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
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
University students have a right to protest
Former CAMP Rehoboth official sentenced to nine months in prison
Christian Siriano to serve as grand marshal of Annapolis Pride Parade
Md. governor signs Freedom to Read Act
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
