National
Groups link Utah polygamy ruling to gay marriage
NOM, FRC blame LGBT advocates for opening ‘path’ to bigamy, incest


FRC President Tony Perkins says the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to legalized polygamy. (Washington Blade file photo by Lee Whitman)
Two of the nation’s leading anti-LGBT groups — the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council — said a decision by a federal judge in Utah last week overturning part of the state’s law banning polygamy was made possible by earlier court rulings supportive of same-sex marriage.
An official with the marriage equality group Freedom to Marry disputed that assertion, saying the Utah ruling was limited to the right of people to choose personal living arrangements unrelated to marriage.
But statements by NOM and FRC linking the Utah ruling to same-sex marriage were reported widely in the media, with cable news outlets inviting FRC President Tony Perkins to appear on news programs to express his views on the issue.
Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court of Utah ruled on Dec. 13 that a section of Utah’s anti-polygamy law that prohibits “cohabitation” violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion as well as the Constitution’s due process clause.
Waddoups’ ruling left in place the anti-polygamy law’s provisions prohibiting someone from obtaining two or more valid marriage licenses to marry more than one person.
In a statement released by the National Organization for Marriage, the group’s president, Brian Brown, called Waddoups’ ruling the first step in an effort by polygamists to bring a test case to the Supreme Court to obtain legal recognition of “plural” marriages.
“There’s no doubt that the arguments for same-sex marriage were a template for this case,” Brown said. “People in polygamist, plural marriages are just a short step away from winning official marriage rights. Adult incest practitioners will have similar claims, as will adult siblings and other close relations,” he said.
“This decision is the next step along the path blazed by same-sex marriage advocates who have convinced federal judges to transform the societal norm of marriage as the union of one man and one woman designed primarily for the benefit of any children produced of their union into an institution that recognizes intimate, romantic relationships between consenting adults,” Brown said.
Evan Wolfson, founder and president of the same-sex marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry, said Brown’s interpretation of Waddoups’ ruling was incorrect.
“Contrary to yet another predictable breathless rush to misrepresent from NOM and its anti-gay ilk, this decision is no more about marriage than NOM is,” Wolfson told the Blade in an email.
“It’s about cohabitation, that is, whom you may choose to live with,” he said. “As anyone reading the judge’s ruling can see, the decision leaves intact other prohibitions on bigamy, polygamy, and fraud. Instead it’s about choices people make about living together, not marrying.”
Wolfson added, “Do the NOM/FRC crowd really believe that in a free country the government should be dictating to Americans – married or otherwise, religious or otherwise – whom they may even live with?”
The challenge to the Utah polygamy law stems from a lawsuit filed by Kody Brown, the lead figure in the reality television show “Sister Wives,” in which Brown stars with people he identifies as his four wives and 17 children.
Brown and his family are members of the Apostolic Brethren Church, a breakaway sect from the Mormon Church whose members embrace polygamy as part of their religious beliefs. The Mormon Church ended its support for polygamy in the 1890s when Congress required the then territory of Utah to prohibit polygamy as a condition for becoming a state.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley represents the Brown family in connection with their lawsuit. He argued before the court that the provision of the Utah polygamy law prohibiting cohabitation violated the family’s right to privacy and religious freedom.
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.”
-
Sports5 days ago
Trans cyclist’s victory sparks outrage in conservative media
-
Israel5 days ago
Activist recalls experience in Tel Aviv after Israel-Iran war began
-
Movies4 days ago
Two new documentaries highlight trans history
-
Real Estate4 days ago
Celebrate the power of homeownership this Fourth of July