National
5 questions as Supreme Court considers marriage
Justices poised to issue most significant rulings on gay rights
There are many legal questions to ponder as observers await the Supreme Court decision on Prop 8 and DOMA. (Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)
In the wake of last week’s announcement that the Supreme Court will hear lawsuits challenging California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, observers over the next several months will wait on pins and needles for what may be the most significant ruling on LGBT rights in history.
Here are five questions that advocates are pondering as they await decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to Prop 8, and Windsor v. United States, the lawsuit against DOMA.
1. Will the Supreme Court overturn same-sex marriage bans in all states?
By taking up the Prop 8 case, as opposed to letting stand a more narrow ruling from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that applied only to California, the court has an opportunity to make a ruling that not only says the same-sex marriage ban in California is unconstitutional, but marriage bans in all states throughout the country are as well.
David Boies, a co-counsel representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, said during a conference call last week justices would produce a ruling that’s more expansive than California if they decide the Prop 8 case on its merits and find it violates the U.S. Constitution.
“That would mean there would be a fundamental right to marry in every state in the country because obviously the federal constitution applies to every state in the country,” Boies said.
Much in the same way that the 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia ended bans on interracial marriage in all states, such a sweeping decision from the Supreme Court in Prop 8 would require the 41 states that don’t have same-sex marriage on the books to allow gay couples to marry. Not only would marriage equality be restored to California, it would be extended to the estimated 646,000 same-sex couples throughout the country.
Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, said this outcome is one of several possible ways the Supreme Court could rule if justices find a constitutional right to marry under either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.
“Either finding that we share the fundamental right or finding that it violates equal protection generally to not allow same-sex couples to marry when different-sex couples can would extend the right to marry to all 50 states,” Davidson said.
Still, the general consensus among legal experts is that the court isn’t likely to reach this outcome when it’s possible for them to reach a ruling on more narrow grounds that would just affect California or a limited number of states.
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a law professor at Loyola Law School, posited that since California allows domestic partnerships but not same-sex marriage, the court could produce a ruling requiring all eight states that offer either domestic partnerships or civil unions to provide full marriage rights for gay couples. Those states are California, Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada and New Jersey.
“The middle course would be one that says states that have allowed same-sex couples to have comprehensive domestic partnerships or civil unions don’t have an adequate justification for preventing them from marrying,” NeJaime said. “That would affect more than just California, but it wouldn’t affect every state.”
2. What happens if the Supreme Court upholds both Prop 8 and DOMA?
In what he might be considered the opposite scenario compared to the situation described above, the Supreme Court could also deal a devastating blow to LGBT advocates by upholding either or both Prop 8 and DOMA.
A loss for LGBT advocates in the court in the Prop 8 case would mean they would need another voter-initiated ballot campaign to repeal the measure ballot, much like the divisive and expensive 2008 campaign that led to its passage by voters.
John O’Connor, the newly appointed executive director of Equality California, said “everything’s on the table” for discussion in the event that the Supreme Court determines the ban on same-sex marriage in California is constitutional.
“The question about would we go back to the ballot — it’s absolutely a possibility,” O’Connor said. “The timing and the tactics and all of that remain to be determined between now and the time the decision comes down but it’s absolutely a priority for us to plan that.”
Asked whether he’d rule out the possibility of going back to the ballot in 2014 at this point, O’Connor replied, “Absolutely not. I wouldn’t rule it out. That’s definitely a possibility that we’ll be considering.”
Similarly, a decision upholding DOMA would mean that Congress would have to act to repeal DOMA — mostly likely using the Respect for Marriage Act as the vehicle to undo the law. That would be a difficult task as long as Republicans remain in control of the House.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chief sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, said in a statement he intends to work with Congress to build support for the legislation even before the court renders a decision on DOMA.
“As the Supreme Court reviews DOMA, I will continue to spearhead the participation of Members of Congress who believe that DOMA is unconstitutional in the Windsor case,” Nadler said. “At the same time, I will keep working with my colleagues to increase support for the Respect for Marriage Act, my bill to repeal DOMA and remove official discrimination from our legal code.”
