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.”
District of Columbia
Imperial Court of Washington drag group has ‘dissolved’
Board president cites declining support since pandemic
The Imperial Court of Washington, a D.C.-based organization of drag performers that has raised at least $250,000 or more for local LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ charitable groups since its founding in 2010, announced on Jan. 5 that it has ended its operations by dissolving its corporate status.
In a Jan. 5 statement posted on Facebook, Robert Amos, president of the group’s board of directors, said the board voted that day to formally dissolve the organization in accordance with its bylaws.
“This decision was made after careful consideration and was based on several factors, including ongoing challenges in adhering to the bylaws, maintaining compliance with 501(c)(3) requirements, continued lack of member interest and attendance, and a lack of community involvement and support as well,” Amos said in his statement.
He told the Washington Blade in a Jan. 6 telephone interview that the group was no longer in compliance with its bylaws, which require at least six board members, when the number of board members declined to just four. He noted that the lack of compliance with its bylaws also violated the requirements of its IRS status as a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c) (3) organization.
According to Amos, the inability to recruit additional board members came at a time when the organization was continuing to encounter a sharp drop in support from the community since the start of the COVID pandemic around 2020 and 2021.
Amos and longtime Imperial Court of Washington member and organizer Richard Legg, who uses the drag name Destiny B. Childs, said in the years since its founding, the group’s drag show fundraising events have often been attended by 150 or more people. They said the events have been held in LGBTQ bars, including Freddie’s Beach Bar in Arlington, as well as in other venues such as theaters and ballrooms.
Among the organizations receiving financial support from Imperial Court of Washington have been SMYAL, PFLAG, Whitman-Walker Health’s Walk to End HIV, Capital Pride Alliance, the DC LGBT Community Center, and the LGBTQ Fallen Heroes Fund. Other groups receiving support included Pets with Disabilities, the Epilepsy Foundation of Washington, and Grandma’s House.
The Imperial Court of Washington’s website, which was still online as of Jan. 6, says the D.C. group has been a proud member of the International Court System, which was founded in San Francisco in 1965 as a drag performance organization that evolved into a charitable fundraising operation with dozens of affiliated “Imperial Court” groups like the one in D.C.
Amos, who uses the drag name Veronica Blake, said he has heard that Imperial Court groups in other cities including Richmond and New York City, have experienced similar drops in support and attendance in the past year or two. He said the D.C. group’s events in the latter part of 2025 attracted 12 or fewer people, a development that has prevented it from sustaining its operations financially.
He said the membership, which helped support it financially through membership dues, has declined in recent years from close to 100 to its current membership of 21.
“There’s a lot of good we have done for the groups we supported, for the charities, and the gay community here,” Amos said. “It is just sad that we’ve had to do this, mainly because of the lack of interest and everything going on in the world and the national scene.”
National
What to watch for in 2026: midterms, Supreme Court, and more
Federal policy battles carry grave implications for LGBTQ Americans
With the start of a new year comes a new slate of legal and political developments poised to change our world. From consequential Supreme Court cases and a potential House of Representatives leadership flip to preparations for the United States’s 250th anniversary, 2026 is expected to be a critical year—particularly as LGBTQ rights, and transgender rights specifically, remain a focus of national debate.
Across Congress, the courts, federal agencies, and statehouses, decisions made this year are poised to shape the legal and political landscape for LGBTQ Americans well beyond the next election cycle.
Congress
In 2026, a sizable number of federal seats will be up for grabs. All 435 districts in the U.S. House of Representatives will be on the ballot, offering Democrats a chance to flip the chamber and reclaim a measure of control from Republicans, who have held the House since 2022. Control of the House will be especially critical as lawmakers weigh legislation tied to civil rights, health care access, and the scope of federal protections for LGBTQ Americans.
A Democratic majority would also determine committee leadership, oversight priorities, and the ability to block or advance legislation related to transgender health care, education policy, and federal nondiscrimination protections.
Several House races are expected to be particularly significant for LGBTQ representation and leadership, including contests in Texas’s 32nd Congressional District, New York’s 17th, and Illinois’s 9th.
In Texas’s 32nd District, Democratic incumbent Julie Johnson is seeking reelection in the northeastern Dallas-area seat. Johnson is the first openly LGBTQ person ever elected to Congress from Texas or the South, according to her congressional website. Her reelection bid comes amid Republican efforts to redraw the district to consolidate GOP power, following demands from President Trump — moves that have made the race increasingly challenging.
