Connect with us

National

House Dems join fight against DOMA in court

133 lawmakers sign legal brief against anti-gay law

Published

on

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and 132 other Democrats on Thursday joined in the fight to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act in court by filing a legal brief in support of litigation against the anti-gay law.

The friend-of-the court brief was filed in the consolidated case of Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, which is pending before the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief was among 11 filed against DOMA in those cases.

House Democrats contend Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional because it harms LGBT families and their children and it undercuts a state’s right to regulate marriage. The brief also contends Congress acted in 1996 without due consideration in passing the law.

“While nearly seventy-five percent of the public opposed marriage for same-sex couples when Congress enacted DOMA, a majority of Americans now support it,” the brief states. “Amici are part of the communities we represent, and our understanding reflects the same arc of experience, making clear what should have been apparent in 1996: the refusal to recognize the legal marriages of a category of our citizens serves no legitimate federal interest.”

House Democrats also argue Congress’ previous enactment of laws against LGBT people, such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” confirms laws targeting this group warrant heightened scrutiny, or should be looked upon with the assumption they’re unconstitutional.

Pelosi as well as other members of House Democratic leadership — House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) — are among the 133 Democrats who signed the brief. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the sponsors of DOMA repeal legislation, was the lead drafter of the brief.

Also among the signers are the four openly gay members of Congress: Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.).

According to a statement, Pelosi and the main sponsors of the brief intend to make additional filings against DOMA in each of the cases where House Republicans defend the anti-gay statute.

House Democrats are joining the fight against DOMA in court as House Republicans defend the anti-gay law against the litigation. After the U.S. Justice Department announced it would no longer defend DOMA in February, the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted 3-2 along a party-line basis to defend DOMA. House Speaker John Boehner directed House General Counsel Kerry Kircher to take up defense of the statute and hired private attorney Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general under George W. Bush, to assist in defense of the law.

The Gill case, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and the Commonwealth case, filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, arrived at the First Circuit after a district court in Massachusetts last year ruled against DOMA in the litigation. The Obama administration, which was defending DOMA at the time, appealed the cases to the First Circuit.

The other briefs that were submitted to the court were filed by business groups; psychological, medical and social work organizations; historians of marriage; and labor organizations.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics filed a brief contending DOMA is unconstitutional because it undermines ethical provisions that promote transparency and avoid conflicts of interest. Additionally, the organization argues the cost of the anti-gay to the federal government is a reason for striking it down.

Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights project director, said the legal briefs “provide critical and accurate information to the court.”

“They also provide overwhelming evidence for what we’ve been saying since we filed this lawsuit —and what a federal District Court Judge has already declared: there is no justification for depriving only married same-sex couples of the federal protections and responsibilities other married persons receive,” Bonauto said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Results from key Tuesday primary races

Published

on

Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener (Photo courtesy of Scott Wiener)

State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election. 

The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump. 

In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.

In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.

In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.  

The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple. 

Continue Reading

National

White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting

‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’

Published

on

The scene inside April’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner after shots rang out. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.

Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.

“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members. 

She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing. 

Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.  

This post will be updated as more details are announced.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels

New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22

Published

on

(Photo by REDPIXEL.PL/Bigstock)

The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ characters.

On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”

This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”

The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”

It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”

LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.

“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”

Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.

GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.

“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.

“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.

“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”

Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.

“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”

PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.

“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”

This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.

Continue Reading

Popular