News
Holder OKs attorneys general not defending marriage bans
‘I believe we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation’
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said state attorneys general don’t need to defend marriage bans in court (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key).
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told state attorneys general on Tuesday that refusing to defend same-sex marriage bans in court is consistent with the American idea that “all are created equal and entitled to equal opportunity.”
Holder made the remarks as part of his speech at the winter meeting for the National Association of Attorneys General, which this year took place in D.C. at the Ritz Carlton.
The attorney general said he believes state officials can decline to defend marriage bans in court as he maintained decisions not to defend laws “must be exceedingly rare” and not stem from policy disagreements.
“But in general, I believe we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation,” Holder said. “And we must endeavor – in all of our efforts – to uphold and advance the values that once led our forebears to declare unequivocally that all are created equal and entitled to equal opportunity.”
Holder’s remarks are consistent with his remarks during an interview published Monday in The New York Times in which he was quoted as saying attorneys general aren’t obligated to defend laws they believe are discriminatory.
As Holder noted, attorneys general in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Nevada and, most recently, Oregon have determined they cannot defend their state marriage bans in court following the Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act. Each of the states that these official represent have continued to enforce the marriage bans as the litigation proceeds through the courts.
Holder said these decisions not to defend the bans against lawsuits seeking marriage equality is along with lines of his decision in February 2011 to no longer defend DOMA in court.
“As I’ve said before, this decision was not taken lightly,” Holder said. “Our actions were motivated by the strong belief that all measures that distinguish among people based on their sexual orientation must be subjected to a heightened standard of scrutiny – and, therefore, that this measure was unconstitutional discrimination.”
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a law professor at University of California, Irvine, said Holder’s declaration amounts to support for attorneys general who don’t wish to defend marriage bans in their states.
“While I anticipate that some state attorneys general will dismiss Holder’s comments as unnecessary meddling in state affairs, I view his remarks as a declaration regarding sexual orientation equality that is consistent with his — and the Administration’s — position on these issues,” NeJaime said. “And given that multiple attorneys general at the state level have now declined to defend their state marriage bans, he is giving them support.”
In recent months, Holder has been a mouthpiece for the Obama administration on the advancement of LGBT rights.
The attorney general delivered the announcement that the federal government would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Utah when they were briefly available in the state. More recently, Holder announced the Justice Department would recognize same-sex marriages for its purposes, which includes the right to decline to testify against a spouse in court and the ability to file jointly file bankruptcy.
“This, after all, is the essential duty to which all of us – as attorneys general – have been sworn: not just to win cases, but to see that justice is done,” Holder said. “This is the cause that brings us together in Washington this week – working to confront the threats and seize the opportunities before us. And this is the extraordinary task with which the American people have entrusted the leaders in this room – and the challenge that all justice professionals are called to address: not merely to use our legal system to settle disputes and punish those who have done wrong, but to answer the kinds of fundamental questions – about fairness and equality – that have always determined who we are and who we aspire to be, both as a nation and as a people.”
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
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
