Connect with us

National

Hawaii governor reflects on state’s long marriage struggle

‘As Hawaii is concerned, we succeeded yesterday’

Published

on

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii, gay, Washington Blade
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii, Washington Blade, gay

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie on Nov. 13, 2013, signs his state’s same-sex marriage bill into law. (Photo courtesy of State of Hawaii/Office of the Governor)

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie on Thursday said yesterday’s ceremony during which he signed a bill that extends marriage rights to same-sex couples in his state was more than a celebration.

“It was more like an acknowledgement of the culmination of many years of what we call in Hawaii as part of our Aloha spirit: patient perseverance,” he told the Washington Blade during a telephone interview from Honolulu.

Abercrombie signed the measure into law at the Hawaii Convention Center in Honolulu one day after the state Senate approved it by a 19-4 margin.

Senate Bill 1 passed in the Hawaii House of Representatives on Nov. 8 after lawmakers debated it for more than 12 hours. The chamber two days earlier approved the measure on its second reading following five days of testimony from SB1 supporters and opponents.

Abercrombie told the Blade he initially thought the special legislative session to debate SB1 that began on Oct. 28 would have ended within a week — and not 15 days.

“It is still a reflection of the legislative process that’s undertaken so that everybody clearly has an opportunity to speak,” he said. “Much of it, of course, was repetitive and I’m sorry to say that some of it could only be called as rate, but that was more a sign of less of conspiracy than it was the intensity with which the opponents were operating.”

Lesbian state Rep. Jo Jordan, who Abercrombie appointed in 2011, sparked outrage among LGBT rights advocates when she voted against SB1.

“I wish we had had perhaps a little more opportunity to discuss the issue,” Abercrombie said. “I expect that she has her set of reasons. Whether or not I agree with all those reasons I don’t know.”

Abercrombie added that same-sex marriage supporters criticized him because he did not call a special legislative session “when they wanted me to do it.”

“My position always was and always has been I need 13 votes in the Senate and 26 votes in the House,” he said. “I don’t need rhetorical victories. I don’t need tactical advice that has nothing to do with keeping your eye on the prize, which is to get the bill passed and get a bill passed that will stand up to constitutional investigation and vetting and be able to say secure the necessary votes to get it on my desk.”

Then-Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Steven Levinson in 1993 ruled the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. This landmark decision prompted Congress three years later to pass the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited the federal government from legally recognizing gay nuptials.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June found a portion of DOMA unconstitutional.

Abercrombie said Levinson’s ruling “formalized a discussion” that he said had already been taking place in Hawaii about how to extend relationship recognition to same-sex couples in the state. He noted he backed civil unions for gays and lesbians before 1993.

“I was the object of a lot of criticism,” Abercrombie told the Blade. “I felt that we had to move this along in a process that would enable us to succeed politically as opposed to making what I felt would be a moral point, if you will, that was doomed to failure at that time and I felt would hold us back from achieving marriage equality.”

Hawaii voters in 1998 approved a state constitutional amendment that allowed the legislature to ban same-sex marriage.

The state’s civil unions law took effect in 2012, but a federal judge in August of that year dismissed a lawsuit filed on behalf of two gay couples who sought marriage rights in Hawaii. The plaintiffs subsequently petitioned the U.S. Ninth Circuit to hear their case alongside a second lawsuit that seeks to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in Nevada.

Abercrombie cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 in his decision not to defend Hawaii’s same-sex marriage ban in the aforementioned lawsuit.

“It was clear to me in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings that the civil unions law which I signed right after I was sworn in obviated the prohibition,” he said. “I said ‘look, I can’t defend something that I don’t think has legal validity.’”

Abercrombie gives pen used to sign SB1 to Levinson

Hawaii is among the 15 states and D.C. in which same-sex couples can now legally marry.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn on Nov. 20 is scheduled to sign a measure that will allow nuptials for gays and lesbians in his state.

A judge on Thursday refused to consider state Rep. Bob McDermott’s motion that would have blocked SB1 from taking effect on Dec. 2.

Abercrombie told the Blade one of the things about which he thought before he signed SB1 into law was seeking the Human Rights Campaign’s support during his 1986 congressional campaign. He recalled meeting two HRC staffers inside their small office near the U.S. Capitol.

“We’ve come a long, long way from an upstairs office somewhere on D Street,” Abercrombie said. “As I said yesterday, people who have been forced to be invisible all their lives are now visible to themselves and the whole world.”

Abercrombie also gave the pen he used to sign SB1 into law to Levinson.

“It was never a question in my mind of what Hawaii precipitated in 1993 would succeed,” Abercrombie told the Blade. “It was always a question in my mind [as to whether] we put together events [and] timing in such a way as to succeed. And at least as Hawaii is concerned we succeeded yesterday.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced

One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.

NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.

John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.

The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.

Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.

 “These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.

It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”

 The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question. 

A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit. 

While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.

 Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.   

“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.

 “Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says. 

Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”

 Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”

Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.

 “As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from  the Washington Blade. 

“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said. 

The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”

It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”

The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society. 

The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.

While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.

The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.

Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.

Continue Reading

Popular