While in office, Johnson has pushed for expanded Medicare access, stronger LGBTQ rights protections, and broader health care equity. The race has become a key test case for LGBTQ incumbents navigating increasingly hostile political and electoral environments, particularly in southern states.
In New York’s 17th Congressional District, Democrat Cait Conley is mounting a challenge against Republican incumbent Mike Lawler in the lower Hudson Valley, just north of New York City. Conley is a former active-duty Army officer who was deployed six times and has leaned into that experience to connect with the district’s mixed constituency.
The district has frequently flipped between parties and includes a politically influential conservative Hasidic community, making it one of the more competitive seats in the region. An out lesbian, Conley has spoken forcefully in support of LGBTQ rights and has received the endorsement of LPAC, positioning herself as a pro-equality candidate in a closely watched race that could help determine control of the House.
The Illinois 9th Congressional District is also shaping up to be a competitive open-seat contest. The district spans parts of Cook, Lake, and McHenry counties and includes much of Chicago’s North Side. In 2025, Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky announced she would not seek reelection after representing the district since January 1999.
Mike Simmons, who was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 2021, is seeking the seat. Simmons was the first openly LGBTQ person and the first Ethiopian American elected to the state Senate, where he has focused on expanding LGBTQ rights, strengthening democratic institutions, and addressing cost inequities in health care, housing, and support for community-based organizations. Given the district’s suburban makeup, the race could emerge as a frontline contest for pro-equality legislative influence.
If Democrats are successful in reclaiming control of Congress, the outcome would reshape leadership at the highest levels. One potential result would be Hakeem Jeffries becoming the first elected Black Speaker of the House, a historic milestone with implications for legislative priorities, representation, and the direction of Democratic leadership.
Beyond the House, control of the U.S. Senate will also be in play. In total, 35 of the Senate’s 100 seats will be up for election in 2026. Of those, 33 are regularly scheduled races, with two additional special elections set to take place in Florida and Ohio. Several of these contests are expected to hinge on issues such as abortion access, federal oversight, judicial confirmations, and the future of LGBTQ protections at the national level. Political observers view the Senate as a tougher flip for Democrats but not an impossible task.
Governorships
Gubernatorial races will further shape the policy environment across the country. A total of 36 states and three U.S. territories could elect new governors in 2026, many of whom will have significant influence over education policy, health care access, and the enforcement—or rollback—of civil rights protections.
One notable development is Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s entry into Tennessee’s gubernatorial race. Blackburn has been an outspoken opponent of LGBTQ rights and has previously proposed constitutional amendments aimed at banning same-sex marriage, making the race one to watch closely for LGBTQ advocates.
Two races to watch
Colorado governor’s race:
Jared Polis made history in 2018 as the first openly gay man elected governor in U.S. history, but his tenure in the Mile High State is coming to a close. Polis cannot run for reelection in 2026 because of term limits. U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser are the Democratic frontrunners in a race that could determine whether the state continues its trajectory on LGBTQ-inclusive policy.
Iowa Senate seat:
Zach Wahls is running for Iowa’s U.S. Senate seat. An Iowa State Senator, Wahls has built a record focused on expanding health care access, minimizing government corruption, and protecting LGBTQ equality. Wahls, who was famously raised by two lesbian moms, has frequently pointed to his family as shaping his advocacy, positioning his campaign around personal experience as well as legislative record.
SCOTUS
The Supreme Court is expected to issue several rulings this year that could have far-reaching consequences for LGBTQ rights nationwide. Two of the most closely watched issues involve transgender athletes in school sports and the legality of conversion therapy bans.
Two cases heard in 2025 involving transgender athletes in school sports—West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox—are expected to receive rulings later this year. Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 13, with the Court poised to determine whether states can ban transgender girls and women from participating on girls’ sports teams.
Legal experts have warned that the decisions could carry broader civil rights implications beyond athletics, potentially reshaping interpretations of sex discrimination and Title IX protections across education and employment.
The Court is also expected to rule on the future of conversion therapy bans and whether such restrictions are protected under the First Amendment. In October 2025, the justices heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that will determine whether state and local bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ youth violate free speech or free exercise of religion protections. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could weaken or overturn bans that have been enacted in dozens of states and municipalities.
Federal policy changes
Several new federal policies are being implemented as the year takes shape, with some of the most immediate impacts falling on LGBTQ people. One of the most significant changes is the elimination of gender-affirming care coverage for federal employees.
The policy, put into place by President Trump’s Office of Personnel Management, eliminates health insurance coverage for most gender-affirming medical care in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) programs. The change affects hundreds of thousands of federal workers and their families.
The Human Rights Campaign has filed a lawsuit against the OPM policy, alleging that the change violates Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination in employment. Advocates argue that the policy not only limits access to medically necessary care but also signals a broader federal retreat from LGBTQ-inclusive health protections.
Similar proposals are under consideration for the broader American public, including efforts to restrict Medicaid and Medicare coverage for gender-affirming care—moves that could disproportionately impact low-income transgender people, people with disabilities, and those living in rural areas.
Historic anniversaries
In 2026, several historic anniversaries will take place nationwide. The most prominent is the United States’ Semiquincentennial, marking 250 years since the Declaration of Independence. Events are planned across the country, from small-town commemorations to large-scale national celebrations in Washington, D.C.
Among the most anticipated events is the July 4 celebration commemorating 250 years since independence from Great Britain, which is expected to be one of the largest national events of the year.
However, the anniversary planning has already created ripple effects. Capital Pride—Washington’s annual Pride celebration—was forced to move from the second week of June to the third week after the White House announced plans for a large June 14, 2026 celebration on the South Lawn marking President Trump’s 80th birthday.
The White House said the event will include a large-scale Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) exhibition involving boxing and wrestling competitions, a decision that has drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ advocates amid ongoing concerns about federal priorities and messaging during a landmark year for the nation.
It also marks 11 years since SCOTUS ruled same-sex marriage is legally protected nationwide with Obergefell v. Hodges.
Colombia
Claudia López criticizes Trump over threats against Colombian president
Presidential candidate would become country’s first lesbian head of government
BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Colombian presidential candidate Claudia López has criticized President Donald Trump after he suggested the U.S. will target Colombian President Gustavo Petro.
“Colombia is very sick, too, run by a sick man, who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States, and he’s not going to be doing it very long,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday.
Trump made the comments a day after American forces carried out an overnight operation and seized now former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and wife, Cilia Flores, at their home in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital.
Maduro and Flores on Monday pleaded not guilty to federal drug charges in New York.
Petro is a former Bogotá mayor and senator who was once a member of the M-19 guerrilla movement that disbanded in the 1990s. He has urged Colombians to take to the streets and “defend national sovereignty.”
“Colombians are the ones who decide who governs Colombia,” said López on her X account. “President Gustavo Petro won free elections and has a constitutional mandate.”
López did not mention Trump by name in her comment.
The first-round of Colombia’s presidential election will take place on May 31. The country’s 1991 constitution prevents Petro from seeking re-election.
López in 2019 became the first woman and first lesbian elected mayor of Bogotá, the Colombian capital and the country’s largest city. She took office on Jan. 1, 2020, less than a month after she married her wife, Colombian Sen. Angélica Lozano.
“This year we will decide at the polls what direction (the country) is heading and what leadership will advance Colombia,” said López in her X post. “Supporting soft dictatorships and attacking democracies is an absurd and unacceptable political action by the United States towards Colombia, Venezuela, and Latin America.”
Quién gobierna en Colombia lo decidimos los colombianos.
El presidente @petrogustavo ganó unas elecciones libres y tiene un mandato constitucional. Este año decidiremos en las urnas qué rumbo y a cargo de qué liderazgo avanza Colombia.
Sostener dictablandas y atacar democracias… https://t.co/K61G2QUcck— Claudia López Hernández (@ClaudiaLopez) January 5, 2026
López would be Colombia’s first female president if she wins the election. López would also become the third openly lesbian woman elected head of government — Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir was Iceland’s prime minister from 2009-2013 and Ana Brnabić was Serbia’s prime minister from 2017-2024.
The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute in 2024 honored López at its annual International LGBTQ Leaders Conference in D.C. The Washington Blade interviewed her during the gathering.
PHOTOS: Freddie’s Follies
Imperial Court of Washington drag group has ‘dissolved’
What to watch for in 2026: midterms, Supreme Court, and more
A reminder that Jan. 6 was ‘textbook terrorism’
Claudia López criticizes Trump over threats against Colombian president
A look back at the best books of 2025
D.C.’s 10 best theater productions of 2025
The year in photos
Safer Ways to Pay for Online Performances and Queer Events
