National
‘It’s just an act of meanness’
N.C. couples brace for May vote on sweeping marriage ban
Shana Carignan (left) and Megan Parker Carignan with their son Jax. The North Carolina couple fears a proposed constitutional amendment would cost them crucial domestic partner benefits they need to care for their child. (Courtesy Photo)
For Shana Carignan and Megan Parker Carignan, the passage of Amendment 1 in North Carolina would mean much more than a dashed dream of walking down the aisle.
The Greensboro, N.C., couple faces the prospect of losing crucial domestic partner benefits they need to care for Jax, a four-year-old special needs child they adopted, as well as for Mary, a special needs elderly woman they’ve taken care of for about seven years.
Shana said “a lot of things are at stake” if Amendment 1 passes because her custody of Jax could be jeopardized if something should happen to Megan, who legally adopted the child.
“There’s a good chance that I would not be in custody of him,” Shana said. “Even if we were to draw up guardianship papers, they’re saying that there’s risk that this amendment would null and void it and that he would probably go back into the foster care system in Texas.”
Noting Jax has special needs, Shana said she doesn’t believe many other families would be able to care for the child should he be sent back to Texas.
Moreover, Amendment 1 would also cause problems if Shana were injured or died because Jax wouldn’t receive any benefits as a result that would be afforded to children under the care of their biological parents.
Also at stake is the couple’s home. The house in which the two reside is currently in Megan’s name. Even though both have contributed income toward the household, Shana could lose the home if something should happen to Megan.
“Even if she put me in her will, there’s a good chance that the courts would not give me anything that we worked toward together because we’re not married and because we’re not blood related,” Shana said.
At first blush, the result of the vote on the anti-gay amendment may seem neutral because same-sex marriage is already prohibited by statute in North Carolina. If Amendment 1 passes on May 8, same-sex couples won’t be able to marry. If Amendment 1 fails on May 8, same-sex couples won’t be able to marry.
But the sweeping measure would not only enshrine in the state constitution a ban on their ability to marry, but would take away domestic partner health benefits and make contractual agreements questionable at best.
The amendment reads, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” Opponents of the measure say anyone who falls outside of this definition could potentially be harmed by the amendment.
Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for the Coalition to Protect All NC Families, emphasized that Amendment 1 would have “far-reaching, negative consequences” that would go beyond a ban on same-sex marriage if it were passed.
“If the national industries pushing Amendment One intended to simply codify existing state laws banning same-sex marriage, they’ve made an egregious mistake, and in doing so impacted our state’s most vulnerable North Carolina families,” Kennedy said. “In addition to banning civil unions and domestic partnerships, Amendment One’s broad language could take health care away from children, put domestic violence laws in jeopardy, force seniors to choose between their hard-earned benefits and legal protections, and, in doing so, threaten all unmarried couples in North Carolina.”
Both Shana, 29, a fundraiser a local HIV non-profit, and Megan, 33, a caregiver for individuals with special needs, expressed frustration over the prospects of losing the benefits they need to protect their family if North Carolina voters approve Amendment 1 next month.
Shana said she’s “appalled” that her rights that many other couples may take for granted will come up to a vote. The couple had a commitment ceremony two years ago, but haven’t been legally married.
“I work a job, I pay my taxes, I have been raising a family,” Shana said. “We’re raising a family that’s non traditional that maybe a lot of people wouldn’t choose, or wouldn’t want to put in the amount of work that we put into our family because of the circumstances involving the disabilities. It’s already hard for us, and to make it that much harder is hurtful and just shocking.”
Megan echoed the sentiments expressed by her partner.
“We work so hard and I think if you look at our character, we just try so hard to be the best people and citizens that we can be,” Meghan said. “I love where I’m from so much, and just to think that there’s a potential that the state constitution could be amended to exclude me from so many things is frustrating and disheartening.”
Another couple that resides in Durham, N.C., Libby and Melissa Hodges, also expressed frustration over Amendment 1 because its passage would mean they would lose their domestic partner benefits. Both work as city planners and have a four-year-old daughter.
Libby, 32, said she receives domestic partner benefits from her job because that’s the most inexpensive way to care for Melissa, 33, and their daughter, but these benefits would become unavailable if Amendment 1 passes.
“Currently, the city I work for has domestic partner benefits and I cover [our daughter] under that insurance,” Libby said. “If the amendment passes, there stands to be a very good chance that she’ll not be able to covered under my insurance any longer.”
The couple also expressed concern about the consequences in the event the two decided to split. Melissa, the biological mother of their daughter, would have no obligation to provide visitation rights, nor would Libby have any obligation to provide any care.
“I see the signs out for the amendment,” Melissa said. “I feel like it’s just an act of meanness. I don’t see where it benefits anyone; it’s just trying to strike out and hurt me more. Related to my relationship I have very few rights as it is, and they’re striking out to take the few that we have away.”
A survey by Public Policy Polling last month revealed 58 percent of likely voters intend to vote for the amendment, while 38 percent were planning a “no” vote.
However, supporters don’t seem to fully understand the bill’s potential consequences. For example, 51 percent said they support some kind of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples — either marriage or a civil union — yet 34 percent of that same group still intend to vote for the amendment.
New York
N.Y. lawmaker vows ‘Pride flag will fly again’ at Stonewall Monument
After a Jan. 21 policy shift, Pride flags were banned at national parks, prompting backlash from Bottcher and LGBTQ advocates.
Hours after news broke that the National Park Service would no longer allow Pride flags to fly at the Stonewall National Monument — the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement in the United States — the Washington Blade spoke with New York State Sen. Erik Bottcher, who represents the area surrounding the Stonewall Inn and the national monument.
During the interview, Bottcher, who is gay, spoke about the policy change and outlined steps he plans to take in the coming days to push for its reversal.
“This is another act of erasure,” Bottcher told the Blade. “It’s a cowardly attempt to rewrite history and to intimidate our community. This is Stonewall — it’s where we fought back, where we ignited a global movement for equality — and we refuse to go back. We’re not going to accept these acts of erasure.”
The Stonewall Inn became a flashpoint in 1969 after NYPD officers raided the bar, part of a longstanding pattern of police harassment of LGBTQ spaces. The raid sparked days of protest and resistance along Christopher Street, now widely recognized as the catalyst for the modern LGBTQ rights movement.
While the events are often referred to as the “Stonewall Riots,” many activists and historians prefer the term “Stonewall Uprising,” emphasizing that the resistance was a response to systemic oppression rather than senseless violence. LGBTQ patrons and community members fought back — shouting “Gay Power!” and “Liberate Christopher Street!” — as crowds grew and frustration with police abuse boiled over.
Since the uprising, LGBTQ people and allies have gathered annually in June to commemorate Stonewall and to celebrate Pride, honoring the movement that placed LGBTQ voices at the center of the fight for equality.
In June 2016, then President Barack Obama officially designated the space as the Stonewall National Monument, making it the United States’s first national monument designated for an LGBTQ historic site.
Now, nearly 10 years later, President Trump’s appointed NPS acting director Jessica Bowron changed policy on Jan. 21 regarding which flags are allowed to be flown in national parks. Many, including Bottcher, say this is part of a larger targeted and deliberate attempt by the administration to erase LGBTQ history.
“It’s clear they’re making a conscious decision to erase the symbols of our community from a monument to our community’s struggle,” he said. “This is a calculated and premeditated decision, and it could be — and should be — reversed.”
“Let’s be clear,” Bottcher added, “they wish we didn’t exist … But we’re not going anywhere. We refuse to go back into the shadows.”
When asked why it is critical to challenge the policy, Bottcher emphasized the importance of visibility in preserving LGBTQ history.
“This is why it’s so important that we not let this stand,” he said. “Visibility is critical. When people see us, learn about us, and get to know us, that’s how we break down prejudice and stereotypes. We cannot allow them to push us back into the shadows.”
Other LGBTQ leaders and elected officials were quick to condemn the removal of the Pride flag, which had flown since the site’s official designation as a national monument.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the decision “outrageous.”
“I am outraged by the removal of the Rainbow Pride Flag from Stonewall National Monument,” Mamdani said in a statement. “New York is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, and no act of erasure will ever change or silence that history.”
“Our city has a duty not just to honor this legacy, but to live up to it,” he added. “I will always fight for a New York City that invests in our LGBTQ+ community, defends their dignity, and protects every one of our neighbors — without exception.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also condemned the move.
“The removal of the Pride Rainbow Flag from the Stonewall National Monument is a deeply outrageous action that must be reversed immediately,” Schumer said in a statement to The Advocate. “Stonewall is a landmark because it is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, and symbols of that legacy belong there by both history and principle.”
Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the flag’s removal will not erase the movement it represents.
“They can take down a flag, but they can’t take down our history,” Renna said. “Stonewall is sacred ground rooted in resistance, liberation, and the legacy of trans and queer trailblazers who changed the course of history.”
Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Brandon Wolf echoed that sentiment.
“Bad news for the Trump administration: these colors don’t run,” Wolf said. “The Stonewall Inn and Visitors Center are privately owned, their flags are still flying high, and that community is just as queer today as it was yesterday.”
Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, said the removal was aimed squarely at LGBTQ visibility.
“The Pride flag was removed from Stonewall for one reason: to further erase queer and trans people from public life,” Hack said. “Stonewall marks the moment when queer and trans people fought back and demanded dignity. Our history is not theirs to erase.”
Bottcher closed with a promise to his constituents — and to the broader LGBTQ community — that the Pride flag’s removal would not be permanent.
“We will not be erased. We will not be silenced,” he said. “And the Pride flag will fly again at the birthplace of our movement.”
Florida
Disney’s Gay Days ‘has not been canceled’ despite political challenges
GayDays is moving forward with its planned LGBTQ meet-up
Gay Days in Orlando is preparing for its 2026 gathering though organizers have yet to release full details.
Concerns emerged about the status of the annual meetup of LGBTQ people at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Fla., after social media posts and multiple news outlets reported the event would not take place this year.
In response to inquiries from the Blade, Josh Duke, co-owner of Gay Days, clarified that an update would come this week.
“At this time, I’d like to clarify that Gay Days Orlando has not been canceled,” an email to the Blade said. “We are currently finalizing details regarding our plans for 2026 and will be making an official announcement later this week.”
Earlier this week, Gay Days posted about a pause in their plans for the annual meeting, which quickly gained traction online.
In an official statement on social media, Gay Days organizers cited several factors behind what had initially appeared to be a cancellation of their 2026 event.
“Changes to our host hotel agreement, the loss of key sponsorship support, and broader challenges currently impacting LGBTQIA+ events nationwide made it impossible to deliver the experience our community deserves,” organizers wrote. However, the statement added, “This is a pause — not an ending.”
In a longer message shared with supporters, organizers elaborated on that now-reversed decision.
“Gay Days Family — it is with very heavy hearts that we share Gay Days 2026 will not take place this year. This was an incredibly difficult decision and one that was only made after every possible option was explored.
“Gay Days has always been more than an event — it is community, family, and a place where so many memories are made. While this pause is painful, it also gives us the opportunity to step back, listen, and begin shaping a stronger and reimagined GayDays for the future. Thank you for your continued love, patience, and support. This is not goodbye — it’s a reset, and we look forward to creating the future of GayDays together.”
GayDays, which began in 1991, encourages queer Disney fans to visit the Orlando theme park while wearing red shirts to identify one another. Originally focused on gay men reclaiming the childhood joy often denied due to homophobia, the event has expanded over the years to include LGBTQ+ families on summer vacations and queer couples honeymooning in the Magic Kingdom.
Disney made history in 2019 by holding its first-ever official Pride event at its European park, Disneyland Paris. In 2023, Disneyland California hosted the first U.S. official Pride event.
Concerns about the potential cancellation had arisen amid broader challenges affecting LGBTQ events nationwide. These include changes in hotel agreements, sponsorship support, and Florida’s increasingly restrictive anti-LGBTQ policies under Gov. Ron DeSantis. Florida currently has an equality score of -3.00 out of 49 from the Movement Advancement Project, which evaluates states based on policies affecting relationship and parental recognition, nondiscrimination, religious exemptions, LGBTQ youth, healthcare, criminal justice, and transgender identity documentation.
Recent legislation in Florida has included prohibitions on hormone replacement therapy for transgender minors, restrictions on adult access to treatment, bans on drag performances for those under 18, bathroom bans for transgender people in state buildings, and expansion of the Parental Rights in Education Act, commonly called the “Don’t Say Gay” law. These measures limit public school instruction or discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity.
Gay Days Anaheim is scheduled to take place at Disneyland Resort in September.
Disney has also maintained a focus on Pride, reporting in 2022 that proceeds from Pride merchandise benefited numerous LGBTQ organizations, including GLSEN, PFLAG, The Trevor Project, Zebra Coalition, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, the LGBT Center Orange County, the San Francisco LGBT Center, and the Ali Forney Center. Pride merchandise sold internationally supports local LGBTQ organizations in those regions.
More details about this event are expected to be released on Friday.
New York
Pride flag removed from Stonewall Monument as Trump targets LGBTQ landmarks
The new NPS policy targets Pride flags amid consistent efforts from the Trump administration to minimize LGBTQ history.
A rainbow Pride flag flying at the Stonewall National Monument in New York was removed at the direction of Trump administration officials at the National Park Service, according to a source familiar with the matter who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity.
The source said the move had been in the works for weeks and is part of ongoing efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to erase LGBTQ identity from federally controlled landmarks.
In response to the Blade’s request for information about the new flag policy, the National Park Service provided the following statement:
“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points. The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose. These include historical context or reenactments, current military branch flags, flags of federally recognized tribal nations affiliated with a park, flags at sites co-managed with other federal, state, or municipal partners, flags required for international park designations, and flags displayed under agreements with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Naturalization ceremonies.”
The statement also included official guidance on the display of non-agency flags issued by Trump-appointed National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron.
The Blade reached out to other organizations to confirm the status of the Pride flag last week, including the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, and the National Parks Conservation Association. None were able to provide details about whether the flag was still flying at that time but it has since been removed.
This action aligns with other moves targeting and erasing LGBTQ history. In September, the Blade reported that three organizations originally slated to receive more than $1.25 million from the National Park Service’s Underrepresented Communities Grant Program would no longer receive funding: In Washington, D.C., the Preservation League had been awarded $75,000 to document LGBTQ+ historic resources. In Providence, R.I., the Preservation Society was slated for $74,692 to conduct an LGBTQ+ survey and prepare a National Register nomination. And in New York, the Fund for the City of New York, Inc., had been awarded $32,000 to nominate the residence of Bayard Rustin — the iconic civil rights and LGBTQ activist — as a National Historic Landmark.
A dozen Senegalese men arrested for ‘unnatural acts’
Meet D.C.’s Most Eligible Queer Singles
Local LGBTQ groups, activists to commemorate Black History Month
U.S. Attorney’s Office drops hate crime charge in anti-gay assault
N.Y. lawmaker vows ‘Pride flag will fly again’ at Stonewall Monument
D.C. pays $500,000 to settle lawsuit brought by gay Corrections Dept. employee
‘Octet’ explores the depths of digital addiction
Comings & Goings
Why trans suffering is more palatable than trans ambition
