Politics
Judge sets Feb. 25 trial for Michigan marriage ban
Hopes dashed for quick ruling in favor of marriage rights for gay couples
April DeBoer (on left) and Jayne Rowse speak at a rally before the Michigan court hearing on marriage equality (Washington Blade photo by Chris Johnson).
DETROIT — A federal judge on Wednesday dashed the hopes of those seeking a quick ruling in favor of marriage equality in Michigan when he instead announced he would bring the case to trial beginning Feb. 25.
Following 60 minutes of oral arguments, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman declared he would hold an “expedited” trial where experts could testify on whether the state has a legitimate interest to ban same-sex marriage, denying requests from both sides to grant summary judgment. The judge granted attorneys 30 days to prepare a witness list for the trial.
“What is in dispute… is whether or not there’s a legitimate state interest, and that’s a battle of the experts,” Friedman said.
The case before the court, DeBoer v. Snyder, was filed last year by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a lesbian couple in Hazel Park, Mich. They initially filed their complaint to seek second-parent adoption rights for their three children, but later amended their complaint to ask the court to overturn the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage approved by voters in 2004.
Friedman announced his decision to bring the case to trial after hearing arguments both for and against lifting the marriage ban from attorneys in oral arguments. Both sides drew on the U.S. Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act in making their case on the constitutionality of the ban on same-sex marriage. It was the first oral arguments on marriage in federal court since the Supreme Court decisions in June.
Attorney general argues on behalf of marriage ban
Representing the state during oral arguments was Assistant Attorney General Kristin Heyse, who argued the court should deny the requests of plaintiffs in the case on the basis that Michigan’s ability to make its own decisions on domestic relations is “indisputable” following the DOMA decision.
“The relief that they request in this particular case, your honor, would require this court to usurp the same sovereign authority that governs domestic relations,” Heyse said. “This the court should decline to do.”
Carole Stanyar, one of four private attorneys representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit, made use of the DOMA decision the other way during arguments by pointing the language in the decision pertaining to children, saying the children of her clients are being harmed under state law.
“I absolutely believe, your honor, that the five justices that decided on that language were looking past that case to pass the language in Windsor to our plaintiffs, our littlest plaintiffs, to these children, to the children of gay and lesbian parents all across Michigan and all across America,” Stanyar said.
Stanyar also maintained Heyse’s interpretation of the DOMA decision is incorrect because although the Supreme Court said domestic relationships are up to the states, they can’t act in a way that’s unconstitutional with regard to the people involved.
Other cases also came into play.
Heyse maintained that Baker v. Nelson, a case seeking same-sex marriage that the Supreme Court refused to hear in 1972, provided the controlling precedent in the case. At this point, Friedman interrupted her, saying “That’s about a 40 year old case! What about Lawrence?”
But Heyse maintained the issue of homosexual relations is different than the issue of marriage, which she said is still controlled by Baker.
Further, she pointed to two other recent district court decisions in Nevada and Hawaii that upheld bans on same-sex marriage as a result of the Baker decision. However, both decisions were rendered before the Supreme Court decisions in expanding marriage equality this June.
Urging the court to avoid ruling in favor of plaintiffs by applying a heightened scrutiny to Michigan’s law and marriage and adoption, Heyse said, “There is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage or adoption.”
Prefacing her arguments by saying they weren’t an attack on the gay people, Heyse said the electorate had a legitimate interest in approving a ban on same-sex marriage and proper venue for making a decision on both the marriage and adoption issue is through the legislative process, not the courts.
“The people of the state of Michigan should be allowed to decide when and if there should be a change in the law,” Heyse said. “In 2004, nearly 2.7 million voters chose to reaffirm traditional definition of marriage, which remains between one man and one woman. That was not a vote against the gay and lesbian community, but a vote to maintain the traditional definition.”
At one point during the arguments, Stanyar and Friedman had an exchange when the attorney said the court should rule for her client because social science indisputably says gay parents are just as fit to be parents as heterosexuals.
Friedman responded her couldn’t make a ruling on any one piece of social science alone because there may be other opinions, but Stanyar held firm, saying the state provided no affidavit to the contrary.
“At this stage in history, it is no longer debatable,” Stanyar said. “These things have been proven. They’ve been proven over and over and over again. They chose to proceed on summary judgment. They haven’t offered you any affidavit.”
Also urging the court to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage was Michael Pitt, an attorney representing Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown.
Pitt maintained Brown, who filed her own a petition before the court in favor of overturning the marriage ban, would not “delay even one minute” to give marriage licenses to gay couples if the court allowed her to do so.
“The clerk knows, as we all do, that committed same-sex couples live together as a family, sometimes for decades, raise children together, provide financial stability for each other, help each other in time of illness, help each others’ family members and, at the end of life, they are there to provide comfort and say goodbye,” Pitt said. “These relationships define our personal autonomy, our liberties, and no law has ever trampled on these personal choices.”
Pro-gay lawyers see opportunity in trial
The judge’s decision to bring the case to trial is along the lines of what happened in the federal lawsuit that overturned California’s Proposition 8. When the case came before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in 2010, he ordered that a trial would be held before issuing ruling against the referendum against same-sex marriage.
Dana Nessel, another attorney representing the plaintiff couple, said on the steps of the court after the arguments she’s disappointed in the delay, but will prepare witnesses as requested by the judge.
“Naturally, there’s some mild disappointment there,” Nessel said. “But we look forward to a trial and we look forward to the opportunity to present our experts in the case. Honestly, we have an overwhelming amount of evidence to present to the court to show that same-sex parents are every bit as good as opposite-sex parents. We know that to be the truth.”
Jay Kaplan, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, was present in the courtroom during the oral arguments and later told the Washington Blade the delay in a decision is “disappointing,” but a trial would be beneficial in the pursuit of marriage equality because the opposing side won’t be able to produce witnesses.
“I think what the judge is basically saying is he wants to make sure that whatever decision he renders can be backed up with strong facts, testimony and expertise,” Kaplan said. “When you look at the California case…proponents of marriage equality couldn’t find those people to back up those assertions. I think the same thing will happen in the State of Michigan. They’re not going to be able to find reputable studies with experts who can support denying gay couples the right to marry.”
Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown was also present near the court after the hearing, saying she knows of gay couples are disappointed because they called her office asking if they could obtain marriage licenses there if the court ruled for marriage equality.
“Those rights are being violated, I think, and it’s very disappointing,” Brown said.
Asked by the Washington Blade if she would help with preparing with witness lists for the trial, Brown said she’s still surprised that Friedman made the decision take the case there.
“I think we’re all still kind of surprised that this is what the judge decided today,” Brown said. “He could have done this in the summer when we had a hearing. In all the scenarios that we imagined that would happen today, this was not one of them.”
Heyse had no comment in response to the Blade’s questions following the oral arguments and directed inquiries to the attorney general’s office. It didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Congress
Top Congressional Democrats reintroduce Equality Act on Trump’s 100th day in office
Legislation would codify federal LGBTQ-inclusive non-discrimination protections
In a unified display of support for LGBTQ rights on President Donald Trump’s 100th day in office, congressional Democrats, including leadership from the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, reintroduced the Equality Act on Tuesday.
The legislation, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, codifying these protections into federal law in areas from jury service to housing and employment, faces an unlikely path to passage amid Republican control of both chambers of Congress along with the White House.
Speaking at a press conference on the grass across the drive from the Senate steps were Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (Mass.), U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), who is the first out LGBTQ U.S. Senator, U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (Calif.), who is gay and chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (N.H.), who is gay and is running for the U.S. Senate, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), and U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.).
Also in attendance were U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (Del.), who is the first transgender member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Dina Titus (Nev.), U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley (Ill.), and representatives from LGBTQ advocacy groups including the Human Rights Campaign and Advocates 4 Trans Equality.
Responding to a question from the Washington Blade on the decision to reintroduce the bill as Trump marks the hundredth day of his second term, Takano said, “I don’t know that there was a conscious decision,” but “it’s a beautiful day to stand up for equality. And, you know, I think the president is clearly hitting a wall that Americans are saying, many Americans are saying, ‘we didn’t vote for this.'”
A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll released Sunday showed Trump’s approval rating in decline amid signs of major opposition to his agenda.
“Many Americans never voted for this, but many Americans, I mean, it’s a great day to remind them what is in the core of what is the right side of history, a more perfect union. This is the march for a more perfect union. That’s what most Americans believe in. And it’s a great day on this 100th day to remind our administration what the right side of history is.”
Merkley, when asked about the prospect of getting enough Republicans on board with the Equality Act to pass the measure, noted that, “If you can be against discrimination in employment, you can be against discrimination in financial contracts, you can be against discrimination in mortgages, in jury duty, you can be against discrimination in public accommodations and housing, and so we’re going to continue to remind our colleagues that discrimination is wrong.”
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which was sponsored by Merkley, was passed by the Senate in 2013 but languished in the House. The bill was ultimately broadened to become the Equality Act.
“As Speaker Nancy Pelosi has always taught me,” Takano added, “public sentiment is everything. Now is the moment to bring greater understanding and greater momentum, because, really, the Congress is a reflection of the people.”
“While we’re in a different place right this minute” compared to 2019 and 2021 when the Equality Act was passed by the House, Pelosi said she believes “there is an opportunity for corporate America to weigh in” and lobby the Senate to convince members of the need to enshrine federal anti-discrimination protections into law “so that people can fully participate.”
Politics
George Santos sentenced to 87 months in prison for fraud case
Judge: ‘You got elected with your words, most of which were lies.’
Disgraced former Republican congressman George Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison on Friday, after pleading guilty last year to federal charges of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.
“Mr. Santos, words have consequences,” said Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. “You got elected with your words, most of which were lies.”
The first openly gay GOP member of Congress, Santos became a laughing stock after revelations came to light about his extensive history of fabricating and exaggerating details about his life and career.
His colleagues voted in December 2023 to expel him from Congress. An investigation by the U.S. House Ethics Committee found that Santos had used pilfered campaign funds for cosmetic procedures, designer fashion, and OnlyFans.
Federal prosecutors, however, found evidence that “Mr. Santos stole from donors, used his campaign account for personal purchases, inflated his fund-raising numbers, lied about his wealth on congressional documents and committed unemployment fraud,” per the New York Times.
The former congressman told the paper this week that he would not ask for a pardon. Despite Santos’s loyalty to President Donald Trump, the president has made no indication that he would intervene in his legal troubles.
Congress
Democratic lawmakers travel to El Salvador, demand information about gay Venezuelan asylum seeker
Congressman Robert Garcia led delegation
California Congressman Robert Garcia on Tuesday said the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador has agreed to ask the Salvadoran government about the well-being of a gay asylum seeker from Venezuela who remains incarcerated in the Central American country.
The Trump-Vance administration last month “forcibly removed” Andry Hernández Romero, a stylist who asked for asylum because of persecution he suffered because of his sexual orientation and political beliefs, and other Venezuelans from the U.S. and sent them to El Salvador.
The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.” President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.”
Garcia told the Washington Blade that he and three other lawmakers — U.S. Reps. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.), Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.), and Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) — met with U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador William Duncan and embassy staffers in San Salvador, the Salvadoran capital.
“His lawyers haven’t heard from him since he was abducted during his asylum process,” said Garcia.
The gay California Democrat noted the embassy agreed to ask the Salvadoran government to “see how he (Hernández) is doing and to make sure he’s alive.”
“That’s important,” said Garcia. “They’ve agreed to that … we’re hopeful that we get some word, and that will be very comforting to his family and of course to his legal team.”
Garcia, Frost, Dexter, and Ansari traveled to El Salvador days after House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) denied their request to use committee funds for their trip.
“We went anyways,” said Garcia. “We’re not going to be intimidated by that.”
Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele on April 14 met with Trump at the White House. U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) three days later sat down with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump-Vance administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador on March 15.
Abrego was sent to the country’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT. The Trump-Vance administration continues to defy a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ordered it to “facilitate” Abrego’s return to the U.S.
Garcia, Frost, Dexter, and Ansari in a letter they sent a letter to Duncan and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday demanded “access to” Hernández, who they note “may be imprisoned at” CECOT. A State Department spokesperson referred the Blade to the Salvadoran government in response to questions about “detainees” in the country.
Garcia said the majority of those in CECOT who the White House deported to El Salvador do not have criminal records.
“They can say what they want, but if they’re not presenting evidence, if a judge isn’t sending people, and these people have their due process, I just don’t understand how we have a country without due process,” he told the Blade. “It’s just the bedrock of our democracy.”
Garcia said he and Frost, Dexter, and Ansari spoke with embassy staff, Salvadoran journalists and human rights activists and “anyone else who would listen” about Hernández. The California Democrat noted he and his colleagues also highlighted Abrego’s case.
“He (Hernández) was accepted for his asylum claim,” said Garcia. “He (Hernández) signed up for the asylum process on an app that we created for this very purpose, and then you get snatched up and taken to a foreign prison. It is unacceptable and inhumane and cruel and so it’s important that we elevate his story and his case.”
The Blade asked Garcia why the Trump-Vance administration is deporting people to El Salvador without due process.
“I honestly believe that he (Trump) is a master of dehumanizing people, and he wants to continue his horrendous campaign to dehumanize migrants and scare the American public and lie to the American public,” said Garcia.
The State Department spokesperson in response to the Blade’s request for comment referenced spokesperson Tammy Bruce’s comments about Van Hollen’s trip to El Salvador.
“These Congressional representatives would be better off focused on their own districts,” said the spokesperson. “Instead, they are concerned about non-U.S. citizens.”
PDAB: A mysterious acronym that could affect your health
I make more money than my partner and getting resentful
D.C. liquor board extends drinking hours for WorldPride
PHOTOS: Victory Fund National Champagne Brunch
Executive director of LGBTQ Catholic group to travel to Rome for conclave
TRAITOR: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has blood on his hands
Potential Pope Francis successor views homosexuality as an ‘abomination’
Jacob Elordi rides high in ‘On Swift Horses’
Liberal Party wins Canadian election
