National
Obama AWOL on ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal?
Activists turn up heat on president to act
Army Lt. Dan Choi and five other LGBT veterans handcuffed themselves to the White House fence Tuesday in protest of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ echoing a similar protest staged one month earlier. (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
As activists and lobbyists continue to press for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” some are losing patience with President Obama and moderate Democrats in Congress.
Obama was heckled at a fundraiser on Monday and a group of six former LGBT service members chained themselves to the White House fence this week to protest what they view as slow progress in overturning the law.
Meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign and other advocates are working to push six key senators to support repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.
Moderate senators from six states — Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Virginia and West Virginia — are the targets of HRC’s grassroots campaign. The renewed push to win their support comes as the Senate Armed Services Committee is poised to tackle the issue May 26 when it takes up the Defense authorization bill.
Allison Herwitt, HRC’s legislative director, said the grassroots effort is being coordinated by about two dozen field workers and includes postcards, phone calls, district office visits, op-ed placements and other media coverage.
“We’re also, where we can, working with some grasstops folks to weigh in with senators, and it’s an ongoing process,” she said.
Marty Rouse, HRC’s national field director, said the campaign builds on the organization’s earlier efforts such as the Voices of Honor tour and involves “identifying and mobilizing veterans” to contact senators and participate in the joint Lobby Day between HRC and Servicemembers United on May 11.
Servicemembers United Executive Director Alex Nicholson said his organization is identifying veterans with HRC’s membership and bringing in new veterans not connected to any organization to advocate for repeal.
“We’re basically setting up a number of events in each of these states with vets to talk about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to get the issue to the local media,” he said.
But even with this campaign underway, senators from these six states aren’t yet committed to voting for repeal. Many are saying they want to hear the results of the Pentagon study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which is due Dec. 1, before taking action. The mandate of the study, as established by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, is to examine how the U.S. armed services would implement open service should Congress repeal the ban.
One such senator waiting for the study results is Jim Webb (D-Va.). Asked by DC Agenda on Tuesday whether he favors repeal, Webb emphasized his support for the review currently underway.
“I think what Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen proposed in terms of the study is very important,” Webb said. “We need to understand that. I support the approach that they’re taking. It’s responsible.”
Pressed on how he would vote on an amendment during the defense authorization markup, Webb reiterated his support for the working group and replied, “I think we need to honor the process that Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen have put in motion.”
Holding a similar position is Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). In a statement, Nelson spokesperson Grant Schnell said the senator is interested in the results of the study.
“Sen. Nelson’s inclined to support repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, but wants to see the study Secretary Gates announced of how this would impact the military,” Schnell said.
Also refraining from endorsing repeal was Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). In a statement, Bayh said he’s “committed to ensuring that our troops are treated with the respect they have earned through their selfless service” and that his personal belief is “those who are willing to take a bullet for their country ought to be able to serve it openly.”
“However, President Obama is absolutely right to solicit the input and support of his top military commanders about the effects of repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy,” Bayh said. “I will make a final decision after receiving the input of our top commanders.”
The offices of Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) didn’t respond to DC Agenda’s request for comment.
Asked about the progress in moving these senators to support repeal, Herwitt said the campaign is “a work in progress” and that many lawmakers typically hold out on announcing support for pro-LGBT legislation until just before it comes to a vote.
“You always have that last handful of House members or senators that you’re really looking to secure support from, and they’re typically the ones that don’t declare early,” she said.
Rouse noted that there’s a “significant presence” of mobilized efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the six states where HRC is working to influence senators.
“If you talk [with] any leaders or politically engaged people in these six states, I think they would acknowledge that there has been significant movement across the states in support of ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Rouse said.
Nicholson also said “it’s really too early” to tell whether the effort will be successful in moving moderate senators to vote for repeal.
“With these swing vote senators, they’re not going to make up their minds until the last minute, and [then only if they] absolutely have to,” he said. “If they’re not forced to take the vote, I don’t think they’re going to take the risk of coming out one way or the other.”
Still, Nicholson said he’s seen evidence of these senators noticing the campaign’s efforts in their states, citing Nebraska as an example where increased media coverage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has come to the attention of Ben Nelson’s staff.
Nicholson said he’s heard members of Ben Nelson’s staff have taken the initiative in conversations with other staff members on Capitol Hill to mention an uptick in newspaper stories coming from Omaha, Neb., and Lincoln, Neb., on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“What we do know right now, what we are able to see, is that it’s being noticed — that’s for sure,” Nicholson said.
‘Within a vote or two’
But with votes from these key senators still in play, it remains to be seen whether there will be sufficient votes in the Senate Armed Services Committee to advance repeal.
During a press event Tuesday, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), a strong proponent of repeal in the Senate, was optimistic about having enough support, noting that “we’re very close” and “we’re within a vote or two.”
“There are certainly a number of senators on [the Democratic] side that are on record as wanting to overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and there are some who have not made their intentions clear,” Udall said.
Among Republicans, Udall said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate who often supports LGBT civil rights bills, has “expressed an interest in overturning ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
Nicholson estimated that a vote now in the Senate Armed Services Committee to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a 25 to 50 percent chance of succeeding without further intervention from the administration.
“I think that Bayh and Bill Nelson are ‘lean yeses,’” Nicholson said. “They’re undecideds, but they’re undecideds leaning towards ‘yes.’”
One factor that would be seen as a tremendous boon — and perhaps even essential — to moving key senators to support repeal is an explicit endorsement from President Obama to attach an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the upcoming Defense authorization bill.
But the White House and the Pentagon have not come forward with an explicit endorsement of repeal this year. In response to a query from DC Agenda during a press briefing last month, Gates said he doesn’t recommend a change in the law until the Defense Department completes its study implementing open service and that he thinks the president is comfortable with this process.
On Monday, Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, wrote a letter to Obama urging him to come out for repeal. Sarvis said he’s concerned about “multiple reports” that the president’s congressional liaison team “is urging some members of Congress to avoid a vote on repeal this year.”
Among those noticing a lack of support from the Obama administration to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at this time is Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Asked by DC Agenda on Tuesday what the White House and the Pentagon are saying they want from lawmakers on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Levin replied, “Let them complete the analysis.”
During his press event, Udall called for a stronger voice from Obama. While acknowledging the president made clear in January during his State of the Union address that he wants to work to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Udall said he wants to see and hear more from Obama on the issue.
“The White House has, in the State of the Union address, made it clear they want to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Udall said. “The timing they continue to leave up to the Congress. That’s why I think it will be very useful if the president weighed in and said that this year is the year to finish the job.”
Anger with Obama for failing to endorse immediate repeal led protesters to interrupt the president’s speech Monday at a Los Angeles fundraising event for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
In another protest, six LGBT veterans handcuffed themselves to the gates of the White House on Tuesday in protest over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and were subsequently arrested. Among the demonstrators were Lt. Dan Choi and Capt. Jim Pietrangelo, who were arrested last month after handcuffing themselves to the White House fence in a similar protest.
In a statement, Choi said he and other LGBT veterans participated in the action out of concern that the president is wavering on his commitment to push for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“We are handcuffing ourselves to the White House gates once again to demand that President Obama show leadership on repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Choi said. “If the president were serious about keeping his promise to repeal this year, he would put the repeal language in his Defense authorization budget.”
Following the protest in Los Angeles, White House Deputy Press Secretary Dan Burton wouldn’t say in response to a reporter’s question aboard Air Force One whether Obama supports repeal at this time. Instead, Burton emphasized that “a tremendous amount of progress” has been made on the issue.
“This is a policy that’s been in place for quite a long time, and as we’ve seen on other issues, change is hard,” he said. “But that said, what we’ve seen is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense both come out in support of this change, and we’re moving with as much speed as possible to see that it’s done.”
Nicholson said he doesn’t think it’s possible to move senators to vote for an immediate repeal bill without more support from the president. But he noted a bill with delayed implementation, as Servicemembers United previously recommended, is possible.
“I think that’s the best chance we have for getting this because it’s the only thing consistent with what the Pentagon wants and it’s the only … middle ground between what the Pentagon says they want and what we are willing to give up and accept,” Nicholson said.
Nicholson said the repeal legislation currently before the Senate isn’t a delayed implementation bill because it calls for an immediate cessation of discharges while allowing the Pentagon working group to complete its study.
Regardless of the positions of the White House and Pentagon, Herwitt said HRC and other advocates are working to make repeal happen this year in the hopes of moving moderate senators to vote for repeal.
“I think that we are going to continue to push and advocate for these senators’ votes,” she said. “The president said in the State of the Union address that he will work with Congress this year and we are continuing to push forward.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Competing rallies draw hundreds to Supreme Court
Activists, politicians gather during oral arguments over trans youth participation in sports
Hundreds of supporters and opponents of trans rights gathered outside of the United States Supreme Court during oral arguments for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. on Tuesday. Two competing rallies were held next to each other, with politicians and opposing movement leaders at each.
“Trans rights are human rights!” proclaimed U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to the crowd of LGBTQ rights supporters. “I am here today because trans kids deserve more than to be debated on cable news. They deserve joy. They deserve support. They deserve to grow up knowing that their country has their back.”
“And I am here today because we have been down this hateful road before,” Markey continued. “We have seen time and time again what happens when the courts are asked to uphold discrimination. History eventually corrects those mistakes, but only after the real harm is done to human beings.”
View on Threads
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke at the other podium set up a few feet away surrounded by signs, “Two Sexes. One Truth.” and “Reality Matters. Biology Matters.”
“In just four years, the Biden administration reversed decades of progress,” said McMahon. “twisting the law to urge that sex is not defined by objective biological reality, but by subjective notion of gender identity. We’ve seen the consequences of the Biden administration’s advocacy of transgender agendas.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, was introduced on the opposing podium during McMahon’s remarks.
“This court, whose building that we stand before this morning, did something quite remarkable six years ago.” Takano said. “It did the humanely decent thing, and legally correct thing. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court said that trans employees exist. It said that trans employees matter. It said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sex, and that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It recognizes that trans people have workplace rights and that their livelihoods cannot be denied to them, because of who they are as trans people.”
“Today, we ask this court to be consistent,” Takano continued. “If trans employees exist, surely trans teenagers exist. If trans teenagers exist, surely trans children exist. If trans employees have a right not to be discriminated against in the workplace, trans kids have a right to a free and equal education in school.”
Takano then turned and pointed his finger toward McMahon.
“Did you hear that, Secretary McMahon?” Takano addressed McMahon. “Trans kids have a right to a free and equal education! Restore the Office of Civil Rights! Did you hear me Secretary McMahon? You will not speak louder or speak over me or over these people.”
Both politicians continued their remarks from opposing podiums.
“I end with a message to trans youth who need to know that there are adults who reject the political weaponization of hate and bigotry,” Takano said. “To you, I say: you matter. You are not alone. Discrimination has no place in our schools. It has no place in our laws, and it has no place in America.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Justices considered whether laws unconstitutional under Title IX.
The Supreme Court heard two cases today that could change how the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX are enforced.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., ask the court to determine whether state laws blocking transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Once decided, the rulings could reshape how laws addressing sex discrimination are interpreted nationwide.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether Bostock v. Clayton County — the landmark case holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — applies in the context of athletics. He questioned whether transgender girls should be considered girls under the law, noting that they were assigned male at birth.
“I think the basic focus of the discussion up until now, which is, as I see it anyway, whether or not we should view your position as a challenge to the distinction between boys and girls on the basis of sex or whether or not you are perfectly comfortable with the distinction between boys and girls, you just want an exception to the biological definition of girls.”
“How we approach the situation of looking at it not as boys versus girls but whether or not there should be an exception with respect to the definition of girls,” Roberts added, suggesting the implications could extend beyond athletics. “That would — if we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed Roberts’ concerns, questioning how sex-based classifications function under Title IX and what would happen if Idaho’s ban were struck down.
“Does a — the justification for a classification as you have in Title IX, male/female sports, let’s take, for example, an individual male who is not a good athlete, say, a lousy tennis player, and does not make the women’s — and wants to try out for the women’s tennis team, and he said there is no way I’m better than the women’s tennis players. How is that different from what you’re being required to do here?”
Justice Samuel Alito addressed what many in the courtroom seemed reluctant to state directly: the legal definition of sex.
“Under Title IX, what does the term ‘sex’ mean?” Alito asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who was arguing in support of Idaho’s law. Mooppan maintained that sex should be defined at birth.
“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex and think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, questioning how that definition did not amount to sex discrimination against Lindsay Hecox under Idaho law. If Hecox’s sex is legally defined as male, Sotomayor argued, the exclusion still creates discrimination.
“It’s still an exception,” Sotomayor said. “It’s a subclass of people who are covered by the law and others are not.”
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the broader implications of the cases, asking whether a ruling for the states would impose a single definition of sex on the 23 states that currently have different laws and standards. The parties acknowledged that scientific research does not yet offer a clear consensus on sex.
“I think the one thing we definitely want to have is complete findings. So that’s why we really were urging to have a full record developed before there were a final judgment of scientific uncertainty,” said Kathleen Harnett, Hecox’s legal representative. “Maybe on a later record, that would come out differently — but I don’t think that—”
“Just play it out a little bit, if there were scientific uncertainty,” Kagan responded.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the impact such policies could have on cisgender girls, arguing that allowing transgender girls to compete could undermine Title IX’s original purpose.
“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league, there’s a — there’s a harm there,” Kavanaugh said. “I think we can’t sweep that aside.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Idaho’s law discriminated based on transgender status or sex.
“Since trans boys can play on boys’ teams, how would we say this discriminates on the basis of transgender status when its effect really only runs towards trans girls and not trans boys?”
Harnett responded, “I think that might be relevant to a, for example, animus point, right, that we’re not a complete exclusion of transgender people. There was an exclusion of transgender women.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the notion that explicitly excluding transgender people was not discrimination.
“I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say that this law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of transgender status. The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams… it treats transgender women different than — than cis-women, doesn’t it?”
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst urged the court to uphold his state’s ban, arguing that allowing participation based on gender identity — regardless of medical intervention — would deny opportunities to girls protected under federal law.
Hurst emphasized that biological “sex is what matters in sports,” not gender identity, citing scientific evidence that people assigned male at birth are predisposed to athletic advantages.
Joshua Block, representing B.P.J., was asked whether a ruling in their favor would redefine sex under federal law.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block said. “I think the purpose is to make sure sex isn’t being used to deny opportunities.”
Becky Pepper-Jackson, identified as plaintiff B.P.J., the 15-year-old also spoke out.
“I play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do — to make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,” said Pepper-Jackson. “And all I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me — the only transgender student athlete in the entire state — from playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves.”
Outside the court, advocates echoed those concerns as the justices deliberated.
“Becky simply wants to be with her teammates on the track and field team, to experience the camaraderie and many documented benefits of participating in team sports,” said Sasha Buchert, counsel and Nonbinary & Transgender Rights Project director at Lambda Legal. “It has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills — in leadership, teamwork, confidence, and health. On the other hand, denying a student the ability to participate is not only discriminatory but harmful to a student’s self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. That is the argument we made today and that we hope resonated with the justices of the Supreme Court.”
“This case is about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “School athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia’s law completely excluded Becky from her school’s entire athletic program even when there is no connection to alleged concerns about fairness or safety. As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boys’ team — in contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life — is really no choice at all. We are glad to stand with her and her family to defend her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in both cases by the end of June.
U.S. Supreme Court
As Supreme Court weighs trans sports bans, advocate and former athlete speaks out
PFLAG staffer Diego Sanchez competed at University of Georgia in 1970s
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday addressing the legality of banning transgender women and girls from participating in sports under the 14th Amendment.
Though the two cases differ slightly in their fact patterns, they ultimately pose the same constitutional question: whether laws that limit participation in women’s sports to only cisgender women and girls violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In both cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — trans girls filed lawsuits against their respective states, Idaho and West Virginia, arguing that the bans violate their right to equal protection under the law by subjecting them to different standards than cisgender girls.
Lindsay Hecox, now 24, filed her lawsuit in 2020 while attending Boise State University. That same year, Idaho enacted the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which barred trans women from participating in any sport in public schools, from kindergarten through college. Although Hecox underwent hormone therapy that significantly lowered her testosterone levels, she was still excluded under the law when she attempted to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams.
The second case centers on B.P.J., a 15-year-old trans girl who has identified as female since third grade and has been on puberty blockers since the onset of puberty. In 2021, West Virginia enacted the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires sports teams to be designated by “biological sex” rather than gender identity. B.P.J.’s mother filed suit on her behalf after her daughter was barred from participating on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams.
A key distinction between the two cases is that attorneys for B.P.J. have argued that because puberty blockers were part of her development, her body is more aligned with that of a cisgender girl than a cisgender boy. Despite these differences, both cases raise the same constitutional issue: whether it is lawful to bar someone from participation in sports based on sex assigned at birth.
The Washington Blade spoke with PFLAG Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez.
Sanchez is a trans elder with firsthand experience as a college athlete at the University of Georgia and later became the first openly trans legislative staff member on Capitol Hill.
His dual experience — as a former athlete and a longtime policy expert deeply familiar with constitutional law — gives him a unique perspective on the questions now before the Supreme Court. Sanchez will also be one of the featured speakers at a rally on the steps of the court as the justices hear arguments.
When asked how attitudes toward trans athletes differ from when he competed at the University of Georgia from 1976-1980 to today — when 27 states have passed laws restricting trans participation in sports — Sanchez said the contrast is stark.
“I had the good experience of being supported by my teammates and my coach,” Sanchez said. “The thing that’s so different today is that these [trans] kids are able to go home and get kisses and hugs from their parents, being lauded in the stands by their families, and then being told that who they are doesn’t necessarily fit with who they’re allowed to be in their expression at the moment, and that to me, seems a terrible injustice.”
Sanchez emphasized that sports offer lessons that extend far beyond competition.
“When you’re an athlete, you learn an awful lot of things about life,” he said. “You learn about leadership, but you also learn that your best effort becomes part of a team effort … how you feel as an individual contributor is affected by what ends up being part of how you live your life as an adult.”
After his time as an athlete, Sanchez began working in government, eventually serving as senior policy advisor to then-U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) until Frank’s retirement in 2013. Sanchez said that one of the most important aspects of his role was simply being visible as a trans person in spaces where many lawmakers had never knowingly met one before.
“My job was to make sure that no one, no legislator, could say that they had never met a trans person,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez also addressed the broader implications the Supreme Court’s decision could have on how gender is treated within institutional systems.
“I don’t think it affects how people perceive their own gender or express their own gender, but I do think that it could create barriers if it doesn’t welcome the way that community and society actually are,” he said. “The most important thing for people to know … is to remember that every person is an individual, and that the right to contribute to society should be something that is supported by the government, not hindered.”
He added that the court’s role must be understood within the framework of checks and balances established by the Constitution.
“The risk, of course, here is always remembering that we have three branches of government, so that this action by the judiciary branch may or may not have implications on whether or how things can be perceived or executed at other branches,” Sanchez said. “I would hope that our government is interested in letting the future generations and current generations be the best that they can be as well.”
“Do people get to live their lives as they are, or is the government an obstruction or a support?”
When asked what message he would share with young trans athletes watching the Supreme Court take up these cases, Sanchez said community support remains critical, regardless of how the justices rule.
“Make sure that the environment that you put yourself in is something that honors who you know you are and supports you becoming the best person you can be, and that anything that takes away from that is purely dissonance,” he said.
“What we do with dissonance is what distinguishes us as whether we excel or doubt.”
That same sense of community, Sanchez said, is what rallies — like the one planned outside the Supreme Court — are meant to reinforce, even as decisions are made inside the building.
“Rallies, including tomorrow’s, are about people knowing they’re not alone, and hearing from other people who support who they are,” he said. “There is support across the country … I wish that I had had someone my age now that I could have looked to, but I am the role model, but I didn’t have any.”
Looking ahead to the possibility that the court could uphold bans on trans athletes, Sanchez said the immediate challenge will be ensuring that families and communities continue to affirm trans youth amid legal uncertainty.
“Having the endorsement of being supported who you are, it helps you so much,” he said. “You cannot put the issue of rights back into the genie’s bottle once people experience what freedom and welcoming is.”
For Sanchez, whose life has spanned decades of change in both sports and government, the cases before the Supreme Court represent a pivotal moment — not just legally, but culturally.
“Living your life, for me, does not require bravery,” he said. “It’s just taking one step and then another.”
Va. Senate committee approves resolution to repeal marriage amendment
Rise of Chalamet continues in ‘Marty Supreme’
Zach Wahls stood up for us, now let’s stand with him
Grenell: ‘Real hope’ for gay rights in Iran as result of nationwide protests
Rollback of health IT standards will harm LGBTQ patients
Ford’s ‘First Look’ festival showcases three new productions
Mid-Atlantic Leather kicks off this week
Stress-free lease renewals during winter months
PHOTOS: ‘ICE Out For Good’ Sunday protests
