Connect with us

News

Ohio agrees Supreme Court should consider same-sex marriage case

DeWine seeks reversal of rulings finding right to gay nuptials under Fourteenth Amendment

Published

on

Mike DeWine, Ohio, gay news, Washington Blade
Mike DeWine, Ohio, gay news, Washington Blade

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine agrees the Supreme Court should take up a same-sex marriage case. (Photo public domain)

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine signaled on Friday he agrees the U.S. Supreme Court should take up litigation seeking recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages in Ohio, but for the purposes of determining that states have a right to prohibit marriage rights for gay couples under the U.S. Constitution.

In a 34-page filing, DeWine and State Solicitor Eric Murphy make the case for review of the consolidated case of Henry v. Hodges and Obergefell v. Hodges following a decision to uphold Ohio’s ban on same-sex marriage from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is thus far the only federal appeals court that found such laws are constitutional.

Even though the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the state, DeWine says the Supreme Court should consider the case to issue a nationwide ruling overruling other courts that have determine the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit states from banning same-sex marriage through the democratic process.

“The country deserves a nationwide answer to the question — one way or the other,” DeWine writes. “For its part, Ohio asks the Court to answer the legal question in favor of a dynamic view that permits the democratic debate over proper policy to continue now and going forward, rather than a wooden view that takes that policy question out of the hands of this generation and all future generations.”

The filing responds to a petition filed by plaintiff same-sex couples in the Ohio litigation asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit and find a right to state recognition for out-of-state same-sex marriages throughout the country. The petition is one among five before the Supreme Court calling on justices to take up a case seeking a nationwide ruling in favor marriage equality. Petitions have been filed by plaintiff same-sex couples in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Louisiana. But the Ohio and Tennessee cases are unique because they seek recognition of same-sex marriage, not the right for same-sex couples to marry outright.

DeWine presents two major arguments for why the Supreme Court should consider the Ohio marriage case: (1) a square circuit conflict exists over whether the Fourteenth Amendment includes a right to same-sex marriage, and (2) the court should review the Fourteenth Amendment question in the licensing and recognition contexts.

“Given the circuit split, the Court should review whether the Fourteenth Amendment includes a right to same-sex marriage,” DeWine writes. “It should ideally do so in two contexts. The Court should review a case (like the Michigan or Kentucky cases) involving whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license same-sex marriage within its borders. And it should review a case (like the Ohio cases) involving whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to recognize out-of-state, same-sex marriages.”

Although DeWine says he agrees the Supreme Court should take up the Ohio marriage to resolve the issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry, he says he opposes consideration of litigation to determine whether states must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriage on the basis of the Full Faith & Credit Clause.

DeWine offers three reasons why the Supreme Court shouldn’t consider the marriage issue based on the Full Faith & Credit Clause:  (1) it would require the Court to resolve a difficult preliminary issue; (2) it does not involve a deep circuit divide like
the first question; and (3) it was barely addressed by either of the lower courts in the Ohio case.

“The Court should instead allow for additional percolation in the lower appellate courts on this subsidiary question,” DeWine writes. “Review now would, in the end, only divert the Court from the more far-reaching constitutional questions that all of the cases out of the Sixth Circuit present.”

The Ohio filing means that state officials in each of the states with marriage cases before the Supreme Court thus far back review. The only remaining state official not to articulate a position on the issue is Tennessee Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery III. 

Leigh Ann Apple Jones, a spokesperson for his office, said he has yet to file a response as of late Friday. The deadline to file the response is Monday.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Study shows ‘pervasive mistreatment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement’

Findings claim nationwide police misconduct, including in D.C., Va., Md.

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

The LGBTQ supportive Williams Institute, an arm of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, released a report last month citing multiple research studies conducted over the past 25 years showing past and “ongoing” mistreatment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement throughout the United States.

“Findings show that LGBTQ communities – particularly LGBTQ people of color, youth, and transgender and gender nonconforming individuals – have faced profiling, entrapment, discrimination, harassment, and violence from law enforcement for decades, and this mistreatment continues to be widespread,” according to a Williams Institute statement.

“Experiences of police mistreatment may discourage LGBTQ people from reporting crimes or engaging with law enforcement,” Joshua Arrayales, the report’s lead author and Williams Institute Law Fellow said in the statement.

“Reporting crimes is essential for accurate crime statistics, property allocation of crime prevention resources, and support services that address the unique needs of LGBTQ survivors,” he said.

The 59-page report cites the findings of two dozen or more studies and surveys of LGBTQ people’s interaction with police and law agencies for the past 25 years through 2024 conducted by various organizations, including the ACLU, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the Williams Institute, and local government agencies.

