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
Police mental health struggles gain growing attention
‘My body begins to manifest physically, through depression, stress’
When Scott Silverii began his career as a police officer, he faced daily exposure to traumatic incidents with little guidance or support, particularly in distressed neighborhoods where officers were expected to respond decisively under pressure.
“When I started, the only thing they offered was to suck it up and get over it,” Silverii said. “Any indication that you were hurt meant that you were weak, and if you were weak, it meant you could not be trusted.”
Years later, when Silverii became a police chief, he chose a different approach. Rather than reinforcing silence around trauma, he made mental health support a visible part of his leadership.
“In every critical incident that we had, I would bring the critical incident stress debriefing team in — and I would participate in it,” Silverii said. “I wanted to promote it from the top. That’s what it’s going to continue to take to change the culture.”
Silverii’s experience reflects a broader reality in law enforcement. Across the country, police officers face ongoing mental health challenges linked to repeated exposure to violent crime scenes, fatal accidents, and human suffering — experiences that most civilians never encounter. Long shifts and the responsibility of protecting the public have long been documented to further intensify emotional strain, particularly when officers fear making mistakes with serious consequences.
Silverii, former Thibodaux, La., chief of police and current National Law Enforcement Initiative Manager at Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), said coping mechanisms in the past were often unhealthy.
“A lot of officers, they would drink — sometimes prescription drug use, just different ways,” of coping, he said. Today, he said, the trauma can linger long after an incident: “…you become affected by the trauma. It doesn’t have to happen to you. But when officers respond to a crash, you’re involved… You carry this trauma.”
In some cases, he says, the impact resurfaces every year. “My body begins to manifest physically, through depression, through stress… once I realize it’s the anniversary, I can start dealing with it,” he said.
For decades, police culture discouraged officers from seeking mental health support, often treating emotional distress as a weakness rather than an occupational hazard. In recent years, however, departments have begun expanding access to counseling, peer-support programs, and crisis-intervention training.
In Baltimore, a shift in police culture is tackling the long-standing “shrug it off” mentality toward officer mental health. The Baltimore Police Department’s Officer Safety and Wellness Section, started in 2018, changed how the agency handles trauma, depression, and substance abuse by treating these issues as medical needs rather than disciplinary failures.
A core component of the program is its confidential alcohol addiction treatment, which has seen more than 250 officers voluntarily sign themselves in without fear of termination. This proactive approach has led to a dramatic drop in internal interventions — falling from 250 in 2018 to 48 in 2024 — alongside a decrease in citizen complaints and use-of-force incidents.
The need for such programs is underscored by national data from the Police1 2024 State of the Industry report, which found that 76% of officers cite a lack of time due to heavy workloads as the primary barrier to maintaining their health. More than 50% of respondents report that a significant stigma still surrounds seeking mental health services. Perhaps most telling — 12% of officers nationwide report having no access to mental health resources at all, and 33% have considered calling themselves out of service due to emotional distress or exhaustion.
Chris Asplen, executive director of the National Criminal Justice Association, is a former Washington prosecutor who handled child abuse and other high-stakes cases. He said the emotional weight of the work eventually led him to step away after becoming a parent.
“It became too mentally and emotionally difficult after I had my own child,” Asplen said.
Asplen said his understanding of trauma was also shaped in part by his upbringing. Raised by a parent who struggled with mental illness, he described growing up feeling overlooked. “My father’s mental health issues made me essentially invisible to him,” he said — an experience that later informed how he approached victims in the justice system.
Asplen also pointed to disparities in how mental health crises are handled. His family’s middle-class background, he said, afforded protections and support not available to many others. “Mental health issues for people who are not white and middle class are often treated as criminal matters,” he said.
Experts warn that when mental health challenges go unaddressed, they can affect officers’ judgment, job performance, and interactions with the public. In response, lawmakers and communities have begun exploring preventive approaches. In 2023, Congress passed the De-escalation Act, providing funding for training focused on crisis response, de-escalation, and officer wellness.
