Connect with us

News

Appeals court halts Michigan same-sex marriages

In a 2-1 decision, judges rule they must follow guidance on Utah gay nuptials

Published

on

Regnerus, gay juror, National LGBT Bar Association, Gay News, Washington Blade

The Sixth Circuit has stayed same-sex marriages in Michigan pending appeal (Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons).

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals announced late Tuesday it has placed a hold on same-sex marriages in Michigan pending appeal — dashing the hopes of those who wanted the weddings to continue as litigation moved forward.

In a 2-1 decision, the majority ruled it must place a stay on ruling from U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman striking down Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage in case of DeBoer v. Snyder to conform to an earlier stay decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“There is no apparent basis to distinguish this case or to balance the equities any differently than the Supreme Court did in Kitchen,” the majority writes. “Furthermore, several district courts that have struck down laws prohibiting same-sex marriage similar to the Michigan amendment at issue here have also granted requests for stays made by state defendants.”

The U.S. Supreme Court had issued a stay on same-sex marriages in Utah pending the outcome of litigation, Kitchen v. Herbert, after a district judge struck down the state’s marriage ban and the Utah Gov. Gary Herbert sought to halt the weddings by filing a stay request.

The two judges in the majority for the stay decision were U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell, sitting by designation on the appeals court, and U.S. Circuit Judge John Rogers. U.S. Circuit Judge Helene White was sole dissent in the stay decision. Each of the judges were appointed and confirmed by former President George W. Bush during his administration.

In her dissent, White writes the stay in the Utah case isn’t controlling for the Michigan marriages and says the state didn’t make a sufficient argument that it would succeed in the case on appeal.

“Michigan has not made the requisite showing,” White writes. “Although the Supreme Court stayed the permanent injunction issued by the Utah District Court in Kitchen v. Herbert pending final disposition by the Tenth Circuit, it did so without a statement of reasons, and therefore the order provides little guidance. I would therefore apply the traditional four-factor test, which leads me to conclude that a stay is not warranted.”

Although Friedman didn’t include a stay as part of his ruling, the Sixth Circuit instituted a temporary stay on the weddings after an estimated 315 marriage licenses were distributed to same-sex couples in Ingham, Washtenaw, Muskegon and Oakland counties.

Legal experts who spoke with the Washington Blade over the weekend say they didn’t think the Sixth Circuit needed to place a stay on Michigan same-sex marriages because the Supreme Court’s stay on same-sex marriages in Utah wasn’t controlling and numerous courts have ruled in favor of marriage equality since the stay decision in that case.

In a filing before the Sixth Circuit on Tuesday, attorneys for the plaintiff same-sex couples in the case, April DeBoer and Jane Rowse, made similar arguments to make the case that the court should allow the same-sex weddings to continue pending the outcome of the litigation.

“Permitting loving same-sex couples to marry pending the outcome of this appeal will not harm the state in any way; permitting the children of loving same-sex couples to have two legally recognized parents will not harm the state in any way; permitting the children of loving same-sex couples to have two legally recognized parents will better protect these children and will keep the state from continuing to ‘impair the rights of’ these children,'” the attorneys write.

Attorneys for Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown, who assisted as a defendant in litigation against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban, argued in a separate filing the court should reject a stay because it would harm same-sex couples living in the state.

“Couples and their families who want the legal protection and recognition of marriage will experience real harm if a stay is granted by this Court,” the attorneys write. “Defendant Brown will be forced to discriminate against couples and their families if a stay is granted. The State risks losing residents who can no longer live in a State that treats them and their families like second class citizens. They can no longer stay in a State that leaves them and their children legally vulnerable.”

But Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who’s been defending Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, argued before the Sixth Circuit that the court must followed precedent by the Supreme Court, noting other federal judges instituted stays when striking down bans on same-sex marriage.

“As to the merits of the stay itself, none of the plaintiffs’ arguments overcome a simple fact: the Supreme Court has already addressed precisely this situation — a federal district court striking down a state marriage amendment — and concluded that a stay pending appeal was necessary,” Schuette writes.

In the event that the Sixth Circuit denied the stay pending appeal, Schuette requested a two-day temporary stay from the court so it could seek a stay from Supreme Court without same-sex marriages taking place in Michigan.

Plaintiffs in the case charged the state never formally asked for a stay from the district court, saying that was appropriate venue to ask for a stay. But in its filing, the state asserts it orally requested a stay during arguments.

Now that the Sixth Circuit has issued a stay, plaintiffs could appeal the stay decision the Supreme Court, but observers say a different outcome is unlikely.

Dana Nessel, one the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the lawsuit, said plaintiffs “have no plans to appeal” the stay decision at this time.

One lingering question is whether the state and the federal government will recognized the same-sex marriages already performed in Michigan over the weekend. In Utah, the results were split: the state elected not to recognize its marriage, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government would recognize the unions.

Neither Michigan nor the federal government has definitively weighed on in the issue. The Associated Press quoted a spokesperson for Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder as saying the state won’t yet recognize the marriages until a decision was made on the stay pending appeal, and the Justice Department told the Blade situation remains under review.

