Connect with us

National

Hawaii governor reflects on state’s long marriage struggle

‘As Hawaii is concerned, we succeeded yesterday’

Published

on

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii, gay, Washington Blade
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii, Washington Blade, gay

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie on Nov. 13, 2013, signs his state’s same-sex marriage bill into law. (Photo courtesy of State of Hawaii/Office of the Governor)

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie on Thursday said yesterday’s ceremony during which he signed a bill that extends marriage rights to same-sex couples in his state was more than a celebration.

“It was more like an acknowledgement of the culmination of many years of what we call in Hawaii as part of our Aloha spirit: patient perseverance,” he told the Washington Blade during a telephone interview from Honolulu.

Abercrombie signed the measure into law at the Hawaii Convention Center in Honolulu one day after the state Senate approved it by a 19-4 margin.

Senate Bill 1 passed in the Hawaii House of Representatives on Nov. 8 after lawmakers debated it for more than 12 hours. The chamber two days earlier approved the measure on its second reading following five days of testimony from SB1 supporters and opponents.

Abercrombie told the Blade he initially thought the special legislative session to debate SB1 that began on Oct. 28 would have ended within a week — and not 15 days.

“It is still a reflection of the legislative process that’s undertaken so that everybody clearly has an opportunity to speak,” he said. “Much of it, of course, was repetitive and I’m sorry to say that some of it could only be called as rate, but that was more a sign of less of conspiracy than it was the intensity with which the opponents were operating.”

Lesbian state Rep. Jo Jordan, who Abercrombie appointed in 2011, sparked outrage among LGBT rights advocates when she voted against SB1.

“I wish we had had perhaps a little more opportunity to discuss the issue,” Abercrombie said. “I expect that she has her set of reasons. Whether or not I agree with all those reasons I don’t know.”

Abercrombie added that same-sex marriage supporters criticized him because he did not call a special legislative session “when they wanted me to do it.”

“My position always was and always has been I need 13 votes in the Senate and 26 votes in the House,” he said. “I don’t need rhetorical victories. I don’t need tactical advice that has nothing to do with keeping your eye on the prize, which is to get the bill passed and get a bill passed that will stand up to constitutional investigation and vetting and be able to say secure the necessary votes to get it on my desk.”

Then-Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Steven Levinson in 1993 ruled the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. This landmark decision prompted Congress three years later to pass the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited the federal government from legally recognizing gay nuptials.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June found a portion of DOMA unconstitutional.

Abercrombie said Levinson’s ruling “formalized a discussion” that he said had already been taking place in Hawaii about how to extend relationship recognition to same-sex couples in the state. He noted he backed civil unions for gays and lesbians before 1993.

“I was the object of a lot of criticism,” Abercrombie told the Blade. “I felt that we had to move this along in a process that would enable us to succeed politically as opposed to making what I felt would be a moral point, if you will, that was doomed to failure at that time and I felt would hold us back from achieving marriage equality.”

Hawaii voters in 1998 approved a state constitutional amendment that allowed the legislature to ban same-sex marriage.

The state’s civil unions law took effect in 2012, but a federal judge in August of that year dismissed a lawsuit filed on behalf of two gay couples who sought marriage rights in Hawaii. The plaintiffs subsequently petitioned the U.S. Ninth Circuit to hear their case alongside a second lawsuit that seeks to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in Nevada.

Abercrombie cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 in his decision not to defend Hawaii’s same-sex marriage ban in the aforementioned lawsuit.

“It was clear to me in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings that the civil unions law which I signed right after I was sworn in obviated the prohibition,” he said. “I said ‘look, I can’t defend something that I don’t think has legal validity.’”

Abercrombie gives pen used to sign SB1 to Levinson

Hawaii is among the 15 states and D.C. in which same-sex couples can now legally marry.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn on Nov. 20 is scheduled to sign a measure that will allow nuptials for gays and lesbians in his state.

A judge on Thursday refused to consider state Rep. Bob McDermott’s motion that would have blocked SB1 from taking effect on Dec. 2.

Abercrombie told the Blade one of the things about which he thought before he signed SB1 into law was seeking the Human Rights Campaign’s support during his 1986 congressional campaign. He recalled meeting two HRC staffers inside their small office near the U.S. Capitol.

“We’ve come a long, long way from an upstairs office somewhere on D Street,” Abercrombie said. “As I said yesterday, people who have been forced to be invisible all their lives are now visible to themselves and the whole world.”

Abercrombie also gave the pen he used to sign SB1 into law to Levinson.

“It was never a question in my mind of what Hawaii precipitated in 1993 would succeed,” Abercrombie told the Blade. “It was always a question in my mind [as to whether] we put together events [and] timing in such a way as to succeed. And at least as Hawaii is concerned we succeeded yesterday.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Judge temporarily blocks executive orders targeting LGBTQ, HIV groups

Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in federal court

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A federal judge on Monday blocked the enforcement of three of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that would have threatened to defund nonprofit organizations providing health care and services for LGBTQ people and those living with HIV.

The preliminary injunction was awarded by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a case, San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal and eight other organizations.

Implementation of the executive orders — two aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion along with one targeting the transgender community — will be halted pending the outcome of the litigation challenging them.

“This is a critical win — not only for the nine organizations we represent, but for LGBTQ communities and people living with HIV across the country,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project director and senior counsel on the case. 

“The court blocked anti-equity and anti-LGBTQ executive orders that seek to erase transgender people from public life, dismantle DEI efforts, and silence nonprofits delivering life-saving services,” Abrigo said. “Today’s ruling acknowledges the immense harm these policies inflict on these organizations and the people they serve and stops Trump’s orders in their tracks.”

Tigar wrote, in his 52-page decision, “While the Executive requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the constitution.”

“And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous,” he said.

Without the preliminary injunction, the judge wrote, “Plaintiffs face the imminent loss of federal funding critical to their ability to provide lifesaving healthcare and support services to marginalized LGBTQ populations,” a loss that “not only threatens the survival of critical programs but also forces plaintiffs to choose between their constitutional rights and their continued existence.”

The organizations in the lawsuit are located in California (San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Los Angeles LGBT Center, GLBT Historical Society, and San Francisco Community Health Center), Arizona (Prisma Community Care), New York (The NYC LGBT Community Center), Pennsylvania (Bradbury-Sullivan Community Center), Maryland (Baltimore Safe Haven), and Wisconsin (FORGE).

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Activists rally for Andry Hernández Romero in front of Supreme Court

Gay asylum seeker ‘forcibly deported’ to El Salvador, described as political prisoner

Published

on

Immigrant Defenders Law Center President Lindsay Toczylowski, on right, speaks in support of her client, Andry Hernández Romero, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 6, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

More than 200 people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday and demanded the Trump-Vance administration return to the U.S. a gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who it “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador.

Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based organization that represents Andry Hernández Romero, is among those who spoke alongside U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Human Rights Campaign Campaigns and Communications Vice President Jonathan Lovitz. Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark, Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, and Tim Miller are among those who also participated in the rally.

“Andry is a son, a brother. He’s an actor, a makeup artist,” said Toczylowski. “He is a gay man who fled Venezuela because it was not safe for him to live there as his authentic self.”

(Video by Michael K. Lavers)

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.” The Trump-Vance administration subsequently “forcibly removed” Hernández and hundreds of other Venezuelans to El Salvador.

Toczylowski said she believes Hernández remains at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT. Toczylowski also disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.

“Andry fled persecution in Venezuela and came to the U.S. to seek protection. He has no criminal history. He is not a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. Yet because of his crown tattoos, we believe at this moment that he sits in a torture prison, a gulag, in El Salvador,” said Toczylowski. “I say we believe because we have not had any proof of life for him since the day he was put on a U.S. government-funded plane and forcibly disappeared to El Salvador.”

“Andry is not alone,” she added.

Takano noted the federal government sent his parents, grandparents, and other Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II under the Alien Enemies Act. The gay California Democrat also described Hernández as “a political prisoner, denied basic rights under a law that should have stayed in the past.”

“He is not a case number,” said Takano. “He is a person.”

Hernández had been pursuing his asylum case while at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.

A hearing had been scheduled to take place on May 30, but an immigration judge the day before dismissed his case. Immigrant Defenders Law Center has said it will appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the Justice Department oversees.

“We will not stop fighting for Andry, and I know neither will you,” said Toczylowski.

Friday’s rally took place hours after Attorney General Pam Bondi said Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump-Vance administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador, had returned to the U.S. Abrego will face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee.

Continue Reading

National

A husband’s story: Michael Carroll reflects on life with Edmund White

Iconic author died this week; ‘no sunnier human in the world’

Published

on

Michael Carroll spoke to the Blade after the death his husband Edmund White this week. (Photo by Michael Carroll)

Unlike most gay men of my generation, I’ve only been to Fire Island twice. Even so, the memory of my first visit has never left me. The scenery was lovely, and the boys were sublime — but what stood out wasn’t the beach or the parties. It was a quiet afternoon spent sipping gin and tonics in a mid-century modern cottage tucked away from the sand and sun.

Despite Fire Island’s reputation for hedonism, our meeting was more accident than escapade. Michael Carroll — a Facebook friend I’d chatted with but never met — mentioned that he and his husband, Ed, would be there that weekend, too. We agreed to meet for a drink. On a whim, I checked his profile and froze. Ed was author Edmund White.

I packed a signed copy of Carroll’s “Little Reef” and a dog-eared hardback of “A Boy’s Own Story,” its spine nearly broken from rereads. I was excited to meet both men and talk about writing, even briefly.

Yesterday, I woke to the news that Ed had passed away. Ironically, my first thought was of Michael.

This week, tributes to Edmund White are everywhere — rightly celebrating his towering legacy as a novelist, essayist, and cultural icon. I’ve read all of his books, and I could never do justice to the scope of a career that defined and chronicled queer life for more than half a century. I’ll leave that to better-prepared journalists.

But in those many memorials, I’ve noticed something missing. When Michael Carroll is mentioned, it’s usually just a passing reference: “White’s partner of thirty years, twenty-five years his junior.” And yet, in the brief time I spent with this couple on Fire Island, it was clear to me that Michael was more than a footnote — he was Ed’s anchor, editor, companion, and champion. He was the one who knew his husband best.

They met in 1995 after Michael wrote Ed a fan letter to tell him he was coming to Paris. “He’d lost the great love of his life a year before,” Michael told me. “In one way, I filled a space. Understand, I worshiped this man and still do.”

When I asked whether there was a version of Ed only he knew, Michael answered without hesitation: “No sunnier human in the world, obvious to us and to people who’ve only just or never met him. No dark side. Psychology had helped erase that, I think, or buffed it smooth.”

Despite the age difference and divergent career arcs, their relationship was intellectually and emotionally symbiotic. “He made me want to be elegant and brainy; I didn’t quite reach that, so it led me to a slightly pastel minimalism,” Michael said. “He made me question my received ideas. He set me free to have sex with whoever I wanted. He vouchsafed my moods when they didn’t wobble off axis. Ultimately, I encouraged him to write more minimalistically, keep up the emotional complexity, and sleep with anyone he wanted to — partly because I wanted to do that too.”

Fully open, it was a committed relationship that defied conventional categories. Ed once described it as “probably like an 18th-century marriage in France.” Michael elaborated: “It means marriage with strong emotion — or at least a tolerance for one another — but no sex; sex with others. I think.”

That freedom, though, was always anchored in deep devotion and care — and a mutual understanding that went far beyond art, philosophy, or sex. “He believed in freedom and desire,” Michael said, “and the two’s relationship.”

When I asked what all the essays and articles hadn’t yet captured, Michael paused. “Maybe that his writing was tightly knotted, but that his true personality was vulnerable, and that he had the defense mechanisms of cheer and optimism to conceal that vulnerability. But it was in his eyes.”

The moment that captured who Ed was to him came at the end. “When he was dying, his second-to-last sentence (garbled then repeated) was, ‘Don’t forget to pay Merci,’ the cleaning lady coming the next day. We had had a rough day, and I was popping off like a coach or dad about getting angry at his weakness and pushing through it. He took it almost like a pack mule.” 

Edmund White’s work shaped generations — it gave us language for desire, shame, wit, and liberation. But what lingers just as powerfully is the extraordinary life Ed lived with a man who saw him not only as a literary giant but as a real person: sunny, complex, vulnerable, generous.

In the end, Ed’s final words to his husband weren’t about his books or his legacy. They were about care, decency, and love. “You’re good,” he told Michael—a benediction, a farewell, maybe even a thank-you.

And now, as the world celebrates the prolific writer and cultural icon Edmund White, it feels just as important to remember the man and the person who knew him best. Not just the story but the characters who stayed to see it through to the end.

Continue Reading

Popular