In addition to legislative efforts, some communities are turning to violence intervention programs aimed at reducing harm before police are required to respond. One such organization, Roca, was founded in Massachusetts in 1988 and has operated in Baltimore since 2018. According to the organization’s impact data, 87% of its participants have had no new incarcerations after entering the program for at least 24 months.
Police officers in Baltimore and several other cities have been trained by Roca’s nonprofit coaching arm, the Roca Impact Institute, to use cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to regulate their emotions and understand the impact of trauma on officers and community members. The training reduced stress, loss of temper and use of force incidents, according to the institute.
A 2024 report by the D.C. Office of the Attorney General showed the city’s violence intervention program’s efforts contributed to an 18% decrease in shootings and a 26% decrease in gun homicides across its target neighborhoods in 2023. Based on the national Cure Violence Global model, the programs treat violence as a public health epidemic through the use of what it calls “credible messengers” to de-escalate conflicts.
But a Washington Post investigation published Feb. 3 found excessive spending that City Administrator Kevin Donahue called a “completely inappropriate use of public money.” A week later, the publication reported that two DC violence interrupters were charged with murder in the death of a Baltimore man in a DC nightclub in 2023.
When done correctly, these programs can offer a secondary benefit by reducing the volume of high-stress calls handled by law enforcement. Advocates say such approaches can lessen the emotional toll on officers by preventing traumatic encounters altogether.
“If we can reduce the amount of trauma that occurs at the scene,” Asplen said, “then we’re a lot further along.”
(Carl Barbett is a senior at Bard High School Early College DC, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. This story was produced under the mentorship of Edith Mwangi, a Kenyan multimedia journalist based in D.C. with a background in international reporting and politics.)
South Carolina
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Timothy Truett allegedly shot at gay club in Myrtle Beach on April 1
A South Carolina man remains in custody on a more than $300,000 bond after he allegedly opened fire at a Myrtle Beach nightclub on April 1, according to WMBF.
Reports say 37-year-old Timothy James Truett Jr., of Clover, S.C., was detained by the Myrtle Beach Police Department after the April 1 incident outside Pulse Ultra Club. He was later arrested and charged with possession of a weapon during a violent crime, discharging a firearm into a dwelling, discharging a firearm within city limits, malicious injury to real property valued over $5,000, and assault or intimidation due to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
At 10:57 a.m. on April 1, officers responded to a call about a possible shooting at Pulse Ultra Club, located in the 2700 block of South Kings Highway.
In an affidavit released later, the club’s owner, Ken Phillips, said he was doing paperwork that morning when he heard “five or six” gunshots. He went outside and found a window and the windshield of his SUV shattered by bullets. An SUV with blue plastic covering one window was left at the scene.
Police later reviewed footage that showed a silver vehicle stopping in the middle of the road. The video appeared to capture muzzle flashes coming from the passenger-side window.
According to the affidavit, an officer later pulled over a vehicle driven by Truett and found spent shell casings in the back seat, along with a gun.
Documents do not detail why Truett was ultimately charged under the state law covering assault or intimidation tied to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
As of April 1, records show Truett is being held in Horry County on a combined bond of more than $312,000.
WMBF spoke with Phillips after the incident and asked whether there was any prior conflict that might have led to the shooting.
“I don’t know if it’s personal, I don’t know if it’s related to being gay, I don’t know if it’s related to the bar issues,” Phillips told WMBF. “Anybody with a mindset of pulling out a weapon in broad daylight is not right.”
“My primary concern has and always will be the safety of my community and my customers,” he added. “It’s given me great concern … as to how far people will go.”
WMBF also spoke with Adam Hayes, vice chair of Myrtle Beach’s Human Rights Coalition, who was involved in pushing for the ordinance. He said that while the incident itself is troubling, it shows the policy is being put to use.
The ordinance is intended to deter “crimes that are motivated by bias or hate towards any person or persons, in whole or in part, because of the actual or perceived” identity, in the absence of a statewide hate crime law.
“It’s nice to see that something we put into policy is not just a piece of paper, that it’s actually being used,” said Hayes.
He said the shooting underscores the need for a statewide hate crime law in South Carolina and added that the incident has left the local LGBTQ community shaken.
South Carolina and Wyoming are the only two states in the U.S. without a comprehensive statewide hate crime law.