3. Will the U.S. government weigh in on the Prop 8 lawsuit?
Amid news that the Supreme Court will take up the Prop 8 lawsuit, a new call has emerged for the Obama administration to weigh in on the lawsuit to assert a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.
Ted Olson, co-counsel for plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, said during the conference call last week that participation from the Obama administration in the litigation would have “great effect” on the outcome of the case.
“I would hate to predict what the United States government is doing, but given the stand the president of the United States and the attorney general of the United States made with respect to marriage equality, we would certainly hope that they would participate,” Olson added.
Although President Obama asserted his personal view in May that same-sex couples should be able to marry, the Obama administration hasn’t yet answered the question of whether that’s a guaranteed right under the Constitution. The Obama administration could participate by filing a friend-of-the-court brief along with other parties, or less likely, by asking to intervene in the case.
Asked Tuesday during a White House press briefing about the Obama administration’s position on the Prop 8 case, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney declined to comment, saying, “For comment on the court’s actions on that case, I would point you to the Department of Justice. As you know the administration is not a party in that case, and I just have nothing more for you on it.”
Following the briefing, Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokesperson, told the Washington Blade, “No updates at this point.”
Richard Socarides, a gay New York advocate who’s called on Obama to take an active role in supporting marriage equality, said arguing in favor of the constitutional right to marry — for all states and not just California — is “a logical extension” of the position already articulated by the administration when it determined DOMA was unconstitutional.
“If you apply that [heightened scrutiny] test that they advocate to any of the 30 states that have constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage, then all of those state amendments go out the window,” Socarides said. “So, obviously, that’s very important to us, and that’s the government position, and I think it’s important that they say so clearly rather than trying to duck it.”
Additionally, Socarides said the Obama administration won’t be able to run from the issue because justices will likely ask U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. or whomever is representing the administration during oral arguments about its position on Prop 8.
“They’re kidding themselves if they don’t think some judge isn’t going to ask them,” Socarides said. “During the argument of the DOMA case, [Samuel] Alito or [Clarence] Thomas or [John] Roberts or [Antonin] Scalia is going to say to them, ‘If we apply the test you are advocating to Proposition 8, what would happen?’ They’re going to get asked this question. That’s what’s silly about this.”
Lambda’s Davidson agreed that a friend-of-the-court brief from the Obama administration would have an impact on the Supreme Court.
“They’re more likely to read a brief from the solicitor general than from other parties,” Davidson said. “And I think that they care what another branch of government says to them, so I think it will be significant. I don’t think they will decide a certain way just because the executive branch says so. They will make up their minds, but to have one branch of government telling another what they think the outcome would be, they’d pay attention to that.”
But the notion that participation from the Obama administration would be helpful to convincing justices to overturn Prop 8 isn’t universal.
Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, said the Justice Department has articulated that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny and an additional brief wouldn’t have much sway.
“I don’t really think it makes much difference, frankly, to the court,” Hunter said. “The political alignment of the Obama administration is very clear on this, so I don’t really think it’ll make much difference.”
4. What happens if the Supreme Court denies standing to anti-gay forces in the lawsuit?
In addition to announcing that it would take up cases challenging Prop 8 and DOMA, the Supreme Court also called for attorneys involved in the lawsuit to answer questions about whether certain parties involved in the lawsuit have standing to present their views before the court. The standing issue will be resolved as part of the final ruling the Supreme Court makes before its term expires in June.
For the Prop 8 case, the standing question is singular: Do anti-gay groups that helped pass Prop 8 at the ballot have the right to defend the law in court because California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have declined to do so? That was the opinion of the Ninth Circuit, which determined ProtectMarriage.com could defend the law after the group’s standing was certified by the California Supreme Court.
But in the DOMA case, there are issues of standing on both sides. The court asks parties to respond to whether the court has standing to hear the DOMA case because the U.S. Justice Department, the party that won the case at the district court, appealed the case as opposed to the losing side. Additionally, the court asks if the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — which took up defense of DOMA after the Obama administration announced it would no longer do so — has standing to defend the law.
The questions open up the possibility for the Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8 on technical grounds without getting into the merits of the anti-gay ban. It could assert that anti-gay groups don’t have standing to defend the law, nullifying the Ninth Circuit decision and leaving in place retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision finding that same-sex couples in California have a guaranteed right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.
NeJaime said asking about the standing issue in the Prop 8 case may be an attempt for the court to open the door to striking down the same-sex marriage ban without ruling on the merits of the case.
“This court has been interested in standing for a long time,” NeJaime said. “The conservatives on the court have consistently cut back standing, so it’s not shocking to me that the court is at least interested in that standing question, and I also think it could be slightly strategic so that there is this other issue in the case that would allow the court to avoid a ruling on the merits if they decided that they don’t want to do that.”
The question of what would happen if parties lack standing in the DOMA case gets a little murkier because the issue affects both the plaintiffs (the Justice Department) and the defendants (BLAG). On Tuesday, the Supreme Court announced that it had hired Vicki Jackson, a Harvard lawyer, to argue that neither the Obama administration nor BLAG have standing to petition the court in the case.
Still, the consensus among legal experts is that justices would likely conclude both parties have standing in the DOMA case to evaluate the law on its merits, even though many raised questions about BLAG because it’s a five-member committee and not reflective of the position of Congress, or even the House, as a whole.
Hunter said precedent exists for the Supreme Court to hear a case in which the Justice Department has declined to defend a law and members of Congress have taken up defense of the statute instead.
“The reason here that I think five members of the court will reach the merits in the DOMA case is that the practical necessity for them to do so is just overwhelming,” Hunter said. “I just don’t see them allowing a federal statute to just kind of evaporate in this situation without consideration of the merits. I’m cautiously optimistic that when they do consider the merits, they will find DOMA unconstitutional, but my hunch is that the standing question is more likely to end up being important in the Prop 8 case than it will be in the DOMA case.”
5. What would happen if the Supreme Court applied heightened scrutiny to its ruling?
Another outcome in the cases that would be beneficial to the LGBT community is a determination by the Supreme Court that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has never declared that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny as it has for race, national origin, gender and alienage even in high-profile cases such as Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws throughout the country, and Romer v. Evans, which struck down Colorado’s anti-gay Amendment 2. Still, the belief that sexual orientation laws merit this level of scrutiny is the view held by the Obama administration and the U.S. Second Circuit of Appeals, the court from which the DOMA case was appealed.
Legal experts said such a ruling from the Supreme Court in which justices applied heightened scrutiny would benefit lawsuits challenging other anti-gay laws throughout the country — whether they be the Arizona law stripping away domestic partner benefits from state employees or the Tennessee law prohibiting municipalities from passing non-discrimination ordinances.
While it seems that making a decision on laws related to sexual orientation are subjected to heightened scrutiny would automatically institute the first outcome enumerated in this piece — the invalidation of all restrictions throughout the country — legal experts say that might not be the case.
NeJaime said the application of heightened scrutiny in the DOMA case would make it more likely for them to strike down Prop 8 as well, but it wouldn’t necessarily apply to same-sex marriage bans elsewhere.
“They could apply heightened scrutiny to Prop 8, which they could frame as a very specific question, and then it would take a future case to apply heightened scrutiny to some marriage ban, like a ban in Arkansas where there’s no domestic partnership,” NeJaime said.
Some observers have speculated that the Supreme Court selected the Windsor case as the vehicle to determine the constitutionality of DOMA because that’s the only case in which a federal appeals court has ruled the anti-gay law is unconstitutional by applying heightened scrutiny to the statute.
But Hunter disputed that notion and said the decision to take up Windsor is the result of U.S. Associate Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in the other lawsuit in which an appeals court made a ruling against DOMA — the consolidated case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services — when she was U.S. solicitor general and the Obama administration was still defending the law in court.
“What makes the most sense is to have all nine justices participate in that decision, and Kagan can’t participate in Gill.” Hunter said. “I think they were waiting for a second court of appeals to produce an opinion, and I think they would have taken whatever case wasn’t Gill. It was sort of anything but Gill, and that’s purely because of the Kagan recusal problem.”
(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
New York
NYC lawmakers seek to repeal bathhouse ban
Current policy enacted in 1980s in response to AIDS crisis
New York City lawmakers are pushing to repeal a decades-old prohibition on adult bathhouses, arguing the regulation was created during the height of the AIDS crisis and no longer reflects modern science or public health practices.
Erik Bottcher, the openly gay New York state senator who represents the 47th District that includes the Upper West Side, Chelsea, Hell’s Kitchen and portions of the West Village in Manhattan, is leading the charge to remove the decades-old ban. (Openly gay state Assemblymember Tony Simone has sponsored the repeal bill in the New York State Assembly.) Bottcher sat down with the Washington Blade to discuss why he is advocating for more bathhouses in New York City.
“This is simply about ensuring that our public health policy is in line with today’s science,” he told the Blade. “The prohibition on adult bathhouses was put into place in 1985 at the height of the the AIDS epidemic, when there was very little information, very little treatment options, few treatment options, and great deal of fear. Science has changed. Treatment has changed, and the laws need to change too.”
The proposed legislation would direct the New York State Department of Health to repeal the 1985 regulation and establish a new framework for regulating bathhouses.
“Municipalities around the country and all around the world allow for adult bathhouses. There’s no reason why New York City alone needs to maintain this outdated prohibition. Our bill orders the New York State Department of Health to strike the 1985 regulation and replace it with a regulated public health framework that’s grounded in science.”
Under the proposal, bathhouses would operate as licensed and regulated facilities subject to health and safety standards. Backers of the proposal say that framework could also give public health officials greater access to people who may otherwise be difficult to reach through traditional health care settings.
“What the Department of Health would do is work with public health experts and advocates to develop a regulatory framework that allows licensed regulated facilities to operate under clear health and safety standards — and under this — it would allow public health agencies to have greater opportunities to provide STI and HIV prevention resources, connect people to testing and treatment, conduct instructions, and address legitimate health concerns.”
Supporters of the repeal also argue banning bathhouses does not eliminate the sexual activity that takes place in them or elsewhere. Instead, they say, it pushes those activities into the shadows, where public health officials have fewer opportunities to provide life-saving services that include STI and HIV testing.
“This is also about a safer alternative than pushing activity into unregulated settings where there’s little opportunity for public health engagement because these activities are happening, but they’re happening in the shadows,” Bottcher continued. “We know that the best public health policy is to establish clear public safe public health guidelines that allow for public health intervention.”
Demetre Daskalakis, a physician and longtime HIV prevention advocate who has worked to create sexual healthcare opportunities in bathhouses, also worked with Bottcher on the proposal.
Daskalakis was a high level Centers for Disease Control and Prevention employee until 2025, when he left federal health landscape after the Trump-Vance administration ousted then-CDC Director Susan Monarez. There he worked as director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and was director of the Division of HIV Prevention at the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention.
Daskalakis explained his experience has shown him the potential for these spaces to become points of contact for people who do not regularly access traditional health care.
“I’ve seen what happens when you push sex into the underground,” he said. “From my perspective, this is a great opportunity to be able to reach people who really will not come to normal clinical care and won’t go to normal routine places for testing or screening.”
“As a public health person, I look at it as a great opportunity,” added Daskalakis. “If there’s like regulation of those venues, and if there’s like a prevention plan that sort of sprouts in those places with really solid public health and clinical partners, I think it’s a great opportunity for public health good.”
Daskalakis said a regulated bathhouse could offer more than HIV and STI testing, potentially creating spaces where people could access prevention medications and other health services.
“The bottom line is if there is a good relationship between the government and the venues, we can develop spaces in the venues to actually deliver services,” he said. “It’s not just infectious disease services — I mean yes, you can do HIV testing, STI testing. You can provide doxypep and pre-exposure prophylaxis for people who are HIV negative and at risk for HIV.
“As an example, at Callen-Lorde Community Health Center (in New York City), where I’m the chief medical officer, we developed a prevention pack in a very low threshold way. We gave people enough doxypep and prep to get through Pride. You can also have Narcan and other things to reduce the risk of overdose.”
Daskalakis said that approach reflects what public health should be striving for: meeting the community where they are.
“If you have this sort of relationship with the government that’s not antagonistic, and the government, as New York is one to do, provides some regulatory oversight to these venues, I think what you’re going to have is a place that supports LGBTQ culture — which also which does include sexuality, and also creates a platform to be able to do like very solid prevention work.”
The public health landscape surrounding HIV has changed dramatically since the bathhouse regulation was adopted, Daskalakis said, pointing to advances in treatment and prevention.
“The bottom line is that HIV treatment and prevention have really converged. If you are someone living with HIV and you’re on HIV medicines and your viral load is undetectable, you don’t transmit HIV. That’s called undetectable is equal to untransmittable, or U = U. People who are on prep also have very low risk of acquiring HIV, and so you know the world is very different,” he said.
“Back in the 80s, when there was no way to impact transmission of HIV because we didn’t have effective ways to prevent it — or didn’t know very much about it at that point. It’s a very different world where we know a lot about HIV and have a lot of tools to be able to prevent transmission. Same with STIs,” added Daskalakis. “If you create a holistic strategy for prevention that is sex positive and aligned to these venues, you’re going to prevent HIV and STIs. Period.”
For supporters of the legislation, that public health argument is central to the effort to repeal the ban. Bottcher also sees the proposal as a way to restore LGBTQ community spaces at a time when many queer venues have disappeared and social interaction increasingly takes place online.
“In this era of social isolation created by social media and streaming services, people are desperate for third spaces,” Bottcher said. “Places for people to come together in person, to be together in person. That’s what this would help provide.”
Daskalakis echoed Bottcher’s point that bathhouses could transform from underground, tabooed spaces into venues that combine sexual health services with broader LGBTQ culture.
“When you make them illegal, they become seedy and dark. When you make them something that is allowed, they actually then become sites that may have sex on premises but also support other sorts of cultural things, and in a universe where people are trying to make LGBT folks seem invisible, creating a safe space for them is exactly what we need right now.”
That community-space argument is also tied to health disparities, Bottcher said, arguing that greater access to health education and prevention services could help people who are less likely to seek care through traditional medical settings.
“Creating opportunities for in-person public health education, prevention, treatment that will help improve health outcomes when you push people into less safe settings without any opportunities for education, prevention tools, or treatment. That’s when we see these disparities, these health disparities grow. So it’s very important that we be laser focused on opportunities to address these disparities and reduce them.”
He continued, explaining the proposed change is ultimately about updating public health policy as medical science evolves, just as other practices are updated when new information comes out.
“This is a matter of an outdated public health regulation and the government has a responsibility to continually revisit its public health regulation and ensure that they’re in line with modern day science,” Bottcher said. “Science and healthcare are continually evolving, and the HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment landscape has changed tremendously in the last few years. Our public health regulations need to keep pace with science.”
For LGBTQ New Yorkers who lived through the AIDS crisis, however, changing the policy could carry a different meaning.
Bottcher says the experiences of those who lived through the epidemic — one that killed nearly 300,000 gay men since the 1980s — should inform how any new system is implemented, rather than being dismissed.
“These are in order to help prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS and other STIs,” Bottcher said. “We have to bring people engaging in these activities out of the shadows and into safe settings that provide the opportunity for public health entities to engage with education, treatment, prevention — that’s what this would do.”
Daskalakis said those concerns should be approached through what he described as trauma-informed care.
“My response is that of trauma-informed care,” Daskalakis said. “We have totally been through it, but we need to sort of move past the trauma and realize that the science has changed. I’s not it’s not the ’80s anymore, but we definitely need to look at those folks who have gone through the experience (of the HIV/AIDS crisis) to make sure that what we’re building, from a public health perspective, are effective programs.”
“There’s a great opportunity to learn from folks with experience rather than to alienate them,” he added.
Bottcher also pointed out this policy revision and effort to bring regulations in line with modern science is not only happening in New York. Multiple other cities across the U.S. have moved away from bathhouse prohibitions.
“Minneapolis just passed their ordinance in June,” he said. “San Francisco, despite the fact that they repealed their prohibition some years ago, they are still working to change the policy … However, around the country, even in red states, they have bathhouses … and they haven’t presented a detriment to public health in any way.”
The proposed change could also revive a part of New York’s LGBTQ cultural history, Bottcher said.
“Bathhouses were a big part of gay culture for decades. We all know the legendary stories of Bette Midler and Barry Manilow performing at the Continental Baths. I envision a resurgence of bathhouse culture that includes things like live music, arts, and entertainment. So it’s exciting to think about.”
And if that resurgence happens, Bottcher already has a dream performer in mind to be the first to take the stage.
“Oh, that’s such a good question … Cher.”
Daskalakis picked a similarly essential female singer of gay culture that he’d like to see in the bathhouses of today.
“I feel like my list could be so long, but I think that would be a great place for Madonna.”
The debate over New York’s bathhouse regulation ultimately reflects a broader question about how public health policy should respond as science, medicine, and LGBTQ communities change.
For Bottcher, regulation, rather than prohibition, would give health officials more opportunities to provide prevention and treatment while allowing LGBTQ people to gather openly.
For Daskalakis, the central lesson from his extensive healthcare work in bathhouses is that pushing sexual activity underground will make public health outreach more difficult — the opposite of what the government and healthcare providers should be doing.
“The opportunity to create safe spaces means that we’ll have more opportunities to reach people, not just for public health, but for so many other things … The strategy of banning things that are natural really doesn’t tend to help you very much. It ends up creating misalignment between the community and policymakers.”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Hegseth uses transphobic slur while campaigning for Iowa congressman
Defense Secretary was speaking in support of Republican Zach Nunn
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday used an anti-transgender slur while campaigning for U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), drawing attention to the Trump-Vance administration’s ongoing efforts to restrict trans people from serving in the military.
“At the Department of War, we do training, not t***nies,” Hegseth said, according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch, which first reported the remarks.
Hegseth made the comment at JR’s SouthPork Ranch at the Iowa State Fair, where he joined Nunn for a rally. The remark came as Hegseth discussed his priorities for the military and argued that the department’s focus should be on military readiness rather than issues of race or gender.
In the same speech, Hegseth claimed that the military operates without regard to race or gender.
“Training, lethality, accountability, discipline, readiness — the bedrock of what it means to be an American warrior — is the only focus of our department,” Hegseth said. “Colorblind, gender-neutral, merit-based. That’s it.”
Hegseth’s remarks come as the Trump-Vance administration continues its efforts to restrict trans people from serving in the military.
Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his administration has moved to remove trans service members from the military while also taking steps to prevent trans people from joining.
Trump signed “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” in January 2025, which attempts to bars trans individuals from serving or enlisting in the U.S. military, citing “military readiness” as the reason, despite there being no factual basis for the ban. The policy has been challenged by LGBTQ advocates and military service members, who argue there is no evidence that trans service members undermine military readiness.
Earlier this year, Hegseth made headlines again over the administration’s contradictory approach to hormone therapy, as the military moved to restrict gender-affirming hormone treatment for trans service members while encouraging cisgender military members to receive hormone therapy for “low T,” or testosterone.
The administration’s policy has faced a series of legal challenges from trans service members and advocacy groups.
In June, a federal appeals court panel ruled the administration could not discharge the trans service members who brought one of the lawsuits challenging the ban while their case continues, providing a moment of relief amid the administration’s ongoing efforts to restrict trans military service. The Trump-Vance administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that ruling and, in the meantime, keep it from taking effect.
The Washington Blade reached out to the Pentagon for comment on Hegseth’s use of the slur, but the department did not push back on his choice of words.
“We have nothing further to add beyond the secretary’s remarks,” the statement read.
Illinois
Chicago’s LGBTQ+ youth: Why their zip code still matters
South and West side residents face longer commutes to access affirming services
On Chicago’s West Side, the ballroom scene doubles as a lifeline for LGBTQ+ youth.
Every week, teens are drawn into TaskForce Prevention & Community Services for its popular Vogue School. Once there, they then have access to a variety of resources like housing support, a food pantry, fresh produce, and mental health services.
For many, it’s the only affirming environment in their neighborhood.
“We’re located here in Austin, and there isn’t really any other LGBTQ+ youth program like us on the West Side,” said Reyna Ortiz, program director at the nonprofit. “It’s special because young people don’t have to go Downtown or to the North side to feel like they belong here.”
Ortiz’s perspective underscores a long-standing reality that access to LGBTQ+ youth resources often depends on your zip code.
The city’s largest LGBTQ+ institutions have a prominence on the North Side, which is home to LGBTQ+ enclaves like Northalsted and Andersonville. This can leave queer youth on the South and West sides having to face longer commutes and other barriers when trying to access affirming services.
And when queer youth don’t have these kinds of resources nearby, it can create gaps that shape their health, education and economic futures. But North Side-based institutions—as well as smaller LGBTQ+ orgs on the South and West sides and some citywide organizations—are working to fill these gaps.
Two of Chicago’s largest LGBTQ+ organizations, the Center on Halsted and Howard Brown Health’s Broadway Youth Center, are both situated on the North Side.
At Center on Halsted, 3656 N. Halsted St., youth and family programming spans drop-in spaces, leadership and mentoring opportunities and support groups for LGBTQ+ youth. statewide LGBTQ+ hotline provides additional access for young people beyond its Lakeview base.
CEO Joli Robinson said the Center has been intentional about expanding youth programming beyond the North Side through partnerships with other LGBTQ+ organizations and by introducing programs to its South Side location, the Center on Cottage Grove, 6323 S. Cottage Grove Ave.
“A week or so ago, we started our first drop-in space at the Center on Cottage Grove, which has been a priority for us over the past year and a half that I’ve been with the organization,” Robinson said. “We also partner with organizations like Chicago House and Life is Work, … and work to strengthen relationships with the GSAs in schools and PFLAG organizations that exist on the South and West sides.”
These kinds of collaborations are crucial to reaching LGBTQ+ youth in all neighborhoods of Chicago, Robinson said.
“These are organizations that they may already have a strong relationship with, and by deepening our partnerships with them, we’re leveraging the expertise of people who are in these neighborhoods to make sure we’re working in collaboration,” Robinson said.
The Broadway Youth Center, 1023 W. Irving Park Road, serves LGBTQ+ youth ages 12 to 24, particularly those experiencing homelessness or housing instability. It provides integrated medical and mental health care, sexual and reproductive health services, case management and mental wellness support.
The Broadway Youth Center’s drop-in space also offers meals, clothing, showers and other essentials, while cultural programming like art and dance provides additional affirming outets.
Both organizations state their programs are open to youth citywide and emphasize outreach through hotlines, housing services and broader support networks.
Still, their physical bases on the North Side mean that young people in other parts of the city often face barriers to access them.
“And we don’t want transportation to be a barrier for individuals,” Robinson said. “We don’t want location to be a barrier for individuals to participate in some of our programming, so it really is incumbent upon us to be very strategic and think creatively about how we engage the full city.”
TaskForce is among the organizations working to fill these gaps.
Based in Austin on the West Side, the nonprofit offers youth services that are culturally specific, including housing support, food access, and sexual health testing.
Equally as important is TaskForce’s Vogue School, which uses voguing and ballroom culture to strengthen community and encourage self expression.
“Ballroom is important because it’s the one place where they can showcase their talents, where they can showcase who they are without any type of restrictions, without any type of judgment,” Ortiz said. “Ballroom and vogue are how our kids see themselves celebrated. It’s culture, it’s community, and it’s also leadership development.”
Ortiz said TaskForce also provides a steady presence in a neighborhood where resources are limited.
“We are consistent, we are here, we are present and we are open,” Ortiz said.
TaskForce is also home to PrEP 4 Teens, a citywide program focused on HIV prevention and sexual health among youth. While it’s open to teens across Chicago, staff said they are especially focused on reaching those on the South and West Sides who often face the steepest barriers to access.
“We’re looking to collaborate more with agencies, both in the south and west side of Chicago,” said program lead David Gauna. “We know those are the young people who need us most.”
That focus reflects the larger imbalance in the city.
“It’s about equitable access,” said Jim Pickett, one of the program’s organizers. “And so there’s a real lack of equity throughout Chicago, and we could certainly have a much more equitable distribution of opportunities.”
PrEP4Teens was shaped by youth themselves, Gauna added.
“Young people created this,” Gauna said. “They decided the colors, the imagery, the language. They said, ‘We don’t want this to be medical. We want this to be something fun. We want this to be engaging.’”
That youth-driven design is what makes it resonate, said Skai Underwood, who also runs PrEP4Teens.
“We try to meet youth where they are, and culture is part of that,” Underwood said.
Schools can also play a part in filling these gaps on the South and West sides.
“I think that there’s a great opportunity for schools to be like the glue that brings everything together,” said Julio Flores, program director for the Alliance, which promotes school safety for LGBTQ+ youth through advocacy, education, youth programming and research.
For some students, he said, school-based GSAs are the only affirming space they have.
“A GSA can be the only affirming space a young person has,” Flores said.
And those spaces can change a student’s trajectory, he added.
“When young people can lead a GSA, they’re not just building community, they’re building the skills they’ll use in college, in jobs and in life,” Flores said.
The gaps in geography don’t just shape whether young queer people can find community. They also shape whether they’re set up to succeed.
At TaskForce, Ortiz said success often begins with visibility. Young people who first came in for the Vogue School or drop-in services have gone on to train as medical assistants and phlebotomists.
“Some of our youth that frequent the Vogue School start to volunteer. Then we hire and train them, and now they’re building careers,” Ortiz said.
For youth involved with PrEP 4 Teens, growth is just as tangible.
Gauna said teens were engaged in a program that empowered them to build the look, feel and voice of a PrEP awareness campaign. By the end of the cohort, youth who had once been too shy to speak were leading workshops, presenting artwork and giving speeches.
“They started off super shy… and by the end they were showcasing what this program had done for them — not just to take charge of their sexual health, but to feel a lot more confident in themselves,” Gauna said.
Pickett tied those individual transformations back to the bigger picture.
“So many queer young people of color don’t necessarily have many safe spaces throughout the day in their lives,” he said. “Providing these opportunities to engage with other young people and develop their skills and have fun and be fully who they are is so empowering. It sets them up for success.”
Robinson of Center on Halsted said the link between geography and opportunity often comes down to whether young people have their most immediate needs met close to home. Without food, shelter or a safe place to connect, long-term success could remain out of reach.
“For people to really have the safety and security they need to think about economic development or to be provided with a stronger footing and foundation to focus on maybe college or career, they need to have some of their most basic needs met,” Robinson said.
This article was originally published by the Windy City Times and is part of a national initiative exploring how geography, policy, and local conditions influence access to opportunity. Find more stories at economicopportunitylab.com/
Monument to LGBTQ Canadians officially unveiled
The fight to save one of Baltimore’s last gay bars
When home becomes a journey: migration, memory, and the African diaspora
Gay-owned pizzeria in Dupont Circle burglarized
Advocates honored at Engendered Spirit Awards
Trump-Vance administration’s LGBTQ brain drain: what you need to know
UPDATE: Impulse Group’s ‘PrEP Pool Party’ cancelled
Not all trans people are the same
NYC lawmakers seek to repeal bathhouse ban
