Connect with us

National

Prop 8 plaintiffs lead Calif. couples in tying the knot

Ninth Circuit lifts stay on marriage equality; Anti-gay groups cry foul but are dismissed

Published

on

Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriage, gay marriage, gay news, Washington Blade, Chad Griffin, Human Rights Campaign, American Foundation for Equal Rights, Paul Katami, Kris Perry, Jeff Zarillo, Sandy Stier, Supreme Court, Hollingsworth v. Perry, Winsor v. U.S.
Attorney General Kamala Harris marries Prop 8 plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier (Blade screenshot by Chris Johnson)

Attorney General Kamala Harris marries Prop 8 plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier (Blade screenshot by Chris Johnson)

The jubilation following two Supreme Court decisions in favor of marriage equality continued on Friday as plaintiffs in the lawsuit against California’s Proposition 8 became the first in the Golden State to marry after the demise of the ban on same-sex marriage.

The lesbian couple in lawsuit ā€” Kris Perry and Sandra Stier ā€” was first to marry in California and did so at 4:45 pm in a San Francisco City Hall ceremony officiated by California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Shortly thereafter at 6:15 pm, the gay male couple ā€”Ā Paul Katami andĀ JeffĀ Zarrillo ā€” married in Los Angeles in a ceremony over which Los Angeles Mayor AntonioĀ Villaraigosa officiated during his last day in office.

During the ceremony for Perry and Stier, Harris noted the long road on which the couple had journeyed since they filed their lawsuit in 2009 to restore marriage equality to California. Their son,Ā ElliottĀ Perry, served as a witness.

“Four years ago, Kris and Sandy embarked upon a journey that most couples do not experience,” Harris said. “By joining the case against Proposition 8, they represented thousands of couples like themselves in the fight for marriage equality.”

San Francisco City Hall stayed open until 8 pm to issue marriage licenses and will reopen from 9 am to 5pm Saturday and Sunday while the city celebrates June as Pride month.

Same-sex weddings resumed in California in the same city hall where nearly a decade ago then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom jump started the marriage equality movement by handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples before the court ordered him to stop.

The weddings were able to commence in California thanks to the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals lifting its stay on the injunction that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker put in place in 2010 prohibiting the enforcement of Prop 8. The lifting of stay was the consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court determination that anti-gay groups lack standing to defend Prop 8 in court.

In between the ceremonies for lesbian and the gay male couple, the plaintiffs held a conference call with reporters to talk about the jubilation they felt over finally being able to marry. They were joined by Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, and American Foundation for Equal Rights attorney Ted Boutrous.

Griffin said “we are all more American” on the day marriage equality resumed in California and emphasized gay nuptials in the Golden State are here to stay.

“Marriage has finally returned to the great state of California, and no one ā€” no judge, no election and no politician ā€” can take it away,” Griffin said.

Asked by the Washington Blade how it feels to finally be married after the completion of the lawsuit, Perry said she needs to wait until tomorrow for it to register.

“Right now, we feel victorious and thrilled and relieved, really, to be at the end of this long journey, and now finally able to move forward as a regular married couple just like everybody else,” Perry said.

Katami said he doesn’t much more to add as he prepared for his wedding ceremony, but noted the feeling of finally being able to marry was satisfying.

“I can tell you this: equal feels different,” Katami said. “We woke up on Thursday and this morning feeling like full citizens that will be recognized by our state, and recognized by our federal government. And we know that in just a few short minutes, Jeff and I will be able to call each other husband officially.”

In response to a question on whether plaintiffs received any advanced notice that the Ninth Circuit would lift its stay, advocates said on the call they had none but were nonetheless ready to spring into action when it happened.

But amid the excitement, anti-gay forces cried foul over what they said was a breach of protocol by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in lifting the stay prematurely.

Legal observers had said they had a 25-day waiting period after the Supreme Court ruling in which proponents of Prop 8 could file for reconsideration. Even so, reconsideration is either rarely granted or never happens.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney with ProtectMarriage.com, posted a statement called the lifting of the stay an “outrageous act” and said the resumption of same-sex marriage has been obtained “by illegitimate means.”

ā€œHomosexual marriage is not happening because the people changed their mind,” Pugno said. “It isnā€™t happening because the appellate courts declared a new constitutional right. Itā€™s happening because enemies of the people have abused their power to manipulate the system and render the people voiceless.”

It’s unclear what recourse, if any, anti-gay forces have to fight the lifting of the stay after the Supreme Court determined they lack standing in court. Pugno said “it remains to be seen whether the fight can go on” as he said the development made for “a disgraceful day.”

LGBT advocates strongly pushed back on the notion that anti-gay forces had more options.

Asked by the Blade about this concern, Boutrous said Ninth Circuit “quite correctly” viewed itself as having the power to lift the stay and is “totally authorized by the court’s rules and by federal rules.”

“We’ve had cases where courts have lifted the stay in much more boring cases than this one,” Boutrous said. “And it makes sense here because you look at the possibility of success for the other side: it’s zero.”

Asked by another reporter if the Supreme Court or en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit could issue a stay if Prop 8 proponents asked for one during the 25-day waiting period,Ā Boutrous said “no” because the high court determined the Ninth Circuit has no jurisdiction in the case.

Boutrous also dismissed another question on whether Prop 8 proponents could take action in state court, noting the federal injunction against Prop 8 would trump anything from state judges.

Those on the call also had no comment on what would happen if certain counties refused to hand marriage licenses to gay couples, referring a question on the matter from Reuters to the attorney general’s office.

The reaction from StierĀ was more mirthful in response to a question on what plans she and Perry had for a honeymoon.

“We didn’t have a lot of time to plan one, as you might well imagine, because we were at work when we found out we could get married today,” StierĀ said. “But next on our order of things to plan are a celebration, which means a reception, and then we need a honeymoon.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

Trump ‘culture war’ complicates HUD’s distribution of $3.6B in housing grants

Senate Dems call for new agreements

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The disbursement of more than $3.6 billion in federal grants to housing providers has been paused for weeks while the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development seeks to condition receipt of the funding on compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive actions targeting DEI and transgender and immigrant communities.

March 4 was the statutory deadline for the agency to distribute the funds, which come through the Continuum of Care Program in support of local governments and nonprofit organizations working to promote “a community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness.”

On March 13, a group of Senate Democrats led by U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Tina Smith (Minn.) wrote to HUD Secretary Scott Turner urging him to move quickly on distributing the grants and warning of the consequences that recipients are now facing and the harm they will encounter in the future if delays persist.

“To keep the lights on, providers are now being forced to draw on lines of credit at significant cost and risk to their organizations,” the senators said. “These projects enable homeless service providers to help veterans, families with children, youth, seniors, and vulnerable individuals access permanent and temporary housing, crisis counseling, and other supportive services.ā€

HUD subsequently disseminated grant agreements ā€” and Schiff published an example on his office’s website ā€” that included, among other provisions, language stipulating that the awardee (1) “shall not use grant funds to promote ‘gender ideology,’ as defined in E.O. 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” (2) certifies that it does not operate any programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws, and (3) agrees not to use “that funding in a manner that by design or effect facilitates the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration or abets so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

On March 14, the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals stayed a nationwide injunction enjoining three parts of Trump’s executive order on DEI, and the following day, HUD rescinded the CoC contracts and said to expect new agreements within a week as the agency was “working to revise its CoC grant agreements to be consistent with Federal law and compliant with applicable court orders.”

Schiff then led a second letter to Turner on March 19 with the Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mazie Hirono (D- Hawaii), and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.).

“We urge the department to immediately issue new CoC grant agreements consistent with longstanding practiceā€” free of the aforementioned conditionsā€” to ensure all individuals experiencing homelessness receive protection and support, regardless of gender identity, location, or other characteristics,” they said, requesting a response by March 31.

“The initial FY2024 grant agreements issued to CoC funding recipients contained new requirements that are deeply problematic, and likely unlawful, requirements,” the senators argued. “These mandates, such as barring shelters from serving transgender people, prohibiting DEI initiatives, and certifying that they do not support ‘sanctuary’ policies protecting noncitizens, conflict with federal civil rights, fair housing, and immigration laws, raising serious legal and constitutional concerns.”

