Connect with us

Local

D.C. Appeals Court hears gay marriage case

City defends law halting effort to repeal same-sex marriage law

Published

on

Same-sex marriage opponents Rev. Anthony Evans, left, and Bishop Harry Jackson talk Tuesday outside the D.C. Court of Appeals. A case before the court could force the city to put its same-sex marriage law before voters in a ballot initiative. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

In what legal observers called an unusual development, the full nine-judge D.C. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Monday for a lawsuit seeking to force the city to put its same-sex marriage law before voters in a ballot initiative.

At issue is whether a 1970s amendment to the D.C. City Charter that allows voters to pass or repeal laws through an initiative or referendum can legally include a provision banning such ballot measures if they would take away rights from minorities.

The City Council added the provision to the charter amendment at the request of gay activists. The effort by same-sex marriage opponents to challenge the provision represents the first time it has been seriously questioned in more than 30 years.

All but two of the judges asked pointed questions that appeared to challenge the legal arguments presented by the lawyers on both sides of the case, taking on the role of devil’s advocate.

“The court asked a variety of probing questions, as they should have,” said Thomas Williamson, an attorney with Covington & Burling, which filed a friend of the court brief on the side of the D.C. government in defense of the law restricting ballot measures.

“But it seemed that a consistent theme in their questions was a sensitivity to the importance of protecting civil rights of a vulnerable minority, which is really what this case is about here — the right of same-sex couples to enjoy marriage and have the same status for their marriage as all other citizens of the District,” Williamson said.

Five of the nine judges, including Chief Judge Eric Washington, were appointed by President George W. Bush. President Bill Clinton appointed the remaining four.

Williamson and local gay rights attorney Mark Levine said it’s unusual for the Court of Appeals to hear a case for the first time en banc, or with all of its judges, instead of its usual practice of assigning a three-judge panel to hear a case.

One significant outcome of an en banc case is that the full court has the authority to overturn previous decisions it handed down either en banc or through a three-judge panel if the previous rulings would interfere with its intentions in a current case. Williamson said one possible ruling the court might overturn in the current case over the D.C. same-sex marriage law is the 1990s case known as Dean v. the District of Columbia.

In that case, the appeals court rejected a claim by a gay male couple that the city’s existing marriage law allowed for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of the Human Rights Act’s ban on discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. At that time, the court ruled that the marriage law restricting marriages to opposite-sex couples took precedence over the Human Rights Law.

In recent years, gay rights attorneys and D.C. government officials have argued that the Dean decision was no longer relevant because the City Council had since made sweeping changes to the marriage law, providing extensive rights, including marriage, for same-sex couples.

Austin Nimocks, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian litigation group, argued the case Tuesday for Bishop Harry Jackson and other local opponents of same-sex marriage who filed the lawsuit seeking a ballot measure to overturn the gay marriage law.

Jackson initially filed his lawsuit before the D.C. Superior Court last fall, after the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics rejected his application for a voter initiative calling for defining marriage in D.C. as the union between one man and one woman. The board ruled that the initiative would violate the provision added to the referendum and initiative law that bans such ballot measures if they would result in discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Act.

The effect of the initiative, if approved by voters, would be to repeal the same-sex marriage law that the City Council passed and Mayor Adrian Fenty signed in December. The law took effect March 3 after it cleared a required 30 legislative day review by Congress.

Jackson then filed suit seeking to overturn the election board’s decision. In January, Superior Court Judge Judith Macaluso upheld the election board’s decision, saying the law cited by the city to ban such ballot measures was valid.

Tuesday’s hearing before the D.C. Court of Appeals came about after Jackson and his supporters appealed Macaluso’s ruling.

Nimocks sidestepped reporters’ questions about the appeals court judge’s comments, including those who challenged his arguments. He said after the hearing that his side is correct in claiming the 30-year-old provision in the D.C. Charter barring certain ballot measures violates the full District of Columbia Charter.

The city’s charter is considered to be equivalent to a state constitution, and legal experts say all laws enacted by the City Council and signed by the mayor must be consistent with any restrictions or limits set by the charter.

Nimocks argued before the court Tuesday that the charter amendment that created the city’s voter initiative and referendum system sets just one restriction on such ballet measures: a ban on voters directly deciding on matters related city funding or taxes.

He said the charter amendment, which the City Council passed and Congress approved, doesn’t allow further restrictions that would prevent a ballot measure seeking to curtail minority rights.

“The people have a right to vote that’s guaranteed by the District of Columbia Charter,” he said. “And the City Council cannot amend the charter. They cannot do anything to undermine the people’s right to vote.”

In his written brief, Nimocks also argued that the Dean case was still a factor that the appeals court should consider.

Todd Kim, the D.C. Solicitor General who argued on behalf of the city, told the court the charter amendment establishing the initiative and referendum system gives the City Council authority to make some changes in the system to carry out its “purpose.”

Kim noted that the Council wrote the charter amendment and that part of the purpose in creating it was to place certain restrictions consistent with longstanding city policy, including policies related to rights of minorities. The D.C. Human Rights Act, which was in place at that time, included a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation, Kim said, indicating the city’s overall policy and purpose was to protect the rights of gays and lesbians along with other minorities.

He also noted that Congress approved the charter amendment through its normal 30 legislative day review, further solidifying its status as a valid law.

In another development that pleased gay activists attending Tuesday’s appeals court hearing, Judge Phyllis Thompson, a Bush appointee, pointed out that D.C. voters approved a statehood constitution in the early 1980s that included a provision banning initiatives and referenda that would take away rights of minorities, including gays.

Thompson appeared to be challenging Nimocks’ arguments that voters should have the right to decide on the gay marriage law by noting that D.C. voters approved the ban on ballot measures seeking to take away rights for gays and others.

Legal experts have said the statehood constitution passed by voters had no legal standing because D.C. statehood — which many D.C. residents favored in the 1980s — could not come about without approval by Congress. Congress never took the proposal seriously.

But Levine and Williamson said Thompson’s decision to raise the issued shows that she, and possibly a number of her colleagues on the appeals court, are sympathetic to the city law banning ballot measure that would take away rights, including the right of same-sex couples to marry in D.C.

“Marriage equality has already brought critical rights and responsibilities to hundreds of same-sex couples, yet outside forces are determined to undo our progress,” said Aisha Mills, president of the Campaign for All D.C. Families, one of the local groups that lobbied for a same-sex marriage law.

“As the courts have uniformly recognized in upholding D.C.’s comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, no one should have to have their marriages — or any of their civil rights — put to a public vote,” she said.

Jackson was among more than a hundred spectators to attend Tuesday’s appeals court hearing. The spectators appeared to be equally divided between same-sex marriage opponents and supporters, with many of the city’s prominent LGBT activists in attendance.

In addition to Washington and Thompson, the appeals court members include Judges Vanessa Ruiz, Inez Smith Reid and Stephen Glickman, who are Clinton appointees, and Judges John Kramer, John Fisher, Anna Blackbourne-Rigsby and Kathryn Oberly, who are Bush appointees.

Court observers say a decision on the marriage case could come anytime between the next several months and more than a year. The losing party could appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but many legal observers believe the high court would be unlikely to take the case.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Virginia

Walkinshaw wins Democratic primary in Va. 11th Congressional District

Special election winner will succeed Gerry Connolly

Published

on

James Walkinshaw(Photo public domain)

On Saturday, Fairfax County Supervisor James Walkinshaw won the Democratic primary for the special election that will determine who will represent Virginia’s 11th Congressional District.

The special election is being held following the death of the late Congressman Gerry Connolly, who represented the district from 2008 until 2024, when he announced his retirement, and subsequently passed away from cancer in May.

Walkinshaw is not unknown to Virginia’s 11th District — he has served on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors since 2020 and had served as Connolly’s chief of staff from 2009 to 2019. Before he passed away, Connolly had endorsed Walkinshaw to take his place, claiming that choosing Walkinshaw to be his chief of staff was “one of the best decisions I ever made.”

The Democratic nominee has run his campaign on mitigating Trump’s “dangerous” agenda of dismantling the federal bureaucracy, which in the district is a major issue as many of the district’s residents are federal employees and contractors.

“I’m honored and humbled to have earned the Democratic nomination for the district I’ve spent my career serving,” Walkinshaw said on X. “This victory was powered by neighbors, volunteers, and supporters who believe in protecting our democracy, defending our freedoms, and delivering for working families.”

In addition to protecting federal workers, Walkinshaw has a long list of progressive priorities — some of which include creating affordable housing, reducing gun violence, expanding immigrant protections, and “advancing equality for all” by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the Fair Housing Act.

Various democratic PACs contributed more than $2 million to Walkinshaw’s ad campaigns, much of which touted his connection to Connolly.

Walkinshaw will face Republican Stewart Whitson in the special election in September, where he is the likely favorite to win.

Continue Reading

Maryland

LGBTQ suicide prevention hotline option is going away. Here’s where else to go in Md.

Changes will take effect July 17

Published

on

(Bigstock photo by Mihailo K)

By ANNA RUBENSTEIN | The national suicide prevention hotline will no longer offer specialized support to LGBTQ people, starting July 17, the Trump administration announced last week.

Dialing the hotline at 988 will still be available for crisis support. But callers will no longer be able to reach specific LGBTQ services by pressing Option 3. The change worries advocates because their data shows the LGBTQ community has a disproportionally high suicide rate.

Even after the option ends, here’s how to receive tailored support if you’re in Maryland.

The rest of this article can be found on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Maryland

Silver Spring holds annual Pride In The Plaza

‘Today means inclusion. It means to build resilience’

Published

on

A scene from Pride in the Plaza in Silver Spring, Md. on Sunday. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Silver Spring’s annual Pride in the Plaza event took place on Sunday to celebrate the LGBTQ community and emphasize inclusion and resilience.

“Today means inclusion. It means to build resilience, love,” Robyn Woods, program and outreach director for Live In Your Truth, which organized the event, said. “I mean, just being surrounded by the community and so many great entrepreneurs, business owners, and just being a part of this whole rainbow coalition that we call the LGBTQIA to be about.”

With the event being her first time organizing for Live In Your Truth, Woods said she felt emotional to see the support and love at the event.

“Some people (are) bringing out their children, their babies, their grandparents,” Woods said. “It’s a lot more allies here than anything else. That type of support to me means so much more than just support from my community; just outside support, inside support, so much support around it, so much love. Everyone’s smiling outside, helping each other.” 

Attendees of the event were able to head over to the Family Fun Zone, an air-conditioned Pride Cool Down Lounge, or watch live drag performances in the main stage area. 

Along with entertainment and a shaved-ice stand, rows of information tables stood along the plaza, including FreeState Justice, the Washington Spirit, Trans Maryland, Moco Pride Center, and the Heartwood Program, an organization that offers support, therapy, education, and resources to the LGBTQ community. 

“I want people to know about our services, and I love what we have to offer,” Jessica Simon, psychotherapist for Heartwood Program’s Gender Wellness Clinic, said. “I (also) want to be part of a celebration with the community, and so it feels good to be here with other people who have something they want to give to the community.”

She added that within today’s political climate, to which she called an “antidote to shame,” it’s important to be celebrating Pride. 

“There’s a lot of demonization of LGBTQI people,” Siena Iacuvazzi, facilitator for Maryland Trans Unity, said. “(Pride) is part of the healing process.” 

Iacuvazzi said she was taught to be ashamed of who she was growing up, but being a part of a community helped her flourish in the future. 

“I was taught how to hate myself. I was taught that I was an abomination to God,” she said. “But being a community is like understanding that there are people who have experienced the same thing, and they’re flourishing. They’re flourishing because they’re willing to stand up for themselves as human beings and discover themselves and understand what’s true for themselves.”

She added that Pride allows for a mutual understanding to take place. 

“It’s more of a sense of belonging … and just taking that home and understanding you’re not alone,” Iacuvazzi said. “We’re each taking our own journey — we’re not putting that on each other. It’s just walking away with a sense of belonging and humanity.”

Similar to Iacuvazzi, Woods said she hopes attendees’ biggest takeaways would be family, fun, resilience, and pride. 

“Being proud of yourself, being happy for who you are, and representation and how much it matters,” she continued. “And I think all these young people that are walking around here get to see versions of themselves, but older. They get to see so many different lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual people that are successful, that are showing love, that care, and it’s not how we’re portrayed in the media. It’s lovely to see it out here. (It’s) like we’re one big old, happy family.”

Continue Reading

Popular