Truett remains in jail as of publication.
The White House
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
Funding for LGBTQ health programs around the world would also be cut
The Trump-Vance administration’s fiscal year 2027 budget would codify the expanded global gag rule and eliminate funding for LGBTQ-specific programs in global health initiatives.
“The budget would ensure no funding supports abortion, unfettered access to birth control, and also eliminates funding for circumcision and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer services to better focus funds on life-saving assistance,” reads the proposed budget the White House released on April 3. “The United States should not pay for the world’s birth control and therapy.”
The proposed budget includes four examples of “eliminated activities.”
- In the last administration, PEPFAR funded health workers who performed over 21 abortions in Mozambique
- Promoting reproductive health education and access to birth control and other harmful programs couched under ‘family planning’ in Ghana
- A supply chain “control tower” to provide a “holistic commercial of the shelf solution” on the Office of Population and Reproductive Health (PRH)
- Promoting health equity and providing condoms and contraception in Kenya.
President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services.
Trump reinstated the rule during his first administration. The Biden-Harris administration shortly after it took office in January 2021 rescinded it.
The Trump-Vance White House earlier this year expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” The expansion took effect on Feb. 26.
US funding cuts have devastated global LGBTQ rights movement
The Trump-Vance administration after it took office in January 2025 moved to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, which funded LGBTQ and intersex rights groups around the world. USAID officially shut down on July 1, 2025.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio in March 2025 announced the State Department would administer the 17 percent of USAID contracts that had not been cancelled. Rubio issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during the U.S. foreign aid freeze the White House announced shortly after it took office.
The global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement has lost more than an estimated $50 million in funding because of these cuts. The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down.
The Trump-Vance administration has signed healthcare-specific agreements with Kenya, Uganda, and other African countries through its American First Global Health Strategy. Advocacy groups with whom the Blade has spoken have expressed concern these partnerships will result in further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The proposed fiscal year 2027 budget includes $5.1 billion for “global health to end the previous administration’s abuse of these programs and to execute (the State Department’s) newly released America First Global Health Strategy.” This figure represents a $4.3 billion cut from the previous year.
“The president’s new vision of bilateral health assistance eliminates bloated Beltway Bandit contracts, does more with fewer dollars, and transitions recipient countries to self-reliance,” reads the proposed budget. “The budget would also eliminate disease-specific accounts and provide the department crucial agility to address the actual needs of each recipient country — across HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and polio — to strengthen global health security and protect Americans from disease.”
“The budget would focus on new compacts that unify funding, achieving economies of scale in both implementation and oversight,” it adds. “Under the prior administration, only about 40 percent of PEPFAR funds supported actual service delivery, including medications, testing, commodities, and health workers, with the remaining 60 percent wasted on duplicative administrative costs, unwieldy supply chains, and layers of endless bureaucracy. The new AFGHS (America First Global Health Strategy) compacts would improve efficiency, cut red tape, and dismantle the bloated ecosystem of foreign assistance profiteers.”
The Council for Global Equality on April 3 reiterated its criticism of the expanded global gag rule, and urged Congress to reject the proposed budget.
“We won’t mince words: people are dying because of this policy,” said the Council for Global Equality in a statement. “Making this policy permanent will only ensure that U.S. foreign assistance discriminates against those who need services the most, all while forcing people around the world to adhere to the Trump administration’s extremist, ideological agenda that denies the very existence of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex persons.”
“We will not be silent as Trump threatens to upend decades of bipartisan foreign assistance programs to appease his extremist base,” added the group. “We call on Congress to immediately reject this budget and block implementation of the expanded global gag rules.”
Police mental health struggles gain growing attention
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
VIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
Trans-driven ‘Serpent’s Skin’ delivers campy sapphic horror
D.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America
Pam Bondi ousted as attorney general
Idaho Gov. signs harshest anti-trans bathroom bill in the country
-
The White House4 days agoVIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
-
Movies4 days ago
Trans-driven ‘Serpent’s Skin’ delivers campy sapphic horror
-
Opinions4 days ago
D.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America
-
The White House4 days ago
Pam Bondi ousted as attorney general