But the report does not provide a breakdown of where police abuse against LGBTQ people occurred by specific police departments or locations. Instead it provides survey research findings of large groups of LGBTQ people who responded to a survey in different  locations of the U.S.

Among other things, those surveys have found “LGBTQ people are more likely than non-LGBTQ people to report being stopped by police, searched by police, arrested, and falsely accused of an offense,” the Williams Institute statement accompanying the report says. “LGBTQ people also report substantial rates of verbal harassment, physical harassment, sexual harassment, and assault,” it says.

The report itself cites surveys of LGBTQ people’s interactions with police in D.C., Baltimore, and Virginia but does not give specific cases or identify specific police departments or agencies.   

“A 2022 study based on interviews with 19 Black transgender women from Baltimore and Washington, D.C. identified a theme of re-victimization while seeking help from police,” the report says. “One participant noted that male officers asked what she did to cause her own abuse,” according to the report.

“Other participants expressed that when a knowledgeable officer was present, such as an LGBTQ+ liaison, they felt more inclined to reach out for help,” it says. 

The report also states, “A 2024 study based on interviews with 44 transgender people in Virginia documented two instances of transgender women being pulled over for broken tail lights and then being mistreated once officers discovered they were transgender based on their IDs.” The report does not reveal the specific location in Virginia where this took place.

Other locations the report cites data on anti-LGBTQ conduct by police include New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Newark, N.J., and Austin and San Antonio in Texas.

The full report can be accessed at williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

Continue Reading

Research/Study

HRC study reveals GOP efforts to undermine LGBTQ rights and services in 2026

House Republicans are pushing numerous anti-LGBTQ measures in FY26 bills, that could threaten healthcare, nondiscrimination protections, and LGBTQ rights.

Published

on

Potesters marching in front of HRC offices in honor of trans visibility on Aug. 24, 2024. (Washington Blade Photo by Erkki Forster)

A new study by the Human Rights Campaign shows House Republicans continue to push anti-LGBTQ legislation, despite overwhelming nationwide support for nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people.

The study found that Trump-supporting Republicans are attempting to pass 52 anti-LGBTQ riders—unofficial amendments to legislation with little chance of passing on their own—across 12 of the must-pass FY26 federal appropriations bills.

If enacted, these riders would become a significant vehicle for undermining LGBTQ+ equality.

Chart from the HRC’s most recent study highlighting the use of riders to pass anti-LGBTQ policy that would otherwise fail. (Chart courtesy of HRC)

The riders impose broad anti-LGBTQ measures, including blocking gender-affirming care, erasing sexual orientation and gender identity data, restricting nondiscrimination protections, limiting support for LGBTQ+ communities, targeting global LGBTQ+ rights and public health, interfering in medical decisions, and curtailing LGBTQ+ participation in sports, education, and civic life.

In addition to the riders, congressional Republicans have used the rescissions process—where the government takes back money already approved for programs deemed no longer necessary—to remove funding from Biden-era programs that have served as major lifelines for the most vulnerable members of the LGBTQ community, particularly low-income individuals, transgender youth, and people living with or at high risk for HIV.

Together, these efforts, combined with an already hostile White House eager to remove funding from anything deemed too “woke” or “wasteful,” have created a sizable gap in federal funding for programs once seen as foundational. Funding for nondiscrimination, public health, housing, and civil rights is now at risk, as Republicans follow Trump’s lead.

The HRC report shows that these proposed bills would drastically affect many aspects of LGBTQ existence, highlighting actions that will harm LGBTQ Americans.

These include establishing a “First Amendment Defense Act,” which allows individuals, businesses, universities, and federally funded agencies to refuse services to LGBTQ+ people in the name of personal belief; pushing drag bans on military bases and in U.S. foreign aid programming; minimizing gender-affirming care by reducing funding and punishing medical providers; and even applying a global gag rule to gender-affirming care in U.S.-supported foreign assistance programs.

The study also highlights attempts to block Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement for gender-affirming care and efforts to restrict PrEP, HIV testing, and sexual health services—policies that will particularly harm transgender people. It details extensive Republican efforts to redefine “sex” as strictly biological in standalone bills, appearing in riders that would gut Section 1557 protections and affect access to HIV prevention, Ryan White services, Title X reproductive health, and HOPWA housing programs.

Chart from the HRC’s most recent study showcasing various anti-LGBTQ policies being pushed by MAGA Republicans. (Chart courtesy of HRC)

Additional bills listed criminalize or stigmatize LGBTQ identity and are informing restrictions on community health education, HIV prevention campaigns, school-based health centers, and public health research funding at the CDC and NIH.

