It was 10 years ago this week — on June 26 — when gay marriage became the law of the land with the landmark Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges. Both Jim Obergefell and Freedom to Marry founder Evan Wolfson contributed to the foreword of a new coffee table book, “LOVE: The Heroic Stories of Marriage Equality,” curated by photographer Frankie Frankeny and writer John Casey.

With the current political climate, many fear that marriage equality could be overturned. In my last interview with Evan Wolfson back in 2017, Trump had just started his first term. I asked him then, “Is gay marriage safe?”

Here’s what he said:

“Look, anything can happen. So I don’t think we should ever be complacent or give up or stop working. Even though the election was a catastrophe and our country is very much on the wrong path, I actually think there are other communities, values, and causes we care about that are more in danger. If we stand in solidarity with others and keep moving forward, we will also secure our own gains.

“I’m not really worried they’re going to take away the freedom to marry. That’s a very hard thing to do. Even former or current opponents are mostly focused on other things.

“We won the freedom to marry not just in court, but by shifting public opinion—growing support from 27% when I argued the first trial in Hawaii to 63% in 2015 when the Supreme Court ruled. That didn’t go away on Election Day. More than a million gay people have gotten legally married in the U.S.—and each of those marriages represents family, friends, and allies who support them. That didn’t go away either.

“We won over a hundred court rulings before the final one, and that legal foundation didn’t disappear. We built ‘facts on the ground,’ shifted opinion, mobilized allies. We have to keep doing that work.

“And Gallup just reported record-high support for marriage equality—up to 47% even among Republicans. So yes, we need vigilance, but I don’t think losing marriage equality is the biggest threat we face.”

I recently asked Wolfson if he still stands by that statement.

“So far, I stand by everything I said,” Wolfson responded. In our new conversation, Wolfson elaborated:

“There are other communities and values in more immediate danger. If we stand in solidarity and keep moving forward, we’ll secure our own rights too.

“I’m not worried they’re going to take away the freedom to marry. That’s extremely difficult to undo. Even our opponents have moved on to other battles.

“Let’s remember how we got here: by winning over public opinion through years—decades—of organizing, storytelling, and showing up. When we stood before the court in 2015, public support had climbed from 27% to 63%. That was no accident. And it hasn’t gone backward.

“Of course people are worried now. There’s a lot to worry about. But sitting around cataloging 100 possible future disasters won’t help. If you’re worried—about marriage, about immigrants, about anti-Semitism, the economy, women’s rights, trans rights, democracy—then the answer is to get to work. Worry doesn’t protect us. Action does.”

He added:

“It’s hard to undo a right. It can happen—look at Dobbs overturning Roe v. Wade—but it’s rare. And even if the Supreme Court were to roll back Obergefell, we put a fallback in place: The Respect for Marriage Act.

“Thanks to that bipartisan legislation—signed by President Biden on the White House lawn—any marriage performed legally in one state must be recognized in all 50 states and by the federal government. Even if Obergefell fell, couples could still marry in states where it remains protected and be recognized nationally.

“That act passed with support from Republicans, including some who once voted for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

“So yes, I understand the fear. But fear alone won’t protect us. We all need to do the work—each in our own way.”

Wolfson also reflected on the broader threats to democracy:

“None of us is 100% safe from the assaults and corruption of this current regime. That’s why we must reclaim political power—by electing better lawmakers, reforming the courts, and reaffirming the rule of law, democracy, and pluralism.

That’s not just an LGBT issue—it affects everyone. But queer people, especially trans people, are among those most targeted. And we’ve seen how divide-and-conquer politics and demonization are weaponized to climb to power.

“The trans conversation is at an earlier stage than that for gay people, which makes it more vulnerable. Republicans are exploiting that. And yes, some missteps in our activism have made things harder. But we can course-correct.

“Books like Frankie’s remind us of what we’ve already overcome: the AIDS crisis, Reagan-era discrimination, legal persecution. We rose to those challenges, and we can rise to this one.”

As Wolfson puts it:

“This is our generation’s call to action. We have to respond. And if we do it together—with solidarity and purpose—we will protect the people and values we love.”

“LOVE: The Heroic Stories of Marriage Equality” includes more than 360 pages of wedding photos and stories that are inspiring to read. The book is available everywhere. 

Wilmington, Del. city leaders and community members gathered to paint the first rainbow crosswalk in the city on June 24, after Mayor John Carney signed a proclamation to declare June as Pride month. 

The crosswalk was painted at the intersection of 6th and Union Streets near Crimson Moon, the only LGBTQ bar in New Castle County.

“This is not just paint on pavement — it’s a statement,” said Mayor Carney. “This crosswalk is a symbol of visibility and belonging. It reflects our promise that Wilmington is a place where everyone, regardless of who they are or who they love, should feel safe, seen, and supported.”

After the signing, the mayor joined At-Large City Council members Latisha Bracy and James Spadola, the Public Works Department, LGBTQ leaders, and community advocates in painting the crosswalk vibrant rainbow colors. 

Mayor Carney said Council member Bracy helped “lead the charge” of this initiative in an Instagram post. At the event, Brady said the crosswalk was “a long time coming” and that it had been requested several years ago but did not get done until now. 

“There’s nothing more American than letting people be who they are,” Council member Spadola said during the proclamation ceremony.

The Delaware Pride Festival in Dover lost 57% of its corporate funding this year, according to The News Journal, due to backlash over diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.  

Delaware is currently pushing legislation to codify same-sex marriage into the state Constitution. The amendment passed through the Senate on June 10 and is awaiting consideration from the House. 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on June 16 issued a landmark ruling that says Indian law cannot deny transgender women recognition as women solely because they cannot bear children.

Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, who presided over the case, rejected arguments that tie womanhood exclusively to reproductive capacity, declaring such views “legally unsustainable” and contrary to the Indian constitution’s guarantees of dignity, equality, and identity. The decision, rooted in the Supreme Court’s 2014 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India ruling that recognized individuals as a “third gender” with equal fundamental rights, marks a significant step toward gender justice in India.

“A trans woman, born male and later transitioning to female, is legally entitled to recognition as a woman,” Pratapa declared.

The court emphasized this recognition is enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the constitution; which guarantee equality before the law, prohibit discrimination based on sex, and protect the right to life and personal liberty respectively. Pratapa further clarified that trans women are entitled to the same protections as cisgender women under Section 498A of the Indian penal code, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives.

“Denying such protection by questioning their womanhood amounts to discrimination,” said the High Court in its ruling.

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Viswanathan Krishnamurthy and his parents, who sought to dismiss a dowry harassment case brought by Pokala Sabhana, a trans woman. Shabana alleged that Krishnamurthy and his family subjected her to cruelty and demanded dowry, charges that prompted her to seek protection under Section 498A.

The court’s decision to uphold her legal standing as a woman ensures that trans women can access critical protections against domestic abuse, setting a precedent for future cases.

Section 498A’s applicability to trans women, as the court affirmed, extends critical protections against domestic cruelty to marginalized groups. Trans women can now seek legal recourse under this provision for physical, emotional, or economic abuse, including dowry-related harassment, by their husbands or in-laws. This recognition ensures access to police intervention, potential arrest of perpetrators, and penalties under the Indian penal code, aligning trans women’s marital protections with those afforded to cisgender women. By including trans women under Section 498A, the ruling strengthens their ability to combat domestic violence and assert their rights within familial structures.

Shabana and Krishnamurthy lived together in Ongole, a city in Andhra Pradesh, for a short time before Krishnamurthy relocated to Chennai and ceased communication, according to the court document the Washington Blade obtained.

Shabana filed a complaint at the Ongole Women’s Police Station, alleging her in-laws threatened her life and that Krishnamurthy abused her. Based on her accusations, the police registered a case against Krishnamurthy and his parents under Section 498A.

Krishnamurthy and his parents in 2022 petitioned the Andhra Pradesh High Court to dismiss the case, arguing that Shabana, as a trans woman, could not invoke Section 498A, a provision typically applied to cisgender women.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that trans women, due to their inability to conceive, do not meet the legal definition of a woman and thus cannot invoke Section 498A. They also contended Shabana’s cruelty and dowry harassment allegations were baseless and lacked evidentiary support.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments, ruling that gender identity does not hinge on the ability to bear children and other biological factors. The court affirmed that trans women, like Shabana, have the right to file complaints under Section 498A and are entitled to all constitutional protections afforded to women under the constitution.

While affirming that trans women are legally recognized as women, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the case against Krishnamurthy and his family, citing insufficient evidence rather than gender-based arguments. 

The court noted Shabana’s claims of dowry demands and cruelty lacked supporting material. It ruled that proceeding with the trial without prima facie evidence would constitute a misuse of the judicial process.

“I am relieved, the delighted and thank the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the judge for upholding our basic human right to be identified as what we want. What better reason could that be for celebrating this Pride Month,” said Kalki Subramaniam, a prominent trans activist and artist. “For transgender community, especially trans women this verdict means a lot.”

Subramaniam told the Blade that the verdict is a momentous achievement. She described it as a significant stride toward justice, dignity, and equality for trans people throughout India.

“By affirming their legal status as women, the court has shattered discriminatory barriers and reinforced the fundamental principle that identity is valid and deserving of full legal protection,” said Subramaniam. “This ruling marks a significant moment of progress, sending a clear message that our legal frameworks are evolving to be more inclusive and reflective of the diverse realities of our society. It is a victory of human rights and a beacon of hope for a more equitable future.”

Meera Parida, a prominent trans activist in Odisha, told the Blade the ruling is a significant triumph. 

“Only because a trans woman cannot bear a child, she is not a woman — that’s not good,” she said.

“This is a respectful judgement for all of us,” added Parida. “This is restoring equality and somewhere because of this verdict the stigmatization wall will fall and people will respect us. I respect this verdict.”

“This verdict is very progressive and a crucial step forward to the transgender community and gender equality,” Rani Patel, president and founder of Aarohan, an organization that works to address educational disparities among underprivileged communities and advocates for LGBTQ rights, told the Blade. “People said that we should give them separate toilets and classrooms, but that totally excludes them from the community. Many women also cannot give birth to a child, so that is totally different.” 

“If someone is carrying themselves as female, they should be honored with their status,” added Patel. “Since the purpose of the verdict is to recognize trans women as women, they will get all the status and rights as cisgender women in dowry and harassment cases.”