Connect with us

National

Pennsylvania couple seeks marriage rights

Lawsuit challenges ban on marriage recognition

Published

on

Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, gay news, Washington Blade

Independence Hall in Philadelphia. (Photo by Rdsmith4; courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

PHILADELPHIAā€”A married lesbian couple from suburban Philadelphia has filed a federal lawsuit against a Pennsylvania law that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions.

Isabelle Barker and Cara Palladino tied the knot in Massachusetts in 2005.

The couple moved to Pennsylvania shortly after their wedding when Barker accepted a position at Bryn Mawr College. Barker gave birth to the coupleā€™s son in 2009.

ā€œWe took on the commitment of marriage in 2005 and have supported each other through lifeā€™s ups and down,ā€ said Palladino. ā€œWe think it is wrong for Pennsylvania to void our marriage and treat us as though we are unmarried when we are very much a loving family.ā€

Equality Forum, a Philadelphia-based LGBT advocacy group, initiated the lawsuit that was filed on Jan. 13 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mary Bonauto of the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders is among those who are co-counsel in the case.

ā€œOn behalf of Cara and Isabelle and other legally married same-sex families, we will take this injustice as far as is needed to affirm the nationā€™s 226-year-old history of recognizing marriages from sister states,ā€ said Equality Forum Executive Director Malcolm Lazin.

The American Civil Liberties Union last July filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvaniaā€™s statutory gay marriage ban on behalf of 11 same-sex couples and a widow. State Reps. Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia) and Steve McCarter (D-Montgomery County) and state Sen. Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery County) have introduced same-sex marriage bills in the Pennsylvania Legislature.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

State Department

Senate confirms Marco Rubio as next secretary of state

Fla. Republican will succeed Antony Blinken

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) during his confirmation hearing to become the next secretary of state on Jan. 15, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Senate on Monday confirmed U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to become the next secretary of state.

The vote took place hours after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Monday advanced Rubio’s nomination before senators approved it by a 99-0 vote margin.

The promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad was a cornerstone of the Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy.

Rubio in 2022 defended Floridaā€™s ā€œDonā€™t Say Gayā€ law that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed. The Florida Republican that year also voted against the Respect for Marriage Act that passed with bipartisan support.

Rubio during his Jan. 15 confirmation hearing did not speak about LGBTQ rights.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

GLAAD catalogues LGBTQ-inclusive pages on White House and federal agency websites

Trump-Vance administration to take office Monday

Published

on

World AIDS Day 2023 at the White House (Washington Blade Photo by Michael Key)

GLAAD has identified and catalogued LGBTQ-inclusive content or references to HIV that appear on WhiteHouse.gov and the websites for several federal government agencies, anticipating that these pages might be deleted, archived, or otherwise changed shortly after the incoming administration takes over on Monday.

The organization found a total of 54 links on WhiteHouse.gov and provided the Washington Blade with a non-exhaustive list of the “major pages” on websites for the Departments of Defense (12), Justice (three), State (12), Education (15), Health and Human Services (10), and Labor (14), along with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (10).

The White House web pages compiled by GLAAD range from the transcript of a seven-minute speech delivered by President Joe Biden to mark the opening of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center to a readout of a roundtable with leaders in the LGBTQ and gun violence prevention movements and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s 338-page FY2024 budget summary, which contains at least a dozen references to LGBTQ-focused health equity initiatives and programs administered by agencies like the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Just days after Trump took office in his first term, news outlets reported that LGBTQ related content had disappeared from WhiteHouse.gov and websites for multiple federal agencies.

Chad Griffin, who was then president of the Human Rights Campaign, accused the Trump-Pence administration of “systematically scrubbing the progress made for LGBTQ people from official websites,” raising specific objection to the State Department’s removal of an official apology for the Lavender Scare by the outgoing secretary, John Kerry, in January 2017.

Acknowledging the harm caused by the department’s dismissal of at least 1,000 employees for suspected homosexuality during the 1950s and 60s “set the right tone for the State Department, he said, adding, ā€œIt is outrageous that the new administration would attempt to erase from the record this historic apology for witch hunts that destroyed the lives of innocent Americans.”

In response to an inquiry from NBC News into why LGBTQ content was removed and whether the pages would return, a spokesperson said “As per standard practice, the secretary’s remarks have been archived.” However, NBC noted that “a search of the State Department’s website reveals not much else has changed.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Appeals court hears case challenging Florida’s trans healthcare ban

District court judge concluded the law was discriminatory, unconstitutional

Published

on

NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Parties in Doe v. Ladapo, a case challenging Florida’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth and restrictions on the medical interventions available to trans adults, presented oral arguments on Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

The case was appealed by defendants representing the Sunshine State following a decision in June 2024 by Judge Robert Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, who found “the law and rules unconstitutional and unenforceable on equal protection grounds,” according to a press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is involved in the litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The district court additionally found the Florida healthcare ban unconstitutional on the grounds that it was “motivated by purposeful discrimination against transgender people,” though the ban and restrictions will remain in effect pending a decision by the appellate court.

Joining NCLR in the lawsuit are attorneys from GLAD Law, the Human Rights Campaign, Southern Legal Counsel, and the law firms Lowenstein Sandler and Jenner and Block.

“As a mother who simply wants to protect and love my child for who she is, I pray that the Eleventh Circuit will affirm the district courtā€™s thoughtful and powerful order, restoring access to critical healthcare for all transgender Floridians,” plaintiff Jane Doe said. “No one should have to go through what my family has experienced.ā€

“As a transgender adult just trying to live my life and care for my family, it is so demeaning that the state of Florida thinks itā€™s their place to dictate my healthcare decisions,” said plaintiff Lucien Hamel.

“Members of the legislature have referred to the high quality healthcare I have received, which has allowed me to live authentically as myself, as ā€˜mutilationā€™ and ā€˜an abominationā€™ and have called the providers of this care ā€˜evil,ā€™” Hamel added. “We hope the appellate court sees these rules and laws for what truly are: cruel.ā€ 

ā€œTransgender adults donā€™t need state officials looking over their shoulders, and families of transgender youth donā€™t need the government dictating how to raise their children,ā€ said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. ā€œThe district court heard the evidence and found that these restrictions are based on bias, not science. The court of appeals should affirm that judgment.ā€ 

Noting Hinkle’s conclusion that the ban and restrictions were “motivated by animus, not science or evidence,” Simone Chris, who leads Southern Legal Counsel’s Transgender Rights Initiative, said, ā€œThe state has loudly and proudly enacted bans on transgender people accessing healthcare, using bathrooms, transgender teachers using their pronouns and titles, and a slough of other actions making it nearly impossible for transgender individuals to live in this state.”

Lowenstein Sandler Partner Thomas Redburn said, ā€œThe defendants have offered nothing on appeal that could serve as a valid basis for overturning that finding” by the district court.

 ā€œNot only does this dangerous law take away parentsā€™ freedom to make responsible medical decisions for their child, it inserts the government into private health care matters that should be between adults and their providers,” said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular