National
Hawaii court upholds same-sex marriage ban
Judge cites interest in procreation as reason to ban marriage equality
A district judge in Hawaii upheld the state’s same-sex marriage ban
A federal district court in Hawaii has upheld the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a ruling that stands in stark contrast to recent multiple decisions that have struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8.
In the 120-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Alan Kay determined the Aloha State’s ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional because Hawaii has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to straight couples.
“The legislature could rationally speculate that by reserving the name ‘marriage’ to opposite-sex couples, Hawaii’s marriage laws provide special promotion and encouragement to enter into those relationships advancing societal interests while the civil unions laws protect the individual interests of same-sex couples,” Kay writes. “In the absence of a suspect or quasi-suspect classification or a restriction on a fundamental right, the Fourteenth Amendment does not require Hawaii to endorse all intimate relationships on identical terms.”
The lawsuit, known as Jackson v. Abercrombie, was filed in December by D’Amato and Maloney, LLP, a Honolulu-based firm, on behalf of three plaintiffs: Natasha Jackson and Janin Kleid, two women in a same-sex relationship, and Gary Bradley, who’s in a civil union with his male partner.
Kay lays out numerous reasons for upholding the ban, including the idea that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples ensures procreation and promotes the ideal family situation of having a mother and father. Additionally, Kay rules that to “constitutionalize” the issue in the courts would interfere with the process taking place in the legislature.
“Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue,” Kay writes. “If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by Plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.”
An appointee of former President Reagan, Kay draws on the case of Baker v. Nelson, the 1972 marriage case that the Supreme Court declined to hear for want of federal questions, as a reason to uphold the ban, but declines to incorporate rulings against California’s Proposition 8 in the case of Perry v. Brown in his determination.
The decision upholding a state’s marriage ban is relatively unique amid a string of victories against California’s Proposition 8 and DOMA. Within the course of three years, a district court and an appeals court have ruled against California’s marriage ban, while five district courts, one appeals court and one bankruptcy court have ruled against DOMA.
Douglas NeJaime, who’s gay and a professor at Loyola Law School, said the constitutionality of DOMA and the federal constitutionality of Hawaii’s prohibition on same-sex marriage present materially different questions, but acknowledged the court notably departs from recent rulings by finding that Baker v. Nelson governs and by accepting arguments rooted in procreation.
“The other notable thing is that the court takes the Ninth Circuit at its word when it said that Perry applies only to the specific and unique situation of California, such that — as opposed to what many have been suggesting, including social-conservative activists – the Perry decision did not necessarily decide the issue for states like Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and Nevada,” NeJaime said.
The ruling comes in a state that arguably is the birthplace of the modern movement for same-sex marriage. In early 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that refusing to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses is discriminatory. Backlash followed, including the passage of a voter referendum in 1998 allowing the state legislature to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. The events in Hawaii also were an impetus for passage of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.
Still, Hawaii has seen recent movement granting legal recognition to same-sex couples. Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) signed civil unions legislation into law last year. Further, he announced in February he wouldn’t defend the same-sex marriage ban in court, while Health Director Loretta Fuddy said she’d continue defending the amendment.
An anti-gay group was happy with the decision. Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which took up defense of the marriage ban after Abercrombie declined to defend it, praised the ruling.
“This ruling affirms that protecting and strengthening marriage as the union of one man and one woman is legitimate, reasonable, and good for society,” Schowengerdt said. “The people of Hawaii adopted a constitutional amendment to uphold marriage, and the court rightly concluded that the democratic process shouldn’t be short-circuited by judicial decree.”
But proponents of the lawsuit said they were eagerly awaiting an appeal in the case.
John D’Amato, partner and co-founder D’Amato and Maloney, said he’s “disappointed” in the ruling and plans to appeal. The court that would have jurisdiction for appeal would be the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already ruled against California’s same-sex marriage ban.
“The judge basically found in every conceivable point for defendants in the case, including on arguments that we find personally objectionable, which is that it’s OK to treat same-sex couples as second-class citizens because they make second-rate parents,” D’Amato said. “He didn’t need to reach that issue, and the fact that he did, we find, frankly, appalling.”
Following the ruling, Abercrombie issued a statement saying he’d back an appeal.
“I respectfully disagree and will join the Plaintiffs if they appeal this decision,” Abercrombie said. “To refuse individuals the right to marry on the basis of sexual orientation or gender is discrimination in light of our civil unions law. For me this is about fairness and equality.”
Donald Bentz, executive director of Equality Hawaii, said the court ruling against marriage equality was expected given “this particular judge’s temperament,” but added he’s eagerly awaiting an appeal in the case.
“Judge Kay cited a 40-year-old case and antiquated beliefs such as straights make better parents and marriage is for breeding children,” Bentz said. “The flawed and out-of-date logic begs for an appeal, which we are eagerly awaiting. This is not a set-back, but an anticipated speed bump. The question is still ‘when will marriage equality will come to Hawaii?,’ not ‘if.'”
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
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.
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
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.
Federal Government
Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels
New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22
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.
Results from key Tuesday primary races
AIDS Healthcare Foundation announces 3 million people globally in its care
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
JR.’s hosts meet & greet for mayoral candidate Janeese Lewis George
