevor Project remains available 24/7 for anyone who needs us, just as we always have.ā€

The service for LGBTQ youth has received 1.3 million calls, texts, or chats since its debut, with an average of 2,100 contacts per day in February.

ā€œI worry deeply that we will see more LGBTQ young people reach a crisis state and not have anyone there to help them through that,ā€ said Janson Wu, director of advocacy and government affairs at the Trevor Project. ā€œI worry that LGBTQ young people will reach out to 988 and not receive a compassionate and welcoming voice on the other end — and that will only deepen their crisis.ā€

Under Trump’s HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the agency’s departments and divisions have experienced drastic cuts, with a planned reduction in force of 20,000 full-time employees. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has been sunset and mental health services consolidated into the newly formed Administration for a Healthy America.

The budget document reveals, per Mother Jones, “further sweeping cuts to HHS, including a 40 percent budget cut to the National Institutes of Health; elimination of funding for Head Start, the early childhood education program for low-income families; and a 44 percent funding cut to the Centers for Disease Control, including all the agency’s chronic disease programs.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court hears oral arguments in LGBTQ education case

Mahmoud v. Taylor plaintiffs argue for right to opt-out of LGBTQ inclusive lessons

Published

on

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

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case about whether Montgomery County, Md., public schools violated the First Amendment rights of parents by not providing them an opportunity to opt their children out of reading storybooks that were part of an LGBTQ-inclusive literacy curriculum.

The school district voted in early 2022 to allow books featuring LGBTQ characters in elementary school language arts classes. When the county announced that parents would not be able to excuse their kids from these lessons, they sued on the grounds that their freedom to exercise the teachings of their Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths had been infringed.

The lower federal courts declined to compel the district to temporarily provide advance notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the LGBTQ inclusive curricula, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks compelled them to violate their religion.

ā€œLGBTQ+ stories matter,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement Tuesday. ā€œThey matter so students can see themselves and their families in the books they read — so they can know they’re not alone. And they matter for all students who need to learn about the world around them and understand that while we may all be different, we all deserve to be valued and loved.”

She added, “All students lose when we limit what they can learn, what they can read, and what their teachers can say. The Supreme Court should reject this attempt to silence our educators and ban our stories.ā€

GLAD Law, NCLR, Family Equality, and COLAGE submitted a 40-page amicus brief on April 9, which argued the storybooks “fit squarely” within the district’s language arts curriculum, the petitioners challenging the materials incorrectly characterized them as “specialized curriculum,” and that their request for a “mandated notice-and-opt-out requirement” threatens “to sweep far more broadly.”

Lambda Legal, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, PFLAG, and the National Women’s Law Center announced their submission of a 31-page amicus brief in a press release on April 11.

ā€œAll students benefit from a school climate that promotes acceptance and respect,ā€ said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal.  ā€œEnsuring that students can see themselves in the curriculum and learn about students who are different is critical for creating a positive school environment. This is particularly crucial for LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ family members who already face unique challenges.ā€

The organizations’ brief cited extensive social science research pointing to the benefits of LGBTQ-inclusive instruction like “age-appropriate storybooks featuring diverse families and identities” benefits all students regardless of their identities.

Also weighing in with amici briefs on behalf of Montgomery County Public Schools were the National Education Association, the ACLU, and the American Psychological Association.

Those writing in support of the parents challenging the district’s policy included the Center for American Liberty, the Manhattan Institute, Parents Defending Education, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Trump-Vance administration’s U.S. Department of Justice, and a coalition of Republican members of Congress.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular