National
Roe leak stokes fears that LGBTQ rights are now at heightened risk
Legal experts diverse on degree of threat to marriage
Fears that same-sex marriage and other LGBTQ rights could be on the chopping block are at a new high after a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court that would explicitly overturn precedent in Roe. v. Wade, although the degree of perceived danger differs among legal observers.
Although language in the leaked draft by U.S. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, which was published late Monday by Politico and confirmed as “authentic” by the Supreme Court, specifically distances the potential ruling from Obergefell v. Hodges, the general reasoning against finding unenumerated rights in the U.S. Constitution could apply to challenges to the landmark 2015 marriage decision.
Karen Loewy, senior counsel for the LGBTQ group Lambda Legal, told the Washington Blade if the draft decision were to become final it would “have no good implications” for either the Obergefell or Lawrence decisions.
“The analysis that Justice Alito has laid out really calls into question the sort of underlying liberty and dignity jurisprudence that really was the underpinning of cases like Lawrence and Obergefell,” Loewy said. “It requires a really cramped vision of what is constitutionally protected, that is tied to histories of oppression that are really, really concerning.”
Alito obliterates long-standing precedent, as defined in the 1973 Roe. v. Wade decision and subsequently affirmed in the 1992 decision in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey, finding a woman’s right to have an abortion is protected under the 14th Amendment.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito writes. “The Constitution makes no references to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
Alito makes clear for the Supreme Court to find any unenumerated rights under the 14th Amendment, the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
Such an analysis would directly impact LGBTQ rights found under the 14th Amendment. In fact, three separate times over the course of the draft opinion, Alito compares the right to abortion to rights for LGBTQ people as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Those references, however, aren’t to threaten those decisions, but to bolster the case for overturning precedent as established by Roe and limit the impact of the draft opinion.
“Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage,” Alito writes, “but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us describes as an ‘un-born human being.'”
In another instance, Alito includes Obergefell and Lawrence among a multitude of cases in a multi-page footnote giving examples of where the Supreme Court has decided to overturn precedent, which the draft opinion would do for Roe v. Wade. Another time, Alito rejects arguments from the U.S. solicitor general that abortion and marriage are connected, asserting “our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.”
Loewy, however, said the fundamental nature of the draft opinion, despite Alito’s rejection that abortion is comparable to LGBTQ rights, undermines that analysis no matter how many times he articulates it.
“The third time is where he offers a fig leaf saying, ‘This analysis is just about abortion rights. It’s not about anything else,’ and so suggests that it would leave untouched a case like Obergefell, when the analysis that he has offered in this opinion clearly leads to the opposite result,” Loewy said.
Indeed, the sweeping nature of Alito’s reasoning against finding unenumerated rights under the Constitution has led some observers to believe the draft was written by Alito alone and without the input of the other eight justices, which could mean the final decision would be a consensus different from the opinion that was leaked. (Upon publishing the leaked opinion, however, Politico did report the Supreme Court has five justices who will vote in favor of overturning Roe, which means without question such a ruling has a majority.)
Not all observers see the opinion in the same way and are interpreting Alito’s references to Obergefell and Lawrence as less threatening.
Dale Carpenter, a conservative law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written about LGBTQ rights, downplayed the idea the draft opinion against Roe would be a prelude to overturning Obergefell based on Alito’s words denying the connection.
“The opinion tries to make it clear that it does not affect other unenumerated rights, like Lawrence and Obergefell and other fundamental rights cases, like contraceptive cases and other marriage cases,” Carpenter said. “So that’s comforting, I think, to LGBT rights advocates. Second, it says that there’s a fundamental distinction between those other cases and the abortion cases in that the abortion cases involve fetal life or potential life. And so, that I think, is a ground for setting a difference between them.”
Carpenter, however, conceded the mode of analysis in the opinion overturning Roe “is not very friendly to unenumerated rights like marriage and sexual intimacy,” so while Obergefell and Lawrence may face no immediate threat “there might be a longer term concern about decisions like those.”
A follow-up ruling from the Supreme Court rolling back the right for same-sex couples to marry would be consistent with a 2020 dissent from Alito and U.S. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas essentially declaring war on the Obergefell decision, urging justices to revisit the case to make greater accommodations for religious objections.
Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the marriage equality case and now a candidate for a seat in the Ohio state legislature, said in a statement after the leak of the draft Alito opinion he was fearful that the same forces seeking to overturn precedent for abortion rights would go after LGBTQ rights next.
“It’s also concerning that some members of the extreme court are eager to turn their attention to overturning marriage equality,” Obergefell said. “The sad part is in both these cases, five or six people will determine the law of the land and go against the vast majority of Ohioans and Americans who overwhelmingly support a woman’s right to make her own health decisions and a couple’s right to be married.”
The Supreme Court, of course, couldn’t willy nilly reverse the Obergefell decision, which would require some case or controversy to wind its way through the judicial system before justices could revisit the ruling. Mostly likely, such a hypothetical case would be a state passing a law banning same-sex marriage or simply declaring it would no longer allow same-sex couples to wed in defiance of the Obergefell decision.
No state, however, is engaged in a serious effort to challenge marriage rights for same-sex couples. The last such challenge was in 2020 and from the solicitor general of Indiana, who was seeking to challenge the decision on the basis of birth certificates for the children of women in same-sex marriages. Even the current 6-3 conservative majority on the court declined to hear the case.
Additionally, as polls demonstrate, the nation is in a different place with abortion rights compared to the right for same-sex couples to marry. A recent Fox News poll found six in 10 registered voters still think the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade, but more than half of those responders favored banning abortions after 15 weeks. Comparatively, a Gallup poll in September 2021 found support for marriage equality is at a record high of 70 percent and, for the first time, a majority of Republicans back same-sex marriage.
A question also remains about what the draft opinion means for decisions on LGBTQ rights that have yet to come before the Supreme Court but may come at a later time, such as a legal challenge to the “Don’t Say Gay” measure recently signed into law by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Carpenter said he doesn’t think the observers can glean anything about a potential ruling on the “Don’t Say Gay” law based on the fact the legal challenge would be different than challenges to abortion or same-sex marriage.
“That kind of challenge would more than likely be brought under the First Amendment,” Carpenter said. “And I don’t see the First Amendment being affected by the Dobbs decision. I suppose that someone might want to bring an Equal Protection challenge to the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law in Florida, but it just doesn’t seem like it would have an immediate impact on even that kind of claim.”
Wyoming
U.S. attorney nominee confirmed despite anti-LGBTQ history, no trial experience
Nine felony grand jury indictments tied to Darin Smith dismissed last week
Republicans confirmed Darin Smith as U.S. Attorney for the District of Wyoming on Monday, regardless of his history as interim U.S. Attorney for Wyoming and a state senator.
While serving as interim U.S. Attorney for Wyoming — after being appointed by President Donald Trump last July despite never trying a case outside of his time as a law student intern — former state Sen. Darin Smith likely prejudiced jurors during grand jury proceedings.
Nine felony grand jury indictments tied to Smith’s tenure were dismissed last week.
Judges dismissed felony indictments against Cheyenne Swett, Richard Allen, Michael Scott Hopper, Brian Joseph Johnson, Dennison Jay Antelope, Matthew Christopher Jacoby, Matthew Miller Jr., Wolf Elkins Duran, and Jose Benito Ocon. The now-dismissed charges included felony firearm possession, drug distribution, and possession of child pornography, among other allegations.
Smith allegedly told the grand jury that the defendants were “bad guys,” described them as “murderers,” and said deliberations “won’t take long.”
Even the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Wyoming acknowledged that Smith’s comments were “ill-advised.”
Smith has a history of aligning with Trump over the Constitution and supporting anti-LGBTQ legislation.
In 2025, Smith co-sponsored House Bill 0194, titled “Obscenity amendments,” which, among other provisions, would have criminalized drag shows. The bill also would have repealed exemptions for public and school librarians from the crime of “promoting obscenity” to minors. The wording of the bill was so vague that Republican state Rep. Lee Filer said, “We will end up having to arrest somebody for allowing a child to read the Holy Bible.”
Smith also co-sponsored SF0062, a bill requiring public school students to use restrooms, sex-designated changing facilities, and sleeping quarters that align with their sex assigned at birth. In March 2025, the Wyoming governor signed the bill into law, along with its House companion.
He also attended the Jan. 6 Capitol riot alongside thousands of other Trump supporters.
“Smith was on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 … and made the reprehensible claim … that the hundreds of Capitol Police officers who risked their lives that day were guilty of ‘massive incompetence.’ Smith blames the police for what happened on Jan. 6. Without evidence, he claimed that rioters who breached the Capitol were victims of entrapment,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said. “Moreover, Smith is not remotely qualified to be a U.S. Attorney. He’s going to be in the package — take it or leave it. Prior to becoming the interim U.S. Attorney, he had no courtroom or litigation experience whatsoever. None. And Smith’s lack of experience has had real-world consequences.”
Prior to his work in the Wyoming state legislature, Smith worked as Director of Planned Giving for the Family Research Council, an organization that describes homosexuality as “harmful” to society with “negative physical and psychological health effects.”
The organization also believes that sexual orientation “should [not] be included as a protected category in nondiscrimination laws or policies, as it is not comparable to inborn, immutable characteristics such as race or sex.”
During questioning before the U.S. Senate, he denied that his work with the organization shows he has loss of impartiality when it comes to matters of LGBTQ rights.
Also questioning, Smith was asked about a now-deleted Facebook post in which he appeared to express support for Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was found to be unconstitutional in her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite Obergefell v. Hodges.
“Perhaps Hillary and Obama can share the cell with Kim Davis for refusing to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act,” the post said.
When asked why he posted it, Smith told Durbin: “I do not recall.”
Josh Sorbe, spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats and Durbin, said:
“Anti-LGBTQ+ extremist Darin Smith has no business serving as a top law enforcement officer in any state — let alone a state with as much history of queer importance as Wyoming. He’s an unqualified insurrectionist with no experience litigating criminal or federal matters, and his bigotry puts into serious question his commitment to upholding the law for all Americans.”
Human Rights Campaign Vice President of Government Affairs David Stacy also condemned Smith’s confirmation to the U.S. Attorney’s office.
“The justice system in America is supposed to be about ensuring the law is applied fairly and equally. But Darin Smith has spent his career obsessed with making life worse for LGBTQ+ people, opposing marriage equality, cosponsoring state legislation targeting transgender youth, and smearing LGBTQ+ people in public statements,” Stacy said. “Just over two decades after Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in that same state, Wyoming deserves better than tired anti-LGBTQ+ hate at the helm of federal law enforcement. The Senate should reject Darin Smith and demand a nominee who will put the people — and justice — first.”
Vermont
Vt. lawmaker equates transgender identity with bestiality
Vermont Democrats condemned comments, demanded apology
State Sen. Steven Heffernan (R-Addison) equated transgender people to bestiality on the Vermont Senate floor on May 15 while debating an animal cruelty bill.
Heffernan, who was elected in 2024 to the state Senate, constructed a scenario in which a trans person is indistinguishable from someone committing bestiality.
“In these crazy times, what happens if the individual identifies as an animal having intercourse with an animal? How is the courts going to handle that?” the former member of the Vermont Air National Guard said while debating House Bill 578. “Being that we voted through Prop Four, and if it does make it through this state, and I have a gender identity that I identify as a dog and had sex with my dog, is this law going to affect me?”
State Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (D-Chittenden Central), who presented H. 578 responded professionally.
“The bill that we are putting forward in the current law is quite clear that any act between a person and an animal that involves contact with the mouth, sex organ, or anus of the person, and the mouth, sex organ, or anus of the animal, without a bona fide veterinary purpose, will be a crime.”
In the video, Heffernan continued to ask inappropriate questions — questions that Vyhovsky answered.
“If I identify as that animal, will this be able to … It says a person. I’m not a person. I’m identifying as this animal I’m having intercourse with,” he said. “We are identifying genders, of whatever gender we decide we want to be, and I think I like this bill. I’m going to vote for this bill, but I want to make this chamber aware of what’s coming.”
Vyhovsky made a statement saying this was a planned move in an attempt to “other” trans Vermonters instead of protecting them.
“Senator Heffernan knew exactly what he was doing,” said Vyhovsky. “Sen. Heffernan is using the same dehumanizing playbook that has been used against LGBTQ+ people for generations — the false, ugly suggestion that queer and trans identity is synonymous with deviance and harm. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.”
This derogatory action at the expense of trans people appears to be part of a pattern of behavior from Heffernan in his official capacity.
In March, Heffernan left the floor right before lawmakers voted on Proposal 4, conveniently missing the bill vote. PR 4, if passed by the state’s voters in the fall, would amend the state constitution to enshrine protections against unjust treatment, including discrimination based on a “person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.”
Heffernan told VTDigger at the time that he left because his stomach was feeling “agitated” and he needed to use the restroom. He said he had not made up his mind on how to vote on the amendment, largely because he’d heard from constituents urging him both to vote for and against it.
“My pizza hit at the right time, I guess,” he said, calling the timing “convenient.”
Despite his leaving — and being the only lawmaker to do so — the state Senate voted to pass it 29-0, with Heffernan marked “absent.” This came after the state House of Representatives voted to pass it 128-14 last week.
Vermont Senate Democrats condemned the statement and used the opportunity to emphasize the need for the state to pass PR 4 on Nov. 4.
“In the wake of Sen. Heffernan’s comments, the stakes of this election couldn’t be more clear,” the statement provided to the Washington Blade read. “Transgender and nonbinary Vermonters are our neighbors, our friends, and our family members. On Friday, Sen. Heffernan used his platform as an elected official representing the people of Vermont to dehumanize them. Senate Democrats will never stop fighting for dignity for all Vermonters. We demand Senator Heffernan apologize to those he has harmed with his words and actions.”
State Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (D-Chittenden Southeast), speaking in her capacity as chair of the Senate Ethics Panel, responded to similar transphobic comments made by President Donald Trump in a White House counterterrorism strategy document last week, in which he said those with “extreme transgender ideologies” should know “we will find you and we will kill you,” stating:
“A lot of people are living in fear in this country because of what somebody with the power of the pen and the power of the military is saying every day,” Hinsdale said. “Just because [speech] is protected does not mean it is worthy of this institution, and does not mean it is worthy of the office we hold and the power that we wield in the lives of Vermonters.”
The Blade reached out to Heffernan for comment but has not heard back.
Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) died on Tuesday. He was 86.
The Massachusetts Democrat served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981-2013. Frank in 1987 became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay.
The Washington Blade earlier this month interviewed Frank after he entered hospice care at his Ogunquit, Maine, home where he lived with his husband, Jim Ready, since 2013. The former congressman, among other things, talked about his new book, “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy.”
The book is scheduled for release on Sept. 15.
NBC Boston reported Frank’s sister, Ann Lewis, and a close family friend confirmed his death.
The Blade will update this article.
Iran war causes condom shortage in India
U.S. attorney nominee confirmed despite anti-LGBTQ history, no trial experience
Vt. lawmaker equates transgender identity with bestiality
Gay Men’s Chorus celebrates 45 years at annual gala
BREAKING NEWS: Barney Frank dies at 86
Disillusioned about democracy? Think of it as a community garden
Honey, have we been priced out of gay paradise?
IDAHOBiT a reminder we all must stand up against transphobia
PHOTOS: Blade Summer Kickoff Party