“This country deserves leadership that uses its power to help meet the needs of the people. Instead, MAGA Republicans make everything about attacking transgender people,” said David Stacy, Human Rights Campaign Vice President of Government Affairs.

“They have now spent three years attempting to poison these must-pass bills with anti-LGBTQ+ riders that polarize the House appropriations process and weaponize the federal government against our community, while doing nothing to address the urgent needs of their constituents. The American people have been clear: anti-equality politicians should stop shirking responsibility and actually serve all of their constituents. Pro-equality members of Congress must defeat the latest wave of anti-LGBTQ+ provisions and hold the line against hate.”

On election night, HRC released a memo showing anti-trans ad campaigns are failing and Americans overwhelmingly support equality. Nearly two-thirds of Americans back federal nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people, including 58% of independents and 42% of Republicans.

Almost 7 in 10 say politicians are too uninformed about transgender youth healthcare to make fair policies, and nearly half think lawmakers shouldn’t focus on transgender issues at all. And 70% percent worry politicians are targeting LGBTQ youth to divide the country and score political points.

Continue Reading

The White House

SPJ calls for take down of Trump’s ‘media offenders’ website

White House launched online database on Monday

Published

on

The Society for Professional Journalists has called out the White House for creating a website that targets individual journalists and news outlets that publish unfavorable coverage of the Trump-Vance administration.

In a letter to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday, the SPJ — the nation’s most broad-based journalism organization, which works to protect the free practice of journalism with high ethical standards — asked the White House to take down its website singling out journalists for negative coverage of the administration.

“Journalists have a constitutionally protected and societally encouraged duty to hold power to account. They are not political opponents to be tracked, cataloged or punished,” the letter signed by SPJ National President Chris Vaccaro and SPJ Ethics Committee Chair Dan Axelrod.

“By publishing reporters’ names, outlets and specific stories, the White House is naming and shaming members of the press in a highly charged political and social environment. SPJ regards this as a form of online harassment that exposes journalists to potential threats and even violence.”

The website currently lists 23 outlets as “Media Offenders of the Week,” singling out national organizations like CBS News, the Boston Globe, and the Independent. The website says these particular organizations “misrepresents and exaggerates President Trump.”

The letter goes on to explain that there are more civil ways to disagree with published stories without singling out people for doing the only constitutionally protected job in the country.

“There are well-established ways of resolving disagreements over the fairness or accuracy of stories. The White House web page attacking so-called ‘media offenders’ ignores these principles and instead denigrates and attacks reporters.”

It also highlights how Trump often attacks women journalists in particular, noting that two weeks ago he told White House correspondent Catherine Lucey from Bloomberg News to be “quiet piggy” after she asked questions related to Trump’s relationship with sex offender Jeffery Epstein on Air Force One.

“Journalists, particularly women, already face an enormous amount of online harassment, and this can convert into physical violence. As you know, women journalists have also been publicly insulted by the president in recent weeks.”

The letter also explains that attacks like this on the legitimate press can cause tensions between journalists who attempt to hold those in power responsible and the public who consumes the rhetoric.

“This page, which categorizes reporting as ‘lies,’ ‘left-wing lunacy,’ and ‘malpractice,’ has a chilling effect on coverage. It undermines the healthy democratic relationship in which journalists hold power to account.”

The letter also draws a connection to how the Russian authoritarian dictatorship references media it dislikes, saying, “The president’s new ‘media offenders’ list mirrors a 2017 initiative by the Kremlin that labeled independent journalism as ‘fake news.’ The United States should not follow that example.”

“SPJ believes civility must be restored between the media and the Administration. Removing this page would be a vital first step toward lowering the temperature and reinforcing America’s commitment to free expression.”

The SPJ’s code of ethics, widely regarded as the ethical standard for good journalism, has four main pillars: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent. The code was adopted in 1926 from the American Society of Newspaper Editors and has been revised multiple times since then, including in 1984, 1987, 1996, and most recently in 2014.

NLGJA, the The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists is the journalist-led association that works within the news media to advance fair and accurate coverage of LGBTQ+ communities and issues, provided a statement to the Blade on the website and supports the SPJ’s public call for removing the website to restore faith in journalistic freedom in the U.S.

“We stand with SPJ in urging the Trump administration to remove its website targeting so-called “media offenders.” While NLGJA believes that media organizations should be held to the highest standards of accuracy and ethical reporting, this website does nothing to support a healthy press environment,” National Board President Ken Miguel told the Blade via email. “Instead, it undermines public trust in the free press, enables the harassment and targeting of journalists, and hinders their ability to cover the news fairly and accurately. Journalists must be able to do their work without fear of government retaliation.”

The White House has not responded to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on the letter.

Continue Reading

Popular