National

High court hears arguments in LGBT discrimination case

Student group wants to deny gays full participation

Published

16 years ago

April 19, 2010

The issue of whether a religious student organization can deny full participation to LGBT people and maintain eligibility as an official group at a public university came before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.

The case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez came before the high court after the University of California in Hastings denied the Hastings Christian Fellowship status as an official student group on the grounds that it prohibits LGBT people from taking positions within group leadership.

In the 2004 academic year, the school affiliated itself with the Christian Legal Society, which has bylaws saying that officers must abstain from “acts of the sinful nature” that includes “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” including homosexual behavior.

Consequently, the group has no right to meet on campus, can’t communicate through the law school’s newsletter or weekly e-mail announcement, and can’t receive school funding. The Hastings Christian Fellowship contends the school’s decision violates the group’s First Amendment rights of association and free speech.

Arguing on behalf of the Christian group before the Supreme Court was Michael McConnell, a law professor at Stanford Law School and former judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He said that the non-discrimination policy at the law school infringes on the beliefs of chapter members and is a “front assault on freedom of association.”

“A public forum for speech must be open and inclusive, but participants in the argument must be entitled to their own voice,” McConnell said.

He said the policy at the law school would mean that an NAACP chapter would “have to allow a racist skinhead” to participate in board meetings to maintain eligibility as an official school group.

On the other side of the argument and representing the college was Gregory Garre, a partner at the D.C.-based office of Latham & Watkin and a former solicitor general for President George W. Bush.

Garre said the non-discrimination policy the school has in place is neutral and doesn’t target any particular viewpoint or make a distinction between religious and non-religious speech.

“The whole purpose of the policy is to stay out of the argument and have an all-comers policy,” he said.

Garre said similar non-discrimination policies are “not uncommon and reasonable policy” and in place at many colleges, including Georgetown University Law School.

Indicating that LGBT people may in fact be interested in the Hastings Christian Fellowship, Garre noted the record shows that an out lesbian took part in the group’s activities before the group affiliated itself with the national organization.

“The record shows she participated in the discussions,” he said. “The officer of the group said he enjoyed having her there.”

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, justices volleyed questions at both attorneys on issues ranging from whether the non-discrimination was applied consistently to all college groups to the tradition of giving schools deference in non-discrimination policies.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia asked several questions about whether the school had been consistently applying its policy to all groups in at the college and whether the standards for the non-discrimination policy had morphed since the lawsuit began.

He said the current policy would allow Democrats to become leaders in a Republican group or allow atheists to conduct Bible classes in a Christian group.

Also expressing concern was Associate Justice Samuel Alito. He questioned whether current policy would enable vehemently anti-Muslim people to take over the leadership of a Muslim group at the school.

But Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dismissed the notion that the policy could allow for takeover of some groups, calling such ideas “hypotheticals about sabotage takeover that haven’t happened.” She noted that the law school’s current policy enables diversity.

“Hastings takes the position that it favors diversity not just among the groups, but within the groups,” Ginsburg said.

Also demonstrative some apparent sympathy for the school’s policy was Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked whether the policy actually prohibited the group from fulfilling in its mission or meant that the group was being “ostracized or excluded from the school.”

Following the oral arguments, Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center of Lesbian Rights, told DC Agenda the proceedings went “fantastically well” for the defendants, although he said predicting how justices will rule was difficult.

“They recognized that the policy that’s in front of the court is all-comers policy,” Minter said. “It was just very encouraging that a lot of justices understand that that is, under their existing doctrine, a viewpoint-neutral policy.”

A number of national organizations weighed in both sides of the issue, filing friend-of-the-court briefs with plaintiffs and defendants.

In a statement, Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, which filed a brief in support of the law school, said plaintiffs put forth arguments that are substantively ludicrous.

“No one is telling CLS that they can’t shut their doors to whomever they want,” Davidson said. “But they can’t do that if they expect university funds. It’s wrong of them to expect taxpayers and students to pick up the tab for engaging in discrimination against select Hastings’ students.”

Davidson called the lawsuit “another case of an anti-gay group claiming it deserves sympathy when its foot hurts due to kicking gay people in the head.”

But Mat Staver, a prominent social conservative and founder of the Liberty Counsel, said in a statement that the current policy jeopardizes First Amendment rights for the Christian group and potentially others.

“Of all places, one would think a public law school would respect the First Amendment,” he said. “The First Amendment is strong medicine to political correctness. If the government can drive out Christian viewpoints today, it can drive out any viewpoint tomorrow.”

A decision in the case is expected before the end of the current term for the Supreme Court in July.

Up Next

Slain D.C. middle school principal was gay

Don't Miss

Parker ‘comfortable’ as LGBT role model

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

2026 Midterm Elections

Chris Pappas wins NH Democratic Senate primary

Gay congressman running to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen

Published

1 day ago

September 8, 2026

Michael K. Lavers

U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) speaks at the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund's 2025 National Champagne Brunch in D.C. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

New Hampshire Congressman Chris Pappas on Tuesday won the Democratic primary in the race to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) in the U.S. Senate.

Pappas defeated Karishma Manzur, who was his primary challenger, by a 61.8-36.1 percent margin.

The gay congressman will face off against former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu, who defeated former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in the Republican primary.

“Tonight’s victory sends a clear message that voters are looking for leaders who will fight for their rights, their freedoms, and to be treated with dignity and respect,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson in a statement.

She campaigned for Pappas in Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest city, on Aug. 30.

“Chris Pappas has delivered results, stood up for equality, and showed up for the people he serves,” said Robinson in her statement. “HRC was proud to mobilize Equality Voters across New Hampshire to help power this win. We don’t have a second to waste between now and November. We look forward to continuing our work with Rep. Pappas as he drives toward victory in November so he can help return a pro-equality majority to the United States Senate.”

A poll the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released on Aug. 26 showed Sununu ahead of Pappas by a 45-43 percent margin if they were to face off in the general election. The margin of error is +/-2.1 percent.

Pappas would become the first openly gay man elected to the U.S. Senate if he were to win in November.

Georgia

Everton Blair makes history as first openly gay congressman from Ga.

Former Gwinnett County Board of Education member to serve remainder of David Scott’s term

Published

2 days ago

September 8, 2026

Joe Reberkenny

Everton Blair, Jr. (Photo courtesy of Blair's campaign website.)

Georgia made history last week when Everton Blair, Jr., was sworn into the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming the state’s first openly LGBTQ member of Congress and the latest LGBTQ addition to the chamber.

Blair, who represents Georgia’s 13th Congressional District, was sworn in on Sept. 1 after winning a special election to fill the vacancy left by the late-Congressman David Scott. Blair defeated Marcye Scott, the late congressman’s daughter, in the Aug. 25 runoff, winning 53.2 percent of the vote to Scott’s 46.8 percent.

He will serve the remainder of Scott’s term through Jan. 3, 2027. Blair is not running in the November general election for a full term.

Blair brings a progressive platform to Congress.

The 34 year-old supports Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, raising the minimum wage, and universal gun background checks. His campaign platform also included positions on LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, workers’ rights, climate, and gun violence.

Since joining the House, Blair has joined the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus. He is also a co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

Before joining the House, Blair served on the Gwinnett County Board of Education, where he became the first Black member and youngest-ever member elected to the board, as well as its first openly gay member. He was later unanimously selected as chair.

Blair also served as a fellow in President Barack Obama’s White House Initiative on Educational Excellence that focused on improving academic outcomes and expanding opportunities for minority students.

The son of Jamaican immigrants, Blair was born and raised in Georgia’s 13th Congressional District. He earned a bachelor’s degree in applied mathematics from Harvard University, a master’s degree in policy, organization, and leadership from Stanford University, and a Doctor of Education Leadership degree from Harvard.

Blair’s campaign received endorsements from a number of organizations, including the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and progressive Democratic groups such as Future Democrats.

The Equality PAC, a political action committee dedicated to electing openly LGBTQ candidates to office, celebrated Blair’s victory and provided a statement to the Washington Blade about the historic nature of his election.

“This is a historic election for Georgia, the South, and our entire country,” Equality PAC said in an email. “Everton Blair brings a strong record of public service and a deep commitment to making government work for working families.”

The group said Blair would “fight to lower costs, expand access to quality health care, create economic opportunity, and ensure every community has a voice in Washington.”

“At the same time, Everton understands the importance of standing up for equality and defending the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ Americans and every community facing discrimination,” Equality PAC said. “His historic election as Georgia’s first openly LGBTQ Member of Congress and the first openly LGBTQ man elected from the South is a powerful reminder of how far our country has come — and how much work remains.”

Equality PAC said it was “proud to welcome Everton to the House” and looked forward to working with him.

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Pentagon expands testosterone screening as trans troops face hormone therapy restrictions

Defense Department says updated guidelines to be issued shortly

Published

6 days ago

September 4, 2026

Joe Reberkenny

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Pentagon has announced that new clinical guidance will be released establishing mandatory testosterone deficiency screening for active-duty and reserve cisgender male service members ages 30 and older, advancing a policy that expands hormone-related care for cisgender troops.

The Defense Department said the existing clinical guidelines, which are not currently available on the Defense Health Agency’s website, are being updated and that the final guidance will be issued shortly.

The announcement comes amid a wave of anti-transgender policies from both the DoD and the Trump-Vance administration, which continue to prohibit trans men from receiving the same treatment.

Under the forthcoming guidance, men ages 30 and older will be forced to undergo testosterone blood tests as part of their medical care. Younger male service members will be tested if they request screening or if clinicians identify warning signs of low testosterone.

The new guidelines formalize a screening program Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in July, when he said the Pentagon would begin testing service members to ensure that “you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best.”

“Taking care of your long-term health means ensuring you remain strong, resilient, and capable — not just for your next deployment, but for the rest of your life, so you can thrive long after you take off the uniform,” Hegseth said at the time.

The Defense Health Agency’s clinical guidance says the program is intended to address “hormonal and energy-availability issues.” Hegseth said in July that testosterone replacement therapy would remain voluntary for service members if treatment is recommended.

The Food and Drug Administration is also scheduled to hold a meeting later this month with experts to discuss the medical use of testosterone.

The Pentagon’s push to routinely test testosterone levels runs counter to current medical guidance, which generally recommends considering testosterone therapy only for men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and have documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.

Testosterone is a sex hormone naturally produced by people of all sexes. It plays a role in regulating muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. Testosterone levels in men naturally decline with age and have been associated with symptoms including erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes and weight gain, although experts continue to debate when testosterone therapy is medically appropriate.

The policy has drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ advocates because the Pentagon and Hegseth have simultaneously cited hormone therapy as part of the rationale for removing trans service members from the military.

Under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” the military has moved to bar trans people diagnosed with gender dysphoria from serving and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings against trans personnel.

The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation over the policy proceeds. As a result, some trans service members have had their gender-affirming hormone therapy halted even as the Pentagon expands testosterone screening and potential treatment for cisgender service members.

SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans and their allies, criticized the disparity to the Washington Blade when Hegseth first announced the screening program.

“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”

On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.

The Blade reached out to the Pentagon when the testosterone screening program was first announced in July, asking why cisgender service members could receive testosterone therapy while transgender service members could not. The Pentagon did not respond.