Connect with us

News

Lawmakers seek fed’l recognition for Michigan same-sex marriages

Delegation calls on DOJ to clarify whether administration will recognize unions

Published

on

Carl Levin, Democratic Party, Senate, Michigan, gay news, Washington Blade

Carl Levin, Democratic Party, Senate, Michigan, gay news, Washington Blade

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is among the lawmakers calling for federal recognition of Michigan same-sex marriages (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key).

Members of Michigan’s delegation to Congress are calling on the Obama administration to recognize the more than 300 same-sex marriages that took place in the state for the purposes of federal benefits.

In a letter dated March 27, six lawmakers — led by Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) — called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to recognize the marriages in the wake of a federal district court decision striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

“The Court’s decision was a historic step toward equal protection for all American families, regardless of sexual orientation,” the lawmakers write. “By clarifying the federal status of these now married same-sex couples in Michigan—as you did in January for similarly situated same-sex couples in Utah—you can take another step toward full equality.”

Lawmakers seek federal recognition of the same-sex marriages performed on Saturday in Michigan prior to an indefinite stay placed on the weddings by the U.S. Sixth Circuit of Appeals. Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican who’s seeking re-election, said Wednesday the state recognizes the marriages as legal, but won’t afford the couples state benefits unless the stay is lifted.

But the Justice Department hasn’t yet announced a decision on whether federal benefits would flow to the couples. The department didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment on the letter from Michigan’s federal delegation. Allison Price, a Justice Department spokesperson, had said earlier this week the administration is “closely monitoring the situation.”

Six Democratic members of Michigan’s federal delegation to Congress signed the letter. In addition to Kildee, Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Sander Levin (D-Mich.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) signed the letter as well as both U.S. senators from Michigan: Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).

The only Democratic member of Michigan federal delegation not to sign the letter is Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). His absence is noteworthy because he supports marriage equality and was chief sponsor of the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which extended federal hate crimes protections to LGBT people. Conyers’ office didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment on why his name was absent from the letter.

None of the nine Republicans making up the 16 members of Michigan’s federal delegation to Congress signed the letter.

Mitchell Rivard, a Kildee spokesperson, deferred to the Republicans as to why their names are absent from the missive.

“The Democratic delegation, as demonstrated by today’s letter calling for federal recognition of the legal marriages performed last week, are certainly unified in standing for equality for all Michiganders,” Rivard said.

Among the couples who wed in Michigan on Saturday were Anne Callison, 37, and Kelly Callison, 34. The couple, who has a two-year-old named Corbin, married in Ann Arbor, Mich., after being been together five years.

During a conference call with reporters, Anne said recognition of her marriage is important so that Kelly has second-parent adoption rights for their son. Kelly is the egg donor for Corbin, but Anne is the birth mother.

“I would say the thing that’s the most scary is that in order for Kelly to do things like pick him up from child care…access his medical records, all of that means that I have to give permission ahead of time,” Anne said. “Kelly is a stay-at-home mom, and I am working full-time. She should be able to do those things.”

Taking issue with Snyder’s decision not to allow benefits to flow to her and her spouse, Anne said she doesn’t understand why a stay being in place halting additional same-sex marriages led to that decision.

“I’m married, I have a Michigan marriage certificate, it has a seal and witnesses,” Anne said. “I don’t know how much more legal it can get than that.”

For her part, Kelly said the lack of recognition of her marriage continues to build “stress and anxiety” for her entire family.

“We have a two-year-old son that is the center of our lives and because of Gov. Snyder not recognizing a marriage that he himself said is a legal marriage, but the state won’t recognize [it], just adds to the stress that what goes on with our daily lives,” Kelly said.

Under the current situation, Kelly said the couple carries around a notebook of documents to ensure she can make medical and other important decisions for Corbin.

In a statement, Kildee said Anne and Kelly’s union should be recognized by both the state and federal government, criticizing Snyder and Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette for not allowing benefits to flow to the couple.

“Legally-performed marriages like Anne and Kelly’s should be fully recognized under the law, both at the state and federal level,” Kildee said. “It’s a shame to me that Gov. Snyder and Bill Schuette continue to work around the clock to deny these committed couples the same opportunity for love and happiness that they enjoy themselves.”

The situation in Michigan is along the lines of what happened in Utah after a district court ruling enabled an estimated 1,300 same-sex couples to wed in the state until the U.S. Supreme Court halted the weddings by issuing a stay pending appeal. Gov. Gary Herbert announced his state won’t recognize the weddings pending appeal, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the state would recognize for the purposes of federal benefits.

Prior to Holder’s announcement, Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin wrote a letter to the attorney general, saying there’s no need to think the Utah marriages are invalid.

The Human Rights Campaign issued an organizational statement late Thursday calling for the federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in Michigan.

“The Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder has been a remarkable leader in the fight for equal recognition of marriage for lesbian and gay couples,” the statement says. “Their decision to recognize marriages performed in Utah during the period when gay couples were granted licenses was legally sound and morally right. The Human Rights Campaign has encouraged the Department to apply the same principles to the Michigan marriages that happened recently and we have every reason to believe that they will continue being champions of the LGBT community.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Capital Stonewall Democrats endorses Janeese Lewis George for D.C. mayor

Group also backed D.C. Council, Congressional delegate, AG candidates

Published

on

Janeese Lewis George (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Capital Stonewall Democrats, D.C.’s largest local LGBTQ political organization, announced on May 14 that it has endorsed D.C. Councilmember Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) for mayor in the city’s June 16 Democratic primary.

Lewis George along with former D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (D-At-Large) are considered by political observers to be the two leading candidates among the seven candidates competing in the Democratic primary election for mayor.

Both have strong, long-standing records of support on LGBTQ issues, indicating Capital Stonewall Democrats members, like LGBTQ voters across the city, are likely choosing a candidate based on non-LGBTQ related issues.

In a May 14 statement, the group announced its endorsements in seven other Democratic primary races, including D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson, who is running unopposed in the primary. Also endorsed is D.C. Councilmember Robert White (D-At-Large), who is one of five Democratic candidates competing for the position of D.C. delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.

D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) is among the four candidates competing with White for that pos, and who like White has a strong record of support on LGBTQ issues.

In the At-Large D.C. Council race for which incumbent Anita Bonds is not running for re-election, Capital Stonewall Democrats has endorsed community activist and LGBTQ ally Oye Owolewa in a nine candidate race.    

For the Ward 1 D.C. Council election, in which five LGBTQ supportive candidates are competing, the group did not make an endorsement because none of the candidate received a required 60 percent of the endorsement vote cast by Capital Stonewall Democrats members, according to the group’s former president, Howard Garrett.   

The statement announcing its endorsements shows that it decided to list its “Preferred Ranking” of each of the Ward 1 Democratic candidates as part of the city’s newly implemented ranked choice voting system. It lists gay candidate Miguel Trindade Deramo as first, bisexual candidate Aparna Raj second, Jackie Reyes Yanes third, Rashida Brown fourth, and Terry Lynch fifth.

In the remaining ward Council races, Capital Stonewall Democrats endorsed Councilmember Matt Fruman (D-Ward 3), who is running unopposed for re-election; Councilmember Zachary Parker (D-Ward ), the Council’s only gay member who is being challenged by two opponents; and Councilmember Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who is running unopposed for re-election.

The group also chose not to make an endorsement in the special election for another At-Lage D.C. Council seat that became vacant when then-Independent Councilmember McDuffie resigned to enable him to run for mayor as a Democrat. Under the city’s Home Rule Charge adopted by Congress, that at large sweat is restricted to a “non-majority party” candidate, meaning a non-Democrat.

The three candidates running for the seat, all Independents, include incumbent Doni Crawford, who was appointed to the seat earlier this year; former D.C. Councilmember Elissa Silverman; and Jacque Patterson. All three have expressed support on LGBTQ related issues.

“The organization’s endorsement process included candidate questionnaires, public forums, and direct voting by active CSD members,” the statement announces its endorsements says. “Each endorsement reflects the collective voice of 173 LGBTQ+ Democrats who voted in the process and are committed to building lasting political power in the District,” according to the statement. “Candidates that reached 60 percent support received the endorsement.”

Garrett, the group’s former president, acknowledged that with nearly all candidates running in D.C. elections expressing strong support for the LGBTQ community, many if not most of the group’s members most likely chose a candidate based on issues other than LGBTQ related issues.

He said he believes Lewis George, who he is supporting and is viewed as a progressive candidate who self-identifies as a Democratic Socialist, compared to McDuffie, who is viewed as a moderate Democrat, captured the group’s endorsement based on the view that she is the best person to lead the city going forward.

“I believe that Capital Stonewall members voted for Janeese Lewis George because we’re tired of the status quo and we need a new, bold leader to not only move or city forward but also to stand up to Donald Trump and his administration,” Garrett told the Washington Blade.

McDuffie’s LGBTQ supporters, including former Capital Stonewall Democrats presidents David Meadows and Kurt Vorndran, have argued that McDuffie’s positions on a wide range of issues, including LGBTQ issues, show him to be the best candidates to lead the city at this time and In future years.

The group’s endorsement of Lewis George comes one week after GLAA DC, a nonpartisan LGBTQ advocacy group, awarded her its highest candidate rating of +10.    

Continue Reading

United Kingdom

UK government makes trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban a legislative priority

King Charles III on Wednesday delivered King’s Speech

Published

on

(Photo by Rob Wilson via Bigstock)

King Charles III on Wednesday said a transgender-inclusive ban on so-called conversion therapy in England and Wales is among the British government’s legislative priorities.

“My government will bring forward a bill to speed up remediation for people living in homes with unsafe cladding [Remediation Bill] and a draft bill to ban abusive conversion practices [Draft Conversion Practices Bill],” said Charles in his King’s Speech that he delivered in the British House of Lords.

The government writes the King’s Speech, which outlines its legislative agenda. The British monarch delivers it at Parliament’s ceremonial opening.

“Conversion practices are abuse, and the government will deliver the manifesto commitment to bring forward a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices,” said the government in an addendum to the speech.

Then-Prime Minister Theresa May’s government in 2018 announced it would “bring forward proposals to end the practice of conversion therapy in the U.K.”

Then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government in 2022 said it would support a ban that did not include gender identity. The decision sparked outrage among British advocacy groups, and prompted them to boycott a government-sponsored LGBTQ conference that was ultimately cancelled.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party ahead of the 2024 elections included a conversion therapy ban in its manifesto. Charles delivered the King’s Speech against the backdrop of growing calls for Starmer to resign after the Labour Party lost more than 1,000 council seats in local and regional elections that took place on May 7.

Stonewall, a British advocacy group, on April 30 said the government “has failed to meet its own timeline to publish a draft bill to ban conversion practices.”

“We should not have to wait any longer,” said Stonewall CEO Simon Blake in his group’s statement. “Conversion practices are abuse. LGBTQ+ people do not need fixing or changing. They need to hear and feel that government is going to protect their safety and dignity. Not at some random date in the future. No more delays.”

Continue Reading

Commentary

‘Live Your Pride’ is much more than a slogan

Waves Ahead forced to cancel May 17 event in Puerto Rico

Published

on

(Courtesy image)

On May 5, I spoke by phone with Wilfred Labiosa, executive director of Waves Ahead, a Puerto Rico-based LGBTQ community organization that for years has provided mental health services, support programs, and safe spaces for vulnerable communities across the island. During our conversation, Labiosa confirmed every concern described in the organization’s public statement announcing the cancellation of “Live Your Pride,” an event scheduled for Sunday in the northwestern municipality of Isabela. But beyond the financial struggles and organizational challenges, what stayed with me most was the emotional weight behind his words. There was pain in his voice while describing what it means to watch spaces like these slowly disappear.

This was not simply the cancellation of a community event.

“Live Your Pride” had been envisioned as a celebration and affirming gathering for LGBTQ older adults and their allies in Puerto Rico. In a society where many LGBTQ elders spent decades hiding parts of themselves in order to survive, spaces like this carry enormous emotional and social significance. They become places where people can finally exist openly, without fear, apology, or shame.

That is why this cancellation matters far beyond Isabela.

What is happening in Puerto Rico cannot be separated from the broader political climate unfolding across the U.S. and its territories, where programs connected to diversity, inclusion, education, mental health, and LGBTQ visibility increasingly find themselves under political attack. These changes do not always arrive through dramatic announcements. More often, they happen quietly. Funding disappears. Community organizations weaken. Safe spaces become harder to sustain. Eventually, the absence itself begins to feel normal.

That normalization is dangerous.

For years, organizations like Waves Ahead have stepped into gaps left behind by institutions and governments, particularly in communities where LGBTQ people continue facing discrimination, social isolation, economic instability, and mental health struggles. Their work has never been limited to organizing events. It has involved accompanying people through loneliness, trauma, rejection, depression, aging, and survival itself.

“Live Your Pride” represented much more than entertainment. It represented visibility for LGBTQ older adults, many of whom survived decades of family rejection, religious exclusion, workplace discrimination, violence, and silence. These are individuals who came of age during years when living openly could cost someone employment, housing, relationships, or personal safety. Many learned to survive by making themselves invisible.

When spaces like this disappear, something deeply human is lost.

A gathering is canceled, yes, but so is an opportunity for healing, connection, recognition, and dignity. For many LGBTQ older adults, especially in smaller municipalities across Puerto Rico, these events are not secondary luxuries. They are reminders that their lives still matter in a society that too often treats aging and queer existence as disposable.

There are still political and religious sectors that portray the rainbow as some kind of ideological threat. But the rainbow does not erase anyone. It illuminates people and stories that society has often tried to ignore. It reflects the lives of young people forced out of their homes, transgender individuals targeted by violence, older adults aging in silence, and families that spent years defending their right to exist openly.

Perhaps that is precisely why the rainbow unsettles some people so deeply.

Its colors expose abandonment, hypocrisy, inequality, and fear. They force societies to confront realities that are easier to ignore than to address honestly. They reveal how fragile human dignity becomes when political agendas decide that certain communities are no longer worthy of protection, funding, or visibility.

The greatest concern here is not solely the cancellation of one event in one Puerto Rican town. The deeper concern is the message quietly taking shape behind decisions like these — the idea that some communities can wait, that some lives deserve fewer resources, and that safe spaces for vulnerable people are expendable during moments of political tension.

History has shown repeatedly how social regression begins. Rarely with one dramatic act. More often through exhaustion, silence, budget cuts, and the slow dismantling of organizations doing essential community work.

Even so, Waves Ahead made one thing clear in its statement. Although “Live Your Pride” has been canceled, the organization will continue providing mental health and community support services through its centers across Puerto Rico. That commitment matters because people do not survive on slogans alone. They survive because somewhere there are still open doors, trained professionals, supportive communities, and people willing to remain present when the world becomes colder and more hostile.

Puerto Rico should pay close attention to what this moment represents. No healthy society is built by weakening the organizations that care for vulnerable people. No government should feel comfortable watching community groups struggle to survive while attempting to provide services and compassion that public institutions themselves often fail to offer.

The rainbow has never been the problem.

The real problem is the discomfort created when its colors force society to confront the wounds, inequalities, and human realities that too many people would rather keep hidden.

Continue Reading

Popular