Connect with us

National

LGBTQ advocacy groups urge Supreme Court to uphold DACA

Trump administration in 2017 announced it would end program

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 12, 2019, heard arguments in a case that could determine the fate of a program that allows young undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. and obtain work permits. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a case that could determine the future of a program that allows young undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. and obtain work permits.

The Trump administration in 2017 announced it would end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is among the attorneys general from 20 states and D.C. that challenged the White House’s decision to terminate DACA, which the Obama administration enacted in 2012.

“Today, we stood up for American values, the rule of law and America’s Dreamers,” said Becerra after the oral arguments. “You learn from a very early age that there is a right way and there is a wrong way to do things.”

“The federal government tried to terminate DACA the wrong way,” he added. “Today, we stand here very proud of the arguments that were made on behalf of the 700,000 DACA recipients. We’re here to stand up for the right way to do things. Together, we’re here to say DACA is legal and an American success story.”

The Associated Press reported more than 600,000 immigrants have benefited from DACA. Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David on Tuesday in a tweet said, “LGBTQ people are Dreamers and Dreamers are LGBTQ people.”

“#SCOTUS must uphold the rights of Dreamers and protect the futures of countless young people who call this country home and are crucial to the future of our nation,” said David.

The National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance on Monday noted 35 groups signed its brief in support of DACA that it filed with the Supreme Court.

The Los Angeles Blade in 2017 reported the U.S. deported a gay Salvadoran couple who lived in Virginia and were raising a young child together, even though they are both DACA recipients. An LGBTQ activist in the Salvadoran capital of San Salvador said one of the deported men was brought to the U.S. from El Salvador when he was 6-months-old.

The National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance on Monday noted many LGBTQ DACA recipients are from countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized.

“More is at stake for LGBT DACA recipients because many come from countries where homosexuality is a crime,” said the organization in an email to supporters. “Trump’s cancellation of DACA could result in more than just a deportation, but imprisonment or a death sentence.”

Tuesday’s oral arguments took place against the backdrop of continued outrage over the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies. The Supreme Court will issue its ruling during the 2020 presidential campaign.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Virginia

Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate opposes marriage equality

The Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized as an extremist anti-LGBTQ hate group has endorsed Youngkin

Published

on

Glenn Youngkin (Blade file photo)

FAIRFAX COUNTY, Va. – Glenn Youngkin in an interview with the Associated Press has reiterated his opposition to marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Youngkin—a Republican who is running against Democrat Terry McAuliffe to succeed Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam—said in an interview published on Friday that he feels “called to love everyone.” Youngkin then reiterated his opposition to marriage equality before he added it is “legally acceptable” in the state. “I, as governor, will support that,” Youngkin told the AP.

McAuliffe was Virginia’s governor from 2014-2018. Same-sex couples began to legally marry in Virginia a few months after McAuliffe took office.

McAuliffe in 2014 became the first governor of a Southern state to officiate a same-sex wedding. The lesbian couple who McAuliffe married recently appeared in one of his campaign ads.

McAuliffe on Friday criticized Youngkin. “As governor, I worked my heart out to keep Virginia open and welcoming to all,” said McAuliffe in a tweet. “This type of bigotry and intolerance has no place in our commonwealth.”

The Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has categorized as an extremist anti-LGBTQ hate group, earlier this month endorsed Youngkin, but Log Cabin Republicans are among the groups that have backed his campaign.

The Human Rights Campaign in 2019 named Youngkin’s former company, the Carlyle Group, as a “Best Place to Work for LGBTQ Equality” in its annual Corporate Equality Index.

Continue Reading

Utah

Deal with LDS church promoted model for LGBTQ rights/religious liberties

The agreement led to an LGBTQ civil rights law in the state, which has Republican control of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion

Published

on

Salt Lake City Utah Mayor Erin Mendenhall raises Pride Flag, June 2021 (Blade file photo)

SALT LAKE CITY – A new video from the premier LGBTQ group in Utah, challenging the idea LGBTQ rights must be at odds with religious liberty, promotes an agreement reached in the state as a potential model to achieve a long sought-after update to civil rights law at the federal level.

The video, published Friday by Equality Utah, focuses on a 2015 agreement in Utah between the supporters of LGBTQ rights and the Mormon Church to enact a compromise acceptable to both sides. The agreement by those two sides led to an LGBTQ civil rights law in the state, which has Republican control of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion.

Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah, says in the video dialogue is key to achieving meaningful success, whether its among the people of Utah, a state legislature or lawmakers in Congress.

“When you are working with LGBT rights in a state like Utah, and you want to advance legal equality, you can’t do it without working with Republicans, with conservative, with people of faith,” Williams says

Williams, speaking with the Washington Blade over a Zoom call, said the main audience for the video is people on “the center right and the center left” willing to listen to other side when it comes to LGBTQ rights and religious liberty.

