News
Nevada AG invokes bigamy, incest to defend marriage ban
State interest is ‘to protect and perpetuate traditional marriage’
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. (Photo public domain)
Ask the attorney general of Nevada about the definition of marriage, and she’ll tell you it doesn’t include the union of a same-sex couple. But in the same breath, she’ll tell you it also doesn’t include incest or bigamy either.
In a 55-page brief filed on Tuesday, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto urges the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the basis that it reflects the will of the people.
“The interest of the State in defining marriage in this manner is motivated by the state’s desire to protect and perpetuate traditional marriage,” Masto writes. “In establishing this criterion and others — e.g., age, consanguinity, unmarried status, etc. — the state exercises its prerogative as a State, and that exercise is entitled to respect.”
But in a section titled “Marriage Defined” explaining “what marriage is” and “what marriage is not,” Masto reminds the court that in addition to not being for same-sex couples under Nevada law, marriage is also not for those engaging in bigamy or incest.
The invocation of bigamy and incest in Nevada’s brief before the Ninth Circuit recalls the first legal brief the Obama administration filed in support of the Defense of Marriage Act when it was still defending the law in court. That brief invoked bigamy and pedophilia to assert the constitutionality of the ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage, which riled LGBT advocates.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, took Masto to task for making an implicit comparison between same-sex marriage and bigamy or incest while saying she makes no solid argument against allowing gay nuptials in Nevada.
“Marriage is not ‘defined’ by who is denied it, and nothing in the brief explains why loving and committed couples of the same sex should be denied the legal commitment and bundle of obligations and protections that are available to different-sex couples,” Wolfson said. “To invoke bigamy and incest, as the attorney general does — at least she stopped short of bestiality! — doesn’t supply an explanation; it makes clear that the state has nothing to offer to justify the discrimination against same-sex couples in Nevada.
But Wolfson said he concurs with another argument within the attorney general’s brief: domestic partnerships, which are permitted under Nevada law, aren’t equivalent to and don’t provide a substitute for marriage.
The brief was filed in the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, a challenge filed by Lambda Legal against Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2012.
Jon Davidson, Lambda’s legal director, said “of course, we find any such comparison objectionable” between same-sex marriage and bigamy or incest. The organization is slated to file its formal response to the attorney general’s brief next month.
Masto is a Democrat and has served in the role of attorney general for Nevada since 2007. Other Democrats holding the office in other states — most recently Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring — have elected not to defend marriage bans in the state on the basis that they’re unconstitutional.
Notably, Masto argues at length that the Ninth Circuit shouldn’t apply heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption a law is unconstitutional, to the ban on same-sex marriage. That argument is somewhat dated after the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday applied heightened scrutiny in ruling that a juror cannot be excluded from a trial based on sexual orientation — a decision that will have precedent in the marriage case.
“Under an objective application of due process and equal protection analyses, there is no basis for heightened review of the State’s purpose in defining marriage by its traditional meaning,” Masto writes. “There exists neither fundamental right, nor suspect or quasi- suspect class, justifying a different standard of review.”
But the invocation of bigamy and incest isn’t the only part of the brief that is raising concerns among LGBT advocates.
Responding to the various friend-of-the-court briefs filed in the case on behalf of same-sex marriage, Masto takes issue with the way some say marriage is about children and others say it isn’t.
“There is some irony in the inconsistency in certain arguments made by amici,” Masto writes. “A brief by the Family Equality Council, et al., posits that the policy issue is primarily about children, presenting ‘testimonials from the children raised in such families [those with same-sex parents].’ In a separate brief, Family Law Professors (who are ‘scholars of family law’) argue that marriage is not about children.”
Masto concludes these divergent views on the role of children in marriage serve to “reinforce the conclusion that the state’s legislature is the democratic crucible where the issues should be debated and decided.”
Emily Hecht-McGowan, the Family Equality Council’s director of public policy, slammed the attorney general for her interpretation of its brief in favor of marriage equality.
“The Attorney General is missing the primary point of our Voices of Children brief, which is not that marriage is primarily about children but rather that the denial of marriage equality fundamentally harms children being raised by same-sex couples by rendering them and their families second-class citizens,” Hecht-McGowan said. “We trust that the Justices reading our brief and hearing oral arguments will reach the same conclusion that Justice Kennedy reached in his majority opinion in U.S. v. Windsor — that laws denying marriage recognition to same-sex couples ‘humiliate children’ and are a violation of equal protection under the law.”
District of Columbia
‘Queer Love’ campaign launched to address domestic violence
D.C. event set for LGBTQ+ Domestic Violence Awareness Day on May 28
The D.C.-based Wanda Alston Foundation, which provides housing and support services for homeless LGBTQ youth, announced earlier this month that it has joined partner organizations to launch a Queer Love Shouldn’t Hurt campaign aimed at addressing domestic violence within the LGBTQ community.
In a May 18 statement, the Alston Foundation said the campaign involves a public awareness initiative leading up to LGBTQ+ Domestic Violence Awareness Day scheduled for May 28.
“Domestic and family violence in LGBTQ+ communities is real and too often invisible,” Cesar Toledo, the Alston Foundation’s executive director, said in the statement. “As a community, we do not talk about it enough, and that silence can leave survivors feeling isolated and alone,” he said. “We must break that silence.”
He added that culturally competent care for those impacted by domestic violence is available through a newly launched website, queerlove.org, “where people can safely access vital resources, educational toolkits, and support networks they need on their healing journey.”
The website announces one of the project’s first events, a Queer Love Community Social, was scheduled for Thursday, May 28, from 6-8 p.m. at the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center at 1827 Wiltberger St., N.W.
“Join us this LGBT+ Domestic Violence Awareness Day for a community social dedicated to visibility and survivor resilience,” the website statement says. “Let’s gather to strengthen our bonds, honor the path to healing, and share free resources,” it says of the May 28 event.
The website also announces a June 1 workshop called Empowering Survivors of LGBTQ+ Intimate Partner Violence, which it says will be presented by Jesse Wedell, an official with the D.C. LGBT+ Counseling Collaborative. The website provides an online form to register for the workshop upon which its location would be disclosed.
It identifies the partner organizations working with the Alston Foundation on the Queer Love Public Awareness Campaign as the LGBT+ Counseling Collaborative, Whitman-Walker Health, the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center, and Equality Chamber.
The resources and information provided by the project can be accessed at www.queerlove.org.
2026 Midterm Elections
Ken Paxton wins Texas Republican primary runoff
LGBTQ rights opponent will face Democrat James Talarico in November
Attorney General Ken Paxton won the Republican Senate primary in Texas on Tuesday, ousting incumbent U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.
Paxton won the primary against the four-term incumbent in large part due to President Donald Trump’s endorsement. Despite Cornyn voting with Trump more than 90 percent of the time, political insiders say being supportive isn’t enough to win Trump’s endorsement anymore — Republican candidates need to embrace the full MAGA image, something Paxton has done.
Paxton has served as Texas attorney general since 2015 and, before that, worked as a Texas state representative. He has approached both roles with what LGBTQ activists call a “consistently Anti-LGBTQ+ Record.” Following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — the case that made same-sex marriage the law of the land — Paxton advised Texas county clerks they could refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds.
His anti-LGBTQ crusade doesn’t stop at fighting against marriage equality.
Paxton has repeatedly demanded medical records for transgender youth in multiple states — including Texas, Georgia, and Washington — in hopes of making the practice illegal. His anti-trans actions go far past medical records. Paxton issued an opinion barring trans Texans from changing the sex on their driver’s licenses and birth certificates, claiming any changes made were “unlawfully altered,” and helped the DOJ reach an agreement with a Texas’s children’s hospital for providing minors gender-affirming care, eventually leading to a 10 million dollar settlement. He also authored a non-legally binding opinion equating gender-affirming healthcare for youth to child abuse.
In addition to his long history of anti-LGBTQ policy in the Lone Star State, Paxton is no stranger to controversy.
Multiple impeachment efforts brought against him in the state House of Representatives for “abuse of office” — with the state Senate later acquitting him — allegations that he used his office to assist large campaign donors, namely Nate Paul, and a widely publicized separation from his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, all impacted his run for the U.S. Senate seat — but not enough to keep him from the office.
Lynne Bowman, vice president of campaigns at the Human Rights Campaign, issued a statement following the announcement of Paxton’s primary win.
“Texans have a clear choice this fall, and an opportunity to reject failed policies that hurt all families,” Bowman sent to the Blade via email. “Ken Paxton is so out of step that he has fought to undercut marriage equality and spent time demanding personal medical records for young people who do not even live in Texas, all while becoming the most corrupt politician in America. The more than 2 million Equality Voters in Texas will send him packing.”
