News
Ohio agrees Supreme Court should consider same-sex marriage case
DeWine seeks reversal of rulings finding right to gay nuptials under Fourteenth Amendment
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 saysĀ the Supreme Court should consider the case to issueĀ a nationwideĀ rulingĀ overruling other courts that have determineĀ the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit states from banning same-sex marriage through the democratic process.
“The country deserves a nationwide answer to theĀ question ā one way or the other,” DeWine writes. “For its part, Ohio asks the Court to answer the legal question in favorĀ of a dynamic view that permits the democratic debateĀ over proper policy to continue now and goingĀ forward, rather than a wooden view that takes thatĀ policy question out of the hands of this generationĀ and all future generations.”
The filing responds to a petition filed by plaintiff same-sex couples in the Ohio litigation askingĀ the Supreme Court to reverseĀ the Sixth Circuit and find a right to state recognition for out-of-stateĀ 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.Ā 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) aĀ square circuit conflict exists over whether the Fourteenth Amendment includes a right to same-sex marriage, and (2) the court should review the FourteenthĀ Amendment question in the licensing and recognition contexts.
“Given the circuit split, the Court should reviewĀ whether the Fourteenth Amendment includes a rightĀ to same-sex marriage,” DeWine writes. “It should ideally do so in twoĀ contexts. The Court should review a case (like theĀ Michigan or Kentucky cases) involving whether theĀ Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to licenseĀ same-sex marriage within its borders. And it shouldĀ review a case (like the Ohio cases) involving whetherĀ the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to recognizeĀ 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:Ā (1) it would requireĀ the Court to resolve a difficult preliminary issue;Ā (2) it does not involve a deep circuit divide like
the first question; and (3) it was barely addressed byĀ either of the lower courts in the Ohio case.
“The Court should insteadĀ allow for additional percolation in the lower appellateĀ courts on this subsidiary question,” DeWine writes. “Review nowĀ would, in the end, only divert the Court from theĀ more far-reaching constitutional questions that all ofĀ 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 GeneralĀ Herbert H. Slatery III.Ā
Leigh Ann Apple Jones, a spokesperson for his office, said he has yet to file a response as of late Friday. TheĀ deadline to file the responseĀ is Monday.
Congress
Sens. Butler, Smith introduce Pride in Mental Health Act to aid at-risk LGBTQ youth
Bill is backed by Democrats in both chambers
U.S. Sens. Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.) and Tina Smith (D-Minn.) introduced the Pride in Mental Health Act on Thursday, legislation that would strengthen resources in mental health and crisis intervention for at-risk LGBTQ youth.
āAccessing mental health care and support has become increasingly difficult in nearly every state in the country,āĀ said Butler, who is the first Black LGBTQ senator. āBarriers get even more difficult if you are a young person who lacks a supportive community or is fearful of being outed, harassed, or threatened.”
“I am introducing the Pride in Mental Health Act to help equip LGBTQ+ youth with the resources to get the affirming and often life-saving care they need,” she said.
āMental health care is health care,” said Smith. “And for some LGBTQ+ youth, receiving access to the mental health care they need can mean the difference between living in safety and dignity, and suffering alone through discrimination, bullying, and even violence.āĀ
The Minnesota senator added that data shows LGBTQ students are experiencing “an epidemic” of “anxiety, depression and other serious mental health conditions.”
For example, a 2023 study by The Trevor Project found that 54 percent of LGBTQ youth reported symptoms of depression, compared to 35 percent of their heterosexual counterparts.
Joining the senators as cosponsors are Democratic U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (Mass.), Bob Casey (Penn.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Cory Booker (N.J.), and Tammy Baldwin (Wis.). Baldwin was the first LGBTQ woman elected to the House in 1999 and the first LGBTQ woman elected to the Senate in 2013.
Leading the House version of the bill are LGBTQ Democratic U.S. Reps. Sharice Davids (Kan.), Eric Sorensen (Ill.), and Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), along with 163 other House members.
Organizations that have backed the Pride in Mental Health Act include the Human Rights Campaign, GLSEN, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Education Association (NEA), National Center for Transgender Equality, Seattle Indian Health Board, PFLAG National, The Trevor Project, American Psychological Association, Whitman-Walker Institute, InterACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, National Alliance on Mental Illness, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Mental Health America, and Center for Law and Social Policy.
District of Columbia
D.C. mayorĀ honors 10th anniversary of Team Rayceen Productions
LGBTQ entertainment, advocacy organization praised for āvital workā
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser today issued an official proclamation declaring Monday, March 18, 2024, as Team Rayceen Day in honor of the local LGBTQ entertainment and advocacy organization Team Rayceen Productions named after its co-founder Rayceen Pendarvis.
āWhereas Rayceen, along with Team Rayceen Productions co-founder, Zar, have spent 10 years advocating for the Black LGBTQI+ community using various forms including in-person events, social media, and YouTube,ā the proclamation states.
The proclamation adds that through its YouTube Channel, Team Rayceen Productions created a platform for āBlack LGBTQIA+ individuals to discuss various topics including spotlighting nonprofit organizations and small businesses, voter registration and participation, the state of LGBTQIA+ rights and resources in D.C, gender equality and equity, and the amplification of opportunities to bring the community together.ā
It also praises Team Rayceen Productions for its partnership with the Mayorās Office of LGBTQ Affairs in helping to produce āexciting events like the District of Pride talent showcase held each June and the iconic 17th Street High Heel Race celebrated in October.ā
āWhereas I thank Team Rayceen Productions for its vital and necessary work and am #DCProud to wish you all the best as you continue to support Black LGBTQIA+ residents across all 8 Wards,ā the proclamation continues.
āNow, therefore, I, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., do hereby proclaim March 18, 2024, as TEAM RAYCEEN DAY in Washington, D.C. and do commit this observance to all Washingtonians,ā it concludes.
āWe thank Mayor Bowser for this special proclamation, which highlights where it all began, with the Black LGBTQIA+ community of Washington, D.C,ā Team Rayceen Productions says in a statement. āStarting with The Ask Rayceen Show, Reel Affirmation, and events with D.C. Public Library to Art All Night, Silver Pride by Whitman-Walker, and events with the Mayorās Office of LGBTQ Affairs, we are #dcproud of what we have accomplished in the Nationās Capital,ā the statement says.
“For TEAM RAYCEEN DAY, we thank the diverse group of individuals who have made everything we have done possible by volunteering their time and talents over the past decade ā as online co-hosts, event staff, performers, DJs, photographers, and more,ā says the statement.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court declines to hear case over drag show at Texas university
Students argue First Amendment protects performance
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a First Amendment case over a public university president’s refusal to allow an LGBTQ student group to host a drag show on campus.
The group’s application was denied without the justices providing their reasoning or issuing dissenting opinions, as is custom for such requests for emergency review.
When plaintiffs sought to organize the drag performance to raise money for suicide prevention in March 2023, West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler cancelled the event, citing the Bible and other religious texts.
The students sued, arguing the move constituted prior restraint and viewpoint-based discrimination, in violation of the First Amendment. Wendler had called drag shows āderisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny,” adding that “a harmless drag show” was “not possible.”
The notoriously conservative Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who former President Donald Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, ruled against the plaintiffs in September, writing that āit is not clearly established that all drag shows are inherently expressive.”
Kacsmaryk further argued that the High Court’s precedent-setting opinions protecting stage performances and establishing that “speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend” was inconsistent with constitutional interpretation based on ātext, history and tradition.”
Plaintiffs appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is by far the most conservative of the nation’s 12 appellate circuit courts. They sought emergency review by the Supreme Court because the 5th Circuit refused to fast-track their case, so arguments were scheduled to begin after the date of their drag show.
-
Commentary4 days ago
Sexting with younger guy has me asking: How queer am I?
-
Commentary5 days ago
What will you do to make Pride safe this year?
-
Texas4 days ago
Pornhub blocks Texas accessing site over age verification law
-
Africa3 days ago
Burundi’s president reiterates LGBTQ people should be stoned in a stadium