Opinions
Don’t ignore the icing on the cake
This was not the win our opponents were praying for

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Many LGBTQ individuals’ immediate reactions on social media to the Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case expressed alarm and fear. While there are reasons to be concerned about ongoing efforts to pit religious freedom against equal rights, the decision is far better than many people thought it might be and contains much that the LGBTQ community should cheer.
The court ruled 7-2 in favor of the baker who appealed a ruling that he had violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Nevertheless, the baker’s victory is extremely narrow.
The Supreme Court refused to endorse the broad constitutional right to discriminate being sought by anti-LGBTQ forces, even in the charged context of weddings. Rather, it ruled for the baker on grounds unique to his case. The court concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s decision needed to be reversed only because, in the majority’s view, the commission denied the baker neutral and respectful consideration of his claims. The court pointed to one commissioner who called the baker’s position “despicable” rhetoric and to what the majority saw as inconsistent reasoning between the commission’s rejection of the baker’s claims and the commission’s acceptance of what the court saw as analogous arguments in other cases.
While one can disagree with that criticism of the commission, it’s hard to disagree that government decision-makers should treat all who come before them fairly, even-handedly, and without hostility.
But the Supreme Court did not stop there. Instead, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion powerfully reaffirms the conclusion underlying his landmark rulings in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down state sodomy laws), United States v. Windsor (requiring federal recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages), and Obergefell v. Hodges (concluding that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry) that “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.”
Indeed, the opinion goes on to conclude that: “For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts.”
Most importantly, the decision unequivocally reaffirms the Supreme Court’s 50-year-old precedent that religious or philosophical objections to treating others equally “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
The opinion explains that claims to religious freedom must have narrow limits: “When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion…. Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.”
Such constraints on religious exemption claims are necessary, the majority agreed, “lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”
Those are all heady words for a decision over which some, in my view, prematurely hit the panic button.
While the decision leaves much to be resolved for another day, this was not the win our opponents were praying for. No doubt they will double down in their efforts to win exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. We need to do everything we can to fight back against those efforts. At the same time, we have to pass both the federal Equality Act and state laws that provide LGBTQ people protections against discrimination in the 32 states that still lack such express, comprehensive, statutory shields against denials, in the words of the opinion, of our equal “dignity and worth.”
I believe those efforts will be helped, not hindered, by the court’s decision. The opinion affirms that government entities have the authority “to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services.” Now, we just need to get them all to clearly do so. Equality demands nothing less, and, this decision reestablishes that the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom does not stand in the way.
Jon W. Davidson, former legal director of Lambda Legal, has been a leading LGBT legal rights advocate and constitutional scholar for more than 30 years.
Opinions
Matthew Rosenstein in ‘Make Me French’ a hit at Clear Space Theatre
‘A bagel who dreamed of being a croissant’
Clear Space Theatre Company was founded in 2004 and has become a huge success in Rehoboth Beach, Del. They present performances all year long, and always have a great summer season when the town grows by the thousands. Not only do they have some great main productions this year, “The Cher Show,” “Pretty Woman,” and “Mean Girls,” but they also have a strong series of cabaret performances.
Matthew Rosenstein’s show, “Make Me French!” was part of that series. While I haven’t seen them all, it will be hard to beat his show. He is a superb storyteller and singer. He blends his real-life experiences, with music from different genres, including showtunes and French disco. Some of the songs he uses to tell his story include: “Belle / Go the Distance” (Menken/Ashman; Menken/Zippel), “Ahh, Paree/Les prénoms de Paris” (Sondheim; Brel); and “Hymne à L’Amour” (Marguerite Monnot/Edith Piaf/Hiroyuki Takei/Fumiaki Uemura).
He has a way of making you feel part of his life story. The show is directed and co-authored by cabaret icon Robbie Rozelle, and it features music direction and arrangements by the incredibly talented Michael Cuschieri, who also plays the piano. The backup band included, Jim McGiffin on bass; Joshua Getka on drums; and Jessica Brams-Miller who sings backup and banters with Matthew, in a wonderful French accent. They are all immensely talented.
The blurb I received from Clear Space said about the show: “A bagel who dreamed of being a croissant, young Matt Rosenstein longed for a life that was far more sophisticated, and interesting, than his own as a suburban New Jersey teenager in the 1990s. His one prayer? “Make Me French!” Matt was determined to not just learn French but to be as French as possible.” Matt went so far as to call Air France from pay phones as a youngster, just to practice speaking with a real French person.
He eventually got the chance to move to Paris to fulfill his dream, and learned some hilarious lessons along the way. Matt shares what he’s learned about what he calls our most ‘misunderstood’ ally. The stories and songs are about: Why do French people not get fat? Are they rude? And do they hate Americans? He talks, and sings about these things in a wonderfully humorous way. You get caught up in the stories and then realize not only is Matt a great story teller, but he has a really strong voice. He generally stays away from politics in the show but does suggest he left the United States when George W. Bush became president, and returned when Obama was elected. He didn’t actually say what he wants to do today, but the audience did get the idea.
After living in Paris, he came back to the U.S. and had what he calls, ‘a second awakening.’ He worked with a vocal coach, met and became friends with many in the theater world and did his first show, “A Pleasure to Have in Class,” which is stories and songs about his life as a people-pleaser, from childhood to his gay divorce. This second show he shared with the public for the first time in 2023 at The Green Room 42.
Matt told Broadway World, “to do a one-man show, you first have to have the confidence you have a story to tell, that you have something to share with people. Not just something that you want to say, but something relatable that will connect with the audience. And then you have to work with a good team. You need a director that can help you shape an arc out of the story and make sure that it’s not just therapy on stage. So having a good team, making the right musical choices, making sure that you’re not coming from too self-centered of a place, has been key for me.” Matt followed all that advice well, and the result is the wonderful “Make Me French.”
This is the first show Matt has done outside of New York. I hope for audiences it won’t be the last. The world awaits this talented performer. You can follow Matt on Instagram and on his website, showtunesmatt.com. The Clear Space cabaret series continues all summer; visit clearspacetheatre.org for tickets.
Now the disclaimer: I am not related to Matthew Rosenstein, and this is an unbiased review. It would be nice to be related to such a talented guy, but we have found no indication we share any relatives at all. I first met Matthew after his show at Clear Space Theatre in Rehoboth Beach.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Germany
We must not scapegoat refugees after Berlin Pride terrorist attack
‘LGBTI people must not be instrumentalized to spread hatred against others.’
On Saturday, during Berlin’s Christopher Street Day, one of Europe’s biggest LGBTQ Pride events, a 21-year-old religious extremist drove a van into the crowd and then used a knife to stab multiple people. One person died and 29 others were injured.
When I saw this news on social media, I sincerely felt scared, and not because one more bigot used his religion to justify violence against people like me. It has, unfortunately, happened too often. Despite being happy to see the overwhelming support for the queer community and the condemnation of terrorism, I was terrified by the wave of Islamophobic and anti-immigrant statements that came even from “left” and “progressive” people who should know better, who generally support refugees, who know that all people are equal, and that you shouldn’t treat others as less human because of their religion.
In 2020, a Russian MP threatened to start a criminal case against me after I interviewed Muslim women about why they called themselves feminists and wrote about my own relationship with feminism and Islam, mentioning that I was following events in Syria and had read some academic books on the Islamic State. Surprisingly, the MP claimed that I was recruiting women to ISIS by using feminist ideas, which, of course, was absolutely ridiculous for many reasons, including the fact that I was an openly nonbinary transgender person. But some media outlets and queer people online, including those who called themselves progressive, refused to support me or believed the lie. This is what an anti-extremist witchhunt looks like. If I had been in Russia, and not in the UK, I probably would have been in prison.
It is extremely important to oppose extremism by knowing the actual facts about terrorist groups and not starting a moral panic.
Here are four examples of what media coverage and queer people online often misunderstand about the events in Berlin, and why it’s important.
1. Islam is not the problem
Despite a common misunderstanding, this terrorist act wasn’t even about Islam.
Islam, just like Christianity and Judaism, has a variety of views on LGBTQ rights, from affirmative to condemning. I think everyone in the American Bible Belt has met Christian fundamentalists who praised violence against LGBTQ people or used violence against their own queer children, so it is a universal problem. But the thing is Abdul Ballout was not an ordinary conservative Muslim. He was known for wanting to join ISIS. It is an apocalyptic cult that teaches that we are living in the last era, so they are trying to re-create the caliphate that they believe should be restored before Doomsday.
Most of the Muslim people I know, including conservative Salafi Muslims, see the group as dangerous criminals, or don’t see the group as a Muslim group at all. The vast majority of ISIS victims are not Western people or queer people, but cisgender heterosexual Muslims in the Middle East and Africa who the group considers to be infidels. ISIS is widely condemned by Muslim communities and scholars, and blaming Islam for the actions of cult members is like blaming Christianity and all Christians — or even all Christian fundamentalists — for the actions of Branch Davidians members or for the mass murder-suicide committed by members of the People’s Temple.
2. Refugees are not the problem — and Germany is not a safe haven for refugees
First, the attacker was a German citizen. But the media continue to blame migration. Germany is seen as a safe haven for refugees and asylum seekers in the U.S., the UK and beyond. But the time when Germany was safe is long gone. For refugees from Russia between 2022 and 2025 alone, around 90 percent of refugee claims have been refused by Germany, including the claims of political prisoners. The situation for non-White Muslim refugees is even worse, especially in regions such as Bavaria.
I have personal experience working with some refugees in Germany who are also Muslim. The way the migration service mistreated them is beyond anything I saw while working with refugees and being a refugee in the UK. I saw cases in Germany where an asylum seeker’s family was threatened back home because of social media posts the asylum seeker had made, or where a person was detained and sent back to their homeland despite having a history of persecution and torture by the government. Very often, when a person is taken by the immigration service, their loved ones don’t know where they are. Queer refugees also report homophobic and transphobic attitudes in the system.
The narrative that Germany is too generous to refugees was created by the far right and has little to do with reality, and it harms actual refugees, including queer refugees, by silencing their voices.
3. There is no collective responsibility
It is an extremely old and dangerous idea.
Just as all gay men shouldn’t be blamed for what the American serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer did just because he was gay; we shouldn’t blame all Muslims, all people of Middle Eastern origin, or any other large demographic group for the crime of one terrorist. Even if the terrorist had been a refugee and a Muslim, it shouldn’t actually matter, because under the law in any modern non-authoritarian country, an individual shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of their social group.
After all, when a white, Christian, cisgender, heterosexual, neurotypical person commits a crime, it is almost always seen as an individual’s fault. Why is it different for marginalized groups? The idea of collective responsibility harmed the gay community for decades and is harming the trans community right now, for example after Charlie Kirk’s murder. The best thing we can do is stop this narrative, because it will be used against us.
The only reason I explained about ISIS and the refugee experience in Germany is to show how far from reality the popular accusations are.
4. Witch-hunts and scapegoating serve the far-right agenda and are extremely anti-queer
From my own experience, as an openly trans person speaking against Islamophobia, sexism and queerphobia who was accused of supporting the cult that kills queer people, promotes the sexual exploitation of women and sees the majority of Muslims as legitimate targets, I can say for sure that moral panic can go wild.
People who remember the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, or even the attacks on Muslim communities after Sept. 11, should know this.
Now even queer people are attacking refugees and Muslim communities online while the German government is introducing more draconian measures against those groups.
ILGA-Europe, the biggest LGBTQ organization in Europe, made a statement warning against any attempt to weaponize the attack.
“This tragedy must not be used to fuel hatred against migrants, foreigners or Muslim communities. We reject any attempt by anti-democratic actors to exploit what happened to divide communities, scapegoat minorities or turn one group against another,” Chaber, the group’s executive director, said. “LGBTI people must not be instrumentalized to spread hatred against others, nor should the existence of racism, Islamophobia or anti-migrant hatred be used to minimize the threats faced by LGBTI people. The rights, safety, and dignity of all people must be defended.”
People who live at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities — LGBTQ Muslims, LGBTQ people of color and LGBTQ refugees — will probably suffer the most from this moral panic. Moreover, these are the same political groups that target refugees, Muslim communities and queer people. If this hatred isn’t stopped now, everyone is potentially at risk.
Condemning terrorism is important, but it is no less important to stop creating more victims.
Opinions
Pentagon says hormones make trans troops unfit but gives them to men
A man who needs a screening program to feel like a warrior is telling on himself
Last week, the Secretary of Defense posted a video to announce what he called the “High-T Department of War.” In it, Pete Hegseth ordered annual testosterone screening for every service member over 30 and offered testosterone therapy to those who want it, all in the name of keeping American warriors, in his words, on the “leading edge of lethality.” A hormone, he explained, is part of “the biological foundation required to sustain the fight.”
I have spent years writing about masculinity, so I know a performance when I see one. But this one is different, because at the exact moment Hegseth is prescribing testosterone to the men, his department is throwing other Americans out of uniform for taking it.
Here is the contradiction, and I promise I am not the one straining to find it. Since early 2025, the administration has worked to remove transgender troops from the military. One of its stated reasons, laid out in the executive order and in the government’s own court filings, is that these service members require ongoing medical treatment the military cannot easily sustain. Hormone therapy, the argument goes, means cost, monitoring, lab work, and stretches of non-deployability. A soldier who needs a standing prescription, the logic runs, is a burden the force cannot carry.
Then the same department launched a program to put a standing hormone prescription in the pocket of any man over 30 who wants one.
You do not have to take my word for the hypocrisy. A federal judge has already put it on the record. Last Wednesday, in the case challenging the transgender ban, Judge Ana Reyes took formal notice of the new testosterone program and ordered the government to explain how the very same class of treatment can be readiness-enhancing for one group of troops and disqualifying for another. It is the question at the center of the case now. Reyes has been skeptical of the medical argument from the start. Last year she pointed out that the military spent roughly $41 million on Viagra in a single year, and called transgender care, by comparison, “not even a rounding error.”
That is the tell. It was never really about the medicine. Testosterone is testosterone. The prescriptions, the monitoring, the lab work, the deployability questions are identical whether the person filling the vial is a trans man or a cisgender colonel chasing his youth. The only thing that changes is who is holding it. When the man taking the hormone fits the picture of a warrior, the treatment becomes “lethality.” When the man taking it is transgender, the identical treatment becomes a fatal risk to readiness. The medicine did not change. The identity did.
I want to be fair, because the argument only works if it is honest. The government has other claims in the case that a court has not yet resolved, about surgeries, about facilities, about unit cohesion, and it insists that cisgender men on testosterone and transgender men are simply “not similarly situated.” Those arguments can be debated on their merits. But the medical one, the claim that hormone therapy itself is too much for the military to manage, is the one Hegseth’s own policy just detonated. You cannot brand testosterone a warrior’s birthright on Monday and a disqualifying liability on Tuesday and expect a judge, or the rest of us, not to notice.
And notice what the whole spectacle is actually selling. A “Department of War” rebrand. A hormone reframed as a weapon. A Secretary who mocks “dudes in dresses” while rolling out mandatory bloodwork so the men can optimize their manhood by the milligram. This is not a medical policy. It is a theory of masculinity, the same tired one, that a man is a number on a lab report and a posture for the camera. It arrives, not coincidentally, as the administration moves to loosen testosterone prescribing across the country, turning manhood into a supplement you can top off.
I have known a lot of strong men. My father crossed an ocean as a laborer to build a life; the strongest men I was raised by never once measured themselves in a vial. Real strength was never a hormone level, and the men who most need to announce their lethality are, with remarkable consistency, the ones least sure of it.
The House declined last week to write the transgender ban into law, so it still rests on nothing sturdier than executive will and a medical excuse. That excuse just ran out of testosterone. A man who needs a screening program and a war-department rebrand to feel like a warrior is telling on himself. The rest of us should say so out loud.
Dimitrios Aletras is a queer, first-generation Greek-American writer and survivor-advocate, with work published in Salon, The Advocate, and the Reading Eagle.
-
Germany4 days ago1 dead, 29 injured in Berlin Pride attack
-
Movies4 days ago‘Into the Grey’ unites Cavill, Gyllenhaal for thrills and gay love
-
Theater3 days agoD.C. summer theater offers something for every taste
-
a&e features3 days agoSummer in the City: Free exhibits, movies, more fill D.C.’s calendar
