News
Gohmert: Supreme Court ruling for trans people will create ’great dictators’
Texas lawmaker fear-mongers over First Amendment


Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) had dire predictions Saturday about the fate of the republic if the Supreme Court delivers a victory for transgender people in the pending Title VII cases.
Gohmert, a notorious and longtime opponent of LGBT rights, said the decision would lead to “such obscurity for right and wrong that it will chaos,” and transgender advocates seeking the ruling “think of out of chaos will come these great dictators.”
“Employers, the government…argue that the plaintiff’s reading of Title VII would so expand the concept of sex that employers would not know to comply and courts would not know how to enforce it,” Gohmert said.
Gohmert made the comments during a speech at the Values Voter Summit, an annual social conservative confab in D.C. hosted by the anti-LGBT Family Research Council. His wide-ranging remarks emphasized religiosity, reminisced about the greatness of American figures like George Washington and praised the Ten Commandants.
The Texas lawmaker made a special point to talk about a case the Supreme Court heard this week, EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes. The litigations seeks restitution for Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who was fired from her job at Harris Funeral Homes after she announced she’d transition.
The litigation, along with Zarda v. Altitude Express and Bostock v. Clayton County, will determine whether anti-LGBT discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, therefore prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But the way Gohmert tells it, Stephens “ends up being let go” at Harris Funeral Homes “because he was violating their policies, and this is before the Supreme Court.” (Notably, Gohmert refused to refer to Stephens by the pronouns with which she identifies.)
Gohmert also praised U.S. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, noting the justice during arguments brought up a question on whether a ruling for transgender people will lead to “massive social upheaval.”
“Judge Gorsuch understood,” Gohmert said. “Judge Gorsuch said – asked this question: He says, ‘At the end of the day should he or she take into consideration the massive social upheaval that would be entailed in such a decision, in forcing people to recognizen someone for being them sex that they say they are at that moment?’ Anyway, he says, that is, in fact, more appropriate for a legislative than judicial function.”
While it’s true Gorsuch asked a question on potential “massive social upheaval,” the justice also suggested the pro-transgender side had the better statutory argument in the case. Several times, Gorsuch asked whether the concept of sex is in play in cases of anti-LGBT discrimination. That line of questioning lead to speculation he may rule for LGBT workers.
But Gohmert wasn’t done fear-mongering about a transgender win at the Supreme Court. If transgender workers are assured non-discrimination protections in the workplace, Gohmert said “that first part of the First Amendment will be gone.”
“You will not have the freedom to believe what Moses and Jesus said about sexuality,” Gohmert said. “That will be gone. You will be deemed a hater. You will be deemed to be mean-spirited when you have nothing but love for your fellow man but you know right and wrong, you’ve learned that.”
Further, Gohmert criticized the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a law enacted in 2009 (which the lawmaker vigorously opposed at the time) to institute federal penalties for hate crimes against LGBT people.
Gohmert predicted if the law “is not changed — I said it back when it wasbeing brought up, if this passes — someday it’ll be used to prosecute Christian ministers for reading from the Bible.”
“And they thought I was talking about homosexuality,” Gohmert said. “I didn’t want to give them any ideas, but what I had in my mind back then was someday they’re going to come after Christians for saying Jesus said I’m the way the truth and the life. No one goes to the Father but by me. That’s hateful, that’s mean-spirited!”
Gohmert’s comments ignore the protections for religion and speech under the First Amendment, which were emphasized in an amendment included as part of the hate crimes legislation. At the time, advocates for the law said ministers won’t be punished for speech under the law unless they’re committing a violent act against an LGBT person as they speak.
Gillian Branstetter, a spokesperson for the National Center for Transgender Equality, said Gohmert’s concerns about “great dictators” are better focused on President Trump than transgender people.
“The rights of transgender people under Title VII are the result of two decades of federal court rulings, and 21 states have laws banning gender identity bias explicitly,” Branstetter said. “A decision in favor of trans workers in this case would do nothing more than affirm the same rights and opportunities to transgender people nationwide. Unless the Congressman knows something I don’t about our nation’s 2 million transgender people, the closest thing we have to a ‘great dictator’ in this country is our lawless president.”
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.
Virginia
Va. court allows conversion therapy despite law banning it
Judge in June 30 ruling cited religious freedom.

In 2020, the state of Virginia had banned the practice of conversion therapy, but on Monday, a county judge ruled the ban violates the Virginia Constitution and Religious Freedom Restoration Act, allowing the therapy to start once more.
The conversion therapy ban, which can be seen in Va. Code § 54.1-2409.5 and 18VAC115-20-130.14, was overturned on June 30 as a result of two Christian counselors who argued that their — and all Virginia parents’ — constitutional right to freedom of religion had been encroached upon when the state legislature passed the ban.
A Henrico County Circuit Court judge sided with John and Janet Raymond, two Christian counselors represented by the Founding Freedoms Law Center, a conservative organization founded in 2020 following Virginia’s conversion therapy ban. Virginia’s Office of the Attorney General entered a consent decree with FFLC, saying state officials will not discipline counselors who engage in talk conversion therapy.
Conversion therapy, as the legislation described it, is considered to be “any practice or treatment that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.” The ban’s reversal will now allow parents to subject their children to these practices to make them align better with their religion.
This decision comes despite advice and concern from many medical and pediatric organizations — including the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, and the American Counseling Association, to name a few — all of which denounce conversion therapy as dangerous and harmful to those subjected to it.
The American Medical Association, the largest and only national association that convenes more than 190 state and specialty medical societies, says that “these techniques are the assumption that any non-heterosexual, non-cisgender identities are mental disorders, and that sexual orientation and gender identity can and should be changed. This assumption is not based on medical and scientific evidence,” with attached data indicating people subjected to conversion therapy are more likely to develop “significant long-term harm” as a result of the therapy.
The AMA goes as far as to say that they outright “oppose the use of reparative or conversion therapy for sexual orientation or gender identity.”
FFLC has a clear goal of promoting — if not requiring — conservative ideology under the guise of religious freedom in the Virginia General Assembly. On their website, the FFLC argues that some progressive policies passed by the Assembly, like that of freedom from conversion therapy, are a violation of some Virginians’ “God-given foundational freedoms.”
The FFLC has argued that when conservative notions are not abided by in state law — especially when it involves “God’s design for male and female, the nuclear family, and parental rights” — that the law violates Virginians’ religious freedom.
A statement on the FFLC’s website calls gender dysphoria among children a “contagion” and upholds “faith-based insights” from counselors as equal — in the eyes of the law — to those who use medical-based insights. This, once again, is despite overwhelming medical evidence that indicates conversion therapy is harmful.
One study showed that 77 percent of those who received “sexual orientation change efforts,” or conversion therapy, experienced “significant harm.” This harm includes depression, anxiety, lowered self-esteem, and internalized homophobia. In addition, the study found that young LGBTQ adults with high levels of parental or caregiver rejection are “8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide,” with another study finding that “nearly 30 percent of individuals who underwent SOCE reported suicidal attempts.”
Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, a Democrat representing Fairfax, said that the overturning of the ban on religious merit disregards the entire concept of having professionally licensed counselors.
“I have no problem if somebody wants to go look at religious counseling from their priest or their minister, their rabbi, their imam — that’s perfectly fine,” Surovell told the Virginia Mercury. “When somebody goes to get therapy from somebody licensed by the commonwealth of Virginia, there’s a different set of rules applied. You can’t just say whatever you want because you have a license. That’s why we have professional standards, that’s why we have statutes.”
Obituary
Longtime DC resident Thomas Walsh dies at 87
Pa. native’s husband was by his side when he passed away

Long-time D.C. resident Thomas Walsh died on May 16. He was 87.
Walsh was born on Sept. 17, 1937, in Scranton, Pa. His family later moved to Levittown, Pa.
Walsh met his husband, Anthony Carcaldi, at the Blue Note, a gay bar in Asbury Park, N.J., in 1964.
“I walked in the bar with friends from New York City,” recalled Carcaldi. “I looked at the piano and this person was singing … and all I noticed were his blue eyes.”
Walsh was singing “Because of You.”
“I walked up to the piano while Tom was singing and stared at him, which caused him to forget the words,” said Carcaldi. “He composed himself and started from the beginning.”
Carcaldi and Walsh became a couple in 1965, a year after they met, when they moved to Philadelphia.
“We moved in together and have been together ever since,” said Carcaldi.
Walsh was a freelance graphic designer until he accepted a job in Temple University’s audiovisual department. Walsh and Carcaldi moved to D.C. in 1980.
Walsh began a graphic design business and counted Booz Allen as among his clients. Carcaldi said one of his husband’s “main loves was painting,” and became a fine artist in 2005.
Walsh showed his art at the Nevin Kelly Gallery on U Street, the Martha Spak Studio near the Wharf, and at the Wexler Gallery in Philadelphia. Walsh also sang with the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington.
Walsh and Carcaldi married at D.C. City Hall in 2014.
“Tom and I have been together since 1964 until his death,” said Carcaldi. “Tom died peacefully with me at his side in bed on May 16, 2025, holding Tom in my arms as he made the transition out of life.”
A celebration of life will take place in September.