Connect with us

Politics

Christie cautions against quick court action on marriage

Brief contends couples in civil unions eligible for federal benefits

Published

on

Attorneys for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are urging quick court action in favor of marriage equality (Blade file photo by Michael Key).

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028 

Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet

Published

on

Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaking at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.

“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”

“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.

Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.

In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.

In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.

In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.

Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.

Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.

He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.

This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.

In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.

The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.

The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication. 

Continue Reading

Congress

House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law

Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.

The bipartisan vote was 212-217.

The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.

Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”

“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.

Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.

“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.

According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).

The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.

The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.

The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203. 

Continue Reading

Congress

Lindsey Graham has passed away. Do LGBTQ people have a right to celebrate his death?

SC senator opposed marriage equality, despite speculation over sexual orientation

Published

on

The late-U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in 2022. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Uncloseted Media published this article on July 16.

By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | On Sunday, the office of Lindsey Graham reported that the Republican senator and Trump ally from South Carolina died “from a brief and sudden illness.” The office said that the preliminary cause of death was a rupture of his aorta due to a hardening of his arteries.

Since then, many folks in the LGBTQ community, including a large number of Uncloseted followers, have — for better or worse — celebrated the senator’s death. When we posted the news on our Instagram page on Sunday, our followers commented:

  • “Maybe he rest in hell”—this one got 194 likes.
  • “She made sure to wait until Pride was over.”
  • “And just like that the world is a better place.”

These responses are fueled by allegations that the senator lived as a closeted gay man while supporting policies that would roll back LGBTQ rights. In 2006, he voted in support of a constitutional amendment that would have restricted marriage to only being between one man and one woman. After gay marriage became legal across the U.S. in 2015, he said “I am a proud defender of traditional marriage.” And in 2022, he told CNN he would oppose the Respect for Marriage Act and later reiterated that states should decide the issue of marriage.

Outside the Washington rumor mill, there wasn’t much evidence that Graham could be gay until 2020, when adult video performer Sean Harding wrote on Twitter that “There is a homophobic republican senator who is no better than Trump who keeps passing legislation that is damaging to the lgbt and minority communities. Every sex worker I know has been hired by this man. Wondering if enough of us spoke out if that could get him out of office?”

Harding followed up with another post, writing “If you’d be willing to stand with me against LG please let me know,” and, “So far I have two individuals who would be willing to go public and support my claims. Anyone else?”

A few days later, another anonymous sex worker came forward and made similar allegations.

But after that, there was silence, with some believing these sex workers were slapped with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). And while at least one lawyer took to Twitter saying that he’d “be more than happy to read the NDAs and look for loopholes. For free!” nobody else came forward.

That is until earlier this week, when author Jesse James Rose posted to her Instagram that Graham had paid her for sex work prior to her gender transition. Rose wrote that “Most of you know him as the homophobic senator from South Carolina but to me he will always be the man who paid a twinky pre-transition college student a fat stack of cash to do unspeakable things to him in a hotel room while he wore red lingerie.”

This dynamic has created a complicated question for LGBTQ people: Is it appropriate to posthumously celebrate the death of a man who railed against our community and used his position of power to make our lives less equitable and less safe? Is it even more fair to criticize him if he was living a secret queer life?

Or should we go high and give his track record on LGBTQ issues a positive spin now that he’s no longer with us?

In a time where social media feels like a breeding ground for angertainment, I’ll admit that the immediacy of the response to his death at first felt intense.

At the same time, I knew I didn’t want to send thoughts or prayers to a man who tried to rip my rights away.

If the alleged NDAs that Graham handed his sex workers were legitimate, they likely evaporated after his death. So now really may be the first time people can speak their truth and offer an accurate window into the absurd hypocrisy between Graham’s public and private life.

For that, I think it’s fair game to speak candidly about the story he may have worked hard to muzzle while he was here.

Continue Reading

Popular