Paxton will face off against Democratic hopeful and vocal Trump critic James Talarico in the fall.
Talarico, who won the Democratic primary in April against Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, has been a vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights, citing his ministry work as the source of his support for the community.
The race for Texas’s Senate seat will be decided on Nov. 3.
China
China’s top court acknowledges anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Postgraduate student petitioned for legal clarification
China’s Supreme People’s Court on May 8 issued a rare response to a petition involving LGBTQ discrimination.
In a surprising response; it discussed sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The response also mentioned workplace discrimination, public humiliation, and school bullying, language considered uncommon from China’s legal system.
The response stemmed from a proposal submitted by a postgraduate student in Qingdao through China’s xinfang petition system on March 25, urging the court to establish clearer judicial standards against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Six weeks later, the Supreme People’s Court Research Office issued a written reply.
The Research Office is an internal legal and policy body within the Supreme People’s Court. It studies legal issues, drafts judicial guidance, and responds to legal inquiries submitted through official channels. Its responses do not carry the same legal weight as a judicial interpretation or court ruling.
“The opinions and suggestions you raised are of great value,” reads a translated version of the Supreme People’s Court Research Office response. “In order to thoroughly implement the Constitution, Civil Code, Employment Promotion Law and other legal provisions, and effectively protect citizens’ personality rights from infringement, the Supreme People’s Court has guided local courts at all levels to handle a number of related cases, and through typical cases and other forms has clarified adjudication rules.”
The response stated that courts may determine public insults, defamation and, discriminatory conduct targeting sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as infringement of personality rights. It also said employers treating individuals differently in hiring, employment, transfer or dismissal based on those characteristics could face employment discrimination claims. Schools could also bear legal responsibility for improper discipline or bullying involving students based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, according to the response.
“It’s not a systematic change from the authorities recognizing LGBTQ rights,” said Renn Hao, an LGBTQ activist in China. “However, it’s an informal statement from the Supreme Court. According to a scholar researching LGBTQ legal cases in China, courts are recognizing more cases involving LGBTQ discrimination and same-sex partners through their verdicts.”
China decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in 1997 and removed homosexuality from the country’s list of mental disorders four years later. Chinese law, however, does not recognize same-sex relationships.
Public advocacy involving LGBTQ issues also remains tightly controlled. Authorities in recent years have continued restricting community organizing, public events, and online expression involving sexual minorities.
Discussions involving LGBTQ issues are also frequently censored on Chinese social media platforms.
Activists and advocacy groups say Chinese authorities in recent years have removed online content, shut down LGBTQ student group accounts and restricted public discussion involving sexual minority issues. After the Supreme People’s Court response began circulating online, related posts and articles were also removed from some Chinese platforms.
“It may still be too early to fully assess the long-term impact, as this development has only just happened and the situation is still unfolding,” said Xiaogang Wei, a Beijing-based LGBTQ rights activist, filmmaker, and founder of the China Rainbow Collective Foundation. “Although the reply is not legally binding, it represents a rare form of institutional acknowledgment of SOGIE-related discrimination in China. For Chinese LGBTQ people and advocates, this could become a meaningful reference point for future legal advocacy, public communication, and community awareness.”
Wei said the rapid removal of related posts and articles limited the development’s broader public impact and underscored how fragile LGBTQ visibility remains in China.
“This is why we believe it is important to continue sharing verified information and ensuring that this development is not erased from public understanding,” Wei said.
Chinese courts in recent years have also heard a number of LGBTQ-related employment discrimination cases, despite the absence of explicit nationwide protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In one notable case, the Supreme People’s Court in 2018 formally recognized “equal employment rights disputes” as a legal cause of action, allowing some discrimination-related cases to proceed through the courts.
Chinese courts have previously handled several LGBTQ-related disputes involving employment discrimination, custody, and so-called conversion therapy. In 2024, a Beijing court drew attention after recognizing visitation rights for a child involving a same sex couple, a decision activists described as a milestone for LGBTQ families in China.
‘How to Survive a Plague’ screens June 5
‘Queer Love’ campaign launched to address domestic violence
Ken Paxton wins Texas Republican primary runoff
China’s top court acknowledges anti-LGBTQ discrimination
