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.”
National
Human Rights Watch sharply criticizes US in annual report
Trump-Vance administration ‘working to undermine … very idea of human rights’
Human Rights Watch Executive Director Philippe Bolopion on Wednesday sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over its foreign policy that includes opposition to LGBTQ rights.
“The U.S. used to actually be a government that was advancing the rights of LGBT people around the world and making sure that it was finding its way into resolutions, into U.N. documents,” he said in response to a question the Washington Blade asked during a press conference at Human Rights Watch’s D.C. offices. “Now we see the opposite movement.”
Human Rights Watch on Wednesday released its annual human rights report that is highly critical of the U.S., among other countries.
“Under relentless pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms,” said Bolopion in its introductory paragraph. “To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.”
The report, among other things, specifically notes the U.S. Supreme Court’s Skrmetti decision that uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical interventions for minors.
The Trump-Vance administration has withdrawn the U.S. from the U.N. LGBTI Core Group, a group of U.N. member states that have pledged to support LGBTQ and intersex rights, and the U.N. Human Rights Council. Bolopion in response to the Blade’s question during Wednesday’s press conference noted the U.S. has also voted against LGBTQ-inclusive U.N. resolutions.
Maria Sjödin, executive director of Outright International, a global LGBTQ and intersex advocacy group, in an op-ed the Blade published on Jan. 28 wrote the movement around the world since the Trump-Vance administration took office has lost more than $125 million in funding.
The U.S. Agency for International Development, which funded myriad LGBTQ and intersex organizations around the world, officially shut down on July 1, 2025. The Trump-Vance administration last month announced it will expand the global gag rule, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services, to include organizations that promote “gender ideology.”
“LGBTQ rights are not just a casualty of the Trump foreign policy,” said Human Rights Watch Washington Director Sarah Yager during the press conference. “It is the intent of the Trump foreign policy.”
The report specifically notes Ugandan authorities since the enactment of the country’s Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2023, which punishes “‘carnal knowledge’ between people of the same gender” with up to life in prison, “have perpetrated widespread discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, their families, and their supporters.” It also highlights Russian authorities “continued to widely use the ‘gay propaganda’ ban” and prosecuted at least two people in 2025 for their alleged role in “‘involving’ people in the ‘international LGBT movement’” that the country’s Supreme Court has deemed an extremist organization.
The report indicates the Hungarian government “continued its attacks on and scapegoating of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people” in 2025, specifically noting its efforts to ban Budapest Pride that more than 100,000 people defied. The report also notes new provisions of Indonesia’s penal code that took effect on Jan. 2 “violate the rights of women, religious minorities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, and undermine the rights to freedom of speech and association.”
“This includes the criminalization of all sex outside of marriage, effectively rendering adult consensual same-sex conduct a crime in Indonesia for the first time in the country’s history,” it states.
Bolopion at Wednesday’s press conference said women, people with disabilities, religious minorities, and other marginalized groups lose rights “when democracy is retreating.”
“It’s actually a really good example of how the global retreat from the U.S. as an actor that used to be very imperfectly — you know, with a lot of double standards — but used to be part of this global effort to advance rights and norms for everyone,” he said. “Now, not only has it retreated, which many people expected, but in fact, is now working against it, is working to undermine the system, is working to undermine, at times, the very idea of human rights.”
“That’s definitely something we are acutely aware of, and that we are pushing back,” he added.
2026 Midterm Elections
LGBTQ Victory Fund looks beyond Washington for change in 2026
Vice President of Political Programs Daniel Hernández spoke with Blade
As the Trump-Vance administration enters its second year, LGBTQ people from around the country are running for public office amid fears of the removal of federal civil rights laws that could lead to rollbacks in protections.
The Washington Blade sat down with Daniel Hernández Jr., the newly made vice president of political programs for the LGBTQ Victory Fund, a nonpartisan political action committee dedicated to electing openly LGBTQ individuals to all levels of government, to discuss why now is more important than ever to actualize LGBTQ political power.
Hernández is often credited with saving the life of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) while working as her 20-year-old intern in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011. He served on the Pima County School Board and in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2017-2023, advocating for LGBTQ rights, healthcare access, and education.
