Connect with us

News

Gorsuch calls same-sex marriage ‘settled law’

‘I’ve tried to treat each case and each person as a person’

Published

on

Neil Gorsuch, gay news, Washington Blade

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.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Brazil

Trailblazing trans Brazilian lawmaker refuses to set foot in Trump’s America

Erika Hilton says US president’s rhetoric fuels global wave of transphobic violence

Published

on

Brazilian Congresswoman Erika Hilton presides over a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies' Commission on the Defense of Women's Rights. (Photo by Kayo Magalhães/Chamber of Deputies)

Erika Hilton, the first Black transgender woman elected to the Brazilian Congress, in April 2025 prepared to speak at the annual Brazil Conference at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.

As part of her official diplomatic duties, Hilton required a diplomatic visa to enter the U.S. However, the U.S. Embassy in Brasília issued the document with a glaring discrepancy: the congresswoman’s gender was listed as “male,” directly contradicting her official Brazilian identification, which legally recognizes her gender as “female.”

Hilton in response canceled her participation in the conference and filed a formal report with the United Nations, characterizing the incident as a violation of the Brazilian state’s diplomatic prerogatives and an act of institutional transphobia. The Brazilian Foreign Ministry last month issued a new diplomatic passport to the congresswoman in an act of symbolic reparation, a move intended to reaffirm her official status and legal identity in the wake of the U.S. embassy’s actions.

Despite the restorative gesture from the Brazilian government, Hilton told the Washington Blade that she has no intention of entering the U.S. in the near future — at least not while President Donald Trump remains in the White House. 

“I am afraid of what might happen to someone like me under an administration like Donald Trump’s,” Hilton said. “It is an authoritarian, anti-democratic government that has no respect for international law.”

“We’ve seen, for example, how ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) acted with extreme violence against people who held tourist visas and were simply visiting the country,” she added. “There is a deep-seated fear of how people are treated by immigration authorities and law enforcement. All of this is terrifying, and it has convinced me that I should not set foot in the United States as long as a fascist government is in power.”

While her travel to the U.S. remains on hold, the congresswoman has been exceptionally active in Brazil. 

Hilton last month made history once again by becoming the first trans woman elected to chair the Chamber of Deputies’ Commission on the Defense of Women’s Rights. This appointment marks the first time a trans person has led a standing committee in the Brazilian Congress — the latest milestone in a career defined by its pioneering spirit.

“This is a milestone in my story. It’s a milestone for that dreamy young girl who, at 14, was forced into sex work on a street corner to survive, and who today returns to make peace with her past. But even from where I stand now, I am looking back and pointing toward those who are still out there on those street corners, to remind them: we are capable of so much more. We are capable of building something far greater than the limited spaces that hatred and discrimination have reserved for us,” she told the Blade.

Erika Hilton speaks at a rally for now President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in São Paulo on Oct. 5, 2022. She was elected to the Brazilian Congress two days earlier. (Washington Blade video by Michael K. Lavers)

Unlike the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues in the U.S., which functions primarily as a platform for advocacy and lobbying, Brazil’s Commission on the Defense of Women’s Rights wields significant institutional power. Within the Brazilian legislative system, this body holds “conclusive authority,” a specialized power that allows it to bypass the general floor of the Chamber of Deputies. If the commission approves a bill, it can be sent directly to the Senate for a vote, bypassing a full house plenary session.

Beyond this autonomy, the commission possesses what is effectively a pocket veto: if it rejects a proposal on constitutional grounds or deems it detrimental to women’s protections, the bill is shelved immediately. This powerful committee has been the primary vehicle for landmark legislation, including the Equal Pay Act (Law 14,611/23) and critical laws targeting the political harassment of women.

Defining womanhood beyond biology

Hilton emphasizes that her election as chair of the Women’s Rights Commission was no easy feat, but a grueling struggle. The battle began within her own party, as she worked to convince colleagues that she was not only a viable candidate but an essential one.

The hostility intensified significantly following her nomination. 

Far-right conservative sectors orchestrated what the congresswoman denounced as a systematic, sponsored wave of attacks that transcended social media, spilling into the very halls of Congress. The rhetoric her opponents used leaned heavily on biological determinism — a strategy that attempts to reduce womanhood to reproductive functions or genetic characteristics.

Hilton’s election on March 11 laid bare a deeply fractured Congress. 

With 11 votes in her favor and 10 lawmakers casting blank ballots, the result served as an explicit form of protest. In the context of these internal elections, the blank votes did not signal indecision; rather, they represented a calculated attempt by the opposition to strip the incoming chair of her political legitimacy. It was a clear warning that Hilton will face fierce institutional resistance throughout her tenure — a reality that has already manifested during her first weeks at the helm of the commission.

Hilton in her inaugural address promised an inclusive leadership. 

“Here we will address the issues facing poor women, Black women, trans women, cis women, mothers, and breastfeeding women. All of them, without exception,” she said.

However, the most resonant moment of her speech was her historic tribute to Sojourner Truth, the Black abolitionist and human rights activist who, in 1851, delivered the iconic “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech at a women’s rights convention in the U.S. Paraphrasing Truth, Hilton argues that contemporary transphobia is deeply rooted in 19th century racism.

“Truth was a cisgender woman and a mother, but in that context, her biology did not grant her legitimacy or the right to challenge the status quo of womanhood because of her race. If we broaden our perspective, we must recall the eugenicist pseudo-science that deemed Black people inferior based on skull measurements, and the brutal gynecological experiments performed on enslaved women. Those women were not considered ‘women’ by the society of that era either,” Hilton told the Blade, explaining the historical framework behind her address.

“We, as trans women and travestis, are the targets of this historical moment,” she added. “I invoked Truth’s words to remind everyone that we are all victims of the same systemic oppression and the same denial of our right to our own identity — this did not start with us. Yesterday, she was targeted because of the color of her skin; today, I am targeted because of my body’s anatomy.”

Hilton concluded her inaugural address by reaffirming that her chairmanship will bring visibility to the identities that the commission has historically neglected. She emphasized that the trans struggle is a matter of survival in a country that leads the world in rates of violence against this community.

“We no longer accept being rendered invisible; we no longer accept having our identities violated. We refuse to live in a country that leads the world in killing us, by shooting us in the face, ripping out our hearts, and dragging us through the streets,” she declared.

Brazilian Congresswoman Erika Hilton presides over a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies’ Commission on the Defense of Women’s Rights. (Photo by Kayo Magalhães/Chamber of Deputies)

Since Hilton became chair, committee sessions have been marked by an atmosphere of turmoil and legislative gridlock — a dire situation for a country that, over the past year, has set records for femicides. In Brazil, femicide is a specific legal classification for the murder of women motivated by gender, designed to ensure harsher criminal penalties. 

Opposition lawmakers, who rarely attended commission sessions before Hilton’s election, have begun showing up en masse to coordinate attacks against her, prioritizing obstructionism over the urgent need to address gender-based violence.

Tensions reached a fever pitch on April 8 when right-wing Congresswoman Rosana Valle threatened Hilton by invoking one of the country’s most significant legal provisions: the Maria da Penha Law. Recognized by the United Nations as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the world, the statute was designed specifically to protect women from domestic and family violence. 

In a move that Hilton described as “a mockery,” Valle stated that she would invoke the law against the committee chair herself if Hilton were ever to confront her, claiming that her colleague possessed “the strength of a man.”

“At the end of the day, their goal is to prevent me from delivering results. They work to stall the agenda so they can later claim, ‘Look, she didn’t do anything for women; she didn’t discuss anything relevant.’ It is not a lack of will on my part; it is a coordinated effort to block progress. But I am already developing strategies to overcome this roadblock. We are going to move forward and get the projects that really matter off the ground,” Hilton told the Blade.

The MAGA playbook in Brazil

Transphobia is nothing new in Brazil. 

For years, the country has consistently ranked as the deadliest in the world for trans people; in 2024, according to the National Association of Travestis and Transsexuals (ANTRA), 122 fatalities were recorded. However, the vitriol appearing on social media following Hilton’s election as chair of the women’s commission is strikingly familiar. The arguments and tactics being deployed in Brazil are mirror images of the far-right playbook currently being used in the U.S.

Brazilian lawmakers have deliberately adopted strategies from the “culture wars” that fuel the MAGA movement. This includes stoking moral panic over bathroom access, pathologizing gender identities, and attempting to bar transgender women from competitive sports.

For Hilton, Trump is the catalyst. 

“When a government with the reach and power of the United States uses state institutions to roll back rights, it creates a ripple effect that fuels violence worldwide. It feels as if our historic achievements are being systematically dismantled,” said Hilton.

“Since the day after the inauguration, the Trump administration has signed executive orders denying basic rights and issued official statements that dehumanize the transgender community, branding us as ‘enemies of society,’” she added. “The U.S. government legitimizes, incites, and encourages the hatred directed at a group that is already marginalized. In doing so, it fuels that hatred further, as it takes such rhetoric out of the shadows of anonymity and places it in the mouth of the president of a global superpower.”

Preserving hard-won rights

Brazilians in October will head to the polls for general elections, a high-stakes cycle that will decide the presidency and the makeup of the legislature. 

Hilton predicts an election season marked by escalating violence and targeted attacks against transgender people. She also notes the current global climate demands an even greater mobilization to defend the hard-won rights secured by the LGBTQ community.

“The situation is too volatile and turbulent for us to find even a glimmer of opportunity to establish new rights,” Hilton told the Blade. “For now, we must focus on safeguarding our existing protections so that, further down the road, we have the chance to secure new victories. History is cyclical. First comes a great wave of violence, repression, and attack. But following that, come the waves of victory.”

Hilton, meanwhile, will remain on the front lines of this battlefield, stepping into a spotlight that she knows brings less glory than it does pain and violence. But that does not seem to weigh on her. 

“In a sense, life’s cruelty has been kind to me,” Hilton reflects. “By forcing me to experience that cruelty when I was still a child, it was kind enough to teach me how to survive it. I am immune now, and therefore, I am prepared to face these obstacles.”

Continue Reading

Lebanon

Lebanese LGBTQ group responds to latest war

Helem’s Beirut community center ‘a vital crisis hub’

Published

on

(Image via Helem/Facebook)

A Lebanese advocacy group is providing support to LGBTQ people who have been displaced during the latest war between Israel and Hezbollah.

Helem Executive Director Sandy Mteirik on Monday told the Washington Blade her group, in partnership with another NGO, has “shifted our programs to focus entirely on emergency response.”

Helem has opened what Mteirik described as a “lifesaving, inclusive shelter specifically for transgender individuals who find collective shelters unsafe or inaccessible.”

Mteirik noted Helem’s community center in Beirut, the Lebanese capital, “now serves as a vital crisis hub where” LGBTQ people “can find physical safety, psychological support, and relief assistance.” she told the Blade that Helem is also offering “confidential emotional support, assessing immediate needs, and connecting individuals with emergency housing and protection services.”

“We also continue to monitor and document protection risks to prevent further exclusion and harm,” said Mteirik.

‘Displacement crisis has intensified’

The U.S. and Israel on Feb. 28 launched airstrikes against Iran. One of them killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Shia militant group the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization, in response launched rockets into Israel. The Jewish State on March 2 began to carry out airstrikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Lebanese Health Ministry on Tuesday said Israeli airstrikes have killed 2,124 people and wounded 6,921 others. Lebanese officials have also indicated the war has displaced more than 1 million people in the country.

Israeli airstrikes in Beirut and elsewhere in the country on April 8 killed more than 300 people and injured upwards of 1,100.

President Donald Trump the day before said “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran did not agree to end the war and end its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s crude oil passes.

Trump less than two hours before the deadline announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran that Pakistan helped broker. Trump said the deal did not include Lebanon, even though Pakistan insisted it did.

Hamas militants on Oct. 7, 2023, killed upwards of 1,200 people when they launched a surprise attack against Israel from the Gaza Strip. Hezbollah the following day began to launch rockets into Israel.

An Israeli airstrike in Beirut on Sept. 27, 2024, killed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s long-time leader. Iran four days later launched upwards of 200 ballistic missiles at Israel.

The U.S. helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon that took effect on Nov. 27, 2024. Israel nevertheless continued to carry out airstrikes in Lebanon.

Lebanese Ambassador to the U.S. Nada Hamadeh Moawad met with Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter on Tuesday at the State Department. The meeting is the first time the two countries have held direct diplomatic talks since 1993.

Mteirik told the Blade that Helem’s community center “has not been damaged yet” in the latest war. She said, however, the impact of the April 8 airstrikes “mirrors the ongoing war Lebanon has endured since 2024.”

“The intensity of these recent strikes and the resulting massacres in ‘relatively’ safe areas of Beirut have been devastating,” said Mteirik.

“With over 300 victims, the displacement crisis has intensified,” she added. “When state responses are not inclusive, LGBTQIA+ individuals face amplified risks, including exclusion from collective shelters, homelessness, exposure to violence, loss of income, and barriers to essential healthcare.”

Helem: Lebanese government war response must be LGBTQ-inclusive

Article 534 of Lebanon’s Penal Code states “any sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature is punishable” by up to a year in prison. Several judges in recent years have opted not to use the statute to prosecute LGBTQ people who have been charged under it.

Helem on March 4 called upon the Lebanese government and international NGOs to develop a response to the Israeli airstrikes that is “comprehensive, fair, and inclusive of all groups, without exception or discrimination.” Helem’s specific requests include:

• Integrating a rights-based, non-discriminatory approach into all stages of emergency planning.

• Training response staff on protection principles regarding gender-based violence and discrimination.

• Reassessing the “traditional family” shelter model that systematically excludes non-traditional families and individuals.

• Involving specialized civil society organizations in the design and monitoring of response plans.

• Establishing clear accountability standards to prevent discriminatory practices.

“Past experiences show that state response plans often fail to include displaced LGBTQ+ individuals,” said Mteirik.

Mteirik conceded the “conclusion of this conflict remains uncertain.” She stressed Helem “remains committed to standing with our community.”

“In these difficult times, we reaffirm our call for humanitarian solidarity that transcends identities,” said Mteirik. “Our work is an extension of our rejection of violence, occupation, and the exploitation of individuals and their lives.”

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin

Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary

Published

on

From left, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullen (Photos public domain)

President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.

Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.

Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.

Todd Blanche

Acting attorney general

Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ issues.

Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.

He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.

Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.

In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.

In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.

In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.

Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”

“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.

Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.

Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”

In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.

Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”

Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”

Markwayne Mullin

Secretary of Homeland Security

While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ issues from his time in Congress.

The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ speech as protected expression.

In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.

By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.

Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.

In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.

While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.

Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.

Continue Reading

Popular