Politics
Christie cautions against quick court action on marriage
Brief contends couples in civil unions eligible for federal benefits
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (Blade file photo by Michael Key).
Attorneys for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are urging the New Jersey Supreme Court to reject a request for a quick ruling in favor of marriage equality on the basis that gay couples are eligible for federal benefits under civil unions — an argument one LGBT advocate is calling “pure nonsense.”
In a 41-page legal brief, Acting Attorney General John Hoffman lays out five reasons why the New Jersey Supreme Court shouldn’t issue summary judgment in favor of a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the case of Garden State Equality v. Dow.
Among the arguments is the assertion that gay couples living in civil unions under New Jersey law are entitled to the federal benefits of marriage in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act.
“The examples are endless,” the brief states. “Suffice it to say that a sizable, but indeterminate, number of the over 1,000 benefits and responsibilities that were inapplicable to civil union couples because of DOMA are now available to them because they are spouses, husbands, wives, widows or widowers under New Jersey law.”
The brief, which is Christie’s first legal statement on same-sex marriage, implicitly criticizes the Obama administration for withholding the federal benefits of marriage from gay couples in civil unions.
“[Any] federal policy or directive or interpretation of Windsor that denies benefits to civil union partners violates the due process and equal protections provisions of the United States Constitution as well as New Jersey’s sovereignty rights,” the brief states.
The characterization that the Obama administration is withholding these benefits from gay couples in civil unions thus far is correct. Upon announcing last month that gay federal employees in same-sex marriages would be eligible for spousal benefits in the aftermath of DOMA, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management announced couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships won’t be able to receive those benefits.
The brief’s novel embrace of the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act is noteworthy for Christie, who previously called the decision “inappropriate,” “wrong” and an example of “judicial supremacy.”
Other arguments the administration makes against summary judgment in favor of marriage equality include 1) the burden of proof is on plaintiffs to prove civil unions are contrary to the state constitution; 2) summary judgment shouldn’t be granted in a case with far-reaching consequences; and 3) New Jersey has a rational basis to enact civil unions and not same-sex marriage.
“If plaintiffs’ premise were correct, then, theoretically, the Civil Union Act could be valid under the State Constitution prior to Windsor; invalid at some indeterminate point post-DOMA because the Obama administration interprets Windsor to preclude the provisions of federal benefits to civil union spouses; then valid again at some even later date if the administration’s policy changes or if a subsequent administration refuses to interpret Windsor in such a cramped, hypertextual way,” the brief states.
In an opinion piece on Slate.com, Nathaniel Frank, an LGBT advocate known for his work on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” says Christie’s argument is “pure nonsense” and “reads like a bad student paper.”
“The trouble is, New Jersey did not intend to treat gay couples equally,” Frank writes. “If it did, it would have actually made them spouses, granting them access to marriage—to the word itself. This is the precise meaning of the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that separate is ‘inherently unequal.’ Awarding equivalent material benefits does not erase the stigma of separating a class of people from the core institutions of American life.”
The Christie brief responds to a request for summary judgment that was filed on July 3 by the plaintiffs in the case following the U.S. Supreme Court decision against DOMA. The case seeking marriage equality was filed in 2011 by Lambda Legal on behalf of Garden State Equality and six same-sex couples seeking marriage rights in New Jersey. The next step in the case is oral arguments, which are set for Aug. 15.
Congress
Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage
Roughly 1.8 million LGBTQ Americans rely on Medicaid
The “Big, Beautiful Bill” heads to President Donald Trump’s desk following the vote by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday, which saw two nays from GOP members and unified opposition from the entire Democratic caucus.
To partially offset the cost of tax breaks that disproportionately favor the wealthy, the bill contains massive cuts to Medicaid and social safety net programs like food assistance for the poor while adding a projected $3.3 billion to the deficit.
Policy wise, the signature legislation of Trump’s second term rolls back clean energy tax credits passed under the Biden-Harris administration while beefing up funding for defense and border security.
Roughly 13 percent of LGBTQ adults in the U.S., about 1.8 million people, rely on Medicaid as their primary health insurer, compared to seven percent of non-LGBTQ adults, according to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute think tank on sexual orientation and gender identities.
In total, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts will cause more than 10 million Americans to lose their coverage under Medicaid and anywhere from three to five million to lose their care under Affordable Care Act marketplace plans.
A number of Republicans in the House and Senate opposed the bill reasoning that they might face political consequences for taking away access to healthcare for, particularly, low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid. Poorer voters flocked to Trump in last year’s presidential election, exit polls show.
A provision that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation — reportedly after the first trans member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and the first lesbian U.S. senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), shored up unified opposition to the proposal among Congressional Democrats.
Congress
Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor
One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul
Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”
Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.
Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.
To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.
A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”
Congress
House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms
Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move
A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.
Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.
The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).
The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”
“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.
They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”
“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.
Trans cyclist’s victory sparks outrage in conservative media
Activist recalls experience in Tel Aviv after Israel-Iran war began
Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage
Nina West’s ‘Sugar in the Tank’ tour comes to Rehoboth Beach
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Upwards of 100K people march in Budapest Pride
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
Silver Spring holds annual Pride In The Plaza
