Connect with us

National

Court strikes down DOMA in historic ruling

Anti-gay activist accuses Obama of ‘sabotaging’ case

Published

on

Melba Abreu & Beatrice Hernandez are plaintiffs in the case Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. (Photo courtesy GLAD)

A federal court in Massachusetts has issued two decisions finding that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional in response to legal challenges against the statute.

Judge Joseph Tauro of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts ruled July 8 in the case of Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In his decision, Tauro writes that “only sexual orientation” differentiates married couples that can receive federal benefits and those who cannot.

“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” he writes.

In a separate decision in the case of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, Tauro concludes that regulating marriage is a state’s right under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment. He says that DOMA violates this right for Massachusetts.

“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment,” Tauro writes. “For that reason, the statute is invalid.”

In a statement, Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson praised the court for its decision in the Gill case.

“Today’s ruling affirms what we have long known: federal discrimination enacted under DOMA is unconstitutional,” he said. “The decision will be appealed and litigation will continue. But what we witnessed in the courtroom cannot be erased: federal marriage discrimination harms committed same-sex couples and their families for no good reason.”

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes marriage rights for LGBT couples, criticized the decisions and Tauro’s willingness to overturn DOMA.

“With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996,” Brown said. “A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States.”

Brown attributed the rulings to the failure of U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to defend DOMA adequately. Her nomination to become an associate justice for the U.S. Supreme Court is pending before the U.S. Senate.

“Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was solicitor general, Obama’s Justice Department deliberately sabotaged this case,” Brown said.

The rulings came in response to separate legal challenges filed last year by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

During a conference call Thursday, Coakley said the court rulings were “a landmark decision” and a “very important step toward achieving equality for all married couples, particularly here in Massachusetts.”

“We believe that today is a victory for civil rights in Massachusetts and I hope progress toward the understanding of all as to why marriage equality is a civil rights issue,” she said.

Janson Wu, staff attorney for GLAD, said, “it’s almost certain” that both decisions will be stayed upon appeal to a higher court and that access to federal benefits for married same-sex couples right now is “almost somewhat an irrelevant point.”

“I think it’s safe to say that it’s likely that the judgment for both cases will not go into effect while the case is being appealed,” Wu said.

Both lawsuits in which the court reached decisions were aimed at Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

But Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, said the result of the Gill case doesn’t necessarily mean an end to Section 3 of DOMA, but only the programs to which the plaintiff couples in the case were denied access.

“This decision itself, while it puts pressure on Congress to repeal DOMA and provide case law in which to have broader challenges, it’s just sort of an initial chipping away at Section 3,” he said.

Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, said her understanding of the Gill lawsuit is that it “only deals with the particular programs that these plaintiffs were challenging.”

“However, if they sustain this victory on appeal, there won’t be anything left of Section 3 of DOMA,” she said. “It won’t make sense for a court to uphold it as to any other provisions of federal law.”

NeJaime said the Gill opinion could set precedent that would influence marriage lawsuits elsewhere. In particular, NeJaime noted a passage in which Tauro discusses the relationship between procreation and marriage.

“This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA,” Tauro writes.

The judge adds “a consensus” has emerged among the medical and psychological communities that children raised by LGBT people “are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents.”

NeJaime said Tauro’s decision to make this point as part of his ruling is “very relevant to broader analysis of the right to marry for same-sex couples.”

“I think he’s going down that path in a way that other courts might look to it,” he said.

NeJaime said this reasoning could be applied in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a legal challenge against the ban on same-sex marriage in California that is pending before Judge Vaughn Walker in district court.

Although social conservative groups defending the ban in this case have used the argument that marriage is for procreation, NeJaime said the Gill decision can provide a reference to counter that rationale.

“I think Judge Walker can look to not only the federal government’s rejection of those rationales in the DOMA cases, but this judge’s reasoning about why that’s not a good interest anyway,” NeJaime said.

Appeals likely for lawsuits

According to GLAD, the next step in the Gill case is for the federal government to decide whether it will appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision is expected within the next 60 days.

Tracy Schamler, a spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department, said last week the Obama administration was still “reviewing the decision.” Many observers expect the rulings to be appealed.

Gary Buseck, legal director for GLAD, said he believed the Justice Department would have to appeal the decisions.

“Everyone tells us — and it seems to be true — that the executive branch has a responsibility to defend acts of Congress and it would be very difficult for them not to take an appeal of this,” he said. “I suppose anything is technically possible, but I think it would be unusual for them — highly unusual — for them not to appeal this decision from the judge.”

NeJaime said he also believed the Justice Department would appeal the decisions, although he didn’t believe the administration is required to do so.

“It’s certainly conventional to see a case like this [go] up the appeals chain, but there’s instances in which the government loses at the district court level and then there’s a policy change, so there’s nothing that forecloses that,” he said.

Still, Buseck said having a win at a lower court is helpful going into appeal and that Tauro wrote a “strong opinion” that will be helpful if the case goes to a higher court.

“We’ve got a platform, which is about the best possible platform we can have going to the First Circuit,” Buseck said.

NeJaime said the plaintiffs would have an added edge upon appeal with the Gill case because Tauro didn’t apply heightened scrutiny or consider LGBT people a suspect class in his opinion.

“If you went down the path of there’s a fundamental right because of the family relationship or sexual orientation as a suspect class, it would provide a sort of threshold question for both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to really say, ‘Oh, he got it wrong,’ and then the rest of the analysis then sort of goes out the window,” NeJaime said.

Hunter said she believed having the case be appealed and succeed at a higher court would be beneficial in the effort to overturn DOMA.

“To have DOMA struck down by just one judge’s opinion — it’s not a very strong basis for getting rid of the statute,” she said. “So personally — and this is probably a reflection that I’m pretty optimistic about the overcome of repeal — I think we may better off, frankly, if they do appeal it and it goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals and wins in the Court of Appeals.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

California

LGBTQ community calls out Radio Korea over host’s homophobic comments

Station acknowledged controversy, but skirted accountability

Published

on

On Nov. 21st, Radio Korea CEO Michael Kim made an official video statement addressing the Nov. 3rd program. (Screen capture via Radio Korea/YouTube)

On Monday, Nov. 3, Radio Korea aired its regular morning talk show program, where one of its hosts, Julie An, discussed her lack of support for the LGBTQ community, citing her religious beliefs. She also went on to comment that gay people spread HIV and AIDS, and that conversation therapy — which has been linked to PTSD, suicidality, and depression — is a viable practice. Clips of this have since been taken down.

Radio Korea offers Korean language programming to engage local Korean American and Korean immigrant community members. Its reach is broad, as Los Angeles is home to the largest Korean population in the U.S, with over 300,000 residents. As An’s words echoed through the station’s airwaves, queer Korean community members took to social media to voice their concern, hurt, and anger.  

In a now-deleted Instagram post, attorney, activist, and former congressional candidate David Yung Ho Kim demanded accountability from the station. Writer and entertainer Nathan Ramos-Park made videos calling out Radio Korea and An, stating that her comments “embolden” people with misinformation, which has the ability to perpetuate “violence against queer people.”

Community health professional Gavin Kwon also worries about how comments like An’s increase stigma within the Korean immigrant community, which could lead to increased discrimination against queer people and their willingness to seek health care.  

Kwon, who works at a local clinic in Koreatown, told the Los Angeles Blade that comments like An’s prescribe being gay or queer as a “moral failure,” and that this commonly-held belief within the Korean immigrant community, particularly in older generations, strengthens the reticence and avoidance clients hold onto when asked about their gender or sexual orientation. 

“When you stigmatize a group, people don’t avoid the disease — they avoid care,” Kwon explained. “They avoid getting tested, avoid disclosing their status, and avoid talking openly with providers. Stigma pushes people into silence, and silence is the worst possible environment for managing any infectious disease.”

For weeks, Radio Korea did not offer a direct response to the public criticism. Its Instagram feed continued to be updated with shorts, featuring clips of its various hosts — including An. 

On Friday, Radio Korea CEO Michael Kim released an official statement on the station’s YouTube page. In this video, Michael Kim stated that An’s comments “included factual inaccuracies” and that the station “does not endorse or share the personal opinions expressed by individual hosts.” Michael Kim also stated that Radio Korea “welcomes members of the LGBT community to share their perspectives” in order to deepen understanding through dialogue. 

Afterwards, Michael Kim continued that though he acknowledges the “pain” felt by queer community members, he concluded: “I don’t think Radio Korea needs to apologize for what was said any more than Netflix should apologize for what Dave Chappelle says, or any more than Instagram or TikTok should apologize for what people say on their platforms.” 

Michael then offered a justification that An’s statements were “not part of a news report,” and that he was “disappointed” that David Yung Ho Kim, specifically, had been vocal about An’s comments. Michael Kim stated that he was the first person to interview David Yung Ho Kim in 2020 during his congressional campaign, and that he had provided the candidate a platform and opportunity to educate listeners about politics. 

“After all these years, the support Radio Korea has given him,” said Kim, “the support I personally gave him, even the support from other Radio Korea members who donated or even volunteered for him — he dishonestly tried to portray Radio Korea as being an anti-gay organization.”

Michael Kim went on to criticize David Yung Ho Kim’s purported “hurry to condemn others,” and also questioned if David has disowned his father, who he states is a pastor. “What kind of person is David Kim, and is this the kind of person we want in Congress?” Michael Kim asked viewers, noting that Koreatown is “only about three miles from Hollywood, and some people just like to perform.” 

At the end of the video, Michael Kim stated that his duty is to guard the legacy of the station. “My responsibility is to protect what was built before me and ensure that Radio Korea continues serving this community long after today’s momentary controversies disappear,” he said. 

For community members and advocates, this response was unsatisfactory. “The overall tone of the statement felt more defensive than accountable,” Kwon wrote to the Blade. “Instead of a sincere apology to the LGBTQ+ community that was harmed, the message shifts into personal grievances, political dynamics, and side explanations that don’t belong in an official response.”

Michael Kim’s portrayal of the criticism and calls to action by community members as a “momentary controversy” paints a clearer picture of the station’s stance — that the hurt felt and expressed by its queer community members is something that will simply pass until it is forgotten. An continues to be platformed at Radio Korea, and was posted on the station’s social media channels as recently as yesterday. The station has not outlined any other action since Michael Kim’s statement. 

Continue Reading

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Pentagon moves to break with Boy Scouts over LGBTQ and gender inclusion

Leaked memo shows Hegseth rejecting Scouting America’s shift toward broader inclusion

Published

on

Scouts for Equality march in the 2015 Capital Pride Parade. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Pentagon is preparing to sever its longstanding partnership with the Boy Scouts of America, now known as Scouting America.

In a draft memo to Congress obtained by NPR, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticizes the organization for being “genderless” and for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“The organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt no longer supports the future of American boys,” Hegseth wrote, according to Defense Department sources.

Girls have been eligible to join Cub Scouts (grades K–5) since 2018, and since 2019 they have been able to join Scouts BSA troops and earn the organization’s highest rank of Eagle Scout.

A statement on the Scouting America website says the shift toward including girls stemmed from “an expanding demand to join the Boy Scouts” and a commitment to inclusivity. “Throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries, it has undergone significant changes to become more inclusive of the adult staff and volunteers that drive its programming as well as of scouts and their families,” the organization says.

Part of that broader push included lifting its ban on openly gay members in 2014 and on openly gay adult leaders in 2015.

Once the Pentagon finalizes the break, the U.S. military will no longer provide medical and logistical support to the National Jamboree, the massive annual gathering of scouts in West Virginia that typically draws about 20,000 participants. The memo also states that the military will no longer allow scout troops to meet on U.S. or overseas installations, where many bases host active scout programs.

Hegseth’s memo outlines several justifications for the decision, arguing that Scouting America has strayed from its original mission to “cultivate masculine values” by fostering “gender confusion.” It also cites global conflicts and tightening defense budgets, claiming that deploying troops, doctors and vehicles to a 10-day youth event would “harm national security” by diverting resources from border operations and homeland defense.

“Scouting America has undergone a significant transformation,” the memo states. “It is no longer a meritocracy which holds its members accountable to meet high standards.”

The Pentagon declined NPR’s request for comment. A “War Department official” told the outlet that the memo was a “leaked document that we cannot authenticate and that may be pre-decisional.”

The leaked memo comes roughly one month after nearly every major journalism organization walked out of the Pentagon in protest of new rules requiring reporters to publish only “official” documents released by the department — effectively banning the use of leaked or unpublished materials.

President Donald Trump, who serves as the honorary head of Scouting America by virtue of his office, praised the Jamboree audience during his 2017 visit to West Virginia. “The United States has no better citizens than its Boy Scouts. No better,” he said, noting that 10 members of his Cabinet were former Scouts.

Hegseth was never a scout. He has said he grew up in a church-based youth group focused on memorizing Bible verses. As a Fox News host last year, he criticized the Scouts for changing their name and admitting girls.

“The Boy Scouts has been cratering itself for quite some time,” Hegseth said. “This is an institution the left didn’t control. They didn’t want to improve it. They wanted to destroy it or dilute it into something that stood for nothing.”

NBC News first reported in April that the Pentagon was considering ending the partnership, citing sources familiar with the discussions. In a statement to NBC at the time, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said, “Secretary Hegseth and his Public Affairs team thoroughly review partnerships and engagements to ensure they align with the President’s agenda and advance our mission.”

The Scouting America organization has has long played a role in military recruiting. According to numbers provided by Scouting America, many as 20 percent of cadets and midshipmen at the various service academies are Eagle Scouts. Enlistees who have earned the Eagle rank also receive advanced entry-level rank and higher pay — a practice that would end under the proposed changes.

Continue Reading

The White House

Trans workers take White House to court over bathroom policy

Federal lawsuit filed Thursday

Published

on

Protesters outside of House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) office in the Cannon House Office Building last year protesting a similar bathroom ban. (Washington Blade photo by Christopher Kane)

Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union, two organizations focused on protecting Americans’ constitutional rights, filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday in federal court challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s bathroom ban policies.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of LeAnne Withrow, a civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard, challenges the administration’s policy prohibiting transgender and intersex federal employees from using restrooms aligned with their gender. The policy claims that allowing trans people in bathrooms would “deprive [women assigned female at birth] of their dignity, safety, and well-being.”

The lawsuit responds to the executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. It alleges that the order and its implementation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Title VII protects trans workers from discrimination based on sex.

Since its issuance, the executive order has faced widespread backlash from constitutional rights and LGBTQ advocacy groups for discriminating against trans and intersex people.

The lawsuit asserts that Withrow, along with numerous other trans and intersex federal employees, is forced to choose between performing her duties and being allowed to use the restroom safely.

“There is no credible evidence that allowing transgender people access to restrooms aligning with their gender identity jeopardizes the safety or privacy of non-transgender users,” the lawsuit states, directly challenging claims of safety risks.

Withrow detailed the daily impact of the policy in her statement included in the lawsuit.

“I want to help soldiers, families, veterans — and then I want to go home at the end of the day. At some point in between, I will probably need to use the bathroom,” she said.

The filing notes that Withrow takes extreme measures to avoid using the restroom, which the Cleveland Clinic reports most people need to use anywhere from 1–15 times per day depending on hydration.

“Ms. Withrow almost never eats breakfast, rarely eats lunch, and drinks less than the equivalent of one 17 oz. bottle of water at work on most days.”

In addition to withholding food and water, the policy subjects her to ongoing stress and fear:

“Ms. Withrow would feel unsafe, humiliated, and degraded using a men’s restroom … Individuals seeing her enter the men’s restroom might try to prevent her from doing so or physically harm her,” the lawsuit states. “The actions of defendants have caused Ms. Withrow to suffer physical and emotional distress and have limited her ability to effectively perform her job.”

“No one should have to choose between their career in service and their own dignity,” Withrow added. “I bring respect and honor to the work I do to support military families, and I hope the court will restore dignity to transgender people like me who serve this country every day.”

Withrow is a lead Military and Family Readiness Specialist and civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard. Previously, she served as a staff sergeant and has received multiple commendations, including the Illinois National Guard Abraham Lincoln Medal of Freedom.

The lawsuit cites the American Medical Association, the largest national association of physicians, which has stated that policies excluding trans individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have harmful effects on health, safety, and well-being.

“Policies excluding transgender individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have detrimental effects on the health, safety and well-being of those individuals,” the lawsuit states on page 32.

Advocates have condemned the policy since its signing in January and continue to push back against the administration. Leaders from ACLU-D.C., ACLU of Illinois, and Democracy Forward all provided comments on the lawsuit and the ongoing fight for trans rights.

“We cannot let the Trump administration target transgender people in the federal government or in public life,” said ACLU-D.C. Senior Staff Attorney Michael Perloff. “An executive order micromanaging which bathroom civil servants use is discrimination, plain and simple, and must be stopped.”

“It is absurd that in her home state of Illinois, LeAnne can use any other restroom consistent with her gender — other than the ones controlled by the federal government,” said Michelle Garcia, deputy legal director at the ACLU of Illinois. “The Trump administration’s reckless policies are discriminatory and must be reversed.”

“This policy is hateful bigotry aimed at denying hardworking federal employees their basic dignity simply because they are transgender,” said Kaitlyn Golden, senior counsel at Democracy Forward. “It is only because of brave individuals like LeAnne that we can push back against this injustice. Democracy Forward is honored to work with our partners in this case and is eager to defeat this insidious effort to discriminate against transgender federal workers.”

Continue Reading

Popular