National
Judge orders Ohio to recognize gay couple’s marriage
James Obergefell and John Arthur married at a Maryland airport on July 11

A federal judge in Ohio has issued a temporary order requiring the state to recognize a gay couple’s marriage.
A federal judge in Ohio has issued a temporary order requiring the state to recognize the union of a gay couple who legally married in Maryland while one of the spouses in the relationship dies from an incurable disease.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Timothy Black placed an order temporarily restraining state officials from enforcing the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage for — and only for — a Cincinnati, Ohio, gay couple suing the state to recognize their marriage.
Black issued the two-page decision on the basis that the couple’s case is likely to succeed because Ohio’s same-sex marriage ban — passed by Ohio voters in 2004 — violates the couple’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. The judge also said the couple will suffer “irreparable harm” without an injunction.
“On this record, there is insufficient evidence of a legitimate state interest to justify this singling out of same sex married couples given the severe and irreparable harm it imposes on these Plaintiffs,” Black concludes.
The judge takes special note that Ohio recognizes out-of-state marriages for straight couples that can’t be legally performed within the state — such as opposite-sex marriages entered into by first cousins or minors — yet still won’t recognize out-of-state marriages for gay couples.
The couple in case is James Obergefell and John Arthur, who after being together more than 20 years married in Maryland following the U.S. Supreme Court decision last month striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Arthur suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS,) also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, which has no known cure and is fatal. He’s currently a hospice patient.
The couple flew to Maryland on July 11 in a special jet equipped with medical equipment and a medical staff to serve Arthur’s needs. They married in the plane as it sat on the tarmac and returned to Cincinnati the next day. They filed their lawsuit — known as Obergefell et al v. Kasich et at — on Friday.
Black’s order bars Gov. John Kasich and other state officials from enforcing Ohio’s ban on same-sex marriage with respect to this couple. Additionally, the order prohibits the local registrar from accepting a death certificate for Arthur if it doesn’t recognize him as married at the time of his death and doesn’t designate Obergefell as his surviving spouse. The order expires on Aug. 5, unless it is extended by the parties and the court.
State officials have the option of appealing the decision to a higher court. Connie Wehrkamp, a Kasich spokesperson, had a little to say about the order after it was issued.
“I can’t comment on the pending litigation except to say that the governor believes marriage is between a man and a woman,” Wehrkamp said.
Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, was optimistic the order would stand on appeal because it’s narrowly crafted.
“I think it is likely to stand,” Hunter said. “The facts are extraordinarily sympathetic, and the judge’s order is quite narrow and limited. This is the kind of case that probably has much greater potential for changing public opinion than for making any rapid changes in Ohio state law.”
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said he expects proceedings in the case to go forward and state defendants to put up a fight to protect the marriage ban, but predicted the couple would succeed.
“I am optimistic that the judge ultimately will issue a final ruling in the couple’s favor,” Davidson said. “I think he is correct that the state has no adequate justification for refusing to respect marriages same-sex couples have validly entered in other states while it, at the same time, respects other marriages that couples cannot enter in Ohio, such as those entered by first cousins or by minors.”
Davidson said what happens with this case if it reaches the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is less clear because it’s is known as being conservative. However, he said the compelling story of the plaintiff couple may convince judges to issue a favorable ruling toward them.
“While the Sixth Circuit historically has been among the most conservative federal courts of appeal in the country, many conservatives are coming to question arguments that have been used to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry and the speed at which attitudes are changing is dramatic,” Davidson said. “And, were this to be the next case to reach the Supreme Court, I think some of the crucial justices could well be touched by the devotion and commitment of this brave couple.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
-
Hungary4 days ago
Upwards of 100K people march in Budapest Pride
-
U.S. Supreme Court6 hours ago
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
-
Maryland3 days ago
Silver Spring holds annual Pride In The Plaza
-
Opinions3 days ago
Supreme Court decision on opt outs for LGBTQ books in classrooms will likely accelerate censorship