Connect with us

Opinions

Supreme Court considers taking marriage cases

‘We are better people than what these laws represent’

Published

on

movement, gay news, Washington Blade
mass wedding, same-sex marriage, gay marriage, Supreme Court, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, Prop 8, DOMA, gay news, LGBT, Washington Blade, marriage equality

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss seven petitions from five different states today urging the Court to decide the constitutionality of state laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage on a nationwide basis. The Supreme Court has complete discretion over whether or not to take a case. And no one knows if the Court will decide whether to take any of the cases at this time or defer its decision until a future conference this fall. Indeed, the Court will have a lot to cover at its first conference with 53 petitions in other cases on its schedule as well. However, we could learn possibly as early as Tuesday whether the Court will take up the issue of the freedom to marry nationwide this term, with a substantive, definitive decision likely in June 2015.

The momentum toward marriage equality in the courts has accelerated at breakneck speed in the just over a year since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Windsor invalidated Section 3 of the misnamed “Defense of Marriage Act,” a statute that prohibited the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples validly performed in states with marriage equality. Since Windsor, 27 federal courts have found state bans to be unconstitutional, with only one lower federal court upholding such a ban. Significantly, all four federal appellate decisions, from which the seven petitions to the Supreme Court come, favor equality. Judges ruling for the freedom to marry include appointees of Presidents Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama. Federal District Judge Richard Young of Indiana described in his ruling the winning streak as a phenomenon “never” before “witnessed … throughout the federal court system ….” Similarly, 13 state courts have ruled in favor of marriage equality, with only one opposed.

The petitions before the Supreme Court arise out of federal appeals court decisions striking down five states’ marriage bans: Indiana (7th Circuit), Oklahoma (10th Circuit), Utah (10th Circuit), Virginia (4th Circuit), and Wisconsin (7th Circuit). All of the cases present the issue of whether or not a state may prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. However, the cases differ as well, and the justices likely will be considering these differences in determining which case or cases to take. Attorneys for same-sex couples in each of the cases have argued the particular circumstances of their individual cases make them desirable for review.

One difference in the cases is that the Oklahoma case raises only the issue of whether a state may ban same-sex couples from marrying under its state laws, while the other states’ cases also involve challenges to whether a state must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples validly married in other states. If the Supreme Court were to strike down state marriage bans nationwide, the Court would not need to decide if and when one state must recognize marriages performed in other states. Alternatively, if the Court declined to decide the issue nationwide or upheld state marriage bans, the issue of recognition of out of state marriages could be very important.

The various states’ laws at issue in the petitions also differ. For instance, Wisconsin permits same-sex couples to enter into domestic partnerships, affording them limited legal rights, while the other states with petitions before the Court do not. The wording of the marriage bans and the history of the political campaigns to pass them vary from state to state. Procedural histories of the cases differ as well. For instance, in Virginia, the Attorney General, representing the state defendant agrees that the ban is unconstitutional, and local county clerks are defending the state ban. In the other states, the state has uniformly defended the bans. The attorneys in each case differ, too, and include lawyers from groups who have been advocating for LGBT equality for decades, such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and the ALCU.

The legal bases for striking down the bans also differ between the various federal appellate decisions before the Court. The appellate courts in the Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia cases invalidated those state bans on the grounds that that they violated same-sex couples’ “fundamental right to marry,” while the appellate court in the Indiana and Wisconsin cases struck down those states’ bans on the grounds that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are entitled to elevated scrutiny under the Constitution. Windsor held that DOMA violated the Constitution’s guarantees of both liberty and equality. Both issues, and very possibly whether the bans constitute unlawful sex discrimination, will doubtlessly be argued before the Court regardless of which case or cases it takes. However, the Justices may consider the logic or rationale of one or more of the appellate court decisions particularly useful for review.

Two additional federal appellate circuits will likely weigh in this fall as well. The Sixth Circuit heard cases arising out of marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee in early August, and the Ninth Circuit heard cases from Idaho and Nevada in early September. From relevant circuit court precedent and the questions and comments the judges made at oral argument, most observers believe the Ninth Circuit will very likely rule in favor of equality, but the outcome of the Sixth Circuit cases is much harder to predict.

In remarks last week at the University of Minnesota, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fueled speculation that the Court might wait to determine whether or not to take a case until the Sixth Circuit rules. She stated that there would be “no need for [the Supreme Court] to rush” if the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the freedom to marry, as all the other circuits who have addressed the issue since Windsor have. However, she said that a Sixth Circuit ruling against equality would create “some urgency” for the Court to step in. The Supreme Court often takes cases to resolve disputes among the circuits.

Further, the Supreme Court will take a case if four of the nine justices vote to hear it. The Supreme Court has stayed decisions in the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits from taking effect until final resolution of the cases. If the Sixth and Ninth Circuits were also to rule in favor of equality, most observers believe it unlikely that the four justices who dissented in Windsor would simply let all the petitions be dismissed by voting to deny review — effectively permitting marriage equality in 20 additional states located in those circuits. But if the Supreme Court held the petitions until a circuit court ruled against the freedom to marry, many thousands of LGBT Americans could have to wait even longer for a decision. Regardless of how the Sixth Circuit rules, the issue of marriage equality is, in fact, “urgent,” for LGBT Americans, many of whom have been together for decades without legal recognition and protection.

Many of us would love to be a proverbial “fly on the wall” at the justices’ conference chamber, but we will of course have to wait until the Court makes public its decisions from the conference either later this week or on Oct. 6, the official beginning of the new term. Federal District Judge John E. Jones III, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion, invalidating Pennsylvania’s marriage ban: “We are better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.” That time cannot come too soon.

John Lewis is legal and policy director for Marriage Equality USA.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

There is no Pride in detention

LGBTQ refugees, asylum seekers in detention struggle to survive

Published

on

The American flag flies outside the Adams County Correctional Center, a privately-run U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Natchez, Miss., in 2020. (Washington Blade photo by Yariel Valdés González)

“There Is No Pride in Detention” is the name of a campaign led by Rainbow Migration, the British organization to which I contribute as part of an advisory panel.

The campaign, launched during Pride Month, highlights the fact that an unknown number of LGBTQ people are held in immigration detention in the UK. They are detained without courts or judges, in prison-like conditions, often for an unlimited amount of time.

Although detention is officially meant to be used only when someone is about to be removed from the UK, in practice most detainees are eventually released. Their detention serves no meaningful purpose other than isolation and trauma.

The campaign made me think about LGBTQ refugees in other Western countries, especially the U.S. Immigration enforcement there, particularly under Trump-era and broader MAGA-aligned politics, has become increasingly brutal toward LGBTQ refugees. The UK has its own problems, but still a very different and less problematic system in tone and practice from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

British policing, for all its flaws, is generally far more restrained than many other systems I have encountered. UK police tend to be procedural, British policemen are generally polite, and reluctant to use force compared to what is common elsewhere. Most British policemen don’t even carry weapons if they are not dealing with a specific danger case. ICE, by contrast, has a well-documented record of brutality, aggressive attacks in detention settings and immigration facilities.

ICE does not meaningfully distinguish between queer refugees, asylum seekers, or people labelled in official rhetoric as “illegal aliens,” “drug dealers,” or “gang members.” In practice, they are all treated as deportable and faced the same level of brutality. Human rights organisations have documented widespread abuse, medical neglect, and high levels of physical and sexual violence in detention facilities, as well as verbal and physical abuse that was homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or racist in nature. Transgender detainees are especially vulnerable due to systemic transphobia and lack of protection.

There is a real risk that people like me — trans refugees — could end up in these systems. I am a refugee in the UK, having arrived in 2018, but the U.S. was originally the country I most wanted to reach. I have idealized the U.S. since I was a child. I was obsessed with American mass culture as a kid, followed American politics closely as a teen, and as a young adult had more American friends than local ones, and tried to understand post-Soviet politics through American diplomatic literature, including Henry Kissinger.

In 2018, I was invited to speak at a disability rights conference in the U.S. about queer autistic people in the post-USSR. At the time, I was under pressure from Russian authorities, and my hometown of Donetsk in Ukraine was already under occupation. So, of course, I intended to apply for asylum in the U.S.

Ironically, I am now grateful my visa was denied and I never made it to that conference. I was devastated at the time, but in hindsight it may have saved me from something far worse. There is an old joke: if you are late for a trip, don’t worry, you might just be late for the Titanic.

I don’t doubt I would have been able to adapt socially in the U.S. more than I adapt to Ukraine and Russia. But it doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t protect people from ICE. No one deserves the brutality reported in detention facilities, no matter how governments choose to frame them.

One example is Andry José Hernández Romero, a 31-year-old gay makeup artist who fled persecution in Venezuela. He was detained by ICE in March 2025 and deported to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador under allegations of gang affiliation. These claims were based largely on his nationality and the fact that he had tattoos, despite experts — from a criminology professor to a Venezuelan journalist who wrote a book about the gang — noting there is no reliable evidence that the Tren de Aragua gang uses identifiable tattoos. Hernández’s case seemed like something from a dark campy movie, because his “gang” tattoos were just ordinary tattoos on his hands that read “mom” and “dad.”

There’re too many other documented cases of abuse in U.S. immigration detention centers, including forced labor. 

At the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, La., detainees reported being recruited into work programs where they were paid as little as 1$ per day. Others describe harassment, sexual violence, physical abuse, and separation of same-sex families. In some cases, people attending legal asylum appointments were detained and placed into deportation proceedings.

While the UK remains comparatively more protective in some respects, recent political shifts that became obvious after the local elections in May, are deeply worrying. The rise of far-right politics, combined with increasingly restrictive immigration policies, suggests a broader global trend.

The UK Home Office has also introduced visa restrictions affecting certain countries, including Afghanistan. This has had a severe impact on Afghan women, including lesbians and bisexual women, for whom study or work visas were often the only realistic escape from Taliban rule.

This creates a situation where some of the most vulnerable people are blocked from safety pathways before they can even reach asylum systems.

Meanwhile, in both the UK and the U.S., Pride Month is increasingly marked by symbolic gestures: councils scaling back support for events, corporations quietly stepping away from visible engagement. But for LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers, the reality is far darker.

For those in detention — or at risk of detention — Pride is not a celebration even if all corporate support and all pride parades were in place. For them, this month would be just another month to survive anyway, with or without rainbow flags on a street. And maybe we need to concentrate on their problems more than we’re concentrating on the lack of rainbow corporation logos.

Because there is no Pride in detention.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Why I’m supporting Gary Goodweather for D.C. mayor

In a word, longtime local resident has the character for the job

Published

on

Gary Goodweather (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Hey fellow LGBTQ+ Democrats, this is worth reading! Especially if you’re a voter in Washington, D.C. who’s planning to cast a ballot for the nomination of local candidates in the District of Columbia in 2026.

Because next Tuesday June 16 is a really Big Deal for D.C. Democrats. It’s the first time in two decades that the doors to filling the crucially important job of mayor are wide open because no incumbent is on the ballot. 

That is, Mayor Muriel Bowser is not running for election. Instead she will — at last, and after three terms in office — symbolically ride off into the political sunset. And to considerable and well deserved applause. Because she’s been rightly lauded for many important accomplishments, including her well documented record of supporting the many diverse issues concerning the LGBTQ+ community. 

But she’s been equally derided for her far too spineless a record recently, of (not) effectively opposing President Donald Trump and his outrageous stationing of outsider National Guard armed troops all across D.C. This despicably sad state of affairs has been a grim statement that Washington, D.C. (not being a state) is subject to the Donald’s feral instincts for nastily mean-spirited retributions. But she’s been meek and mild, and even actively complicit with Trump, when other mayors have told Trump to buzz off. And they succeeded.

But enough about Mayor Bowser. Her “sell by date” fast approaches. The old order changes. And a new day dawns. 

Next Tuesday, two candidates of this old (and by now seriously outmoded) order seek to win the coveted Democratic nomination for mayor on June 16.  First, there’s Janeese Lewis George, who’s a great first or second choice by any measure. And (ahem) then there’s Kenyan McDuffie.

But this is Ranked Choice Voting and it’s brand new. It’s not “either/or” binary, just like we now appreciate that sexual orientation and identity are also non-binary.  

My first choice is clear because I know him. His name is Gary Goodweather. But so, who is this outsider candidate for mayor anyway?

It goes like this. First, together with his remarkable wife, successful D.C. Realtor Meredith Margolis, Gary and their two college age kids are all 20-year residents of Dupont Circle.  I actually first met Gary and Meredith a year ago at a BBQ event, when he was a speaker at the historic, progressive, feminist Woman’s National Democratic Club. 

So once again, who’s this Gary Goodweather? And why should you seriously consider him for your personal first or second or even third choice?

Here’s why.  He’s new to politics in the conventional old paradigm of “politics.” But he knows Washington, D.C. forwards and backwards and inside and out. Because he’s been involved for many years in successful local private sector business investments, including the development of neighborhood-based BIDs, or Business Improvement Districts including the one in NoMa.

And his thinking is typically “out-of-the box.” For example, he’s currently an actual active advocate for establishing agriculture in our densely populated urban environment —  through so-called “tiered gardens.” Yes, D.C., trust me, this is an actual thing. And yes, it requires street smarts to deal with challenging zoning issues; but it’s a real example of what fresh blood and new thinking and real imagination can bring to our hogtied and often over-regulated city.

Gary was in the U.S. Army and the National Guard for four years as a captain in the armored command.  He earned his MBA in finance from Johns Hopkins University in night school. 

If elected, Gary would be D.C.’s first Jewish mayor. (His is Reform Judaism. Repair the breach!)

He’s become my friend and I admire his intelligence and diligence and imagination and in a word his character. 

Here’s what he said to me about what he calls his political North Star: “All D.C. residents should be protected, regardless of who they love. Love is love. Love who you want. Identify how you choose to be.”

Look, it’s always time for good weather in our city. Maybe it’s time for Gary Goodweather as mayor too. First choice or second choice. Then let’s all see what happens next.


David Hoffman is a freelance writer and retired federal government civil servant. He is a longtime resident of the H Street Northeast corridor. He is a member of both the Woman’s National Democratic Club and DSA, Democratic Socialists of America Metro DC chapter. 

Continue Reading

Opinions

Don’t just vote for change — vote for Hope Solomon for mayor

LGBTQ community isn’t separate from Washington’s story — it is our story

Published

on

Hope Solomon

My name is Hope Solomon, and I’m running for mayor of Washington, D.C.

I’ve spent my entire life here. I attended D.C. Public Schools. I grew up working in my family’s small business here in D.C. I live in Dupont Circle. For 17 years, I worked in national security with the Department of Defense, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security. Then last July, I got DOGE’d by Elon Musk.

I don’t recommend it as a career strategy.

But it did give me something I hadn’t had in a long time: perspective.

For the first time in years, I had space to slow down and ask a simple question: Why does it feel like Washington is being run by the same small group of people playing musical chairs, while everyone else is just expected to live with the results?

That’s when I decided to run.

I wasn’t raised in Washington’s political circles. I was raised in Washington. There’s a difference.

Some of my earliest memories are going to see the AIDS Quilt on the National Mall with my mother. I didn’t fully understand it at the time, but I understood enough to know it mattered—because it made something the country had been trying not to see completely impossible to ignore.

My family’s version of a home-cooked meal has always been Annie’s or Mr. Henry’s. I grew up going to Pride, the High Heel Race, drag brunches, and drag shows. As a kid, I thought that was just what cities were like—sequins, show tunes, queens, neighbors, everything mixed together.

Turns out that wasn’t every city.

It was Washington.

The arts shaped me just as much as anything else. I started at Fillmore Arts Center, trained for years with the Washington School of Ballet, and performed across the city—from the Kennedy Center to Warner Theatre to Lisner Auditorium.

The arts taught me discipline and confidence. But more than that, they taught me something Washington has always understood: A city works when people are free to be exactly who they are.

Growing up here, LGBTQ+ Washingtonians were my neighbors, my teachers, fellow business owners, artists, friends, and family.

They helped build the Washington I know.

And that’s why this moment matters.

Washington is facing a budget crisis. Small businesses are struggling. The federal government is openly hostile toward our city. But what worries me most isn’t just policy—it’s whether we lose what makes Washington itself while trying to fix it.

Because the soul of this city is in places like Annie’s. It’s in neighborhood restaurants, small theaters, Pride celebrations, independent businesses, and the people who make this city feel like home.

As mayor, I’ll fight to protect that. I’ll stand up for LGBTQ+ rights, support LGBTQ+ youth, invest in the arts, strengthen public safety, and back the small businesses that keep our neighborhoods alive.

Most importantly, I’ll lead with the understanding that the LGBTQ+ community isn’t separate from Washington’s story.

It is Washington’s story.

If you want another career politician, you’ve got plenty of options.

If you want someone who was shaped by this city, believes in this city, and is ready to fight for this city, I’m asking for your vote.

Learn more at HopeForDC.com. On Election Day, don’t just vote for change. Vote for Hope.


Hope Solomon is a candidate for D.C. mayor.

Continue Reading

Popular