“People that have the courage to reach out to each other, and sit down across from each other and say, ‘Hey look, let’s hammer this out,” Williams said. “That’s who my audience is.”

Not only did Utah enact non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people, but the state under a Republican governor administratively banned widely discredited conversion therapy for youth. When lawmakers proposed legislation that would ban transgender youth from competing in school sports, the proposal was scuttled when Gov. Spencer Cox (whom Williams called a “super Mormon”) said he’d veto it after it came to his desk.

Marina Gomberg, a former board for Equality Utah, is another voice in the video seeking dispel the narrative religious liberty and LGBTQ rights are in conflict.

“in order to protect LGBTQ people, we don have to deny religious liberty, and in order to provide protections for religious liberties, we don’t have to deny LGBTQ people,” Gomberg says. “The idea that we do is a fallacy that Utah has dismantled.”

In July, new polling demonstrated the surprisingly the Utah, despite being a conservative state, has the second highest percentage of state population in support for non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people. The data Public Religion Research Institute from 77 percent of Utah residents support LGBTQ people, which is just behind New Hampshire at 81 percent.

Tyler Deaton, senior adviser for the pro-LGBTQ American Unity Fund, said the Utah agreement demonstrates the possibility of reaching an agreement at the federal level once “second order” issues are put into perspective.

“The first order question has to be how are we winning the culture,” Deaton said. “Do people even want to pass the bill? And if they do, you then figure out the details.”

The American Unity Fund has helped promote as a path forward for LGBTQ non-discrimination at the federal level the Fairness for For All Act, legislation seeking to reach a middle ground on LGBTQ rights and religious freedom. Polling earlier this year found 57 percent of the American public back a bipartisan solution in Congress to advance LGBTQ civil rights.

Supporters of the Equality Act, the more established vehicle for LGBTQ rights before Congress, say the Fairness for For All Act would give too many carve-out for LGBTQ rights in the name of religious freedom. The Equality Act, however, is all but dead in Congress and has shown no movement in the U.S. Senate.

Skeptics of the Utah law would point out the law doesn’t address public accommodations, one of the more challenging aspects in the fight for LGBTQ rights and one or remaining gaps in civil rights protections for LGBTQ people in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Bostock v. Clayton County. As a result, it’s perfectly legal in Utah for a business owner to discriminate against LGBTQ coming as patrons.

Williams, however, shrugged off the idea the lack of public accommodations protections in Utah make the agreement in the state makes it any less of a model, making the case the spirit behind the deal is what matters.

“I think copying and pasting Utah’s law doesn’t work for lots of reasons,” Wililams said. “What’s most important is a model of collaboration because when you are sitting around the table with each other — Democrats and Republicans, LGBTQ people and people of faith — that’s when the transformation happens. That is when the mutual respect is really forged.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texas abortion ban- won’t block enforcement

“Every day the Court fails to grant relief is devastating, both for individual women and for our constitutional system as a whole.”

Published

on

Blade file photo by Michael Key

WASHINGTON – The United States Supreme Court Friday ruled that it will hear oral arguments in two separate filings next month over the Texas abortion ban, known as SB8, which bans abortion after six weeks, a point that most women are not even aware they are pregnant. This is also a point that is counter to what the high court has allowed in pervious rulings.

The Court however in granting the petitions declined to enjoin the law prompting Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor to write in her dissent, “Every day the Court fails to grant relief is devastating, both for individual women and for our constitutional system as a whole.”

The U.S. Justice Department had filed an emergency writ of centori in United States v. Texas, asking the justices to block enforcement after the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of the Texas anti-abortion law on Tuesday.

The Justice Department is seeking the high court’s review in order to block the law while legal litigation continues over the controversial law while a lower Federal court in Austin, Texas, addresses the underlying constitutional questions raised in the challenge to the law.

The second case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, SCOTUSblog journalist Amy Howe reported;

Texas abortion providers have asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the law’s unusual enforcement mechanism, which deputizes private individuals to bring lawsuits against anyone who either provides or “aids and abets” an abortion. In a rare procedural move, the providers urged the court to take up the question without waiting for a final ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, where the case returned after the justices rejected the providers’ earlier request to block the law from going into effect.

Although the providers came to the Supreme Court in late September, the justices did not act on their request to fast-track consideration of their appeal for nearly a month. But shortly after the Biden administration filed its application on Monday to block enforcement of S.B. 8, the court ordered Texas officials to respond in both S.B. 8 cases by noon on Thursday – suggesting that the justices may act on both at the same time.

The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a separate high-profile abortion case on Dec. 1. That case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, involves a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. Mississippi and its supporters have asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade 

That case Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @LosAngelesBlade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular