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

2026 Midterm Elections

Markey’s primary win deemed success for LGBTQ activists

Mass. lawmaker champions transgender rights

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey speaks outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 13, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) clinched the Democratic seat for his reelection campaign in Massachusetts’s primary election on Tuesday.

Markey won the deep-blue state with 64.8 percent of the vote, according to NBC News, triumphing over Marine Corps combat veteran and Congressman Seth Moulton, who received 35.2 percent of the vote.

Massachusetts’s primary election, which determined which Democratic candidate will head to the polls to face off against the Republican challenger in November, is being considered a victory for LGBTQ-inclusive policy, as well as for a divisive pro-transgender rights candidate — both things Markey has become an outspoken champion of.

Markey has experience at multiple levels of government, from the state level, where he served three terms in the state House of Representatives, to his federal tenure, including 20 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and is now serving his second term as a senator. He has become a fixture of a changing Democratic Party in one of the most consistently blue places in the U.S.

This primary — and much of the national discussion surrounding the Senate seat — focused a lot of campaigning power on fighting the growing sentiment, led mostly by Republicans, that the frustration many Americans feel lends itself to an anti-establishment and anti-incumbent attitude.

Markey ran his campaign using his past as a reflection of his commitment to constantly putting his best foot forward for Bay Staters — particularly with apprehension for issues younger and more progressive democrats have been righting for — including Green New Deal and “Medicare for All” while Moulton — who was also elected to federal office prior to this run — campaigned on being younger than Markey, arguing that he was not the same type of established politician.

Moulton also faced backlash for negative comments about trans athletes, sparking criticism for those who did want younger candidate but want for trans rights to be protected.

Markey’s track record of supporting the LGBTQ community is one of the most clear in federal politics, one that has garnered a “100 percent lifetime voting record” on the Human Rights Campaign’s PAC politician review scorecard.

That list of Markey’s actions includes being a cosponsor of the Equality Act, driving landmark legislation to ensure federal protections for LGBTQ Americans, and being one of the most vocal proponents for trans rights in the federal government — specifically in multiple appropriations bills and in the National Defense Authorization Act. He was also the lead sponsor of the Transgender Health Care Access Act and the Transgender Bill of Rights resolution.

Markey first introduced the Transgender Bill of Rights in the Senate in 2023, where it ultimately failed to be brought to law. He reintroduced the legislation this year once again. This was a direct response to the attitude pushed by many conservatives after 2021, when the push to minimize trans rights started to become a key part of their cause and has been constantly propped up by the Trump-Vance administration.

“Massachusetts needs a senator who stands up and fights back, a senator who never forgets who they are fighting for,” Markey said during his victory speech. “That has been the mission of my life, and it always will be.”

Following the calling of the primary, a slew of LGBTQ organizations rallied behind Markey, many pushing his past as an asset that puts his money where his mouth is through advocating for legislation specifically protecting the LGBTQ community.

Tyler Hack, the executive director of the Christopher Street Project, an organization dedicated to pushing for legal protections for trans americans, released a statement following Markey’s win. Hack argued that putting forward such a staunchly pro-trans candidate is a win for the community, especially after endorsing him earlier this year.

“Tonight, anti-trans politics lost. Massachusetts rejected the idea that attacking transgender people is a shortcut to political power. Voters chose a different path: one where equality is not negotiable, cruelty is not courage, and transgender people do not have to disappear for Democrats to succeed.”

The Human Rights Campaign also endorsed him as a candidate earlier this year and issued a statement via its president, Kelley Robinson.

“Ed Markey has spent decades fighting for LGBTQ+ equality, for working people, and for a more livable world,” Robinson said. “He knows why equality matters. He’s stood with us no matter what. We were proud to endorse him this year, and when a pro-equality majority takes back the Senate this fall, we will continue to count on him as a champion for our community.”

Markey is running for reelection against Republican John Deaton in November, where he is expected to win.

Continue Reading

Congress

HRC president campaigns for Chris Pappas in NH

Gay congressman running to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen

Published

on

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, left, campaigns with U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) in Manchester, N.H., on Aug. 30, 2026. (Photo courtesy of the Human Rights Campaign)

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson on Sunday campaigned for U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) in New Hampshire.

Robinson traveled to Manchester, the state’s largest city, nine days before the Sept. 8 primary that will determine who will vie for retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)’s seat.

Former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu, who represented New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate from 2003-2009, will face off against former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, who represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate from 2010-2013, in the Republican primary.

Karishma Manzur is among the Democrats challenging Pappas.

A poll the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released on Aug. 26 shows Sununu is ahead of Brown. The same survey shows Pappas ahead of Manzur and his other Democratic challengers.

The UNH Survey Center poll shows Sununu ahead of Pappas by a 45-43 percent margin if they were to face off in the general election. The margin of error is +/-2.1 percent.

Pappas would become the first openly gay man elected to the U.S. Senate if he were to win in November.

Continue Reading

Congress

Chris Van Hollen says the Democratic Party needs change. Is he the one to lead it?

Senator is backing anti-establishment Democrats across the country

Published

on

By LEE O. SANDERLIN | The Democratic Party is having something of an identity crisis — losing to President Donald Trump twice in three elections will do that.

Should the party embrace anti-establishment figures who espouse progressive policy ideas like Medicare for all and rhetoric about unrigging the economy for the 1 percent? Or should Democrats try to appeal to moderates who want to return to semi-normalcy in a time of political upheaval?

Although he’s been in Congress since 2002, with key leadership roles throughout his tenure, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, 67, counts himself firmly in the anti-establishment camp.

The rest of this article can be found on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Popular