Politics
Judge sets Feb. 25 trial for Michigan marriage ban
Hopes dashed for quick ruling in favor of marriage rights for gay couples
DETROIT ā 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 JudgeĀ 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 byĀ 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 GeneralĀ 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, sayingĀ “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.Ā
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 BladeĀ 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 thinkĀ 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.
Politics
PREVIEW: Biden grants exclusive interview to the Blade, congratulates Sarah McBride
The sit-down took place in the Oval Office on Thursday
Delaware State Sen. Sarah McBride, who is favored to become the first transgender member of Congress after winning the Democratic primary this week, received a congratulatory call on Wednesday from a powerful friend and ally: President Joe Biden.
The president shared details about their conversation with the Washington Blade during an exclusive interview in the Oval Office on Thursday, which will be available to read online early next week.
“I called her and I said, āSarah,ā I said, āBeau’s looking down from heaven, congratulating you,'” Biden said, referring to his late son, who had served as attorney general of Delaware before his death from cancer in 2015.
McBride had worked on Beau Biden’s campaign in 2006 and on his reelection campaign in 2010. Two years later, when she came out as transgender, the AG called to say, “I’m so proud of you. I love you, and you’re still a part of the Biden family.”
The president told the Blade that McBride welled with emotion ā “she started to fill up” ā as she responded that the “‘only reason I’m here is because of Beau. He had confidence in me.ā”
When the two worked together, “[Beau] was getting the hell kicked out” of him because “he hired her,” Biden said, but “now she’s going to be the next congresswoman, the next congresswoman from Delaware.”
Later, when asked how he will remain involved in the struggle for LGBTQ rights after leaving office, the president again mentioned McBride. “Delaware used to be a pretty conservative state, and now we’re going to have ā Sarah is going to be, I pray to God, a congresswoman.”
Politics
Harris puts Trump on his heels in high-stakes debate
Little mention of LGBTQ issues during 90-minute showdown
In the presidential debate hosted by ABC News in Philadelphia on Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris put Donald Trump on the defensive over issues from foreign policy and the ongoing criminal prosecutions against him to his record and moral character.
The 90-minute exchange featured no discussion of LGBTQ issues, apart from a baseless accusation by Trump that his opponent “wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.”
The remark echoed statements Trump has made recently on the campaign trail, for example in Wisconsin on Monday where he said that children are, however implausibly, returning home from school having underwent sex change operations.
Similarly, during the debate the former president asserted without evidence that Democrats favor abortions up to and following delivery, which would amount to infanticide.
“There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born,” interjected ABC News anchor Linsey Davis, a moderator, who then allowed Harris to respond.
“Well, as I said, you’re gonna hear a bunch of lies, and that’s not actually a surprising fact,” the vice president replied before addressing the question at hand, which concerned abortion.
While Harris did not address the matter of “transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison,” viewers on X were quick to mock the comment.
she was in the prison doing transgender operations on illegal aliens right before she died pic.twitter.com/sjDycEO3Mq
— soul nate (@MNateShyamalan) September 11, 2024
transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison pic.twitter.com/FNhKekSm1S
— Half-Shirt Radical (@EricShethar) September 11, 2024
Youāre laughing. Theyāre doing transgender operations on illegal aliens who are in prison and youāre laughing.
— Cartoons Hate Her! (@CartoonsHateHer) September 11, 2024
Politics
Tim Walz celebrates Shepard family in HRC National Dinner speech
Minn. governor detailed his and running mate’s pro-LGBTQ records
In a speech Saturday night at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner, Minnesota governor and 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz discussed how he came to know the Shepard family when working in Congress to pass the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
“When the final vote was coming up in the House, it was going to be close,” he said. “I walked through the House floor, through the tunnels, from the Longworth House Office Building over to the Capitol, and I made that walk with Matthew’s mom, Judy Shepard, and the sheriff who found Matthew’s body tied to that fence post in Wyoming, and I remember walking with a mother who lost her son and hearing the sheriff tell me the only place he wasn’t bloody was where the tears ran down Matthew’s eyes.”
“I watched a mother and the unbelievable pain that I couldn’t even fathom, to lose a child this way, walk with her head held high to make sure that none of the rest of us ever have to get a call from someone,” Walz said.
The governor invited the crowd to applaud for Judy and Dennis Shepard, who were in attendance, adding that the room was full of “heroes” like them who had, in ways both big and small, endeavored “to make people’s lives a little bit easier.”
Walz began his speech by highlighting the many ways in which Vice President Kamala Harris has fought “every single day on the side of the American people,” relentlessly working to expand rights and protections for the LGBTQ community throughout her career and promising to build on this legacy if she is elected president in November.
“As the DA of San Francisco, Vice President Harris took one of the toughest stances in the nation against hate crimes,” he said. “She led the fight against the hateful gay and transgender panic defense.”
Walz continued, “she went on to become the attorney general of the largest state in the country, and the moment it arrived, to defend marriage equality. And she threw her whole self into that fight. You know Kamala Harris. She doesn’t just pick these fights when she talks about it, and this is the thing to keep in mind: All she does is win. All she does is win.”
“As a U.S. senator, she fought hard for the Equality Act, introduced a bill to make sure you had access to PrEP, and as vice president, and I say this, it is not a stretch, and the facts are there, this is the most pro LGBTQ+-administration in American history,” the governor said.
“She helped President Biden pass the landmark Respect for Marriage Act requiring every state and territory to fully honor same sex and interracial marriage,” Walz said. “She helped stop the ignorant and Byzantine practice of banning gay and bisexual men from donating blood.”
Harris has worked to improve mental healthcare for LGBTQ youth, he added, and “she made human rights for LGBTQ+ individuals around the world a top priority in this nation’s foreign policy” while working with the president on “historic executive orders protecting folks from discrimination.”
Walz then turned to his own record, beginning with his career as a schoolteacher and football coach before his election to Congress. He said, “some of my students, and this is in the late 90s, we’re concerned about an uptick in bullying amongst the gay lesbian community in our school.”
When one of those students, who was in the audience Saturday, had asked him to serve as faculty advisor for the gay straight alliance club, Walz recalled, “I said ‘absolutely.’ I understood what it meant to be that older, strange, white guy” standing up for the school’s LGBTQ students in such a public manner.
In 2006, when running for Congress as a Democrat in a deep-red district, “I was in a state that advanced same sex marriage for a decade,” Walz said. “But I knew I was right, and I ran on a platform that supported equality.”
The notion that he won despite taking pro-LGBTQ and pro-choice positions is misleading, the governor said ā he won because of those reasons.
Walz then detailed how he fought for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as the top Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, operating under the maxim that “you don’t get elected to office to bank political capital so you can get elected again” but rather “you get elected office to burn political capital to improve [people’s] lives.”
As governor, he said, the “first thing we did is we banned conversion therapy,” and throughout his first and second terms in office, “we protected the transgender community.”
“We banned banning books,” he said, pushing back against efforts to target and remove content with LGBTQ characters and themes, a preoccupation of Republicans including the 2024 GOP presidential and vice presidential nominees Donald Trump and U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio).
“This is what these folks are focusing on, spending all their time, like reading about two male penguins who love each other is somehow going to turn your children gay,” Walz said, setting up a contrast between the Democratic and Republican tickets.
The other side believes “the government should be free to invade every corner of our lives, our bedrooms, our kids’ schools, even our doctor’s office,” Walz said, and they have laid out a “playbook” to make that happen with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s governing blueprint for a second Trump administration.
“This Project 2025 that’s out there to restrict freedoms, demonize this community, bully vulnerable children, the message is simple from all of us, and here in about 59 days, you’re going to get a chance to send that message: leave our kids the hell alone.”
Walz then pivoted to Trump’s ban on transgender military service members. “We’ve had thousands of brave transgender troops, decorated warriors, who served this country. When Donald Trump was commander-in-chief, he belittled them and he banned them from service. Thankfully, President Biden and vice president Harris rescinded that stupid, bigoted policy.”
He added, “If you want to serve this nation, you should be allowed to, and what we should do is respect that service. They should not get incoming fire from their commander-in-chief, attacking their basic dignity, humanity, and patriotism. And I will say this, I didn’t serve for 24 years in this to have those guys diminish another troop’s service.”
“We’re not going back to the discrimination,” Walz said. “We’re not going to force our children into situations where they become suicidal. We’re not going to continue to demonize people because of who they are, and we’re not going to continue to allow people in this country to go hungry or to be shot dead because we don’t make decisions that can improve that.”
-
Arts & Entertainment4 days ago
2024 Best of LGBTQ DC Readers’ Choice Award Finalist Voting
-
Maryland4 days ago
Defying the odds: First transgender Miss Maryland USA on changing the world
-
Delaware2 days ago
Sarah McBride wins Democratic primary, poised to make history
-
Venezuela3 days ago
LGBTQ Venezuelans face unprecedented persecution after disputed election