Connect with us

Local

Lawyer: Va. marriage ban necessary for ‘procreation’

Anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom files brief with federal appeals court

Published

on

Josh Duggar, Victoria Cobb, Family Foundation of Virginia, Allison Howard, Concerned Women for America, E.W. Jackson, Norfolk, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Virginia, gay news, Washington Blade
Josh Duggar, Victoria Cobb, Family Foundation of Virginia, Allison Howard, Concerned Women for America, E.W. Jackson, Norfolk, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Virginia, gay news, Washington Blade

A lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom argues in a brief submitted to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban is necessary for “procreation.” (Photo courtesy of the Family Foundation of Virginia)

A lawyer for an anti-gay legal group said in a brief filed with a federal appeals court on March 28 that Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban is necessary for the “procreation” of children.

“Redefining marriage harms marriage’s ability to serve those interests by serving marriage’s inherent connection to procreation and communicating that the primary end of marriage laws is to affirm adult desires rather than serve children’s needs, and suppressing the importance of both mothers and fathers to children’s development,” wrote Byron J. Babione of the Alliance Defending Freedom in a brief he filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., on behalf of Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk Michèle McQuigg.

Babione argued that U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen “sought to discredit these procreation- and child-focused purposes for marriage” in her Feb. 13 ruling that struck down Virginia’s constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

“Plaintiffs ask this court to use the law’s power to redefine the institution of marriage,” said Babione. “That redefinition would transform marriage in the public consciousness from a gendered to a genderless institution – a conversation that would be swift and unalterable, the gendered institution having been declared unconstitutional.”

Babione also cites the Witherspoon Institute in his brief to make the argument that it is “best for a child to be reared by his or her own mother and father.” The New Jersey-based conservative think tank largely funded Mark Regnerus’ study on the issue that a federal judge earlier this month dismissed as “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration” in his ruling that struck down Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban.

“Genderless marriage communicates that marriage exists primarily for the government to approve emotional or romantic bonds, because those sorts of bonds (and not sexual conduct of the type that creates children) would be the prominent feature shared by the couples who marry,” said Babione.

David B. Oakley, who represents Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer, III, in the case, said in a separate brief he filed with the federal appeals court on March 28 that Allen “began her opinion with the misconception that Virginia’s definition of marriage is solely based upon prejudice and animus towards gay and lesbian couples.” She opened her ruling with a quote from Mildred Loving, whose challenge of Virginia’s interracial marriage ban prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to issue its landmark Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967.

Oakley further argued Schaefer and others who issue marriage licenses would “face exposure to additional lawsuits” from those denied them if the 4th Circuit upholds Allen’s ruling.

“Same-sex marriage proponents want to open the door of marriage for their benefit and then slam it shut behind them,” wrote Oakley. “It will not be long before other groups come knocking.”

Court records indicate the Family Research Council on March 26 sought to file an amicus brief in the Bostic case, but the federal appeals court blocked it as “premature.” The Washington Blade was unable to immediately obtain a copy of the filing.

Timothy Bostic and Tony London of Norfolk and Carol Schall and Mary Townley of Chesterfield last year challenged the commonwealth’s marriage amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal – who filed a separate lawsuit last summer on behalf of Victoria Kidd and Christy Berghoff of Winchester and Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff of Staunton – have been allowed to join the Bostic case.

U.S. District Judge Michael F. Urbanski in January certified the ACLU and Lambda Legal lawsuit as a class action.

The federal appeals court on May 12 is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the Bostic case.

Attorney General Mark Herring earlier this year announced he would not defend Virginia’s marriage amendment that voters in 2006 approved by a 57-43 percent margin.

Briefs from the lawyers who are representing the plaintiffs are due to the court on April 11.

“Our attorneys will review the briefs from the clerks and will respond as appropriate in the brief the commonwealth will file by the April 11 deadline,” Herring spokesperson Michael Kelly told the Blade.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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

District of Columbia

New queer bar Rush beset by troubles; liquor license suspended

Staff claim they haven’t been paid, turn to GoFundMe as holidays approach

Published

on

A scene from the dance floor of Rush at a preview night on Friday, Nov. 28. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The D.C. Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board on Dec. 17 issued an order suspending the liquor license for the recently opened LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush on grounds that it failed to pay a required annual licensing fee.

Rush held its grand opening on Dec. 5 on the second and third floors of a building at 2001 14 Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street next to the existing LGBTQ dance club Bunker. 

It describes itself on its website as offering “art-pop aesthetics, high-energy nights” in a space that “celebrates queer culture without holding back.” It includes a large dance floor and a lounge area with sofas and chairs.

Jackson Mosley, Rush’s principal owner, did not immediately respond to a phone message from the Washington Blade seeking his comment on the license suspension.  

The ABC Board’s order states, “The basis for this Order is that a review of the Board’s official records by the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) has determined that the Respondent’s renewal payment check was returned unpaid and alternative payment was not submitted.”

The three-page order adds, “Notwithstanding ABCA’s efforts to notify the Respondent of the renewal payment check return, the Respondent failed to pay the license fee for the period of 2025 to 2026 for its Retailer’s Class CT license. Therefore, the Respondent’s license has been SUSPENDED  until the Respondent pays the license fees and the $50.00 per day fine imposed by the Board for late payment.”

ABCA spokesperson Mary McNamara told the Blade that the check from Rush that was returned without payment was for  $12,687, which she said was based on Rush’s decision to pay the license fee for four years. She said that for Rush to get its liquor license reinstated it must now pay $3,819 for a one-year license fee plus a $100 bounced check fee, a $750 late fee, and $230 transfer fee, at a total of $4,919 due.

Under D.C. law, bars, restaurants and other businesses that normally serve alcoholic beverages can remain open without a city liquor license as long as they do not sell or serve alcohol. 

But D.C. drag performer John Marsh, who performs under the name Cake Pop and who is among the Rush employees, said Rush did not open on Wednesday, Dec. 17, the day the liquor board order was issued. He said that when it first opened, Rush limited its operating days from Wednesday through Sunday and was not open Mondays and Tuesdays. 

Marsh also said none of the Rush employees received what was to be their first monthly salary payment on Dec. 15. He said approximately 20 employees set up a GoFundMe fundraising site to raise money to help sustain them during the holiday period after assuming they will not be paid.

He said he doubted that any of the employees would return to work in the unlikely case that Mosley would attempt to reopen Rush without serving liquor or if he were to pay the licensing fee to allow him to resume serving alcohol without having received their salary payment. 

As if all that were not enough, Mosley would be facing yet another less serious problem related to the Rush policy of not accepting cash payments from customers and only accepting credit card payments. A D.C. law that went into effect Jan. 1, 2025, prohibits retail businesses such as restaurants and bars from not accepting cash payments. 

A spokesperson for the D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, which is in charge of enforcing that law, couldn’t immediately be reached to determine what the penalty is for a violation of the law requiring that type of business to accept cash payments.

The employee GoFundMe site, which includes messages from several of the employees, can be accessed here.

Mosley on Thursday responded to the reports about his business with a statement on the Rush website. 

He claims that employees were not paid because of a “tax-related mismatch between federal and District records” and that some performers were later paid. He offers a convoluted explanation as to why payroll wasn’t processed after the tax issue was resolved, claiming the bank issued paper checks.

“After contacting our payroll provider and bank, it was determined that electronic funds had been halted overnight,” according to the statement. “The only parties capable of doing so were the managers of the outside investment syndicate that agreed to handle our stabilization over the course of the initial three months in business.”  

Mosley further said he has not left the D.C. area and denounced “rumors” spread by a former employee. He disputes the ABCA assertion that the Rush liquor license was suspended due to a “bounced check.” Mosley ends his post by insisting that Rush will reopen, though he did not provide a reopening date.  

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Brian Footer suspends campaign for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat

Race’s third LGBTQ candidate cites family reasons for ‘stepping back’

Published

on

Brian Footer (Photo courtesy of Brian Footer)

Gay Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Brian Footer, who was one of three out LGBTQ candidates running for the open Ward 1 D.C. Council seat in the city’s June 16, 2026, Democratic primary, announced on Dec. 17 he has decided to “suspend” his campaign to focus on his family.

“After deep reflection and honest conversations with my family, I have decided to suspend my campaign for the D.C. Council,” he said in a statement. “This moment in my life requires me to be present with the people I love most and honor the responsibilities I carry both at home and in the community,” he states. “This was not an easy decision, but it is the right one for me and my family at this time.”

Footer, a longtime Ward 1 community activist and LGBTQ rights advocate, announced his candidacy for the Ward 1 Council seat in July, one month before bisexual Ward 1 community activist Aparna Raj announced her candidacy for the Council seat on Aug. 12.

Gay Ward 1 Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Miguel Trindade Deramo announced his candidacy for the Ward 1 Council seat on Nov. 18, becoming the third out LGBTQ candidate in what appeared to be an unprecedented development for a race for a single D.C. Council seat.

At least three other candidates who are not LGBTQ are running for the Ward 1 Council seat. They include Ward 1 ANC member Rashida Brown, longtime Ward 1 community activist Terry Lynch, and Jackie Reyes-Yanes, the former director of the Mayor’s Office of Community Affairs.

In his statement announcing the suspension of his candidacy, Footer said he would continue to be involved in community affairs and advocate for the issues he discussed during his campaign.

“I want to be clear: I am stepping back from the race, not the work,” he says in his statement. “Public service has always been my calling. I will continue advocating for affordability, for safer streets, for stability for small businesses, and for a government that responds to people with urgency and respect,” he wrote. “And I will continue showing up as a partner in the work of building a stronger Ward 1.”

Footer concluded by thanking and praising his campaign supporters and calling his campaign suspension a “transition,” suggesting he is not likely to resume his candidacy.

His campaign press spokesperson did not immediately respond to a question from the Washington Blade asking if Footer might later resume his campaign or if his latest action was in effect an end to his candidacy.

“To everyone who knocked on doors, hosted conversations, donated, shared encouragement, and believed in this campaign, thank you,” he says in his statement. “I am deeply grateful for every person who helped this campaign take root,” he added. “This isn’t an ending, it’s a transition. And I’m excited for the work ahead, both in Ward 1 and at home with my family.”

Longtime gay D.C. Democratic Party activist Peter Rosenstein said in a statement to the Blade, “I respect Brian Footer’s decision to end his campaign for Council. It is not easy to run a campaign in D.C. and there are many others running in Ward 1.” He added, “While not living in Ward 1, I thank Brian for all he has done and clearly will continue to do for the people in the ward.”  

Continue Reading

Popular