National
2011 to bring new marriage fights across U.S.
R.I., Md. best bets for progress, while N.C., Ind. face bans
Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, shown here at a meeting with LGBT supporters, backs same-sex marriage rights. (Photo courtesy of Chafee’s office)
With “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed, the issue of marriage returns to center stage in 2011 as many states are poised to enact same-sex marriage or civil unions legislation — or pursue measures that would repeal or block such rights for gay couples.
With new governors or changes to their state legislatures, Rhode Island, Maryland and New York could advance same-sex marriage legislation as soon as this year.
But changes in the political dynamic after the 2010 elections also mean that marriage rights could be repealed in New Hampshire and amendments banning same-sex marriage could go forward in North Carolina, Indiana and Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, legislation to enact civil unions could advance in Hawaii and Delaware.
Rhode Island is among the states that could see early action in passing a same-sex marriage bill.
Newly seated Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I), who supports same-sex marriage, has replaced Gov. Donald Carcieri (R), who opposed gay nuptials.
In his inauguration address, Chafee encouraged the Rhode Island General Assembly “quickly consider and adopt” a same-sex marriage bill to send to his desk.
“When marriage equality is the law in Rhode Island, we honor our forefathers who risked their lives and fortune in the pursuit of human equality,” he said.
Same-sex marriage bills were introduced in both chambers of the Rhode Island General Assembly last week. House Speaker Gordon Fox, who’s gay, supports the passage of a marriage bill through his chamber.
Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said she thinks the marriage bill will come before the House Judiciary Committee before the end of January.
“So we’ll be holding hearings, and then, we’ll be looking at, of course, the committee vote and the floor vote as soon as possible,” she said.
Karen Loewy, senior staff attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the prospects for passing a marriage bill in Rhode Island are “really fantastic” and called Chafee an “active supporter” of the legislation.
“It was part of his inaugural address,” she said. “He’s really committed to getting a marriage bill passed.”
The Senate isn’t expected to take action on the marriage bill until the House finishes action on the measure. The legislative session ends in June, so the marriage bill would have to reach the governor’s desk by that time.
Kushnir said the biggest challenge in passing a marriage bill in Rhode Island is ensuring that lawmakers address the legislation as they take on other issues facing the state.
“There are really important issues also — the economy, jobs and the budget — that are before the legislature,” Kushnir said. “But you know what? Everyone knows that passing marriage equality and treating everybody equal here in Rhode Island does very well for all of those issues.”
Loewy said passage in the Senate remains “a stronger challenge,” but support should exist in the chamber to pass a marriage bill.
“Even there, I think, you’ve got folks who are ready to understand how important this is for same-sex couples in Rhode Island,” she said.
LGBT rights supporters are also optimistic about the chances of a same-sex marriage bill passing in Maryland, where the configuration of the Senate for the first time provides a path for passage.
Last month, a majority of members who support same-sex marriage were named to Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, ensuring for the first time that a same-sex marriage measure would clear the panel and reach the Senate floor for a vote. Up until now, the committee has blocked the marriage bill, even though the chamber was in Democratic control.
Sen. Richard Madaleno of Montgomery Country, who’s gay, last week expressed confidence about passage of the marriage bill.
“I have never been so optimistic about getting this done,” he said. “Today at lunch I sat quietly by myself with a list of the members of the new Senate going over again and again in my head where the votes are, and I’m feeling really good right now both for the floor vote and the cloture vote.”
The bill is being introduced by Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D-Dist. 17) and Del. Keiffer Mitchell (D-Dist. 44). The Senate version will be advanced by Majority Leader Rob Garagiola (D-Dist. 15) and Madaleno.
Supporters in the Senate believe they have the 24 votes needed to pass the marriage bill on an up or down vote but are less certain about whether they have the 29 votes needed to invoke cloture and stop an expected filibuster by same-sex marriage opponents.
Another obstacle could be a referendum on the marriage law. Nearly all observers of the General Assembly expect opponents to initiate petitions to call for a referendum, which would stop the bills from taking effect until after voters decide on the issue.
In New York, supporters of same-sex marriage are looking to the state legislature to approve a bill extending marriage rights to gay couples that would be sent to newly seated Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) desk for his signature.
As in previous years, a marriage bill is expected to be able pass again in the State Assembly, where Democrats have retained control of the chamber, but the situation is different in the Senate, where Republicans have regained control after the election.
Still, Republican Leader Dean Skelos suggested prior to the election that if Republicans regain power in the Senate, he would allow a vote on same-sex marriage to come, even though — like all GOP senators — he previously voted against the marriage bill.
“Let me just say, when we win back the majority, there is legislation that I believe all of you interested in, that I believe should be voted on again,” Skelos said in October. “We’re not going to stifle discussion. We are not going to stifle votes. And it is truly my belief that people should be allowed to vote their consciences.”
Even if the legislation comes up for a vote in the Senate, the prospects for passage are uncertain. When the bill previously came up for a vote late in 2009, the measure failed 24-38.
Two lawmakers who support same-sex marriage were elected to the Senate since the last vote on the legislation, but that change is far from the 32 votes needed to pass a bill in the Senate.
Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, said the “political dynamic remains very promising” for passing a same-sex marriage bill as well as a transgender civil rights bill in New York.
“The phrase that I’ve been using is that there’s a clear and credible path to victory in the not distant future,” Levi said.
Asked whether passage would be likely in the next two years given the makeup of the legislature, Levi replied, “For me, it’s not talking about timeline, it’s about the work we have to do to make sure that we can have a successful vote as soon as we can.”
Dan Pinello, a gay government professor at the City University of New York, said he’s not optimistic about passage of a marriage bill in the legislature over the course of the next two years.
“[Skelos] has said a few things suggesting that [he would bring the bill to a vote], but that’s not a guarantee,” Pinello said. “So, yeah, he could bring it up for a vote, but that’s no guarantee it’s going to pass. I just don’t see it happening, sadly.”
Pinello said the next opportunity to advance same-sex marriage could be in 2013 as a result of the redistricting this year. He said political power should shift from upstate to downstate, which would give Democrats a majority in the Senate.
“Upstate tends to be Republican and downstate tends to be Democratic, so it’s likely even though Republicans will be redrawing the Senate district lines, there’s no way they can still maintain a majority, given the demographic shifts the Census will reveal,” Pinello said.
Repealing marriage in N.H.?
While several states are poised to advance marriage rights, other places could see a rollback of relationship recognition for same-sex couples.
The most prominent of those states is New Hampshire, where opponents of same-sex marriage may have the political power to repeal the marriage law enacted in 2009.
Gov. John Lynch (D), who signed the marriage bill into law, is expected to veto the bill should it come to his desk. But after the election, Republicans now have a super majority in both chambers of the legislature and could override his veto.
Four bills have already been introduced in the legislature to repeal the marriage law.
State Rep. Leo Pepino (R), who introduced one of the bills, said he thinks there is support to repeal the marriage law, according to the Nashau Telegraph.
“I think we have the votes [to repeal],” Pepino said. “We have a lot of really good conservatives and a good conservative doesn’t believe in gay marriage. … It’s a matter of ethics.”
GLAD’s Loewy said the chances of repealing the marriage law in New Hampshire are “hard to quantify,” adding she doesn’t know whether the votes are present to take such action.
“The LGBT community in New Hampshire is very much gearing up for a fight to protect marriage the best way we know how: by talking to legislators about how taking away marriage is going to hurt their families and their kids,” Loewy said.
Loewy added she’s hoping that New Hampshire won’t go down the path of repealing the law and would instead pursue “issues like jobs and the economy that everybody knows is the priority.”
“I think, like I said, the community has a lot of work to do, but, I think, it’s absolutely fair to expect and hope that that’s not the path that New Hampshire’s going to go down,” she said.
Mo Baxley, executive director of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, said the Granite State has never taken away the rights of its citizen, but that is what some anti-gay lawmakers are proposing to do.
“The married gay and lesbian couples here have in no way impacted anybody else’s marriage,” she said. “Let’s move on. Marriage has been debated to death here and the priority right now is the economy and the budget.”
Other states are prepared to advance constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriage.
One such state is North Carolina, where Republicans swept into power in both the House and Senate following the November elections.
Ian Palmquist, executive director of Equality North Carolina, said his organization is “fully expecting” that a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions will advance this year.
“I think there’s a chance of blocking it, but it’s a very tight vote at the moment,” he said.
Palmquist said he’s getting mixed signals on when the vote would come up and said it could be anytime between February and July.
In North Carolina, passing a constitutional amendment requires a third-fifths vote of approval from both chambers of the state legislature followed by a majority of voters at the ballot box.
Palmquist said the measure could be on the ballot in 2011, but he expects it would come to voters in 2012. Such a move would enable conservatives to turn out their base during a presidential election year.
“It would definitely be a challenge to defeat it at the ballot,” Palmquist said. “There is majority support in North Carolina for some form of relationship recognition. We certainly would use that to try to stop this kind of amendment from moving forward.”
Another state where LGBT rights supporters are anticipating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions is Indiana.
In previous years, advocates had been able to block the amendment in the House because Democrats held a narrow majority in the chamber, but the situation has changed now that Republicans took control of the House and expanded their control of the Senate following the November elections.
Don Sherfick, legislative chair for Indiana Equality, said the prospects for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage passing this year are good in Indiana.
“I guess I would be less than honest if I were to say that things were looking rosy for continuing to unequivocally being able to fight such a thing coming through,” he said.
Anticipating hearings in either the House or Senate or both chambers within six weeks, Sherfick said Indiana Equality is mounting a public relations and lobbying campaign to try to block the amendment.
“People will at least know what they’re doing and we’ll set our sights on fighting it in the next legislature,” he said.
Bil Browning, an Indiana native and editor of the Bilerico Project, said he’s 99.9 percent certain that the Indiana Legislature would pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
“The two things they wanted to do most and first and foremost was a bill that would require a woman to have a sonogram three days before any planned abortion — in the hopes that she’ll see it and not want to have the abortion — and a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage,” Browning said.
For a constitutional amendment to pass in Indiana, it must pass the state legislature twice — a first time and then again after an election — before the measure comes before voters. If the legislature passed an amendment this year, the soonest it could get to voters is 2014.
Browning said gay rights supporters can hope for a change in the makeup of the legislature after the next election as a way to block the amendment from final passage.
“Two years from now, if we can retake the Indiana House it’s probably dead, but for at least passing this session, I’d say [the chances] are 99.9 percent,” he said.
Browning said one factor working in advocates’ favor in Indiana is that all the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the state previously testified before the legislature against the amendment.
Additionally, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), who has called for a “truce” on social issues, is widely considered to be thinking about a run for president and may want to steer clear of marriage prior to 2012. Still, the amendment wouldn’t require his signature for passage.
A similar situation can be found in Pennsylvania, where Republicans took control of the House and retained control of the Senate.
Malcolm Lazin, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Equality Forum, said passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is “of concern” because of new Republican control of the House.
“We were able to successfully block it in the past because the House was controlled by the Democrats,” Lazin said. “That dynamic has now changed. In addition, there is now a Republican governor of Pennsylvania.”
As in Indiana, for a constitutional amendment to pass in Pennsylvania, the measure has to be approved by a majority vote in both chambers of the legislature — once and then again after an election — before going to voters as a ballot measure.
Ted Martin, executive director of Equality Pennsylvania, predicted that the amendment would be introduced in both the House and Senate, but was skeptical of lawmakers’ ability to push it through the legislature.
Martin said the likelihood of the measure passing in the House committee is high, but its passage on the House floor is less certain. For the Senate, which has been controlled by Republicans for more than two decades, Martin said he doubts the measure would make it through committee.
“The Senate, in the past, has always taken a less active tone about it,” Martin said. “They’ve become much more libertarian in their view. Just to remember, we were able to block this in committee three times before.”
Hawaii, Del. to take up civil unions
As many states take on the marriage issue — either to advance gay nuptials or ban them — two other states are prepared to enact civil unions early in 2011.
In Hawaii, LGBT advocates are ready to advance a civil unions bill that newly seated Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) has pledged to sign.
Last summer, a civil unions bill in the Aloha State was vetoed by former Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, but with her gone, gay rights supporters see a clear path toward passing the legislation.
Alan Spector, co-chair of Equality Hawaii, said he expects that the civil unions bill will easily pass the legislature to reach Abercrombie’s desk soon after the session starts on Jan. 19.
“With the November 2010 election behind us, and a new governor and new leadership, we’re pretty confident that we will pass the bill early in 2011,” Spector said.
Spector estimated that the legislation would be introduced in the third week of January and ideally would make it to the governor’s desk by March.
“The process can go as quickly as a month or it can take the whole session — or it can on into 2012,” Spector said. “It all depends on what happens, but we’re pretty optimistic that it’s going to go quickly this year.”
Advocates are pursuing civil unions in Hawaii instead of marriage because in 1998, voters approved a constitutional amendment granting the legislature the power to ban same-sex marriage, which lawmakers then pursued.
Similarly, LGBT advocates in Delaware are ready to advance legislation this year that would enact civil unions in the First State.
Peter Schott, political vice president of Delaware Stonewall Democrats, said the “atmosphere is probably better than it’s been in a few years” for passing civil unions in the state.
“We have formed a coalition, which a number of elected officials are on — civic leaders,” Schott said.
LGBT rights supporters know they have the votes in the House, Schott said, but questions about passage in the Senate remain because leadership could refer the legislation to an unfavorable committee.
Schott said supporters of civil unions in Delaware want to pass the legislation this year so it doesn’t come up during the 2012 election season.
Massachusetts
EXCLUSIVE: Pressley rips State Department over LGBTQ rights rollbacks abroad
Massachusetts Democrat sent letter to Marco Rubio on Tuesday
Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the Trump-Vance administration to take urgent action to defend LGBTQ people across the globe; including in countries that are violating international human rights protections for LGBTQ individuals, putting at risk the safety of civilians and U.S. citizens working, living, and traveling abroad.
The letter, which the Washington Blade got an exclusive preview of prior to it’s sending, criticizes the Trump-Vance administration’s foreign policy direction at the State Department, arguing that it has moved to roll back LGBTQ protections that have long been part of the U.S.’s global human rights posture.
“Criminalizing LGBTQI+ individuals undermines democracy globally, as well as U.S. national security. Thus, we urge the State Department to take adequate measures to speak out against this criminalization and protect U.S. citizens abroad, including your staff, who may be detained or harmed under such laws, policies, and practices,” Pressley, a Democrat who represents roughly three-fourths of Boston and much of the city’s suburbs, said. “U.S. civilians, diplomatic personnel, military members, and nonprofit workers on the ground providing health care and disaster support will be affected and have their safety threatened if the U.S. does not take action. Even U.S. citizens perceived as being part of the LGBTQI+ community and traveling or living in those countries may be used as bargaining chips. This is a serious U.S. national security concern.”
In the letter, Pressley underscores what she describes as a global escalation in criminalization and violence against LGBTQ people, noting that one-third of countries still criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relationships and that 12 countries impose the death penalty. She argues that these conditions make LGBTQ travelers, diplomats, and aid workers particularly vulnerable, and calls on the State Department to reassert U.S. leadership in defending human rights abroad.
“Every person deserves to live authentically, yet several countries are violating international human rights laws that protect LGBTQI+ individuals,” she said. “One-third of countries around the world criminalize same-sex consensual acts between adults, and 12 countries allow LGBTQI+ people to be executed for being themselves.”
She also invokes the U.S. has played in promoting democratic values internationally, arguing that LGBTQ rights should remain central to that mission.
“Historically, the United States has played a critical diplomatic role in promoting democracy and freedom for all individuals, including LGBTQI+ persons. The U.S. should be a world leader promoting human rights domestically and globally.”
In a separate statement included in the letter, Pressley emphasized both the moral and national security implications of the issue, warning that rising anti-LGBTQ laws abroad are endangering lives and require a coordinated U.S. response.
“Every person deserves to show up as their true, authentic selves here in the United States and in countries across the globe — and that includes our LGBTQI+ community members,” she said.
“However, we are witnessing a deeply concerning rise in human rights violations and criminalization of LGBTQI+ individuals in other countries, endangering the lives of civilians and U.S. citizens. It is incumbent upon the United States to protect our LGBTQI+ siblings at home and abroad not only for our national security but for the safety and freedom of LGBTQI+ people everywhere.”
The letter goes on to press the State Department for concrete action, including a public reaffirmation of U.S. commitments to LGBTQ human rights, the restoration of LGBTQ analysis in annual country reports, and clearer guidance for Americans traveling abroad. It also seeks clarity on whether the department is tracking cases of U.S. citizens detained or harmed under anti-LGBTQ laws and what proactive steps are being taken to warn and protect LGBTQ travelers.
While she is not a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Pressley remains highly active in international affairs and global policy.
While the letter focuses on current policy, it also lands in the broader context of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s long record on LGBTQ issues. Rubio, a former senator from Florida, has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, calling the federal Respect for Marriage Act, which he voted against, a “stupid waste of time.” He has also expressed support for efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
During his time in the U.S. Senate and as a Florida political leader, Rubio has a long anti-LGBTQ track record. He defended state policies that LGBTQ advocates say target queer and transgender people, including Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law — commonly known by critics as “Don’t Say Gay” or “Don’t Say Trans” — which restricts classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.
He has also drawn criticism for his voting record, including a 0/100 score from the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard, reflecting opposition to expanding federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ people and for opposing adoption rights for same-sex couples.
Now serving as secretary of state, Rubio has overseen changes at the State Department that LGBTQ advocates say have reduced visibility and protections for transgender people, including the removal of trans-specific references from parts of the department’s public-facing materials and travel guidance. He has also been linked to broader restructuring efforts involving U.S. foreign assistance programs, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has historically supported global HIV prevention and LGBTQ rights initiatives in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America.
Those cuts and shifts, critics argue, have weakened programs like PEPFAR — credited with saving millions of lives worldwide — and reduced U.S. support for LGBTQ communities facing persecution abroad. The program is credited with saving at least 25 million lives.
Pressley’s own record stands in contrast, with a 100/100 on HRC’s Congressional Scorecard and a long history of legislative and advocacy work centered on LGBTQ equality. In recent years, she has secured federal funding for The Pryde, an affordable housing development for LGBTQ seniors in Boston, and has repeatedly pushed for expanded civil rights protections, including support for the Equality Act and the Equal Rights Amendment.
She has also advanced policy efforts aimed at LGBTQ survivors of violence, trans, and nonbinary individuals navigating credit and legal systems, and broader protections under housing and civil rights law — framing her work as part of a sustained effort to ensure LGBTQ people are included in federal policy at every level.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court upholds state laws banning trans athletes from sports teams
Justices heard oral arguments in two cases in January
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws that ban transgender athletes from school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.
The justices in January heard oral arguments in two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — that challenged laws in Idaho and West Virginia respectively.
Both cases question the constitutionality of laws from both states that block trans girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools — specifically if these bans violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports.
In a 6-3 decision made on party lines, the conservative justices asserted that laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating in sports programs at publicly funded schools does not violate either constitutionally protected right. Notably the ruling does not require any state to categorically bar transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams, or transgender boys from participating on boys’ sports teams.
In the majority for the case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion. It holds that schools can determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex. It also holds that West Virginia did not violate Title IX, which bars educational programs that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sex.
“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”
The Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kavanaugh’s majority opinion. It permissibly maintains female sports for biological females.
In his conclusion, Kavanaugh shares his belief of the importance of sports to women and girls but also a caution that “[n]o student-athlete on either side of the issue … deserves to be ostracized or vilified.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor opinion was concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justices Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor’s opinion.
In her dissent, Sotomayor explains that the majority opinion, while attempting to protect one groups Constitutional rights (those assigned women at birth), it puts another group’s constitutional rights (trans women) at its expense and in principle violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
“Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor wrote, eventually pointing to how the states had evaluated issues of trans sports participants prior to these bans as evidence of general omission. “The ban eliminated this individualized approach in favor of categorical exclusion.”
She also pointed out that these rules to not equally exclude, further bolstering her argument that the majority opinion was not created with the truest sense of the Equal Protection Clause at its center.
“Teams “designated” for “females” “shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.” Teams “designated” for “males” do not have the same restriction.”
Jackson wrote in her dissent that this ban does explicitly allow for sex discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding.
“A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ just as much as a cisgender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman’s behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth,” Jackson said. “Either way, the institution has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the case centers on B.P.J., a trans girl who was barred from competing on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams under West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, enacted in 2021. Under the law, it requires participation to be based on the athlete’s biological sex as indicated on their original birth certificate issued at the time of birth.
In Little v. Hecox, the details are slightly different, but ask the same 14th Amendment and Title IX questions but against Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. In this case Hecox, a trans woman and student at Boise State University wished to join the women’s cross-country team, but couldn’t under the law. She, with a cisgender athlete filed a suit against the governor, arguing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment explicitly protects their rights to participate on the woman’s team.
Trans rights activists have criticized the highest court in the land’s decision, highlighting it legally allows for discrimination based on gender identity — something they argue is a foundational element of the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law outright called the six conservative justices view of Equal Protection and Title IX as “wrong.”
“Today’s ruling gets it wrong. And it’s kids who will suffer for it. By upholding these blanket bans, the Supreme Court has allowed states to deny students even the chance to try out for a school team, simply because they are transgender,” Levi told the Washington Blade in a statement. “Policies that categorically bar students don’t advance fairness; they mandate exclusion.”
She continued, pointing out excluding some for the protection of others does not ensure fairness as the justices are arguing in their opinion.
“When a law bars every transgender girl regardless of age, hormones, or physiology, it isn’t about competitive fairness. It’s about keeping transgender kids out. We can protect women’s sports without doing that. Most of the country already does.”
Chris Erchull, senior staff attorney at GLAD Law, pointed out that while disappointing, the court does not mandate discrimination as the policy.
“This ruling does not require any state to follow West Virginia’s or Idaho’s cruel, overly-broad approach, and it does not mandate categorical bans on transgender students participating in school sports,” Erchull said. “It also leaves intact broader nondiscrimination protections for transgender students in education, including Title IX’s protections against sex discrimination for LGBTQ+ students. Discrimination has no place in our schools, and we can and should ensure that every student has the opportunity to learn, to thrive, and to know that they belong.”
Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, also emphasized the bad faith argument the majority opinion pushes for the sake of one exclusionary view of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” Buchert said. “Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports. Now, one population, transgender youth and collegians, are targeted for specific and baseless discrimination. We will not be deterred and will continue to fight back to secure the equal participation that all youth, including transgender youth, deserve.”
Joshua Block, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project also echoed the lasting negative impact this ruling will have for trans Americans.
“This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers.” Block said. “The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls. We will continue to advance the fundamental principle that all young people deserve equal opportunity to thrive and succeed.”
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, who himself is trans, issued a statement, reassuring that while upon face value the decision seems to undermine the rights of trans sports participants, it does not make that the rule.
“Today’s limited decision means that states and schools across the country still have the power to make reasonable rules to ensure fairness without banning all transgender girls,” said Minter. “Like other health or medical considerations in sports, reasonable policies for transgender student athletes rely on individual assessments rather than blanket bans. Every child deserves the chance to play sports with their friends and learn the lessons sports teach, including determination, resilience, and teamwork.”
Kelly O’Neill, an attorney for Legal Voice’s from Idaho also provided a statement to the Blade.
“It is profoundly unfair to deny a young person the benefits of teamwork and dedication because of who they are,” O’Neill said. “We should be removing barriers for girls and women in sports, not creating new ones.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson came to a similar conclusion.
“No kid — not my kid, not your kid, not any kid — deserves to be discriminated against. Yet this ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are. When politicians convince the public that any girl could be ‘the wrong kind of girl,’ they invite harassment, intimidation, invasive questioning, or even an inspection of their body by a total stranger,” Robinson wrote in a statement shared with the Blade. “It’s sadly just the latest decision by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court to roll back protections for marginalized communities and create a second class citizenship for millions of people. We are sacrificing the dignity, privacy, and safety of America’s young people to solve a problem that was manufactured and exploited for political gain … We must continue this fight with full force until freedom, justice and equal opportunity are not flimsy promises, but nationwide guarantees.”
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis, who presides over the world’s largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization, issued a statement on the ruling.
“This decision is at odds with the fundamental principles of fairness, freedom, and family that define our country and our communities. By allowing sweeping restrictions on a very small number of transgender students who simply wanted to participate in sports alongside their peers, the ruling creates an unnecessarily unfair playing field,” Ellis said. “Personal freedom and opportunity are best served when our legal protections expand access and guarantee safety for everyone. Today’s decision unfairly strips the rights of a few and threatens the ability of every girl and woman to play the sports they love.”
On the other side of the ideological isle, U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s women and girl trans sport ban. In a statement the Republican called the court’s conservative view of as a win for “women, fairness, and the Gem State.”
“Idaho was the first state in the nation to ban biological men from competing in women’s sports and uphold the opportunities Title IX promised more than 50 years ago,” Risch said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision affirms those protections and the generations of women who fought for fair, equal athletics.”
California
Gay Calif. lawmaker confronted during San Francisco Trans Pride over Gaza stance
State Sen. Scott Wiener running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat
A video posted on X by user Dimitry Yakoushkin of the incident went viral, showing gay California state Sen. Wiener (D-San Francisco) being chased out of Dolores Park, while the group screamed at him. Multiple people in the protest group were wearing black ski masks that concealed their identities.
Wiener is contending to take over Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress in the upcoming November general election.
The video started off with Yakoushkin, a local activist, highlighting how great Wiener’s LGBTQ policies and lawmaking work are. As Yakoushkin started to criticize Wiener about his housing policies, others started to gather around the politician.
Yakoushkin and the group quickly transitioned to yelling at him about his stance on the genocide in Gaza.
“You’ve been wonderful for trans people, and … you’ve been terrible on Gaza,” Yakoushkin is heard saying in the video. “You do not belong here (at Trans Pride) anymore, Scott.”
“I want to support someone who’s so positive on trans rights, but you’re a piece of sh*t on Gaza,” he says later in the video. “How could you do that?”
Other protestors shouted obscenities that were hard to distinguish from, but some that jumped out included cries of “f*ck you” and “You’re a piece of sh*t.”
When it was clear this would not be a one-and-done criticism, Wiener is seen on video pivoting to exit Dolores Park, with the group following behind until Wiener was out of the park.
The video garnered over 12 million views as of Monday.
Scott Wiener showed up to the trans march and for the first time we kicked his ass out. It's sad because while he's written some good legislation for queers, hes ultimately a genocidal-supporting center right shill. Trigger warning: broken man walking away defeated. Vote Connie! pic.twitter.com/TXIB7omxde
— Dimitry Yakoushkin (@decadimitry) June 27, 2026
In early January of this year, Wiener declined to call Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide during a congressional debate forum, as many other politicians have.
A week later, on Jan. 11, Wiener reversed that decision.
“For years, I’ve condemned (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu and his extremist government and the devastation they’ve inflicted on Gaza,” Wiener posted on X. “It’s why I’ve been clear I won’t support U.S. funding for the destruction of Palestinian communities. I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide, but I can’t anymore.”
This was after two years of Israeli bombing that led to thousands of Palestinian deaths in the Gaza Strip, following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.
After Friday’s incident, Wiener posted a statement, calling it “physical intimidation and harassment” by “people who had previously targeted” him with “aggressive behavior in the past.”
“Last night I attended the Trans March, as I’ve done each year for the past 22 years since the first march in 2004,” the statement said. “I attend each year in solidarity with our trans siblings, who are facing existential threats from right-wing extremists, including the President.”
“I have no objection whatsoever to anyone disagreeing with me, opposing me, or protesting me.
“All of that is core to democracy,” the statement continued. “I also have no issue when people talk to me on the street and ask questions or express opposition. That’s democracy, even when the people engaging in this conduct misrepresent my views. But when opposition and disagreement transition to harassment, including cornering me, touching me, or trying to physically bully me out of a public event, that crosses a line.”
Wiener’s congressional opponent, Supervisor Connie Chan, appeared to march without any incident.
Many critics of Wiener took to social media to point out that Wiener posted this statement and used it as a fundraising opportunity, while not posting about the heavy police presence and arrests during San Francisco’s Pride weekend.
Independent journalist Jersey Noah made an Instagram post to Wiener saying, “What do you have to say about (San Francisco Police Department) assaulting and arresting trans people on the public streets of San Francisco for two consecutive nights? Because you haven’t said a… word.”
This is not the first time a politician has been ousted from San Francisco’s Trans Pride festivities, according to San Francisco-based outlet Mission Local.
Past politicians forced to leave over the last decade include Mayor Daniel Lurie, then-Mayor Ed Lee, City Attorney David Chiu, and then-state Sen Mark Leno, according to Mission Local.
Yakoushkin said the protest was spontaneous, saying, “It was not planned, I was walking home, and I saw him from a distance and I got my camera out to start filming,” according to Mission Local.
The California Senate Democratic Caucus and California LGBTQ+ Caucus made a joint statement of support for Wiener, denouncing the verbal harassment toward Wiener as “unacceptable.”
“Senator Wiener has spent the last 16 years in service to San Francisco,” their statement said. “In that time, he has been a fearless champion for the LGBTQ+ community even when it was not politically popular, leading on landmark legislation advancing the rights and protections for transgender, gender Expansive, and intersex people. He is a steadfast advocate for his communities.
“In California, we believe everyone deserves dignity and respect, regardless of political differences,” the statement continued.
Santiago Pride march doubles as protest against new Chilean president
PHOTOS: Frederick Pride Festival
EXCLUSIVE: Pressley rips State Department over LGBTQ rights rollbacks abroad
Longtime Blade staffer Stephen Rutgers steps down after 14 years
‘Girlfriends’ wanted for murder in Silver Spring arrested in Ohio
Does Pride decor resemble Trump’s design aesthetic?
‘Leviticus’ demonizes homophobia for gripping queer horror yarn
Orioles take on Nats for Pride Night
11 years after Obergefell, marriage equality remains under scrutiny
Comings & Goings
-
Real Estate5 days agoDoes Pride decor resemble Trump’s design aesthetic?
-
Movies4 days ago
‘Leviticus’ demonizes homophobia for gripping queer horror yarn
-
Out & About4 days ago
Orioles take on Nats for Pride Night
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days ago
11 years after Obergefell, marriage equality remains under scrutiny
