Connect with us

Politics

Pride celebrations arrive as nation awaits marriage rulings

Supreme Court expected to decide DOMA, Prop 8 cases this month

Published

on

Supreme Court, gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Hollingsworth vs. Perry, gay news, Washington Blade
Supreme Court, gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Hollingsworth vs. Perry, gay news, Washington Blade

Pride celebrations are taking place as the Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on marriage cases. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

This year’s annual LGBT Pride celebrations will have special meaning as they’re taking place in the same month that landmark rulings are expected from the U.S. Supreme Court in cases on marriage equality.

Two cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court: Hollingsworth v. Perry, which is challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, and Windsor v. United States, which is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.

At this end of this month, the lawsuits could produce a number of outcomes resulting in major changes in marriage laws.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, noted the anticipation of the rulings from the Supreme Court ā€” which would come on the heels of other victories seen in recent months ā€” as LGBT people celebrate Pride.

“We have seen tremendous progress in the past several years and as we celebrate our achievements this Pride season, we are all anxiously awaiting news from the Supreme Court,” Cole-Schwartz said. “The court has the opportunity to write the next chapter of our progress as a community and we are hopeful that there will be more celebrating to come this June.”

The case challenging Prop 8 could produce the greatest range of outcomes: No. 1 on marriage-equality supporters wish list is a ruling that would say on bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional and all 50 states must offer marriage rights for gay couples. Such a broad ruling is deemed unlikely by legal experts and other observers.

Other positive rulings would be more limited in scope. The court could uphold the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which was limited to California and said a state can’t offer marriage rights to gay couples and then take them away. The nine justices could also could rule that civil unions and domestic partnership are separate and unequal, requiring the eight states that provide them to offer marriage equality.

Another option one may be for the justices to avoid the issue of constitutionality altogether. One option would be for the Supreme Court to determine that it was incorrect to grant review of the case, leaving the Ninth Circuit decision in place. Another would be to say that proponents of Prop 8 don’t have standing to defend the law in court. This latter option may be the most likely considering the justices’ interest in the standing issue during oral arguments in March.

The options are limited in the DOMA case, although there are several possibilities. The court could strike down DOMA by saying it’s unconstitutional ā€” either on federalism grounds or by saying it violates equal protection for gay couples ā€” which would likely mean the federal government would begin recognizing same-sex marriages throughout the country.

The court has also expressed an interest in the standing issue and hired a court-appointed attorney ,Vicki Jackson, to argue that neither the Obama administration, which has begun litigating against DOMA, nor House Republicans, who have defended it, can take part in the lawsuit. It’s unclear what the outcome would be if court rendered a decision in the DOMA case on standing issues.

Of course, the court could also issue decisions saying Prop 8 or DOMA are constitutional, leaving them in place and forcing LGBT advocates to go to the ballot for the California measure and Congress for DOMA to repeal them.

In either or both cases, the court could rule that laws related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional. That’s the position held by the Obama administration.

Such a ruling would have an impact on other LGBT-related cases throughout the country, such as those challenging marriage bans or laws restrictive of other rights.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

Trump nominates gay man for Treasury secretary

Hedge fund executive would be the second openly gay cabinet secretary

Published

on

Scott Bessent (Screen capture: YouTube)

President-elect Donald Trump nominated openly gay hedge fund executive Scott Bessent as U.S. Treasury secretary on Friday.

Once a prolific donor to Democrats and a protege of liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros, if confirmed Bessent would be the first LGBTQ official to lead the Treasury Department and the second gay cabinet secretary after Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

“Trumpā€™s selection of Bessent, who is also openly gay, married, and has two children with his partner, is also a reminder of President Trumpā€™s love and respect for LGBT Americans,” the conservative LGBTQ group Log Cabin Republicans said in a statement.

ā€œScott Bessent is a terrific choice to become the next Treasury Secretary and the Log Cabin Republicans applaud President Trump for his pick,” the organization wrote. “As one of the most brilliant minds in the financial space and a vocal supporter of President Trumpā€™s economic agenda, Bessent will be a strong asset to help President Trump put America back on the path to financial security and economic prosperity.”

Equality Forum, a national LGBTQ civil rights organization, which oversees LGBT History Month, noted the nomination of Scott Bessent in a press release, writing that he “is highly regarded by the financial community and founder of a global macro investment firm.”

Equality Forum Executive Director Malcolm Lazin added, ā€œIf confirmed, Bessent will be the highest ranking openly gay U.S. government official in American history.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Karine Jean-Pierre addresses anti-trans bathroom policy targeting Sarah McBride

HRC condemns the effort as ‘cruel’ and ‘discriminatory’

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre speaks at the White House press briefing on Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2023. (Washington Blade photo by Christopher Kane)

During a briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre addressed the controversy over House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) move to restrict access to single-sex facilities in the U.S. Capitol and House office buildings based on birth gender.

The new policy, which mirrors a proposal introduced by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) on Monday that was supported by other House Republicans including U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), comes as Congress prepares to welcome its first trans member, Sarah McBride.

Mace conceded that her bathroom policy was intended to target the Delaware state senator, who will represent the state’s at-large congressional district when she is seated in January.

“When I think about that question, I think about what the congresswoman-elect said,” Jean-Pierre told reporters, referencing a statement issued by McBride on Wednesday. “As you know, the president has a close relationship with and is very proud of her.”

She continued, “And what she said is ‘I’m not here to fight about bathrooms.Ā I’m here to fight for Delawareans and to bring down costs facing families.’ And we agree with her. We think that’s incredibly important: To focus on the American people” and her constituents.

Asked whether President Joe Biden has been in touch with McBride in recent days, Jean-Pierre said, “I don’t have a conversation to speak to,” adding that “as you know” the two spoke when the president made a congratulatory call to McBride on election night.

“He was able to call her and congratulate her,” the press secretary said. “I don’t have anything else to add, but I think her words speak volumes.”

McBride’s statement, published on X, reads in part, “Like all members, I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them. This effort to distract from the real issues facing this country hasnā€™t distracted me over the last several days.”

Following Johnson’s introduction of the bathroom policy on Wednesday, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson shared a statement with the Washington Blade:

ā€œThis new cruel and discriminatory policy has nothing to do with helping the American people or addressing their prioritiesā€“itā€™s all about hurting people.

“It targets not just Rep.-elect McBride, but all trans and nonbinary people who work and visit the Capitol ā€” public servants who have been working in the Capitol for years but are now suddenly the subject of cynical political games.

Speaker Johnson has proven yet again that the Republican majority is more focused on culture wars than on the needs of the country.ā€

Continue Reading

Politics

Matt Gaetz withdraws nomination for attorney general

Former congressman was dogged by allegations of sex crimes, illegal drug use

Published

on

Now former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) speaks at the 2024 Republican National Convention (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President-elect Donald Trump’s most controversial cabinet nominee so far, former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), has withdrawn his name from consideration for the role of U.S. attorney general after a week of intense scrutiny over the allegations of sex crimes and illegal drug use that have trailed the former congressman for several years.

Even with a Republican-led U.S. Senate, Gaetz’s path to confirmation was far from certain with senators expressing an interest in seeing the findings of a U.S. House Ethics Committee report about the lawmaker, who resigned from Congress two days before the document was to be made public.

Others, like U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), called Trump’s attorney general pick unserious or otherwise took issue with his lack of qualifications to lead the Justice Department. Gaetz’s legal experience is limited to a three-year stint at a small law firm in Florida’s Okaloosa County.

“While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance transition,” he said in a statement on X Thursday. “There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I’ll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as attorney general.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular