Connect with us

homepage news

Ted Cruz: Courts shouldn’t overturn gay marriage bans

Possible 2016 contender to push anti-gay marriage amendment

Published

on

Ted Cruz, Texas, Republican Party, United States Senate, Values Voters Summit, gay news, Washington Blade
Ted Cruz, Texas, Republican Party, United States Senate, Values Voters Summit, gay news, Washington Blade

Sen. Ted Cruz said judges shouldn’t overturn bans on same-sex marriage. (Washington Blade file photo by Lee Whitman).

President Obama gave a strong indication during the State of the Union address on Tuesday he believes the U.S. Constitution guarantees marriage rights for same-sex couples, but Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) doesn’t share that view.

Immediately following the president’s speech, the likely 2016 Republican presidential contender said in the U.S. Capitol that courts shouldn’t be able to strike down bans on same-sex marriage when asked by the Washington Blade if he agrees with Obama’s view that marriage equality is a “story of freedom” and “a civil right.”

“Well, he is certainly entitled to his views, and I think the proper place to debate those issues is in the legislative chambers,” Cruz replied. “I’m a constitutionalist. From the beginning of this country, marriage has been a question of the states, and we should not have the federal government, or unelected judges, setting aside the policy judgment of the elected legislatures and imposing their own instead.”

As he announced in October, Cruz told the Blade he still intends to introduce a constitutional amendment that would prohibit judges from overturning state laws on marriage, but suggested courts already lack the authority to rule in favor of marriage equality.

“Because, as I said, I’m a constitutionalist,” Cruz said. “If a state chooses to adopt gay marriage, that’s within its constitutional authority to do so, but if it chooses not to, if it chooses traditional marriage, that is also within its constitutional purview. Part of the genius of the framers of our Constitution was allowing for the now 50 states to be laboratories of democracy, to adopt and reflect different policy choices state by state.”

Cruz made the remarks in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear cases seeking marriage rights for same-sex couples filed in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee in what is widely anticipated as the first step in delivering a nationwide ruling on the issue. Additionally, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals seemed poised to strike down the ban on same-sex marriage in the Republican senator’s own state of Texas.

Evan Wolfson, president of the LGBT group Freedom to Marry, said the Constitution is in place to protect the rights of Americans that public officials like Cruz would attempt to strip away.

“The states are ‘laboratories’ of democracy, but they operate within the ‘protocol’ of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to marry and equal protection of the laws — a floor beneath which the states may not sink,” Wolfson said. “Sen. Cruz seems to forget that the Constitution he claims to revere rests on the bedrock American principle that not everything is put up to a vote, and that judges, elected or otherwise, are there as a central part of the checks and balances that make sure our rights as Americans are not vulnerable to the agendas and ambitions of elected politicians like Ted Cruz.”

Stephen Peters, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, also criticized Cruz for suggesting the Constitution doesn’t protect all Americans.

“While Sen. Cruz claims to be a “constitutionalist,” he conveniently ignores the fundamental element of the Constitution that guarantees equal protection of the law for all Americans, including LGBT people,” Peters said. “Loving and committed same-sex couples deserve the same rights, responsibilities and privileges that come with marriage, and the Supreme Court will hopefully soon affirm this. Sen. Cruz’s defiant efforts to try to stop marriage equality place him not only on the wrong side of history, but in a shameful group of people who deplorably use their influence to repress minorities.”

By maintaining that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow courts to rule against bans on same-sex marriage, Cruz is placing himself in the the same company as another presidential hopeful, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who was recently critical of a court decision that led to marriage equality in Florida. But they stand in contrast to comments from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who said despite disagreements “we have to respect the rule of law.”

Ian Sams, spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, said Cruz was presenting tired, anti-gay rhetoric.

“Ted Cruz follows in a long line of crusaders who couch their anti-equality agenda in the language of process,” Sams said. “LGBT Americans deserve equal treatment under the law and access to the same rights as straight Americans – from protection against discrimination to marrying the person they love. While Cruz lives in the past and introduces anti-marriage equality legislation in Congress, progress for marriage equality is being made across the country and in the courts. And that’s a good thing.”

Gregory Angelo, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said Cruz’s views are the same as Hillary Clinton’s.

“What I find most interesting about Sen. Cruz’s remarks is the sensitivity with which he is now couching the issue,” Angelo said. “Far from a firebrand preaching that marriage equality will lead to the collapse of society, he is now adopting a stance that marriage should be left to the states to decide — the same opinion that Hillary Clinton has. That said, you can’t champion states’ rights and a federal marriage amendment at the same time; they don’t mesh.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
29 Comments

29 Comments

  1. Bob Summersgill

    January 21, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    “I’m a constitutionalist. From the beginning of this country, marriage has been a question of the states, and we should not have the federal government, or unelected judges, setting aside the policy judgment of the elected legislatures and imposing their own instead.” That makes him not a constitutionalist.

  2. Robin Tyler

    January 21, 2015 at 11:22 pm

    Well, for those who remain with the original constitution Bob, 'blacks' are not full human beings, women are not included and no where does it mention gays. The constitution is a living document that needs to change with the times. In the Loving decision, with 35 states allowing interracial marriage, the Courts extended it to the entire country. (1964). It wasn't until 1991 that the majority of US Americans believed in Inter-racial marriage. Had the court 'left it up to the States', Obama's parents would have not been able to legally marry. Get over it.

  3. Ken Collins

    January 21, 2015 at 11:52 pm

    The tenth amendment says that powers not explicitly given to the federal government go to the states or the people. The one-sentence tenth amendment doesn't stop there. It also says that the states do not have powers that the constitution prohibits them from having. Thus states do indeed regulate marriage in terms of the qualifications of the officiant, the age and consanguinity of the people getting married, the state agency that designs, uses, and files the forms, and so forth. But the states do not have constitutionally prohibited powers (without that provision, the entire constitution would be negated), The fourteenth amendment contains a prohibition. The states cannot define a class of individuals and deny them rights.

    There is no exception. There are no secondary citizens or special cases. You might think that gay marriage is icky, or you might not approve of it (if you are the Universal Approval Authority), but If you really were a constitutionalist, and not just an opportunist, you would not be able to oppose gay marriage on constitutional grounds.

  4. Doug Williams

    January 22, 2015 at 1:20 am

    Ted Cruz, please sir, at your earliest opportunity…. Please, FO and D and please, take Sara Palin with you

  5. Christopher Capers

    January 22, 2015 at 6:54 am

    It doesn't mention it sweetheart because Gay isn't a race correct? You're white and covered LOL. But there is a difference between a lifestyle and race LOL!

  6. Christopher Capers

    January 22, 2015 at 6:57 am

    First of all Gregory T Angelo of the Log Cabin Republicans is the most idiotic person around. Miss Angelo where have you been? Hillary has gotten on board with Marriage equality she was late to the party but she has arrived. Have several seats _/ _/ _/ !

  7. Ray Knitterman Whiting

    January 22, 2015 at 8:46 am

    Christopher Capers – "Lifestyle" isn't in the issue at all. Sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle" OR a choice OR a "behavior" (another term of ignorance thrown around far too often).

  8. Glenn Barkan

    January 22, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    Christopher Capers , sexual orientation is no more a choice or changeable as your skin color. I am gay, and would be gay if I had died a virgin.

  9. Robin Tyler

    January 22, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    Christopher, lifestyle is what you wear or disco dancing. This is not our lifestyle. This is our lives. And we are, as Pres. Obama said in his State of the Union speech this week, is civil rights movement. (He referred to marriage equality for same-sex couples as a civil right. Therefore, we are a civil rights movement.) you should be able to relate to that.

  10. Anonymous

    January 22, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    Dumbo fails to get it. The constitution is a laboratory for democracy but never for discrimination by even a single state! Or maybe Texas could pass a law forbidding anyone whose last name is Cruz from running for public office. We could call Texas a "constitutional laboratory"!!!!!

  11. Jim Guinnessey

    January 22, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    Ted Cruz, like his bigoted evangelical father, is an idiot. If states were allowed to do whatever they wished the South would still have slavery. The states cannot dictate or control essential human rights just to please the religious bigots in the USA. Cruz and other demented Republican politicians and power-seeking religious leaders would establish a theocracy in the USA. These ploys must be stopped at every turn and exposed for what they really are: totalitarianism posing as patriotism.

  12. Jonah Stanton

    January 22, 2015 at 9:20 pm

    I'm honestly so sick of seeing his face. He looks like a whiny, spoiled brat who just get told no by daddy every single fucking time I see his face.

  13. John Lee

    January 23, 2015 at 4:13 am

    Apparently, Cruz still lives in the past as the HRC spokesman said. He's a disgrace to this country, let alone my home state.

  14. John Lee

    January 23, 2015 at 4:14 am

    Believe me, so am I. He's a disgrace to the country, as well as my home state.

  15. Tom Miller

    January 23, 2015 at 4:27 am

    So by Cruz logic, cops can issue traffic tickets to only white folks and there is nothing federal courts can do about it because traffic tickets are not a federal responsibility? Um, yeah – that'll happen…

  16. Leslie Gray

    January 23, 2015 at 8:43 am

    Gay may not be a race as such. But, being gay is an intrinsic birth characteristic of well over nine million Americans. Just because some dusty old book says Levitical priests couldn't participate in local same sex orgies of the day doesn't even come close to excusing attempts to make being gay illegal, or banning marriage.

  17. Leslie Gray

    January 23, 2015 at 8:46 am

    John Lee Of course Cruz lives in the past, he's from Texas.

  18. Leslie Gray

    January 23, 2015 at 8:48 am

    He almost makes me ashamed to be from Texas. But then again, so does Gregg Abbott and the rest of the @$$hats in Austin.

  19. Jonah Stanton

    January 23, 2015 at 12:36 pm

    Leslie Gray I'd love to do the commonplace thing where I laugh at the southerners stuck with their horribly conservative government, but then I'd be blatantly ignoring the fact that the state of Michigan I reside in is also controlled by similar conservatives. At least we don't have Ted Cruz, or Abbott. Both of you also sound fairly progressive based upon the denouncement of these two and thus I wish you both the best of luck dealing with the both of them trying their best to drive Texas further into the ground.

  20. Terry Berry

    January 23, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    Christopher, please tell me when you chose to be straight. Did you have physical attraction to men, but chose to ignore it? Does it still plague you, but you continue to choose women as attractive? I ask because I have never been able to force myself to find men attractive, and God knows I tried.

  21. Anonymous

    January 23, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    Speaking from a state which banned mixed race marriages, enslaved Blacks, instituted segregation in school, Cruz and Texas are the antithesis of the US Constitution!

  22. John Lee

    January 23, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    Leslie Gray
    Well, Texas' gay marriage ban was ruled unconstitutional this month last year…and the arguments have come and gone (they were a couple weeks ago), so now the waiting games begin.

  23. John Lee

    January 23, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    Leslie Gray
    Well, Texas' gay marriage ban was ruled unconstitutional this month last year…and the arguments have come and gone (they were a couple weeks ago), so now the waiting games begin.

  24. John Lee

    January 23, 2015 at 6:23 pm

    Leslie Gray
    Don't like Cruz, or Abbott, or Cornyn, or Perry, or Dubya (yes, I count him, as he was TX Governor 2 decades ago, and showed his support for the FMA 1 decade ago as our horrible US President)

  25. John Lee

    January 23, 2015 at 6:23 pm

    Leslie Gray
    Don't like Cruz, or Abbott, or Cornyn, or Perry, or Dubya (yes, I count him, as he was TX Governor 2 decades ago, and showed his support for the FMA 1 decade ago as our horrible US President)

  26. Paula Key

    January 25, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    Polygamy…..The Bible does not focus on one man and one wife.
    Here are examples

    Genesis 4:19
    And Lamech took unto him two wives.

    Genesis 16:1-4
    Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai … gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.

    Genesis 25:6
    But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had….

    Genesis 26:34
    Esau … took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

    Genesis 31:17
    Then Jacob rose up, and set … his wives upon camels.

    Exodus 21:10
    If he take him another wife….

    Deuteronomy 21:15
    If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated….

    Judges 8:30
    And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

    1 Samuel 1:1-2
    Elkanah … had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.

    2 Samuel 12:7-8
    Thus saith the LORD God of Israel … I gave thee … thy master's wives….

    1 Kings 11:2-3
    Solomon … had seven hundred wives … and three hundred concubines.

    1 Chronicles 4:5
    And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

    2 Chronicles 11:21
    Rehoboam … took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

    2 Chronicles 13:21
    But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives….

    2 Chronicles 24:3
    Jehoiada took for him two wives….

    Mt.25:1
    Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

  27. Paula Key

    January 25, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    3) Hating Ugly People
    The Republican Party needs to weed out it's "UGLY" people – both in physical appearance and in the way they speak and act. This would be in accordance with God of the O.T's will.

    In what should be good news for intolerant religious conservatives, God really does hate people who are different from the norm. Of course, God isn't as worried about skin color or sexual orientation as he is about whether you're ugly or not. Because if you're ugly, you can just go worship some other god, okay? (Even though God will punish you if you do and also they don't exist.) Here's the people God does not want coming into his churches: People with blemishes, blind people, the lame, those with flat noses, dwarves, people with scurvy, people with bad eyes, people with bad skin, and those that "hath their stones broken." Given that God is technically responsible for giving people all of these afflictions in the first place
    (Leviticus 21:17-24)

  28. Paula Key

    January 25, 2015 at 9:15 pm

    This is to help homophobic bakeries and other institutions extend their hatred FURTHER using the Bible: I mean to say, why stop at the LGBTI community?

    1. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIMS

    Use Genesis where Abraham's wife Sara(h) cannot conceive so she gives her servant Hagar for Abraham to father a child.
    A son, Ishmael is born. Then, Sara(h) conceives and gives birth to Isaac. "Husband throw both Hagar and Ishamel OUT!" Abraham does. Ishmael is father of Islam (but Muhammad is greatest prophet).

    2. DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AFRO-AMERICANS
    Use Genesis again. This time go to the story of Noah. Somehow, Noah is naked and drunk. Ham, his son covers him. Noah is outraged and curses Ham. Many theologians think the meaning of Ham is black.

    3. DISCRIMINATE against WOMEN

    EPHESIANS
    5:22-24 Wives must submit to husbands in everything.
    Business owners must ask the woman shopper if she has her husband’s permission to buy the goods.

    4.DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WOUNDED MEN (soldiers/wheelchair bound)

    Politely ask if the man who looks injured has his testicles intact (called stones) and has not injured his penis.

    "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1)

    http://stories4hotbloodedlesbians.com

  29. Ann Poindexter

    February 5, 2015 at 3:11 am

    Was he 'high' when he said this??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

homepage news

Equality Act, contorted as a danger by anti-LGBTQ forces, is all but dead

No political willpower to force vote or reach a compromise

Published

on

Despite having President Biden in the White House and Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, efforts to update federal civil rights laws to strengthen the prohibition on discrimination against LGBTQ people by passing the Equality Act are all but dead as opponents of the measure have contorted it beyond recognition.

Political willpower is lacking to find a compromise that would be acceptable to enough Republican senators to end a filibuster on the bill — a tall order in any event — nor is there the willpower to force a vote on the Equality Act as opponents stoke fears about transgender kids in sports and not even unanimity in the Democratic caucus in favor of the bill is present, stakeholders who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity said.

In fact, there are no imminent plans to hold a vote on the legislation even though Pride month is days away, which would be an opportune time for Congress to demonstrate solidarity with the LGBTQ community by holding a vote on the legislation.

If the Equality Act were to come up for a Senate vote in the next month, it would not have the support to pass. Continued assurances that bipartisan talks are continuing on the legislation have yielded no evidence of additional support, let alone the 10 Republicans needed to end a filibuster.

“I haven’t really heard an update either way, which is usually not good,” one Democratic insider said. “My understanding is that our side was entrenched in a no-compromise mindset and with [Sen. Joe] Manchin saying he didn’t like the bill, it doomed it this Congress. And the bullying of hundreds of trans athletes derailed our message and our arguments of why it was broadly needed.”

The only thing keeping the final nail from being hammered into the Equality Act’s coffin is the unwillingness of its supporters to admit defeat. Other stakeholders who spoke to the Blade continued to assert bipartisan talks are ongoing, strongly pushing back on any conclusion the legislation is dead.

Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the Equality Act is “alive and well,” citing widespread public support he said includes “the majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents and a growing number of communities across the country engaging and mobilizing every day in support of the legislation.”

“They understand the urgent need to pass this bill and stand up for LGBTQ people across our country,” David added. “As we engage with elected officials, we have confidence that Congress will listen to the voices of their constituents and continue fighting for the Equality Act through the lengthy legislative process.  We will also continue our unprecedented campaign to grow the already-high public support for a popular bill that will save lives and make our country fairer and more equal for all. We will not stop until the Equality Act is passed.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), chief sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate, also signaled through a spokesperson work continues on the legislation, refusing to give up on expectations the legislation would soon become law.

“Sen. Merkley and his staff are in active discussions with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to get this done,” McLennan said. “We definitely see it as a key priority that we expect to become law.”

A spokesperson Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had promised to force a vote on the Equality Act in the Senate on the day the U.S. House approved it earlier this year, pointed to a March 25 “Dear Colleague” letter in which he identified the Equality Act as one of several bills he’d bring up for a vote.

Despite any assurances, the hold up on the bill is apparent. Although the U.S. House approved the legislation earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn’t even reported out the bill yet to the floor in the aftermath of the first-ever Senate hearing on the bill in March. A Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic aide, however, disputed that inaction as evidence the Equality Act is dead in its tracks: “Bipartisan efforts on a path forward are ongoing.”

Democrats are quick to blame Republicans for inaction on the Equality Act, but with Manchin withholding his support for the legislation they can’t even count on the entirety of their caucus to vote “yes” if it came to the floor. Progressives continue to advocate an end to the filibuster to advance legislation Biden has promised as part of his agenda, but even if they were to overcome headwinds and dismantle the institution needing 60 votes to advance legislation, the Equality Act would likely not have majority support to win approval in the Senate with a 50-50 party split.

The office of Manchin, who has previously said he couldn’t support the Equality Act over concerns about public schools having to implement the transgender protections applying to sports and bathrooms, hasn’t responded to multiple requests this year from the Blade on the legislation and didn’t respond to a request to comment for this article.

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who declined to co-sponsor the Equality Act this year after having signed onto the legislation in the previous Congress, insisted through a spokesperson talks are still happening across the aisle despite the appearances the legislation is dead.

“There continues to be bipartisan support for passing a law that protects the civil rights of Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Annie Clark, a Collins spokesperson. “The Equality Act was a starting point for negotiations, and in its current form, it cannot pass. That’s why there are ongoing discussions among senators and stakeholders about a path forward.”

Let’s face it: Anti-LGBTQ forces have railroaded the debate by making the Equality Act about an end to women’s sports by allowing transgender athletes and danger to women in sex-segregated places like bathrooms and prisons. That doesn’t even get into resolving the issue on drawing the line between civil rights for LGBTQ people and religious freedom, which continues to be litigated in the courts as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day now to issue a ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to determine if foster care agencies can reject same-sex couples over religious objections.

For transgender Americans, who continue to report discrimination and violence at high rates, the absence of the Equality Act may be most keenly felt.

Mara Keisling, outgoing executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, disputed any notion the Equality Act is dead and insisted the legislation is “very much alive.”

“We remain optimistic despite misinformation from the opposition,” Keisling said. “NCTE and our movement partners are still working fruitfully on the Equality Act with senators. In fact, we are gaining momentum with all the field organizing we’re doing, like phone banking constituents to call their senators. Legislating takes time. Nothing ever gets through Congress quickly. We expect to see a vote during this Congress, and we are hopeful we can win.”

But one Democratic source said calls to members of Congress against the Equality Act, apparently coordinated by groups like the Heritage Foundation, have has outnumbered calls in favor of it by a substantial margin, with a particular emphasis on Manchin.

No stories are present in the media about same-sex couples being kicked out of a restaurant for holding hands or transgender people for using the restroom consistent with their gender identity, which would be perfectly legal in 25 states thanks to the patchwork of civil rights laws throughout the United States and inadequate protections under federal law.

Tyler Deaton, senior adviser for the American Unity Fund, which has bolstered the Republican-led Fairness for All Act as an alternative to the Equality Act, said he continues to believe the votes are present for a compromise form of the bill.

“I know for a fact there is a supermajority level of support in the Senate for a version of the Equality Act that is fully protective of both LGBTQ civil rights and religious freedom,” Deaton said. “There is interest on both sides of the aisle in getting something done this Congress.”

Deaton, however, didn’t respond to a follow-up inquiry on what evidence exists of agreeing on this compromise.

Biden has already missed the goal he campaigned on in the 2020 election to sign the Equality Act into law within his first 100 days in office. Although Biden renewed his call to pass the legislation in his speech to Congress last month, as things stand now that appears to be a goal he won’t realize for the remainder of this Congress.

Nor has the Biden administration made the Equality Act an issue for top officials within the administration as it pushes for an infrastructure package as a top priority. One Democratic insider said Louisa Terrell, legislative affairs director for the White House, delegated work on the Equality Act to a deputy as opposed to handling it herself.

To be sure, Biden has demonstrated support for the LGBTQ community through executive action at an unprecedented rate, signing an executive order on day one ordering federal agencies to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Bostock v. Clayton County to the fullest extent possible and dismantling former President Trump’s transgender military ban. Biden also made historic LGBTQ appointments with the confirmation of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rachel Levine as assistant secretary of health.

A White House spokesperson insisted Biden’s team across the board remains committed to the Equality Act, pointing to his remarks to Congress.

“President Biden has urged Congress to get the Equality Act to his desk so he can sign it into law and provide long overdue civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ Americans, and he remains committed to seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible,” the spokesperson said. “The White House and its entire legislative team remains in ongoing and close coordination with organizations, leaders, members of Congress, including the Equality Caucus, and staff to ensure we are working across the aisle to push the Equality Act forward.”

But at least in the near-term, that progress will fall short of fulfilling the promise of updating federal civil rights law with the Equality Act, which will mean LGBTQ people won’t be able to rely on those protections when faced with discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. bill to ban LGBTQ panic defense delayed by Capitol security

Delivery of bill to Congress was held up due to protocols related to Jan. 6 riots

Published

on

New fencing around the Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented some D.C. bills from being delivered to the Hill for a required congressional review. (Blade file photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A bill approved unanimously last December by the D.C. Council to ban the so-called LGBTQ panic defense has been delayed from taking effect as a city law because the fence installed around the U.S. Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented the law from being delivered to Congress.

According to Eric Salmi, communications director for D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who guided the bill through the Council’s legislative process, all bills approved by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor must be hand-delivered to Congress for a required congressional review.

“What happened was when the Capitol fence went up after the January insurrection, it created an issue where we physically could not deliver laws to Congress per the congressional review period,” Salmi told the Washington Blade.

Among the bills that could not immediately be delivered to Congress was the Bella Evangelista and Tony Hunter Panic Defense Prohibition and Hate Crimes Response Amendment Act of 2020, which was approved by the Council on a second and final vote on Dec. 15.

Between the time the bill was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and published in the D.C. Register under procedural requirements for all bills, it was not ready to be transmitted to Congress until Feb. 16, the Council’s legislative record for the bill shows.

Salmi said the impasse in delivering the bill to Congress due to the security fence prevented the bill from reaching Congress on that date and prevented the mandatory 60-day congressional review period for this bill from beginning at that time. He noted that most bills require a 30 legislative day review by Congress.

But the Evangelista-Hunter bill, named after a transgender woman and a gay man who died in violent attacks by perpetrators who attempted to use the trans and gay panic defense, includes a law enforcement related provision that under the city’s Home Rule Charter passed by Congress in the early 1970s requires a 60-day congressional review.

“There is a chance it goes into effect any day now, just given the timeline is close to being up,” Salmi said on Tuesday. “I don’t know the exact date it was delivered, but I do know the countdown is on,” said Salmi, who added, “I would expect any day now it should go into effect and there’s nothing stopping it other than an insurrection in January.”

If the delivery to Congress had not been delayed, the D.C. Council’s legislative office estimated the congressional review would have been completed by May 12.

A congressional source who spoke on condition of being identified only as a senior Democratic aide, said the holdup of D.C. bills because of the Capitol fence has been corrected.

“The House found an immediate workaround, when this issue first arose after the Jan. 6 insurrection,” the aide said.

“This is yet another reason why D.C. Council bills should not be subject to a congressional review period and why we need to grant D.C. statehood,” the aide said.

The aide added that while no disapproval resolution had been introduced in Congress to overturn the D.C. Evangelista-Hunter bill, House Democrats would have defeated such a resolution.

“House Democrats support D.C. home rule, statehood, and LGBTQ rights,” said the aide.

LGBTQ rights advocates have argued that a ban on using a gay or transgender panic defense in criminal trials is needed to prevent defense attorneys from inappropriately asking juries to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression is to blame for a defendant’s criminal act, including murder.

Some attorneys have argued that their clients “panicked” after discovering the person against whom they committed a violent crime was gay or transgender, prompting them to act in a way they believed to be a form of self-defense.

In addition to its provision banning the LGBTQ panic defense, the Evangelista-Hunter bill includes a separate provision that strengthens the city’s existing hate crimes law by clarifying that hatred need not be the sole motivating factor for an underlying crime such as assault, murder, or threats to be prosecuted as a hate crime.

LGBTQ supportive prosecutors have said the clarification was needed because it is often difficult to prove to a jury that hatred is the only motive behind a violent crime. The prosecutors noted that juries have found defendants not guilty of committing a hate crime on grounds that they believed other motives were involved in a particular crime after defense lawyers argued that the law required “hate” to be the only motive in order to find someone guilty of a hate crime.

Salmi noted that while the hate crime clarification and panic defense prohibition provisions of the Evangelista-Hunter bill will become law as soon as the congressional review is completed, yet another provision in the bill will not become law after the congressional review because there are insufficient funds in the D.C. budget to cover the costs of implementing the provision.

The provision gives the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the Office of the D.C. Attorney General authority to investigate hate related discrimination at places of public accommodation. Salmi said the provision expands protections against discrimination to include web-based retailers or online delivery services that are not physically located in D.C.

“That is subject to appropriations,” Salmi said. “And until it is funded in the upcoming budget it cannot be legally enforced.”

He said that at Council member Allen’s request, the Council added language to the bill that ensures that all other provisions of the legislation that do not require additional funding – including the ban on use of the LGBTQ panic defense and the provision clarifying that hatred doesn’t have to be the sole motive for a hate crime – will take effect as soon as the congressional approval process is completed.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. man charged with 2020 anti-gay death threat rearrested

Defendant implicated in three anti-LGBTQ incidents since 2011

Published

on

shooting, DC Eagle, assault, hate crime, anti-gay attack, police discrimination, sex police, Sisson, gay news, Washington Blade

A D.C. man arrested in August 2020 for allegedly threatening to kill a gay man outside the victim’s apartment in the city’s Adams Morgan neighborhood and who was released while awaiting trial was arrested again two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill another man in an unrelated incident.

D.C. Superior Court records show that Jalal Malki, who was 37 at the time of his 2020 arrest on a charge of bias-related attempts to do bodily harm against the gay man, was charged on May 4, 2021 with unlawful entry, simple assault, threats to kidnap and injure a person, and attempted possession of a prohibited weapon against the owner of a vacant house at 4412 Georgia Ave., N.W.

Court charging documents state that Malki was allegedly staying at the house without permission as a squatter. An arrest affidavit filed in court by D.C. police says Malki allegedly threatened to kill the man who owns the house shortly after the man arrived at the house while Malki was inside.

According to the affidavit, Malki walked up to the owner of the house while the owner was sitting in his car after having called police and told him, “If you come back here, I’m going to kill you.” While making that threat Malki displayed what appeared to be a gun in his waistband, but which was later found to be a toy gun, the affidavit says.

Malki then walked back inside the house minutes before police arrived and arrested him. Court records show that similar to the court proceedings following his 2020 arrest for threatening the gay man, a judge in the latest case ordered Malki released while awaiting trial. In both cases, the judge ordered him to stay away from the two men he allegedly threatened to kill.

An arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in the 2020 case states that Malki allegedly made the threats inside an apartment building where the victim lived on the 2300 block of Champlain Street, N.W. It says Malki was living in a nearby building but often visited the building where the victim lived.

“Victim 1 continued to state during an interview that it was not the first time that Defendant 1 had made threats to him, but this time Defendant 1 stated that if he caught him outside, he would ‘fucking kill him.’” the affidavit says. It quotes the victim as saying during this time Malki repeatedly called the victim a “fucking faggot.”

The affidavit, prepared by the arresting officers, says that after the officers arrested Malki and were leading him to a police transport vehicle to be booked for the arrest, he expressed an “excited utterance” that he was “in disbelief that officers sided with the ‘fucking faggot.’”

Court records show that Malki is scheduled to appear in court on June 4 for a status hearing for both the 2020 arrest and the arrest two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill the owner of the house in which police say he was illegally squatting.

Superior Court records show that Malki had been arrested three times between 2011 and 2015 in cases unrelated to the 2021 and 2020 cases for allegedly also making threats of violence against people. Two of the cases appear to be LGBTQ related, but prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not list the cases as hate crimes.

In the first of the three cases, filed in July 2011, Malki allegedly shoved a man inside Dupont Circle and threatened to kill him after asking the man why he was wearing a purple shirt.

“Victim 1 believes the assault occurred because Suspect 1 believes Victim 1 is a homosexual,” the police arrest affidavit says.

Court records show prosecutors charged Malki with simple assault and threats to do bodily harm in the case. But the court records show that on Sept. 13, 2011, D.C. Superior Court Judge Stephen F. Eilperin found Malki not guilty on both charges following a non-jury trial.

The online court records do not state why the judge rendered a not guilty verdict. With the courthouse currently closed to the public and the press due to COVID-related restrictions, the Washington Blade couldn’t immediately obtain the records to determine the judge’s reason for the verdict.

In the second case, court records show Malki was arrested by D.C. police outside the Townhouse Tavern bar and restaurant at 1637 R St., N.W. on Nov. 7, 2012 for allegedly threatening one or more people with a knife after employees ordered Malki to leave the establishment for “disorderly behavior.”

At the time, the Townhouse Tavern was located next door to the gay nightclub Cobalt, which before going out of business two years ago, was located at the corner of 17th and R Streets, N.W.

The police arrest affidavit in the case says Malki allegedly pointed a knife in a threatening way at two of the tavern’s employees who blocked his path when he attempted to re-enter the tavern. The affidavit says he was initially charged by D.C. police with assault with a dangerous weapon – knife. Court records, however, show that prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office lowered the charges to two counts of simple assault. The records show that on Jan. 15, 2013, Malki pleaded guilty to the two charges as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

The records show that Judge Marissa Demeo on that same day issued a sentence of 30 days for each of the two charges but suspended all 30 days for both counts. She then sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for both charges and ordered that he undergo alcohol and drug testing and undergo treatment if appropriate.

In the third case prior to the 2020 and 2021 cases, court records show Malki was arrested outside the Cobalt gay nightclub on March 14, 2015 on multiple counts of simple assault, attempted assault with a dangerous weapon – knife, possession of a prohibited weapon – knife, and unlawful entry.

The arrest affidavit says an altercation started on the sidewalk outside the bar when for unknown reasons, Malki grabbed a female customer who was outside smoking and attempted to pull her toward him. When her female friend came to her aid, Malki allegedly got “aggressive” by threatening the woman and “removed what appeared to be a knife from an unknown location” and pointed it at the woman’s friend in a threatening way, the affidavit says.

It says a Cobalt employee minutes later ordered Malki to leave the area and he appeared to do so. But others noticed that he walked toward another entrance door to Cobalt and attempted to enter the establishment knowing he had been ordered not to return because of previous problems with his behavior, the affidavit says. When he attempted to push away another employee to force his way into Cobalt, Malki fell to the ground during a scuffle and other employees held him on the ground while someone else called D.C. police.

Court records show that similar to all of Malki’s arrests, a judge released him while awaiting trial and ordered him to stay away from Cobalt and all of those he was charged with threatening and assaulting.

The records show that on Sept. 18, 2015, Malki agreed to a plea bargain offer by prosecutors in which all except two of the charges – attempted possession of a prohibited weapon and simple assault – were dropped. Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. on Oct. 2, 2015 sentenced Malki to 60 days of incarnation for each of the two charges but suspended all but five days, which he allowed Malki to serve on weekends, the court records show.

The judge ordered that the two five-day jail terms could be served concurrently, meaning just five days total would be served, according to court records. The records also show that Judge Irving sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for each of the two counts and ordered that he enter an alcohol treatment program and stay away from Cobalt.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular