News
Gorsuch calls same-sex marriage ‘settled law’
‘I’ve tried to treat each case and each person as a person’
Judge Neil Gorsuch (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Amid opposition from LGBT rights supporters to the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, President Trump’s nominee referred to same-sex marriage as “settled law,” but was otherwise relatively tight-lipped about his views during his confirmation hearings.
Grilled by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee about his judicial philosophy, U.S. Circuit Judge Gorsuch on Tuesday maintained “equal justice under the law” — words enshrined at the top of the Supreme Court building — was a “radical” idea, but one he’d uphold, when asked about application of the law to LGBT people.
Pressed by Sen. Al Franken about marriage equality specifically, Gorsuch replied, “It is absolutely settled law,” but added, “there’s ongoing litigation about its impact and its application right now.”
When Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) asked the nominee about his views on LGBT people, Gorsuch seemed irritated and responded, “What about them?” and as Durbin sought to clarify, the nominee retorted, “They’re people.”
Asked by Durbin to point to a statement or decision favorable to LGBT people, Gorsuch offered his judicial philosophy that all individuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law.
“I’ve tried to treat each case and each person as a person, not a this kind of person, not a that kind of person — a person,” Gorsuch said. “Equal justice under law is a radical promise in the history of mankind.”
Durbin pressed Gorsuch to clarify whether that applies to sexual orientation, prompting Gorsuch to invoke the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision in favor of same-sex marriage.
“The Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution,” Gorsuch said, using “single-sex marriage” terminology commonly cited in Europe, but rarely in the United States, to refer to marriage equality.
Durbin brought up LGBT people in the context of questioning of John Finnis, whom Gorsuch identified as a mentor during his time at Oxford University. A conservative one-time law professor, Finnis delivered a deposition in the early ’90s in favor of Colorado’s anti-gay Amendment 2, a law that prohibited cities from enacting non-discrimination ordinances based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court struck down the law in the 1996 Romer v. Evans decision.
Referencing a passage in which Finnis compared same-sex relationships to bestiality and said antipathy toward LGBT people is based not just on religious reasons, but societal views, Durbin asked Gorsuch whether he was aware of his mentor’s statements.
“I know he testified in the Romer case,” Gorsuch said. “I can’t specifically recall the specifics of his testimony or that he gave a deposition.”
When Durbin sought more information from Gorsuch on the impact Finnis had on his views, Gorsuch referred to rulings he made on the bench as a member of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“I think the best evidence is what I’ve written,” Gorsuch said. “I’ve written or joined over 6 million words as a federal appellate judge. I’ve written a couple of books. I’ve been a lawyer and a judge for 25 or 30 years, and I guess I’d ask you, respectfully, to look at my credentials and my record.”
In another exchange with Franken, Gorsuch conceded the issue of same-sex marriage is “settled” law, but acknowledged subsequent litigation is ongoing on its impact and kept his cards close to his vest on his personal views.
Referencing Gorsuch’s help with former President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign in Ohio as a member of “Lawyers for Bush,” Franken noted that was the year the state had an anti-gay amendment on the ballot and asked the nominee whether same-sex marriage should be subjected to popular vote.
“Senator, I don’t recall any involvement in that issue during that campaign,” Gorsuch said. “I remember going to Ohio.”
When Franken asked the nominee if he was aware of the marriage issue in 2004, Gorusch replied, “Certainly, I was aware about it.”
Pressed further by Franken for his views, Gorsuch added, “Any revelation about my personal views about this matter would indicate to people how I might rule as a judge. Mistakenly, but it might, and I have to be concerned about that.”
When Franken pointed out the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide and asked Gorsuch how his views have changed since 2004, the nominee remain tight-lipped.
“My personal views, if were to begin speaking about my personal views on this subject, which every American has views on, would send a misleading signal to the American people,” Gorsuch said.
The Minnesota Democrat sought to move on to another topic as Gorsuch said he wanted to finish his thought about not being able to disclose personal view, but Franken said, “You’ve given a version of this answer before. I understand.”
The issue of marriage equality came up later in the hearing when Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) brought it up when asking Gorsuch about his views on whether the Constitution protects intimate and personal choices. Gorsuch again declined to express his personal views, but underscored the importance of the Obergefell decision as precedent.
“Obergefell is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court,” Gorsuch said. “It entitles persons to engage in single-sex marriage. That’s a right that the Supreme Court has recognized. It is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court entitled to all the deference to precedence of the United States Supreme Court, and that’s quite a lot.”
Much of the concern over Gorsuch concerns his subscription to the judicial philosophy of originalism in which jurists seek to determine lawmakers’ original intent of enacting statutes before ruling on them, a practice criticized as a means to deny justice to minority groups, including LGBT people. The late U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia advocated that judicial viewpoint in his dissents to major gay rights cases, such as the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) sought clarification from Gorsuch on originalism, referencing, among other rulings, the 1996 Virginia Military Institute decision, which determined the state’s exclusion of women from the school violated the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Scalia, in his dissent, wrote the decision was creating a new Constitution, not keeping to the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
Asked by Klobuchar whether the ruling was based on the original meaning of the Constitution, Gorsuch kept his views to himself and said, “The majority in that case argued that it was.” Gorsuch repeated his view the concept of equal protection under the law “is quite significant.”
When the Minnesota Democrat asked Gorsuch whether he’d apply that approach to minority groups, such as women, LGBT people and racial minorities, Gorsuch replied, “A good judge applies the law without respect to persons. That’s part of my judicial oath.”
Seemingly unsatisfied with the response, Klobuchar pressed Gorsuch further, prompting him to reply, “I don’t take account of the person before me. Everyone is equal under the eyes of the law.”
The reluctance of Gorsuch to offer his views during the confirmation process is typical of nominees seeking confirmation to the Supreme Court. As other nominees have done in the past, Gorsuch said disclosure of personal views or the appropriateness of a particular decision would suggest a bias on those issues if they came to him after winning confirmation.
Other decisions on which Gorsuch had no comment included the Roe v. Wade decision, the Heller decision affirming the Second Amendment right to own a firearm in D.C. and the Citizens United case allowing unlimited contributions from corporations and unions to political campaigns.
On rare occasions during the hearing, Gorsuch was more direct. Referencing Trump’s pledge to appoint only justices who’d overturn a woman’s right to have an abortion, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) asked Gorsuch if he made any private commitments to Trump to overturn Roe v. Wade, but the nominee replied he didn’t and was not asked to do so.
“I would have walked out the door,” Gorsuch said. “That’s not what judges do.”
A group of 21 LGBT organizations led by Lamdba Legal signed a joint letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week declaring their opposition to the nominee and urging rigorous questioning during the confirmation process.
Although Gorsuch has never ruled on the issue of same-sex marriage, the nominee wrote a scathing piece in 2005 for the National Review titled “Liberals & Lawsuits” excoriating the progressive movement for seeking advancements in the courts. Two years after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, the article identifies marriage equality as an issue that should be settled outside the judicial system.
When asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to respond to criticism over the op-ed, the nominee said he believes the courts, in fact, are a “very important place for the vindication of civil rights,” but in many cases they aren’t appropriate for change.
“I can report to you, having lived longer, as I did report to you in 2005 that the problem lies on both sides of the aisle, that I see lots of people who resort to the court more quickly than perhaps they should,” Gorsuch said.
Much of the discontent over Gorsuch is also related to his 11th Circuit decision in the Hobby Lobby case, when he ruled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act affords “religious freedom” protections to not just people, but corporations, and the business chain could refuse health insurance to female employees that covered contraception. Gorsuch joined a similar decision against the Obamacare contraception mandate in the Little Sisters of the Poor case.
At a time when many businesses and individuals are asserting civil rights laws prohibiting anti-LGBT discrimination unfairly penalize their religious beliefs, some LGBT rights supporters fear Gorsuch could apply that “religious freedom” reasoning in those cases to institute carve-outs for anti-LGBT discrimination.
Under questioning from Durbin, Gorsuch walked through his reasoning in the Hobby Lobby case, maintaining his ruling is based on the belief the U.S. government could make other accommodations for employees seeking contraception other than employer-based health coverage.
“Does the government have a compelling interest in the ACA in providing contraceptive care? The Supreme Court of the United States said, ‘We assume yes. We take that as given,” Gorsuch said. “The question becomes is it narrow tailored to require the Green family to provide it. The answer there the Supreme Court reached in precedent binding on us now, and we reached in anticipation, is no, that wasn’t as strictly tailored as it could be because the government had provided different accommodations to churches and to other religious entities.”
Other LGBT criticism over Gorsuch relates to his decisions on transgender rights. In 2015, Gorsuch joined an 11th Circuit decision against a transgender inmate who alleged she was denied transition-related hormone therapy and unfairly housed in an all-male facility. In 2009, Gorsuch also joined an unpublished opinion finding the provision against sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t apply to transgender people.
Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the case that brought same-sex marriage nationwide, wrote in an op-ed for Time magazine on the second day of the Gorsuch hearings he opposes the nominee on the basis that he could undermine LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage, at the Supreme Court.
Noting the narrow 5-4 marriage decision was written by U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was only confirmed to the Supreme Court after the Senate rejected President Reagan’s nomination of anti-LGBT judge Robert Bork, Obergefell wrote, “we must be as cautious as we were in 1987.”
“As during the Bork hearings, we must again demand that the next justice appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States continue to uphold our Constitution — including equal protections for LGBTQ people under the law,” Obergell wrote. “Donald Trump, in nominating Neil Gorsuch, noted his desire to pick a justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia. That should send chills down the spine of everyone who cares about equality and civil rights.”
Eric Lesh, fair courts director for Lambda Legal, said Gorsuch’s hearing did nothing to allay concerns about the his potential confirmation to the Supreme Court because he “refused to answer very fundamental questions.”
“He kept dodging and weaving and running away from his record, which is clearly hostile to the rights of LGBT people and people living with HIV,” Lesh said. “So, we need answers, and that doesn’t change Lambda Legal’s conclusion that based on a comprehensive review of his record, his views on civil rights issues, on LGBT equality are fundamentally at odds with the notion that our community is entitled to equal dignity, justice, liberty under the law.”
Maryland’s legislative caucuses outlined their legislative priorities heading into the final weeks of the 2026 General Assembly during a joint press conference on March 24.
The press conference was titled “We are Maryland,” where a representative for each of the legislative caucuses outlined priorities.
State Del. Kris Fair (D-Frederick County) of the LGBTQ+ Caucus opened the press conference with a statement on the unity of Maryland’s caucus.
“Together we can show our state and our community a different world, one where we mutually support one another and through that support uplift every Marylander,” he said.
In a press conference on March 5, the LGBTQ+ Caucus outlined its top legislative priorities. Fair highlighted two of those bills again during the “We are Maryland” press conference.
The first of the two highlighted pieces of legislation was Senate Bill 626 and House Bill 1589.
The bills would simplify the process of updating an individual’s birth certificate and align the Department of Health and DMV systems to reflect those changes. The bill is being led by state Sen. Clarence Lam (D-Anne Arundel and Howard Counties) and state Del. Ashanti Martinez (D-Prince George’s County).
The second piece of legislation is Senate Bill 950 and House Bill 1209, which would update and modernize laws and regulations around so-called conversion therapy. The bills have failed to pass either chamber thus far. They are being led by state Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D-Montgomery County) and state Del. Bonnie Cullison (D-Montgomery County).
(The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a Colorado law that bans so-called conversion therapy for minors. Maryland is among the U.S. jurisdictions that prohibit the widely discredited practice for anyone under 18.)
Martinez and Lam have introduced bills in their respective chambers that would expand PrEP access in Maryland. Martinez did not attend the press conference, and Fair did not mention it when he spoke.
State Del. N. Scott Phillips (D-Baltimore County) represented the Black Caucus during the press conference. State Del. Dana Jones (D-Anne Arundel County) spoke on behalf of the Women’s Caucus, State Del. Teresa Woorman (D-Montgomery County) represented the Latino Caucus, and State Del. Lily Qi (D-Montgomery County) represented the Asian-American and Pacific Islander Caucus. State Del. Jared Solomon (D-Montgomery County) represented the Jewish Caucus, and state Del. Sean Stinnett (D-Baltimore County) represented the Muslim Caucus during the press conference.
Solomon ended the press conference by explaining the importance of all the caucuses coming out together.
“We are stronger when we’re together, and many of these issues that we have talked about, again, impact all of us,” said Solomon.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules against Colo. law banning conversion therapy for minors
8-1 decision could have sweeping impact
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a Colorado law that bans so-called conversion therapy for minors.
The justices last October heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar. They ruled 8-1 in favor of Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist who challenged the 2019 law.
In the case, which was heard by the Justices in October 2025, Chiles successfully argued to the court that a 2019 Colorado ban of the practice restricting this type of therapy was unconstitutional, leading to the ban being struck down.
The Supreme Court ultimately found that lower state and federal courts has “erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny,” ultimately reversing the widely discredited “medical” treatment that has support by a very narrow margin of mental health specialists— specifically religious and socially conservative ones. This is despite the fact that Colorado state officials have never enforced the measure in practice, and included a religious exemption for people “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.” The now moot law carried fines of up to $5,000 for each violation and possible suspension or revocation of a counselor’s license.
In the ruling, the court said the law, that specifically applies to talk therapy “impermissibly” interferes with free speech rights of Americans, and despite it being “regard[ed] its policy as essential to public health and safety, but the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for himself and seven other justices from across the ideological spectrum who overturned the low court’s ruling. He went on to add that the original ban “trains directly on the content of her speech and permits her to express some viewpoints but not others.”
Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, which included an in depth summary of her departure from the other 8 Justices, explaining her fears about the verdict— and its eventual chilling effect on legislation that could attempts to restrict religious attitudes in specifically regulatory contexts— despite that these regulations are often made as a direct creation of years of essentially unanimous research and are vetted though regulatory boards for specific jobs.
“This decision might make speech-only therapies and other medical treatments involving practitioner speech effectively unregulatable,” Jackson wrote on page 32 of the 35 page long opinion issued by court in response to her opposing 8 members comments on the bench.
In an consistently updated document started in 2018 that cites the major harms risks conversion therapy poses to LGBTQ people, the Trevor Project, the leading suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ young people, included that the federal government’s own research proved the practice at best questionable and at worst deadly.
“In a 2023 report entitled Moving Beyond Change Efforts: Evidence and Action to Support and Affirm LGBTQI+ Youth, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration stressed that “[sexual orientation and gender identity] change efforts are harmful practices that are never appropriate with LGBTQI+
youth, and efforts are needed to end these practices,” the summary of the fight against conversion therapy in the U.S. reads.
More than 20 states and D.C. banned the widely discredited practice for minors prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Washington Blade will update this article.
The White House
Thousands attend ‘No Kings’ protests in D.C.
Protesters demand accountability, defend democracy, and oppose Trump administration
Across all 50 states — and D.C. — more than 8 million people came out nationwide from towns big and small, red and blue, to make their voices heard. That united voice echoed what nearly 20,000 protesters declared in the nation’s capital back in October 2025: the citizens of the U.S. would not sit idly by as President Donald Trump and his administration erode democracy, attempt to restrict human rights, loosens First Amendment protections, and begin wars without congressional approval.
While there were countless differences among the thousands who joined the “No Kings” protests this weekend in the DMV — from creeds and socioeconomic statuses to races, sexualities, and gender identities — there was one thing that united them all during the chilly March 28 weather: a commitment to making their voices heard.
By 10 a.m., the Washington Blade estimated around 200 people had braved bitter winds and temperatures hovering around 40 degrees, with bright sun, to stand along the cherry blossom-adorned streets of Kalorama and Connecticut Avenue. Protesters carried signs large and small from criticizing Trump’s disregard for the “everyman” to handmade signs emphasizing love, calling for the melting of ICE, and addressing issue-specific concerns like ending the wars in Gaza and Iran — both policies propagated by Trump.
While a solid group of D.C. residents came out with babies in strollers and dogs on leashes, the Kalorama protest skewed older with a majority-white crowd.
On the other side of town, the more heavily attended protest in Anacostia started at 1:30 p.m., crossing the Frederick Douglass Bridge.
MS Now estimates that over 20,000 people marched across the bridge, sending a clear message to the president, his administration, and the Republican-controlled federal government: federal overreach is not what the majority of Americans want to see, hear, or witness as protesters in the thousands came out for, as organizers say “the single largest non-violent day of action” in American history.
The two marches on Saturday differed in both theme and location — the Kalorama protest felt like a small-town demonstration in a big city, covering a wide variety of topics, whereas the Anacostia protest was more focused, directly calling out and pushing back against the actions of Stephen Miller (the White House chief of staff)and other Trump allies.
Many participants shared their reasons for marching with glee — shouting as cars honked in support passing by and discussing the broader issues within the current political climate with those standing next to them: some neighbors, some friends, others complete strangers. Regardless, an important discussion was happening across the city.
A surprise to many participants — and the Blade reporter covering the event — was seeing U.S. Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) stand outside in near-freezing temperatures with her staff and some signs.
Jacobs used the exclusive — and more intimate — ability to speak on her experience watching everything unfold from inside the halls of Congress.
“We had votes until midnight last night, so I couldn’t make it back to San Diego for the march, but it’s important to show up and cheer on people standing up and making their voices heard,” Jacobs said. “This is just the start. We need to make our voices heard every day through the end of the year.”
Jacobs also used the opportunity to criticize congressional inaction from those on the other side of the aisle, reminding the Blade that a legislator’s job is to protect and secure the people they represent — not the interests of a wannabe king or corporations that back many congressional campaigns through PACs.
“It makes me angry at my Republican colleagues who won’t stand up to Trump. Actions like this inject courage into my colleagues — they need to see that the American people have their back,” she added, eventually emphasizing the public responsibility lawmakers have to protect the Constitution and everyone in the country (which the Supreme Court had pointed out as far back as 1886 with Yick Wo v. Hopkins). “Congress is not going to save people. This is about everyone showing up and making our voices heard and building the democracy we want.”
Ashley Gould, a tourist visiting from Missouri, told the Blade that despite Washington being seen as one of the most politically active towns in the country, over the past few years, she and many other politically active Missourians have been preparing for this moment and were zealous to have their voices heard together as one.
“I’m actually visiting my sister from Missouri, and we’ve been doing this since the first No Kings protest [there]. I wanted to see how you guys did it here,” she said. “As someone in a red state, we’re not represented in Congress right now, so I don’t personally have a say in any of this. If I can do one small thing, I want kids in our town to see me trying to make a difference, get petitions signed. This is all we have.”
Gould continued, “I don’t know if it’s going to cause an impact for elected officials, but I hope that little kid who sees us with the posters sees that we do have a voice—and maybe one day they can, if they can’t right now.”
Gary Bowman, another early protest-goer, held a sign that pointed out the obscurity — and unconstitutional nature — of the current administration’s actions.
“I hate the direction the country is going in, and Donald Trump is not fit to be in office,” Bowman said, adding that his choice of sign exemplified that. “It’s obvious based on his policies — his attacks on the trans and LGBTQ communities — that he’s trying to suppress people. And the Republican Congress isn’t helping.”
When asked how the phrase “No Kings” resonates with him, especially since this is the third one held in two years, Bowman said it may be catchy for headlines or help inspire creative signs (like Trump on a golden throne or toilet), but the march and protest are about something much more important.
“‘No Kings’ is a catchphrase for me; I’m more concerned about losing our democracy. We, the people, have a voice we should use,” he said, elaborating on how this administration’s course of action disregards rules designed to prevent an authoritarian — or wannabe-authoritarian — from taking power. “I don’t think Trump is overstepping … I think he’s shattering democratic norms. He wants to do what’s right for Donald Trump, not for anyone else.”
He concluded bluntly that unless everyone — including Republicans in power — stand up to the president for these ludicrous choices, change won’t happen, regardless of how loud he or any other Trump critics scream at protests.
“Until we have a Congress that would actually look at protests and take action, it won’t matter. He’ll just get pissed off and act against them,” Bowman said.
When asked what he could say to those in charge, he finished strongly: “If I could say one thing to him? Fuck off, Donald Trump.”
Jameson Woosley and Elena Lacayo were standing on the corner of Kalorama Road, holding their baby tight as pink cherry blossom trees swayed behind them, as if to cheer on the protesters.
“It’s the degradation of democracy. Every day there’s an overreach by the executive branch, and Congress just sits on their hands,” Woosley said, standing side by side with Lacayo.
“It’s terrifying for my baby. This administration has turned people who’ve done nothing wrong into criminals — it’s Orwellian. Up is down, war is peace,” Lacayo noted. “I was raised in another country with authoritarians… I’m a citizen here, and I’m going to use every right I have to advocate for those who can’t.”
Lacayo then spoke about how, for many, direct protests against government action (and inaction) are the only choice — especially under a supermajority federal government with the White House, Supreme Court, and both chambers of Congress.
“We have no choice but to believe change can come. This is what we can do. We must continue fighting; that’s what the human spirit is about,” she said.
Woosley emphasized the growing impact of the protests, saying, “Every protest gets bigger, and opinion polls keep swinging in the right direction … We need to speak up and get all the right people out to bring positive change.”
“These people are nothing without us,” Lacayo added.
Beth Davis, a former resident of Kalorama, shared with the Blade that this place holds special meaning for her — and her children — which is in part why she chose this one over the larger protest in Anacostia.
“I used to live in the neighborhood, so this is special for me. It’s easy to bring the kids and let them be part of the movement,” Davis said, as her elementary-aged children ran around the manicured grass while bundled up, enjoying the lively atmosphere.
“What’s happening to immigrant communities is horrific, and I want to show solidarity. Also, the Iran war — it’s terrifying what’s happening,” she added before explaining what the “No Kings” name actually means to her. “’No Kings’ makes me think of the extreme grab for power — it’s unprecedented.”
Davis then noted the importance of protesting when it seems like the main goal is often to iisolate : “Coming to protests makes people feel like they’re not alone, and that momentum carries into elections,” she explained, noting why she not only brought her two children to this protest—and many others in the past as well– but uses these as real world teaching moments. “We bring kids to teach them their civic responsibilities. My oldest has been to about ten protests.”
Another remarkable aspect of D.C. protests is the diversity of participants. Teachers, retail workers, students, and even some congresspeople turned out. In Kalorama on Saturday, the No Kings protest brought out Anne Plant, a biochemist and fellow at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where she was previously chief of the Biosystems and Biomaterials Division.
Plant focused on many issues when speaking to the Blade, but started with what many consider the most important: Trump-era policies making civic engagement more difficult, particularly regarding civil rights.
“A lot of things are going wrong, and the only way to change them is for people to act. D.C. has no statehood, no vote — it’s a civil rights issue,” Plant said. “To deny the vote to any group of U.S. citizens doesn’t make sense. These people work for us; we should be able to hold them accountable.”
She held a small, hand-painted sign with two cohesive messages: “Reject Fascism. Defend democracy.”
“Some of what’s going on now is not healthy for society. No one will benefit; it’s just ruination,” Plant concluded. “Seeing more people out here shows that others feel the same, and momentum is what it takes to move things.”
Religious activists also joined the marches. Sister Diane and Sister Claire, two Catholic nuns, were out protesting Trump and his agenda.
“We’re sisters, Catholics in support of LGBTQ rights. I work with immigrants, and we wanted to stand in solidarity,” Sister Diane said.
Sister Claire reflected on the era the U.S. is in now: “It’s so disturbing. I’m almost glad my folks aren’t alive anymore for all they cared about. It’s heartbreaking, but we need something for the future.”
John Jones, another attendee teeming with energy and anger against the regime, captured the urgency of the moment succinctly.
“We’ve got to do something. I needed to be part of the community and let them know we’re tired of all the madness,” Jones told the Blade before detailing specific atrocities by the Trump-Vance administration.
“Rounding up legal people who follow the rules — throwing them away just because he’s racist, or his friends tell him to be racist. Helping pay for a war, bombing Gaza, killing people for no reason, manipulating the stock market for personal gain. It’s crazy,” he said, still holding out hope that small acts — like the protest gathering — show everyday Americans they have power, advocating for even more people to come out for the next No Kings protest.
“I hope protests can spark change. I won’t hold my breath, but the more people out here, the more they [in power] seem to be listening.”
Patty Bowring, who had moved with her family from the United Kingdom to join her husband in D.C. for his career, is set to return soon due to immigration restrictions. She, her children, and her mother came out to protest because she believes it is just as important for non-citizens to have the right to both protest and exist in a country founded and enriched by immigrant and enslaved labor.
“Even though we’re British, we’re leaving America in two months because of the administration. But this affects everybody — it’s hugely dangerous and worrying,” Bowring said.
Despite the somber mood, she kept a smile and joked: “I hope it’s the death of dinosaurs and that nothing more radical comes next. I want them to be happy,” also pointing out that the mixed messages at the protest could dilute impact. “Protests need a clearer message. ‘Anti-fascist’ should be the focus; too many other messages muddy things.”
Finally, John Norrin highlighted the continuity of civic engagement, informing the Blade that this protest — albeit a smaller version — happens every week on the corner.
“I’m here with friends, looking for more,” Norrin said. “There’s a regular protest every Thursday morning, and I’m going to start joining … The kings today are mostly figureheads, but we also have dictators not called kings who act like one. We have an elected representative trying to be a king.”
He, much like others around him — even with Jacobs standing mere feet away — criticized Congress’ inaction.
“Congress is understepping. They should assert their rights under Article One — declare war, impose tariffs — but they’re too afraid to follow their oath,” Norrin said, eventually shifting to a note of hope. “If at least 3.5 percent of the populace regularly protests, there’s a good possibility for change. I hope that happens here. Some friends will go to Connecticut to join larger groups. I had to figure out which protest in D.C. to join—it took a while.”
Md. lawmakers reaffirm legislative priorities
Supreme Court rules against Colo. law banning conversion therapy for minors
Thousands attend ‘No Kings’ protests in D.C.
Blade contributor, husband exchange vows in D.C.
Ghanaian president welcomed to Philadelphia amid backlash over anti-LGBTQ bill
‘No Kings’ protests set for D.C.
Celebrate cherry blossoms the drag way
Lorato ke Lorato: marriage equality, democracy, and the unfinished work of justice in Botswana
The outrage economy is not the LGBTQ community
Japanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
-
District of Columbia5 days ago‘No Kings’ protests set for D.C.
-
Out & About4 days ago
Celebrate cherry blossoms the drag way
-
Botswana4 days ago
Lorato ke Lorato: marriage equality, democracy, and the unfinished work of justice in Botswana
-
Opinions4 days ago
The outrage economy is not the LGBTQ community
