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.'”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