Via Twitter, Brown called on the Snyder to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the state, suggesting if he refused to do so, voters should elect the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the 2014 election.

“When will Gov Snyder act like a leader and recognize the hundreds of MI citizens who married on Sat?” Brown tweeted. “MI needs true leadership.”

CORRECTION: An initial version of this article incorrectly reported Judge White was a Clinton appointee. She was initially named by Clinton, but wasn’t confirmed by the Senate under his administration. George W. Bush renamed her and the Senate confirmed her under his watch. The Blade regrets the error.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Rehoboth Beach

Rehoboth’s Blue Moon is for sale but owners aim to keep it in gay-friendly hands

$4.5 million listing includes real estate; business sold separately

Published

on

The real estate at Rehoboth’s Blue Moon is for sale for $4.5 million. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay gasps could be heard around the DMV earlier this week when a real estate listing for Rehoboth Beach’s iconic Blue Moon bar and restaurant hit social media.

Take a breath. The Moon is for sale but the longtime owners are not in a hurry and are committed to preserving its legacy as a gay-friendly space.

“We had no idea the interest this would create,” Tim Ragan, one of the owners, told the Blade this week. “I guess I was a little naive about that.”

Ragan explained that he and longtime partner Randy Haney are separating the real estate from the business. The two buildings associated with the sale are listed by Carrie Lingo at 35 Baltimore Ave., and include an apartment, the front restaurant (6,600 square feet with three floors and a basement), and a secondary building (roughly 1,800 square feet on two floors). They are listed for $4.5 million. 

The bar and restaurant business is being sold separately; the price has not been publicly disclosed. 

But Ragan, who has owned the Moon for 20 years, told the Blade nothing is imminent and that the Moon remains open through the holidays and is scheduled to reopen for the 2026 season on Feb. 10. He has already scheduled some 2026 entertainment. 

“It’s time to look for the next people who can continue the history of the Moon and cultivate the next chapter,” Ragan said, noting that he turns 70 next year. “We’re not panicked; we separated the building from the business. Some buyers can’t afford both.” 

He said there have been many inquiries and they’ve considered some offers but nothing is firm yet. 

Given the Moon’s pioneering role in queering Rehoboth Beach since its debut 44 years ago in 1981, many LGBTQ visitors and residents are concerned about losing such an iconic queer space to redevelopment or chain ownership.

“That’s the No. 1 consideration,” Ragan said, “preserving a commitment to the gay community and honoring its history. The legacy needs to continue.” He added that they are not inclined to sell to one of the local restaurant chains.

You can view the real estate listing here.

Continue Reading

Local

Comings & Goings

Tristan Fitzpatrick joins TerraPower

Published

on

Tristan Fitzpatrick

The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected]

Congratulations to Tristan Fitzpatrick on his new position as Digital Communications Manager with TerraPower. TerraPower creates technologies to provide safe, affordable, and abundant carbon-free energy. They devise ways to use heat and electricity to drive economic growth while decarbonizing industry.

Fitzpatrick’s most recent position was as Senior Communications Consultant with APCO in Washington, D.C. He led integrated communications campaigns at the fourth-largest public relations firm in the United States, increasing share of voice by 10 percent on average for clients in the climate, energy, health, manufacturing, and the technology. Prior to that he was a journalist and social media coordinator with Science Node in Bloomington, Ind. 

Fitzpatrick earned his bachelor’s degree in journalism with a concentration in public relations, from Indiana University.

Congratulations also to the newly elected board of Q Street. Rob Curis, Abigail Harris, Yesenia Henninger, Stu Malec, and David Reid. Four of them reelected, and the new member is Harris. 

Q Street is the nonprofit, nonpartisan, professional association of LGBTQ+ policy and political professionals, including lobbyists and public policy advocates. Founded in 2003 on the heels of the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Lawrence v. Texas, when there was renewed hope for advancing the rights of the LGBTQ community in Washington. Q Street was formed to be the bridge between LGBTQ advocacy organizations, LGBTQ lobbyists on K Street, and colleagues and allies on Capitol Hill.

Continue Reading

Congress

Advocates say MTG bill threatens trans youth, families, and doctors

The “Protect Children’s Innocence” Act passed in the House

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) speaks at a press conference on Sept. 20 for her anti-trans legislation. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has a long history of targeting the transgender community as part of her political agenda. Now, after announcing her resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives, attempting to take away trans rights may be the last thing she does in her official capacity.

The proposed legislation, dubbed “Protect Children’s Innocence Act” is among the most extreme anti-trans measures to move through Congress. It would put doctors in jail for up to 10 years if they provide gender-affirming care to minors — including prescribing hormone replacement therapy to adolescents or puberty blockers to younger children. The bill also aims to halt gender-affirming surgeries for minors, though those procedures are rare.

Greene herself described the bill on X, saying if passed, “it would make it a Class C felony to trans a child under 18.”

According to KFF, a nonpartisan source for health policy research, polling, and journalism, 27 states have enacted policies limiting youth access to gender-affirming care. Roughly half of all trans youth ages 13–17 live in a state with such restrictions, and 24 states impose professional or legal penalties on health care practitioners who provide that care.

Greene has repeatedly introduced the bill since 2021, the year she entered Congress, but it failed to advance. Now, in exchange for her support for the National Defense Authorization Act, the legislation reached the House floor for the first time.

According to the 19th, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first trans member of Congress, rebuked Republicans on the Capitol steps Wednesday for advancing anti-trans legislation while allowing Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire — a move expected to raise health care costs for millions of Americans.

“They would rather have us focus in and debate a misunderstood and vulnerable one percent of the population, instead of focusing in on the fact that they are raiding everyone’s health care,” McBride said. “They are obsessed with trans people … they are consumed with this.”

Polling suggests the public largely opposes criminalizing gender-affirming care.

A recent survey by the Human Rights Campaign and Global Strategy Group found that 73 percent of voters in U.S. House battleground districts oppose laws that would jail doctors or parents for providing transition-related care. Additionally, 77 percent oppose forcing trans people off medically recommended medication. Nearly seven in 10 Americans said politicians are not informed enough to make decisions about medical care for trans youth.

The bill passed the House and now heads to the U.S. Senate for further consideration.

According to reporting by Erin Reed of Erin In The Morning, three Democrats — U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Don Davis of North Carolina — crossed party lines to vote in favor of the felony ban, joining 213 Republicans. A total of 207 Democrats voted against the bill, while three lawmakers from both parties abstained.

Advocates and lawmakers warned the bill is dangerous and unprecedented during a multi-organizational press call Tuesday. Leaders from the Human Rights Campaign and the Trevor Project joined U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Dr. Kenneth Haller, and parents of trans youth to discuss the potential impact of restrictive policies like Greene’s — particularly in contrast to President Donald Trump’s leniency toward certain criminals, with more than 1,500 pardons issued this year.

“Our MAGA GOP government has pardoned drug traffickers. They’ve pardoned people who tried to overthrow the government on January 6, but now they want to put pediatricians and parents into a jail cell for caring for their kids,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson. “No one asked for Marjorie Taylor Greene or Dan Crenshaw or any politician to be in their doctor’s office, and they should mind their own business.”

Balint, co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, questioned why medical decisions are being made by lawmakers with no clinical expertise.

“Parents and doctors already have to worry about state laws banning care for their kids, and this bill would introduce the risk of federal criminal prosecution,” Balint said. “We’re talking about jail time. We’re talking about locking people up for basic medical care, care that is evidence-based, age-appropriate and life-saving.”

“These are decisions that should be made by doctors and parents and those kids that need this gender-affirming care, not certainly by Marjorie Taylor Greene.”

Haller, an emeritus professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine, described the legislation as rooted in ideology rather than medicine.

“It is not science, it is just blind ideology,” Haller said.

“The doctor tells you that as parents, as well as the doctor themselves, could be convicted of a felony and be sentenced up to 10 years in prison just for pursuing a course of action that will give your child their only chance for a happy and healthy future,” he added. “It is not in the state’s best interests, and certainly not in the interests of us, the citizens of this country, to interfere with medical decisions that people make about their own bodies and their own lives.”

Haller’s sentiment is echoed by doctors across the country.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest organization that represents doctors across the country in various parts of medicine has a longstanding support for gender-affirming care.

“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” their website reads.

Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, senior vice president of public engagement campaigns at the Trevor Project, agreed.

“In Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill [it] even goes so far as to criminalize and throw a parent in jail for this,” Heng-Lehtinen said. “Medical decisions should be between patients, families, and their doctors.”

Rachel Gonzalez, a parent of a transgender teen and LGBTQ advocate, said the bill would harm families trying to act in their children’s best interests.

“No politician should be in any doctor’s office or in our living room making private health care decisions — especially not Marjorie Taylor Greene,” Gonzalez said. “My daughter and no trans youth should ever be used as a political pawn.”

Other LGBTQ rights activists also condemned the legislation.

Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, called the bill “an abominable attack on the transgender community.”

“Marjorie Taylor Greene’s last-ditch effort to bring her 3-times failed bill to a vote is an abominable attack on the transgender community and further cements a Congressional career defined by hate and bigotry,” they said. “We are counting down the days until she’s off Capitol Hill — but as the bill goes to the floor this week, our leaders must stand up one last time to her BS and protect the safety of queer kids and medical providers. Full stop.”

Hack added that “healthcare is a right, not a privilege” in the U.S., and this attack on trans healthcare is an attack on queer rights altogether. 

“Marjorie Taylor Greene has no place in deciding what care is necessary,” Hack added. “This is another attempt to legislate trans and queer people out of existence while peddling an agenda rooted in pseudoscience and extremism.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, also denounced the legislation.

“This bill is the most extreme anti-transgender legislation to ever pass through the House of Representatives and a direct attack on the rights of parents to work with their children and their doctors to provide them with the medical care they need,” Takano said. “This bill is beyond cruel and its passage will forever be a stain on the institution of the United States Congress.”

The bill is unlikely to advance in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to pass.

Continue Reading

Popular