Politics
3 things to watch during the ENDA markup
Senate panel set to vote Wednesday on LGBT anti-bias job bill
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are members of the Senate committee that will vote Wednesday on ENDA. (Photos public domain).
LGBT advocates will be watching a Senate committee Wednesday when it votes on long-sought legislation to protect LGBT workers from discrimination.
The Senate Health, Labor, Education & Pensions Committee will hold its markup Wednesday at 10 a.m. on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. A successful vote would mark the first time a version of ENDA with transgender protections advanced in Congress.
Here are three things to watch for during the markup before the final vote:
1. What will Republicans do?
Given that all 12 Democrats on the committee — in addition to one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — are co-sponsors of ENDA, the legislation will almost assuredly be reported to the Senate floor regardless of Republican action if the final vote is on the bill as it was introduced.
Progressive advocates like lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will almost certainly take the opportunity to weigh in on their first opportunity to vote on a bill entirely dedicated to LGBT issues since the start of the 113th Congress.
But support for ENDA from one Republican member of the committee during the markup — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — is seen as crucial for ENDA’s prospects for finding 60 votes to end an expected filibuster on the Senate floor. It’ll be difficult for her to change her vote in the full Senate once her position becomes known based on her vote in committee.
Murkowski’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on ENDA, but she’s known for being supportive of LGBT rights. Just before the Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, Murkowski became the third sitting U.S. Senate Republican to come out in favor of marriage equality. She’s also voted for hate crimes protection legislation and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
One LGBT advocate, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Murkowski staffers have said she voted in favor of the Anchorage LGBT non-discrimination ordinance that came before voters in the city last year and was voted down.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, an HRC spokesperson, said his organization is lobbying senators on both sides of the aisle as the Senate markup approaches.
“The first Senate mark-up of an inclusive ENDA is a tremendous step toward floor passage and HRC has been lobbying senators on the bill, Republicans and Democrats alike,” Cole-Schwartz said. “Our efforts include both meetings with staff and senators in Washington as well as generating grassroots support in targeted states around the country.”
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said his organization has been lobbying Republicans on ENDA.
“I’ve also asked Freedom to Work’s Republican Legislative Director, Christian Berle, to lobby any and every Republican member of Congress who will take our meeting to hear why ENDA is good for business and consistent with American values about hard work and success,” Almeida said.
Almeida declined to comment on which Republicans his organization has met with, but said there are more GOP members of Congress who’ll vote for a trans-inclusive ENDA than are commonly known.
But Almeida also gave credit to the American Unity Fund, a newly formed Republican LGBT group funded by Republican philanthropist Paul Singer, saying he’s “really impressed by their work on ENDA, and I’m told there’s much more to come.” That group didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The actions of GOP members during the markup are important because Republicans who oppose the legislation may take the opportunity to offer “poison pill” amendments that, if adopted, would make ENDA less palatable for final passage or limit its scope.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the top Republican on the committee, may be the one to carry water for the Republican opposition to ENDA during the committee markup and during the vote on the Senate floor. In the previous Congress, Alexander earned a score of 15 out of 100 on HRC’s congressional scorecard.
Prior to the July 4 recess, Alexander was tight-lipped while speaking with the Washington Blade on Capitol Hill.
“I’m reviewing that now; I’m reviewing that now,” Alexander said.
Asked whether he’s leaning one way or the other on the legislation, Alexander said, “No. I’m still reviewing it. I’m working on immigration and that doesn’t come up until — that’s about a month away.”
2. Will ENDA be updated following Supreme Court decisions on job bias?
As amendments are offered up to ENDA during the markup, technical changes will likely be made to the legislation in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court rulings related to employment discrimination.
One such ruling was in 2009 in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, which raised the standard of proof for making a claim of age discrimination in the workplace based on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The ruling was issued in such a way that, if the current version of ENDA were to become law, would also make allegations of LGBT workplace discrimination more difficult to pursue. The LGBT group Freedom to Work has called for a change in the wording of ENDA to ensure meritorious cases of LGBT workplace discrimination would succeed.
In a statement, Senate HELP Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said he supports the idea of updating ENDA in accordance with other legislation he previously introduced known as the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act to address issues the Gross ruling created.
“Last Congress, I introduced a bill with Sen. Grassley to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Gross v. FBL Financial, and I intend to do so again soon,” Harkin said. “I believe the same standard of proof already applicable for plaintiffs alleging discrimination based on race, sex, national origin and religion should also apply to age and disability, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Another issue is whether ENDA will be updated in the wake of more recent Supreme Court rulings last month in the case of Vance v. Ball State University and the case of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar.
In the Vance case, the court ruled that a person must be able to hire and fire someone to be considered a supervisor in discrimination lawsuits. In the Nassar case, the court limited how juries can decide retaliation lawsuits and said victims must prove employers only took action against them only for the intention to retaliate.
Writing the dissent in these rulings, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the decisions dilute the strength of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, adding the “ball is once again in Congress’ court to correct the error.”
Harkin’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on whether the senator would support updating ENDA to ensure meritorious cases of LGBT workplace discrimination would succeed in the wake of those decisions.
Almeida predicted the committee would make technical changes to ENDA “to fix some loopholes and mistakes in ENDA’s current text” in a way that would update it in the wake of these Supreme Court decisions.
“In fact, I imagine some Republican senators will want to see technical corrections to certain drafting mistakes that accidentally make ENDA slightly more liberal than it should be,” Almeida said. “I think these technical corrections will be non-controversial and will help us create a better, smarter ENDA that can pass the Senate with 60 or more votes this year.”
Matt McNally, a spokesperson for ENDA’s chief sponsor Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), said in a statement to the Blade the senator is prepared to make changes that Harkin deems fit.
“Sen. Merkley supports the current bill and will be working with his colleagues on the HELP committee, under the leadership of chairman Harkin, on any potential changes to the bill during markup,” McNally said.
3. Will lawmakers narrow ENDA’s religious exemption?
Another issue to watch — although the chances of any movement are unlikely — is whether efforts to limit ENDA’s religious exemption will gain traction. LGBT groups are divided on whether the provision should stay as it is, or be restricted to enable greater protection against anti-LGBT workplace discrimination.
Currently, ENDA has a religious exemption that provides leeway for religious organizations, like churches or religious schools, to discriminate against LGBT employees. That same leeway isn’t found under Title VII, which prohibits religious organizations from discriminating on the basis of race, gender or national origin.
Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said lawmakers should at least consider rethinking the idea of narrowing the religious exemption during the upcoming markup.
“What we have seen over the past several months is an increasing array of voices weighing in on the need to appropriately narrow ENDA’s sweeping religious exemption — from prominent editorials in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times to the chairman emeritus of the NAACP, Julian Bond,” Thompson said. “As more pro-equality members of Congress understand the potential harms of the current exemption, I think there will be even more support for narrowing it. That foundation is being laid now.”
Immediately after the introduction of ENDA in April, the ACLU — along with Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Transgender Law Center — made public a letter saying they have “grave concerns” about ENDA’s religious exemption.
Informed sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, have told the Washington Blade the ACLU proposed a change in language related to the religious exemption prior to the bill’s reintroduction at the beginning of the year, but Merkley rejected the proposal out of concern that Republicans would bolt from the bill.
In a statement to the Blade, Harkin indicated a lack of interest in restricting ENDA’s religious exemption by emphasizing he opposes discrimination against LGBT employees by secular employers.
“I believe that — as with all other anti-discrimination protections — a capable employee working for a secular, non-religious organization, should not be fired, or not hired, because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity,” Harkin said.
Voting in favor of narrowing the religious exemption would also be difficult for lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who’s a member of the HELP committee, because as a U.S. House member in 2007 she voted in favor of the current religious exemption when it was offered up as an amendment on the floor.
Despite these calls to limit the religious exemption in ENDA, many prominent LGBT groups working on ENDA say they support the religious exemption as it stands. Among them is Freedom to Work’s Almeida, who noted many religious groups support ENDA because of the exemption.
“Some churches and religious organizations will choose discrimination and some churches will choose inclusion of all of God’s children,” Almeida said. “ENDA does not force the choice of the federal government upon any church, and therefore ensures that ENDA will not be struck down someday by the U.S. Supreme Court for violating religious freedom.”
In a report dated June 11, 2012, the Center for American Progress also endorsed the religious exemption, saying it’s “politically” necessary for ENDA to advance and secure employment protections for LGBT Americans.
“At its core ENDA is about ensuring that all Americans can go to work in an environment free of discrimination,” the report states. “By including such a broad exemption for religious organizations, ENDA is also about protecting religious freedoms.”
One of the authors of the report is Jeff Krehely, who has since departed the Center for American Progress to join as vice president and chief foundation officer for the Human Rights Campaign.
Paul Guequierre, an HRC spokesperson, affirmed Krehely’s views on the religious exemption reflect the view of HRC and said the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force share that position. NCTE affirmed it supported the exemption.
Mark Daley, a Task Force spokesperson, said his group supports the bill but wants to see the religious exemption narrowed as ENDA progresses.
“The Task Force strongly supports S. 815 and will be working hard for its passage this year,” Daley said. “We also favor narrowing the religious exemption as ENDA moves towards becoming law. We will be working to get the votes needed to pass S. 815 in the 113th Congress.”
If the Senate does take action to limit the religious exemption, it might happen on the Senate floor. During an event hosted by the moderate group Third Way last week, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who isn’t a member of the HELP committee, expressed support for the idea of removing ENDA’s religious exemption.
During the Q&A session, audience member Ellen Sturtz — the lesbian activist affiliated with GetEQUAL who gained notoriety by confronting first lady Michelle Obama — asked Gillibrand whether she’s willing to amend ENDA to remove the religious exemption.
The New York senator responded simply, “Oh, yes. Yes, I am.” Asked by the Blade to elaborate, Bethany Lesser, a Gillibrand spokesperson, said, “Sen. Merkley is leading the ENDA bill and Sen. Gillibrand will offer any help she can provide to help him pass it.”
The White House
White House counterterrorism strategy targets ‘anti-American, radically pro-transgender’ groups
Administration released document last week
The White House released the “United States Counterterrorism Strategy” last week, introducing enforcement priorities that include references to people with “extreme transgender ideologies.”
The document is the first executive branch counterterrorism strategy released since former President Joe Biden’s 2021 “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” which largely focused on threats tied to domestic extremism and the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. The Trump-Vance administration’s new strategy instead centers heavily on cartels, Islamist organizations, and what it describes as “violent left-wing extremists.”
The report identifies three primary categories of terror threats facing the U.S.: “Narcoterrorists and Transnational Gangs,” “Legacy Islamist Terrorists,” and “Violent Left-Wing Extremists, including Anarchists and Anti-Fascists.” The strategy repeatedly frames those groups as existential threats to the U.S. and outlines a more aggressive, militarized counterterrorism posture.
The introduction to the report closes with a warning from President Donald Trump referencing counterterrorism operations carried out during his second administration: “We will find you and we will kill you.”
In the section outlining the administration’s counterterrorism priorities, the document argues that federal intelligence, and law enforcement agencies under prior administrations focused on the wrong threats while overlooking violence committed by left-wing extremists. The strategy specifically references transgender ideology while discussing political violence.
“As real threats were ignored or underplayed, Americans have witnessed the politically motivated killings of Christians and conservatives committed by violent left-wing extremists, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk by a radical who espoused extreme transgender ideologies.”
Claims tying a trans person to Kirk’s killing have been disputed, however, and multiple news outlets later retracted or corrected early reports that identified the shooter as trans.
The report later expands on that argument, saying the administration will prioritize targeting “violent secular political groups” it describes as anti-American and “radically pro-transgender.”
“In addition to cartels and Islamist terror groups, our national CT activities will also prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.”
The rhetoric mirrors claims frequently made by Trump allies and conservative commentators linking trans people and left-wing activism to political violence. However, data compiled by researchers and organizations tracking mass shootings does not support the idea that trans people are responsible for a significant share of such attacks.
Factcheck.org says rhetoric from Trump and several far-right political pundits contradicts available data, noting that the percentage of mass shootings committed by trans people is “exceedingly small.”
Despite the lack of evidence supporting generalized claims about trans people, the president’s son Donald Trump, Jr., told Fox News in September 2025 that he could not “name a mass shooting in the last year or two in America that wasn’t committed by, you know, a transgender lunatic.”
Factcheck.org also found that even if cases involving shooters with unclear gender identities were included in statistics about trans mass shooters, the number would still account for only a fraction of a percent.
Mark Bryant, founding executive director of the Gun Violence Archive, said the number of trans mass shooters could be as high as eight, but would still account for less than 0.1 percent of mass shootings over the last 12 years, according to GVA data. He added that the figure would remain below 0.2 percent even when examining incidents from 2018 to the present.
Beyond domestic extremism, the strategy frames the administration’s broader counterterrorism agenda through the lens of “America First” foreign policy and renewed U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The report repeatedly references the Monroe Doctrine, the nearly 200-year-old policy warning European powers against interference in the Americas.
“After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland” Trump said in the report.
The document also breaks down counterterrorism priorities by region, including the Middle East, where it argues the U.S. is “no longer as dependent” on the region because of increased domestic energy production.
“Our growing domestic energy production means the Middle East is no longer as central to America’s stability, yet threats from this region remain, and our counterterrorism goals continue to be specific and rooted in realistic threat analysis.”
The statement comes amid rising gas prices tied in part to instability surrounding the war involving Iran, with fuel costs reaching some of their highest levels since 2022. According to AAA, the national average price for gasoline climbed to $4.52 per gallon as the national average rose “$.25 for a second straight week.“
Congress
Bill seeks to block global gag rule expansion
Policy now bans US foreign aid to groups promoting ‘gender ideology’
Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill that would block the expansion of the global gag rule.
President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services.
Trump reinstated the rule during his first administration. The Biden-Harris administration shortly after it took office in 2021 rescinded it.
The Trump-Vance administration earlier this year expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” The expansion took effect on Feb. 26.
U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) introduced the Protecting Human Rights and Public Health in Foreign Assistance Act in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Reps. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) introduced it in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“Using taxpayer money to export the Trump administration’s anti-trans, anti-science, and anti-abortion ideological agenda isn’t just immoral — it’s antithetical to efficient, effective, and rights-based foreign assistance,” said Council for Global Equality Senior Policy Fellow Beirne Roose-Snyder on Wednesday in a press release.
Meng added the Trump-Vance administration’s “crusade against healthcare and global aid is putting millions of lives at risk worldwide.”
“No one will flourish under the new expanded global gag rule,” said the New York Democrat. “These policies weaponize foreign aid and will result in greater harm, particularly for women and girls, marginalized communities, and LGBTQI+ individuals.”
“They should never have been implemented at all, let alone without even a basic public comment process,” she added. “This legislation will reverse these dangerous policies.”
The White House
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
The Blade’s WH correspondent Joe Reberkenny recounts his night at the WHCD after a shooter attempted to gain entry.
It started as any White House Correspondents’ Dinner is supposed to go—I assume. I’ve never been to one before this, but based on other events I’ve attended at the Hilton, including an HRC gala, it all seemed fairly normal.
There was a lot of traffic. Police had blocked off streets encompassing a large portion of Adams Morgan—particularly around the hotel. The president was making his first appearance after boycotting the event during his first term, so there was a sense of anticipation. It took me about 45 minutes to go just under a mile from my apartment to about three blocks from the hotel in my Uber. I waited until the last possible second before I felt like I was going to be late—6:30—to get out of the car, because it was raining and I was wearing my green tux.
I walked up to a group of people checking tickets at the base of the hotel. They seemed to just be glancing at the tiny, index-card-sized tickets rather than conducting any kind of full security screening outside. As I walked from that first checkpoint to the drive-around drop-off area, I joined what was essentially one long line for the red carpet. It eventually split into people who wanted photos and those who didn’t—but again, there was no real need to show anything beyond that small ticket upon entering, and even that wasn’t being checked closely.
A light went off in my head; I felt that, given the speed at which security was checking tickets, they couldn’t fully see the foil logo and tiny table numbers from that distance. I remember thinking that if I had a similarly sized piece of paper, I could have gotten through up to that point.
I also noticed there was no real security checkpoint or metal detectors upon initially entering the hotel grounds—unlike what I had seen at the HRC gala the year before.
I waited about 35 minutes in line in the car drop-off area—without cars, since it had been repurposed to corral press and their guests before entering the building and heading onto the red carpet. I took my photo, then went up the escalator to meet my date, Jacob Bernard from Democracy Forward. They wouldn’t let him onto the red carpet without his ticket, so I gave him his, which I had been holding. He was already inside the venue despite not having his ticket on him and had been at one of the pre-parties.
That also struck me as odd—that you could access a pre-dinner party without a ticket or going through any visible security.
After I found him, we took a photo together at a step-and-repeat past the main red carpet area around 7:45. Oddly enough, a group of my friends—gays who I regularly see on the dance floors of the gay bars of Washington, who work in various government and media-adjacent fields—found me, and we took pictures together. None were White House correspondents or held a “hard pass” to the White House (security credentials that allow entry into the White House complex).
Another light went off in my head that indicated party crashers probably shouldn’t be getting inside to an event that is supposed to be one of the most secure rooms in the country.
After the photos, I could see groups of people being moved from pre-party spaces in various meeting rooms on other floors and directed toward the main floor where the red carpet had been.
My guest and I went back up to the main floor and walked through a small security checkpoint that included only a handful of metal detectors. From there, I went down the stairs from the lobby into the International Ballroom, where we took our seats at Table 200. I talked to a few people I knew—very traditional pre-event chit-chat. The vibes felt good. It was my first time attending, and I was genuinely excited.
Around 8:15, the Marine Corps Band played and “Commandant’s Four” color guard presented the flags. We were then told to take our seats.
They introduced the head table—the president, first lady, vice president, and members of the White House Correspondents’ Association board. Weijia Jiang, senior White House correspondent for CBS News and president of the WHCA, gave a brief speech, essentially saying we would eat first and then move into the main program, which was supposed to feature mentalist Oz Pearlman.
At this point my table, 200 which included members of the Wall Street Journal, the Blade, and a European outlet all started eating. About 15 minutes later, Washington Hilton staff began clearing plates and preparing to bring out the next course.
As they cleared the plates, I heard four loud bangs.
I saw hotel employees immediately start ducking. They seemed to understand the gravity of the situation much faster than most attendees, including myself. At first, it sounded like a tray might have fallen over (but I later found out that wasn’t the case).
After about 30 seconds of watching some people duck, others look around in confusion, and some continue eating and drinking, I got down. I kneeled with my chair in front of me as a kind of barrier. Being at Table 200, I felt somewhat removed from where the actual incident occurred.
Then I saw the president being whisked away quickly by Secret Service, along with the first lady and others at the head table.
My reporter instincts kicked in. I grabbed my phone and started filming. I saw SWAT team members rush into the ballroom and onto the stage, clearing the area. I captured a video of people looking around, confused about what had just happened.
A few minutes later, the room was told by the WHCA president to hold on—that they would provide more information and guidance on what would happen next. There was some indication that they might try to continue the event despite what had occurred.
Everyone started frantically checking X to see if any major outlets were reporting. I was receiving texts from family, friends, and colleagues about the rapidly unfolding situation.
I walked to the bathroom—twice, technically. I couldn’t find it initially because it was hidden behind black curtains. (Later, those curtains were removed, and the men’s room was in clearer view.)
During the first walk to the bathroom, I called my editor to tell him what was happening. He instructed me to start sending copy to another editor, who would get it online. The ballroom had almost no service—it’s in the basement of a 12-story hotel—so it was a challenge. I utilized SMS fallback (since iMessage wasn’t working) to send updates.
I returned to the table, where people were still hovering—calling editors, scrolling, texting, sending photos and copy. I was already drafting my story and sending it in chunks, adding details as I gathered more information.
I walked my guest toward the bathroom again, which was on the opposite side of the ballroom from our table, so I had to cross what felt like a sea of journalists, PR officials, guests, and others on their phones, talking and scrolling. My guest pointed out that the press pool was being held in an alcove away from the ballroom doors and escalator exit—not in the ballroom with everyone else.
“Alive” by the Bee Gees was playing over the speakers in the bathroom, which felt a little too on the nose.
On my way out, I heard someone speaking over a microphone and rushed to the ballroom entrance. WHCA President Weijia Jiang was speaking. She announced that the event was over and the space was being evacuated.
She also said that President Trump would hold a press conference at the White House in about 25 minutes.
That’s when I knew it was a race against the clock.
I called my editor a second time to update him and asked if I should head to the briefing (knowing the answer would be yes). He confirmed.
Then the crowd began to move. People grabbed purses, bottles—some left belongings behind. Even though it was technically becoming a crime scene, no one was actively forcing us out. It felt more like a collective understanding: It was time to go.
I texted my guest: “OK, I have to go to the White House. I’m so sorry to leave you.”
I made my way with the sea of people toward the one exit we were allowed to use and zipped between women in fancy gowns and men looking like penguins.
I put on my hard press pass, opened the Capital Bikeshare app, reserved the closest e-bike, and headed out.
I walked up Columbia Road to 20th and Wyoming, grabbed the bike, and rode down Wyoming, then 18th, cut over to U Street, and went straight down 16th to the White House. That ride was exhilarating. I also filmed an Instagram Reel updating my followers on what was going on. I could see tourists and D.C. residents alike looking at me from their cars and the sidewalk, obviously confused as to why a man dressed in a tux had hopped on a bike.
I got off the bike where 16th Street meets Lafayette Square and darted toward the first White House security checkpoint, where they were verifying press credentials. Luckily, I had mine. After that, it turned into a mad dash. Everyone who made it through started moving quickly.
The sound of heels on what I think was cobblestone—or maybe brick—sticks with me. My own shoes were clacking as I ran toward the White House alongside other journalists in heels and dress shoes.
At the Secret Service checkpoint, there was a separate line for hard pass holders. Having my hard pass let me skip much of the impeccably dressed line of journalists who didn’t think to bring their hard pass with them.
It was probably the most exquisitely dressed press crowd I’ve ever seen—tuxedos, gowns, full makeup. It felt like something out of “The Hunger Games.”
I went through security, put my belongings through the metal detector, entered my code, grabbed my things, and ran to the briefing room.
PHOTOS: Blade Summer Kickoff Party
PHOTOS: Taste of Point
Honey, have we been priced out of gay paradise?
Comings & Goings
IDAHOBiT a reminder we all must stand up against transphobia
UK government makes trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban a legislative priority
Bureau of Prisons declines to reconsider transgender inmate policy
Yes, chef!
What’s new in Rehoboth Beach for summer 2026
LGBTQ community must say NO to Janeese Lewis George
-
United Kingdom4 days agoUK government makes trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban a legislative priority
-
Federal Government4 days ago
Bureau of Prisons declines to reconsider transgender inmate policy
-
a&e features4 days ago
Yes, chef!
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days ago
What’s new in Rehoboth Beach for summer 2026
