News
Nevada AG will no longer defend marriage ban in court
Masto was criticized for invoking incest, bigamy in earlier filing
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto withdrew her brief in favor of the ban on same-sex marriage (Photo public domain).
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto announced on Monday she has sought to withdraw her earlier legal brief that argued against marriage equality — an action one advocate says indicates she’ll no longer defend in court her state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Masto, a Democrat, said she wants to withdraw her brief — which stirred controversy because it invoked bigamy and incest while defending Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage — based on a related case decided by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that determined jurors should not face discrimination based on sexual orientation.
“After thoughtful review and analysis, the State has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable,” Masto said. “Additionally, the legal evolution referenced by SmithKline is undeniably a ‘doctrinal development’ that vitiates the State’s position. Thus not only is the State’s equal protection argument undermined, so is its Baker v. Nelson argument.”
Masto had previously indicated that he was reconsidering her position on the Nevada marriage lawsuit, which is currently before the Ninth Circuit, in the days after her initial filing based on the SmithKline ruling.
She had filed her brief before the court on the same day it rendered its decision in SmithKline v. Abbott, which determined laws in the Ninth Circuit related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional. That ruling established precedent in the Ninth Circuit that will likely lead to marriage bans being struck down within that jurisdiction.
The case in which Masto withdrew her filing is known as Sevcik v. Sandoval, which was filed in 2012 by Lambda Legal and other legal firms on behalf of eight same-sex couples.
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said the decision means that Masto will no longer defend the marriage ban in court in the same way that Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring is not defending a similar ban in his state.
An LGBT advocate, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Masto’s position isn’t quite the same as Herring’s, but, in practice, it ends up being about the same position.
In the nine-page motion to withdraw, Masto walks through her logic in why the brief she previously submitted no longer holds up.
“SmithKline’s holding sets a new standard of review for cases in the Ninth Circuit,” Masto writes. “Because the State’s argument was grounded upon equal protection and relied on High Tech, and thus was constructed upon the premise that only rational basis review applied to laws categorizing on the basis of sexual orientation, the State’s argument cannot withstand legal scrutiny.”
The earlier brief cited as precedent Baker v. Nelson, a marriage case in the 1970’s that the U.S. Supreme Court refuse to hear for lack of federal question, and an earlier ruling by a federal judge in Nevada upholding the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. But with the more recent ruling in the gay juror case, Masto writes “both of these holdings have been vitiated.”
Masto’s request to withdraw her brief follows the earlier decision by Carson City Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover to withdraw his brief, which was also motivated by the Ninth Circuit ruling in SmithKline.
Tara Borelli, a staff attorney at Lambda Lambda, praised Masto and Gov. Brian Sandoval for withdrawing their earlier brief in favor of the ban on same-sex marriage.
“In the wake of the Ninth Circuit ruling in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Laboratories, the Governor has recognized that the writing is on the wall, and that arguments seeking to perpetuate discrimination are becoming extremely difficult to justify,” Borelli said. “Denying marriage to same-sex couples serves no legitimate state interest and is intended solely to perpetuate discrimination.”
Derek Washington, lead organizer for GetEQUAL Nevada, said more action is needed from Masto after her initial brief invoking bigamy and incest.
“While we applaud the Attorney General for hearing the voices of Nevadans who let her know — loud and clear — that hatred and disrespect would not be tolerated in our state, we stand firm in demanding an apology for her past comments and have requested a face-to-face meeting between the Attorney General and LGBTQ community leaders immediately,” Washington said.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this posting indicated Masto has withdrawn from the case. She cannot do so without the court’s permission.
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
