Connect with us

Politics

DOMA ruling quickens march toward marriage equality

Officials in Ohio, Pa., Missouri, N.M. cite court decision

Published

on

gay marriage, same sex marriage., marriage equality, Supreme Court, rainbow flag, gay news, Washington Blade
Jeff Zarillo, Paul Katami, Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, David Boies, Chad Griffin, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Prop 8, California, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade

The Supreme Court decision against DOMA has boosted marriage equality activism. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Not even one month after the Supreme Court’s historic decision striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the effects of the ruling are already proliferating as legal authorities throughout the country reinterpret laws to advance marriage rights for gay couples.

Almost like a domino effect, public officials and judges in Ohio, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Missouri this week alone have acted to advance marriage equality by drawing on the decision in Windsor v. United States as part of their reasoning.

Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said this movement so soon after the Windsor ruling “was anticipated” given the language that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy used in his opinion.

“Given the flurry of activity, and the quick decisions coming out of places like Ohio, this may mean that the Supreme Court may not be able to avoid the question regarding the constitutionality of state marriage bans as long as some of the justices may hope,” NeJaime said. “Clearly in Perry they were able to push the issue off for a bit, but it doesn’t seem they will be able to avoid the question for more than a few years at most.”

In Ohio, U.S. District Judge Timothy Black drew on the precedent set in Windsor as part of his reasoning in his 15-page decision affording a temporary order requiring Ohio to recognize the marriage of James Obergefell and John Arthur.

“While the holding in Windsor is ostensibly limited to a finding that the federal government refuse to recognize state laws authorizing same-sex marriage, the issue whether States can refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages is now surely headed to the fore,” Black writes. “Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, ‘the state law-shoe’ has now dropped in Ohio.”

In Missouri, the State Supreme Court has asked attorneys involved in a gay death benefits case for an additional briefing in light of the Supreme Court’s decision against DOMA. Kelly Glossip was denied the benefits of her partner, Missouri State Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard, who died in the line of duty in 2009.

In Pennsylvania’s Montgomery County, where the County Commission has directed clerks to distribute marriage licenses to gay couples, the Windsor decision is cited again. Democrat Josh Shapiro is indirectly quoted by the Associated Press as saying the commission believes it has authority to distribute marriage licenses because of the Supreme Court decision against DOMA.

New Mexico Attorney General Gary King also makes reference to Windsor in his 29-page opinion in which he announces he won’t defend a state law in a lawsuit seeking marriage equality. But the decision here is mentioned briefly in a citation along with state marriage lawsuits such as Massachusetts’ Goodridge v. Department of Public Health and Iowa’s Varnum v. Brien.

New application of the Windsor decision can also be seen at the federal level. On Thursday, the Federal Election Commission is set to vote on allowing married same-sex couples to make joint political donations from an individual bank account.

The FEC has previously determined that married gay couples were ineligible to make such contributions under DOMA, but with Section 3 of that law deemed unconstitutional, the commission on Friday published a new draft opinion saying it “now revisits the question.”

Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, said the “pace has been quick, and it’s only getting quicker” with respect to the advancement of marriage equality after the DOMA ruling.

“Part of the cascade of change in the direction of marriage equality comes from the power of Justice Kennedy’s decision striking down DOMA,” Goldberg said. “They could have won, but with a less powerful opinion, which might not have motivated as many government officials to advance marriage equality, but the opinion is powerful and makes clear that discrimination in marriage is unconstitutional.”

In addition to the DOMA ruling, Goldberg also attributed the advancement of marriage equality to elected officials wanting to catch up to other politicians who have endorsed same-sex marriage. Additionally, she said a general cultural shift in the United States and high degree of acceptance of the court ruling is responsible.

“There can be no question that momentum has been building over the past two years, and it’s increased dramatically with the court striking down DOMA,” Goldberg concluded. “I think we can expect the pace of change to continue, but with bumps along the way.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Shaheen, Collins reintroduce bill prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination in jury service

Senators note the absence of protections in federal courtrooms

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) reintroduced a bill on Wednesday that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity during the federal jury selection process.

The bipartisan Jury Access for Capable Citizens and Equality in Service Selection (ACCESS) Act would enshrine protections for LGBTQ Americans who are serving or who might be selected to serve on juries, alongside rules proscribing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and economic status that are already enforced in federal courtrooms.

Co-sponsoring the bill with Shaheen and Collins are U.S. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.)

“Serving on a jury is a civic duty that no one should be prevented from fulfilling because of who they are or who they love,” Shaheen said in a press release. “It’s preposterous that under current law there are no protections prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ+ jurors in federal courts and Congress must take action to rectify this injustice.” 

“Serving on a jury is a fundamental right and obligation that no individual should be prohibited from fulfilling based on their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Collins. “I have long worked to fight discrimination, and I am proud to join this effort to help eliminate bias from our judicial system.” 

Amid the absence of nationwide protections, the release notes that only 17 states “prohibit exclusion from jury service in state court based on sexual orientation” while “just 12 protect against discrimination based on gender identity.”

This spring, Democratic lawmakers from the House and the Senate, including leadership from both chambers, reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ inclusive federal nondiscrimination rules in a range of contexts from employment and housing to public accommodations and education.

Shaheen and Collins were integral to the bill’s inclusion of protections applying to jury service.

Continue Reading

Congress

Torres: gay Venezuelan asylum seeker is ‘poster child’ for Trump’s ‘abuses against due process’

Congressman spoke with the Blade Thursday

Published

on

Democratic U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York told the Washington Blade during an interview Thursday that his party erred in focusing so much attention on demands for the Trump-Vance administration to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. when the wrongful deportation of Andry Hernández Romero “was much more egregious.”

Hernández is a gay Venezuelan national who was deported to El Salvador in March and imprisoned in the country’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT.

“In the case of Andry, the government admits that it has no evidence of gang membership, but he was deported without due process, without a notification to his attorney, without a court hearing to contest the allegations against him, without a court order authorizing his deportation,” the congressman said.

“He had not even the slightest semblance of due process,” Torres said. “And even though he had a court hearing scheduled for March 17, the Trump administration proceeded to deport him on March 15, in violation of a court order.”

“I think we as a party should have held up Andry as the poster child for the abuses against due process, because his case is much more sympathetic,” Torres said. “There’s no one who thinks that Andry is a gang member.”

“Also,” the congressman added, “he’s not a quote-unquote illegal immigrant. He was a lawful asylum seeker. He sought asylum lawfully under the statutes of the United States, but he was deported unlawfully at the hands of the Trump administration.”

Torres was among the 49 members of Congress who joined with Democratic U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California in writing to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday demanding information about Romero, including proof of life.

The lawmakers urged the State Department to facilitate his access to legal counsel and take steps to return him, expressing fear for his safety — concerns that Torres reiterated on Thursday.

“Jails and prisons can be dangerous places for gay men, and that is especially true of a place like CECOT,” the congressman said. “He fled Latin America to escape violent homophobia. There are a few places on earth that have as much institutionalized homophobia as jails and prisons, and so I do fear for his safety.”

“I released a video telling the story of Andry,” Torres noted, adding, “I feel like we have to do more to raise awareness and the video is only the beginning … And you know, the fact that Abrego Garcia is returning to the United States shows that the administration has the ability to bring back the migrants who were unlawfully deported.”

Torres spoke with the Blade just after Padilla was forcibly removed from a federal building in Los Angeles after attempting to question U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference on immigration Thursday.

Footage of the senator being pushed out of the room, onto the floor, and handcuffed by officers wearing FBI identifying vests drew outrage from top Democrats in California and beyond.

“It’s the latest reminder that Donald Trump and his administration have no respect for anything or anyone but himself,” Torres told the Blade. “And every bit as outrageous as Donald Trump himself has been the enabling on the part of the congressional Republicans who are aiding and abetting his authoritarian abuses.”

“We have to be vigilant in resisting Donald Trump,” the congressman said. “We have to resist him on the streets through grassroots mobilization. We have to resist him in the courtrooms through litigation. We have to resist him in the halls of Congress through legislation.”

Torres added that “we have to win back the majority in 2026” and “if Republicans have no interest in holding Donald Trump accountable, then those Republicans should be fired from public office” because “we need a Congress that is able and willing to hold Donald Trump accountable, to stand up to his authoritarian assault on our democracy.”

Resisting is “a matter of free speech,” he said, noting that the president’s aim is to “create a reign of terror that intimidates people into silence,” but “we cannot remain silent. We have to unapologetically and courageously exercise our right to free speech, our right to assemble peacefully, and our right to resist an authoritarian president like Donald Trump.”

Continue Reading

Congress

Padilla forcibly removed from federal building for questioning DHS secretary

Prominent Democrats rushed to defend senator

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed from a federal building in Los Angeles after attempting to ask questions of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference on immigration Thursday

The city has been rattled in recent days as protestors objecting to the Trump-Vance administration’s immigration crackdowns clashed with law enforcement and then the president deployed National Guard troops and U.S. Marines, which was seen as a dramatic escalation.

According to a video shared by his office, the senator, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, introduced himself and said, I have questions for the secretary.” After he was pushed out of the room, officers with FBI-identifying vests told Padilla to put his hands behind his back and handcuffed him.

“Senator Padilla is currently in Los Angeles exercising his duty to perform Congressional oversight of the federal government’s operations in Los Angeles and across California,” reads a statement from his office.

“He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem’s press conference,” the statement continued. “He tried to ask the secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information.”

Democrats were furious, with many releasing strong statements online condemning the actions of law enforcement officers, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D), and the state’s other U.S. senator, Adam Schiff (D).

Human Rights Campaign Chief of Staff Jay Brown also issued a statement: “A sitting U.S. senator should be allowed to ask a Cabinet secretary a question at a press conference — in his own state, on an issue affecting his constituents — without being violently thrown to the floor and handcuffed. Everyone who cares about our country must condemn this undemocratic act. Full stop.”



Continue Reading

Popular