The lawmakers noted “the harm caused by these delayed and unfulfilled CoC grant agreements will fall disproportionately on our most vulnerable populations, including women, families with children, youth, veterans, survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.” They added, “Women experiencing homelessness ā€” many of whom are fleeing domestic abuse ā€” already face significant barriers to safety and stability, and restricting access to critical housing services will only further endanger their lives and well-being.”

Citing research that nearly one in three transgender Americans has experiences homelessness in their lives, Schiff and his colleagues stressed that “Transgender and nonbinary people in the U.S. face significant barriers to securing safe housing, with many experiencing homelessness and high rates of mistreatment and violence in shelters.”

With respect to the language in the agreements about “sanctuary” policies, the senators wrote “The organizations receiving CoC funds exist to provide critical, non-discriminatory aid to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. These organizations do not set or enforce immigration policy ā€” they simply fulfill their legal duty to provide life-saving and life-changing care.”

Later on March 19, HUD began issuing new contracts that did not contain the provision concerning DEI but did include the same language about “gender ideology” and “sanctuary” policies.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Court halts removal of two transgender service members

Case challenging anti-trans military ban proceeds in D.C.

Published

on

Laila and Logan Ireland (Photo courtesy of the couple)

A federal court in New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order on Monday that will halt the separation of two transgender service members from the U.S. military while their case in D.C. challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s ban moves forward.

The order by Judge Christine O’Hearn pauses proceedings against Staff Sgt. Nicholas Bear Bade and Master Sgt. Logan Ireland, who “have been pulled from key deployments and placed on administrative absence against their will because of the ban,” according to a joint press release Monday by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law, which are representing the service members together with other litigants in Ireland v. Hegseth and in the case underway in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Talbott v. Trump.

“That court granted a preliminary injunction March 18 barring the Department of Defense from implementing the ban, finding that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status; that it is ‘soaked in animus;’ and that, due to the governmentā€™s failure to present any evidence supporting the ban, it is ‘highly unlikely’ to survive any level of judicial review,” the groups noted in their press release.

Ireland spoke with the Washington Blade in January along with other trans service members and former service members who shared their experiences with the military and their feelings on the new administration’s efforts to bar trans people from the U.S. armed forces.

Continue Reading

State Department

Report: State Department to remove LGBTQ information from annual human rights report

Spokesperson declines to ‘preview’ information ‘at this time’

Published

on

(Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

The State Department has not commented a report that indicates it plans to remove LGBTQ-specific information from their annual human rights report.

Politico on March 19 reported the Trump-Vance administration “is slashing the State Department’s annual human rights report ā€” cutting sections about the rights of women, the disabled, the LGBTQ+ community, and more.” The Politico article notes it obtained “documents” and spoke with “a current and a former State Department official who were familiar with the plan.”

“We are not previewing the human rights report at this time,” a State Department spokesperson told the Washington Blade on March 21.

Congress requires the State Department to release a human rights report each year. 

The 2023 report specifically noted Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act that contains a death penalty provision for “aggravated homosexuality.” The 2022 report highlighted, among other things, anti-LGBTQ crackdowns in Afghanistan, Russia, and Hungary and so-called conversion therapy.

President Donald Trump since he took office has signed a number of executive orders that have specifically targeted the LGBTQ and intersex community. These include the ā€œDefending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Governmentā€ directive that, among other things,Ā bans the State Department from issuing passports with ā€œXā€ gender markers.

The State Department has eliminated references to transgender travelers from its travel advisories. Germany, Denmark, and Finland have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who are planning to visit the U.S.

A directive that Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued bans embassies and other U.S. diplomatic institutions from flying the Pride flag. (Former President Joe Biden in March 2024 signed a government spending bill with a provision that banned Pride flags from flying over U.S. embassies.)

The U.S. has withdrawn from the U.N. LGBTI Core Group, a group of U.N. member states that have pledged to support LGBTQ and intersex rights, and the Organization of American States’ LGBTI Core Group. The Trump-Vance administration’s decision to suspend most U.S. foreign aid spending has been a “catastrophe” for the global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular