National
Mixed reaction over Verrilli’s Prop 8 arguments
U.S. gov’t attorney doesn’t call for nationwide ruling in favor of marriage
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s arguments before the court on marriage are receiving mixed reviews. (Photo public domain)
The U.S. solicitor general’s performance before the Supreme Court on marriage is receiving mixed reviews amid disappointment that he didn’t overtly say same-sex marriage should be institutionalized nationwide as a result of the cases.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was the sole attorney who argued in both cases before the court — one on California’s Proposition 8, the other on the Defense of Marriage Act. The message was the same for both measures: Laws related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional.
But the nuance in what Verrilli said should be the outcome of the Prop 8 case is noteworthy. Asked by Chief Justice John Roberts whether the administration wants a ruling that would strike down marriage bans across the country, Verrilli declined to give an affirmative answer.
“We are not taking the position that it is required throughout the country,” Verrilli said. “We think that that ought to be left open for a future adjudication in other states that don’t have the situation California has.”
Under later questioning, Verrilli said a state would have to reach a “very heavy burden” to justify a measure similar to Prop 8, but at the same time said a “caution rationale” — presumably a wait-and-see approach to same-sex marriage — would be “one place where we might leave it open.”
Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, said she was “uncomfortable” with Verrilli’s assertion that states may have justification to ban couples from marrying.
“He seemed to suggest that they might actually have a legitimate reason for maintaining the exclusion, and that did not seem necessary to me, given the arguments that he was making,” Goldberg said. “It did not feel right for the government’s attorney to suggest that their might actually be a plausible reason for a state to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.”
Goldberg drew a distinction between the arguments presented by the Justice Department in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases. For DOMA, Goldberg noted the administration hasn’t identified any instance in which the federal anti-gay law would be constitutional.
“That wasn’t the government’s position in the DOMA case even though the government said under the weakest standard of review, DOMA might be upheld,” Goldberg said. “But it did not suggest any of the rationales would be sufficient.”
It should be noted that Verrilli’s arguments in the Prop 8 case are consistent with the friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Justice Department against the California measure. The brief never explicitly says all bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional and instead focuses on Prop 8, which is the question before the court.
Richard Socarides, a gay New York-based advocate, said the presentation of that limited argument on marriage equality is not the fault of Verrilli — whom he said “did a good job” — but is the result of the White House making a political calculation on the Prop 8 case.
“I think that they made some political choices that were not the ones exactly I would have made,” Socarides said. “And I think that some of those came back to haunt them.”
Verrilli noted that California offers gay couples domestic partnerships, suggesting the court should rule that states offering some benefits to gay couples, but not marriage, should instead offer them marriage rights. Legal experts have coined this potential decision as the “nine-state solution.”
But Socarides questioned the wisdom of embracing that position, noting justices seemed disinclined to adopt a ruling saying states that offer some benefits to gay couples aren’t doing enough while leaving other jurisdictions unaffected.
“I think that argument is too clever by half,” Socarides said. “I appreciate the fact that I think the White House was trying to thread the needle there a little bit. It may have served its purpose, but I think in retrospect not the best decision.”
David Gans, civil rights director for the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, found a positive in the limited argument presented by Verrilli: it provides another option to justices unswayed by American Foundation for Equal Rights attorney Ted Olson’s argument in favor of a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
“In some ways, it was a very useful complement to the argument that Ted Olson made,” Gans said. “What Verrilli offered was sort of an alternative. Olson and Verrilli gave them a broader option as well as a narrow one that would decide this case, but not other cases. In light of some of the concern expressed by justices, in the end, it may prove valuable.”
Several legal experts and LGBT advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, declined to comment for this article.
Socarides emphasized the Justice Department has already stepped up to the plate in helping same-sex couples win their rights at the Supreme Court by dropping defense of DOMA and participating in the Prop 8 case.
“I would also emphasize that, I think at this point, we’re really quibbling around the edges and that we want to be very grateful for the work that the Justice Department did and for the president’s support,” Socarides said.
That was a sentiment shared by Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, who commended the Justice Department for its work before the bench and in the briefs that were filed.
“Briefs speak louder than arguments, and the Solicitor General effectively dismantled every argument made in defense of excluding gay couples from marriage and inflicting unequal treatment on married gay couples under so-called DOMA,” Wolfson said. “He repeatedly urged the justices to focus on what is really going on: discrimination against gay people and indefensible denial of the freedom to marry, and when they go back and read his briefs in both cases, the justices will see a strong, clear path forward toward the freedom to marry and repudiation of the impermissible discrimination we have endured for too long.”
Florida
Gay Fla. Democrat Elijah Manley sees opportunity in Trump’s second term
State’s 20th Congressional District’s includes Broward, Palm Beach Counties
Just over two and a half miles from President Donald Trump’s primary residence lies one of Florida’s most reliably Democratic congressional districts. There, a 27-year-old progressive is mounting a campaign centered on resisting what he calls the Trump-Vance administration’s attacks on civil rights, immigrants, and LGBTQ Americans.
Elijah Manley, an openly gay Democrat, sat down with the Washington Blade to discuss why he is running for Florida’s 20th Congressional District, why he believes this moment calls for a new generation of leadership, and what he hopes to accomplish if elected to Congress.
Born and raised in Fort Lauderdale’s historic Sistrunk neighborhood — the city’s oldest African American community — Manley was raised by a single mother who struggled to make ends meet. His family experienced housing insecurity and, at one point, homelessness, experiences he says continue to shape both his politics and his policy priorities.
For Manley, those experiences are precisely what he believes Congress is missing.
“I think now the country is in need of somebody like me, with my story, my lived experience, the struggles I’ve been through in my life. We’re going through a really dark time in the country with the Trump administration coming for our civil rights and an economy that is not working for everybody. In a time where we have MAGA fascism, we need progressive leadership, and we need people who are really going to do the work of fighting back and resisting and obstructing Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans’ agenda in Congress.”
Manley said his campaign is also about ensuring people from marginalized communities — those without wealth, political connections, or institutional backing — have a voice in Congress.
“I think my story sets me aside from everyone else. I’m the only one in this race who has a story to tell voters that lines up with their lived experiences and their struggles. Growing up in poverty and experiencing homelessness was instrumental in developing my worldview and how I fight for people, and I think that’s something that’s absent on Capitol Hill.”
He argues that lived experience offers a perspective often missing on Capitol Hill.
“There are too many lawyers and people coming from professional and political backgrounds. Then you have somebody like me who is rooted in the story of this district. That’s what sets me apart from everyone else in this race.”
According to his campaign website, Manley’s interest in public service dates back to childhood. He cites the election of President Barack Obama as a defining moment that inspired him to pursue politics.
“He was inspired by Barack Obama’s historic election, igniting his passion for public service. He began writing to elected officials, speaking at school board and city council meetings, and advocating for issues affecting his community,” the website states. It goes on to describe his involvement in criminal justice and law magnet programs, Navy JROTC, and hundreds of hours of volunteer service while in high school.
As an openly gay candidate running during Trump’s second administration, Manley said Congress must take a far more aggressive approach to protecting LGBTQ Americans, particularly as Republican-led states continue passing restrictions targeting transgender people.
“I think we need to bring the hammer down on some of these states. I’m not one of these states’ rights people — Congress has the power to preempt laws that states pass through the Supremacy Clause. There’s never been a more important time in our history when we’re seeing fascism, we’re seeing an administration out of control, and we need Congress to act.”
His campaign has also drawn criticism from both Republicans and establishment Democrats for his positions on Gaza, immigration, and his call to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Manley said abolishing ICE does not mean eliminating immigration enforcement altogether.
“I’m not saying there should be no immigration laws. We want laws around immigration, but we want dignity. We don’t need a hypermilitarized, paramilitary group chasing people through the streets, terrorizing communities, churches, schools, and families.”
His personal experiences also inform his healthcare agenda.
“When we talk about healthcare, my experience growing up on Medicaid is seeing the failure of the government to expand Medicaid here in Florida, and now we’re seeing cuts from the Trump administration. I’m not just looking at statistics or numbers on paper — this is based on lived experience. I know how the people in this district are going to be hurt by these policies because I’ve lived it.”
California Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who has generated early buzz as a potential 2028 presidential contender for his “progressive capitalist” approach to governing, has endorsed Manley’s campaign, giving the first-time congressional candidate one of his highest-profile endorsements.
Manley faces six other Democrats in the primary, including U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, along with four Republican candidates in the general election field. Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from Congress ahead of a potential expulsion and is running again while facing federal criminal charges.
Despite running as the youngest candidate in the field, Manley said he hopes voters leave the race remembering one thing above all else.
“I want people to remember bold and authentic leadership. I want them to know I’m running because I’ve been through what people are going through right now — and it’s not that I’ve been through it, I’m actually still going through it. We need bold people who are going to fight for everybody and stand up for what’s right, and that’s what I hope voters see when they go to the polls.”
Florida
Former Fla. gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum arrested on drug charges
Democrat narrowly lost to DeSantis in 2018, later came out as bisexual
Andrew Gillum, the former Democratic nominee for governor of Florida and former mayor of Tallahassee, was arrested on drug possession charges in Alabama last week.
Police in Daphne, Ala., said they pulled Gillum over for erratic driving and found marijuana and methamphetamine in his vehicle. He was charged with possession of marijuana and unlawful possession of a controlled substance, according to the Daphne Police Department. Jail records show he was arrested on July 2 and released on July 3, the Associated Press reports.
Gillum, the first Black nominee of a major political party for governor in Florida, lost the 2018 election to current Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in a highly contentious race.
Once considered a rising star in national politics, Gillum served in Tallahassee’s local government, first as a city commissioner and then as mayor of Florida’s capital from 2014- 2018.
The Daphne Police Department said officers stopped Gillum’s vehicle around 10:45 p.m. and initiated a probable cause search after one officer noticed a glass pipe on the center console.
During the search, officers found several rolled marijuana cigarettes and three packages containing a substance that tested positive for methamphetamine, police said.
The day after his arrest he was charged with possession of dangerous drugs, use or possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana.
In 2020, Gillum was involved in a similar incident when he was found in a Miami Beach, Fla., hotel room with a man identified as an escort who had apparently overdosed on drugs. Police also found three bags of suspected crystal methamphetamine in the room. The man survived, and no one was ever charged with a crime.
Later that year, Gillum came out as bisexual during an appearance on “The Tamron Hall Show,” where he discussed his struggles with drug and alcohol addiction and his decision to seek treatment following the 2020 incident.
In the same interview he shed light onto this, saying his substance use was a byproduct of the emotional struggles he experienced after losing the 2018 gubernatorial race to DeSantis.
This is not the first time Gillum has faced legal scrutiny.
During his 2014 mayoral campaign, he faced allegations of misconduct after hiring private equity investor Adam Corey as his campaign treasurer, raising questions about a potential conflict of interest. However, the FBI ultimately concluded there was no conflict of interest.
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia murder suspect remains at large
Two killed, one injured in attacks motivated by victims’ sexual orientation
Police seek the public’s support in finding a suspect wanted in connection with three Philadelphia shootings, including two murders, who may have targeted his victims because they were gay. All three shootings took place near Hunting Park Recreation Center between May 29 and June 26.
The suspect is 21-year-old Jahylin Melchur, who has not been located by police and is not in police custody as of July 7. Police seek the public’s support in tracking down the suspect, whose image was captured on surveillance cameras. Previous reporting underlined that Melchur should be considered armed and dangerous.
Each of the victims was found partially clothed between 10 and 11 p.m.
On May 29, a 55-year-old in Juniata Park was found two miles from the rec center. The victim, who survived the encounter with critical injuries, said a man approached him and announced his intention to rob him, before shooting him in the elbow and torso.
Martin Higgins, 45, was pronounced dead on the bleachers of the rec center’s baseball field on June 20, suffering from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. Sharef Holman, 29, was found near the basketball courts on June 26, suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. He was transported to Temple University Hospital but died shortly thereafter.
Deputy Police Commissioner Frank Vanore declined to answer the Philadelphia Inquirer’s question regarding whether the victims may have met Melchur on a dating app, citing the ongoing investigation. Sources told the Philadelphia Inquirer that investigators are exploring this possibility
Although robbery may be at least part of the motive in the first shooting, other movies are unclear.
NBC10 reported that law enforcement sources told the station all three victims were targeted because they were gay, but the Philadelphia Police Department did not confirm this.
The Philadelphia Police Department replied to PGN’s questions with an email stating, “This remains a very active investigation, and investigators are looking at all aspects of the case, including underlying motivations for committing these crimes.
“At this point, we can confirm that Melchur is wanted for two homicides by shooting and one non-fatal shooting, all of which occurred in the Hunting Park area.
“The investigation has not established that the victims were specifically targeted because of their sexual orientation.”
The Philadelphia Police Department is urging anyone with information to contact the Homicide Unit at 215-686-3334 or submit an anonymous tip by calling the PPD Tip Line at 215-686-TIPS (8477).
(This story is republished with permission of the Philadelphia Gay News.)
Campaign launched to elect more LGBTQ candidates to ANC seats
Gay librarian to discuss new novel at Green Lantern
Calendar: July 10-16
Gay Fla. Democrat Elijah Manley sees opportunity in Trump’s second term
Ron Singer, owner of popular Mount Vernon gay bar Leon’s, dies
In Trump’s divided America, Michael Weinstein’s AHF responds
Turkish authorities refuse to allow gay cruise to dock in country
When a church fears the rainbow
PHOTOS: Crush Dance Bar