Founded in 1991, the Victory Fund was created by a group of prominent LGBTQ political voices, including Dallas gay rights activist William Waybourn and former Human Rights Campaign Fund Executive Director Vic Basile, who were inspired by the success of EMILY’s List, a PAC that works to elect Democratic women to office.
Since its founding, the Victory Fund has worked with LGBTQ advocates and LGBTQ-supportive donors who recognized the need to prepare LGBTQ people to run for office nationwide.
When asked where LGBTQ people and allies need to focus looking ahead, Hernández emphasized that 2026 will be won or lost at the state and local level.
“One of the bigger things that people may not be paying as close attention to as we really should is the impact of state and local races. Federal races are crucial, obviously, but the folks who are actually able to have an impact in a meaningful way right now are not the people in the U.S. House or Senate,” Hernández said. “It can take years before a bill even moves through Congress. Meanwhile, state and local leaders are the ones standing up and fighting for our rights today. Especially during this Trump administration, that’s where the real action is happening.”
He expanded on that point, saying that at this moment in the U.S. political landscape, statewide races matter far more than they are often given credit for — particularly as 2026 is a midterm year under President Donald Trump. People who win elected office in midterm years, Hernández explained, are many times viewed as legislators pushing back against the administration at the top.
“Looking at 2026 in particular, because it’s a midterm year, people sometimes forget just how many critical statewide races are on the ballot. We have people like Chris Mayes in Arizona, who won by less than 300 votes in a battleground state and is now running for reelection,” he said. “These are the races that protect democracy and protect people’s rights in real time. If we ignore them, we’re doing so at our own peril. Statewide offices are where so much power actually lives.”
Hernández also urged LGBTQ voters and donors to think critically about where their time, money, and energy are going — particularly as resources remain limited heading into 2026 and not every race is winnable.
“I think one thing we don’t do enough as a community is pause and ask whether our resources are actually going where they can have an impact. If someone is running against a Republican in a plus-20 Republican state that hasn’t elected a Democrat in decades, do I really need to give my limited resources there? Or does it make more sense to support candidates in competitive states like Arizona or Wisconsin? In 2026, we have to be more strategic, because our resources are not unlimited. Winning matters.”
That calculation, Hernández said, also means moving away from what he described as emotionally driven donations and toward a more deliberate strategy.
“Our community is incredible at rallying when we’re angry, and I call that ‘rage giving.’ Someone awful is in office, a challenger pops up, and we all open our wallets. But what we really need to be doing is asking where that money will actually move the needle. In 2026, it’s not enough to feel good about donating — we have to make sure those donations help candidates who can realistically win. That’s how we protect LGBTQ rights long term.”
Asked how the Victory Fund determines which candidates receive endorsements — especially amid a growing field of openly LGBTQ contenders — Hernández emphasized that viability is central to the organization’s approach in 2026.
“One of the things we’re really focused on in 2026 is viability. We’re not endorsing people who have a zero-percent chance of winning. We’re looking at candidates who are running strong campaigns, who have plans, who are fundraising, and who are doing the work. That’s important because our community deserves guidance it can trust. When you see a Victory endorsement, it means we believe that candidate can actually win.”
Hernández also pushed back on the long-standing notion that being openly LGBTQ is a political liability — an argument that has resurfaced amid right-wing attacks on LGBTQ candidates.
“There’s been this long-standing perception that being LGBTQ is a liability and that it can cost Democrats elections. But when you actually look at the data, that just isn’t true. The reality is that being LGBTQ is not a risk — it’s often a strength. Voters care about roads, health care, affordability, and jobs, not fear-based caricatures. In 2026, we’re seeing more LGBTQ candidates than ever because people understand that now.”
That shift, he added, has helped reframe what LGBTQ candidates are actually campaigning on — despite efforts by conservatives to reduce them to culture-war issues.
“The so-called ‘gay agenda’ is not bathrooms. It’s making sure people have access to health care, that roads are safe, and that families can afford to live. LGBTQ candidates are talking about the same bread-and-butter issues as everyone else. That’s why the idea that LGBTQ candidates cost elections just doesn’t hold up. In fact, we’re seeing them lead on some of the most important issues facing voters right now.”
As misinformation and fear-based narratives continue to dominate right-wing messaging, Hernández said openly LGBTQ elected officials play a crucial role in countering those attacks — both through policy and presence.
“First and foremost, any elected official’s responsibility is to their constituents. That’s what we’re seeing from LGBTQ officials who are focused on affordability, health care access, and consumer protections while Republicans obsess over culture-war nonsense,” Hernández said. “But there’s also a responsibility to be authentic. Being honest about who you are and why you fight matters. That authenticity cuts through fear-based disinformation.”
Looking ahead to 2026, Hernández pointed to transgender elected officials as a particular source of momentum and optimism, even amid intensified political attacks.
“Our trans elected officials are honestly at the forefront of some of the biggest battles we’re facing right now. Despite relentless attacks and vilification, they are still delivering results for their communities. That tells me something incredibly powerful about where the country is headed. Even in this political climate, trans leaders are winning and governing. That gives me a lot of hope for 2026.”
Ultimately, Hernández said the stakes of the upcoming cycle extend far beyond a single election, shaping the future of LGBTQ political leadership nationwide.
“The leaders we elect at the state and local level today are the members of Congress and senators of tomorrow. People don’t just wake up one day and run for Congress — they come from city councils, state legislatures, and school boards. That’s why 2026 is so important. If we invest now, we’re not just defending our rights in the moment, we’re building the next generation of LGBTQ leadership.”
Victory Fund’s endorsed candidates
Incumbents Endorsed: January 2026
- Helen Grant (they/them) – Norman City Council, Ward 4, Okla.
- Louie Minor (he/him) – Bell County Commission, Precinct 4, Texas
- Jonathan West (he/him) – Manchester Selectboard, Vt.
- George Leach (he/him) – Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County Judge, Ohio
- John Fredrickson (he/him) – Nebraska State Senate, District 20
- Ben Bowman (he/him) – Oregon House of Representatives, District 25
- Jeffrey Prang (he/him) – Los Angeles County Assessor, Calif.
- Amie Carter (she/her) – Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools, Calif.
- Elinor Levin (she/her) – Iowa House of Representatives, District 89
- Ken Carlson (he/him) – Contra Costa County Supervisor, District 4, Calif.
- Emma Pinter (she/her) – Adams County Commission, District 3, at-large, Colo.
- Justin Chenette (he/him) – York County Commission, District 3, Maine
- Kris Fair (he/him) – Maryland House of Delegates, District 3
- Jennifer Cornell (she/her) – Ann Arbor City Council, Ward 5, Mich.
- Darlene Martinez (she/her) – Constable, El Centro – Downtown Phoenix, Ariz.
- Brian Garcia (he/him) – Arizona House of Representatives, District 8
- Christian Phelps (he/him) – Wisconsin State Assembly, District 93
- Jack Patrick Lewis (he/him) – Massachusetts House of Representatives, 7th Middlesex
- Will Brownsberger (he/him) – Massachusetts State Senate, Suffolk and Middlesex Counties
- Julian Cyr (he/him) – Massachusetts State Senate, Cape & Islands District
- CM Hall (she/they) – Newport City Council, Ore.
- Jimmy Mack (he/him) – Southampton Town Trustee, N.Y.
- Michael Vargas (he/him) – Elk Grove USD Board of Education, Area 2, Calif.
- Lisa Grafstein (she/her) – North Carolina State Senate
- Hector Bustos (he/him) – Trustee, Santa Ana Unified School District, Calif.
Newly Endorsed Candidates – January 2026
- Kirk McPike (he/him) – Virginia House of Delegates, District 5
- Winn Decker (he/him) – North Carolina House of Representatives, District 37
- Jonathan Lambert-Melton (he/him) – Wake Co. Board of Commissioners, At-Large, N.C.
- Karen Stegman (she/her) – Orange County Board of Commissioners, At-Large, N.C.
- Landon Campbell (he/him) – Hays County Criminal District Attorney, Texas
- Christine Castillo (she/her) – Bexar County District Clerk, Texas
- Nicholas “Nico” Costilla (he/him) – Hays County Clerk, Texas
- Davis Mendoza Darusman (he/him) – Harris Co. Justice of the Peace, Pct. 5, Pl. 2, Texas
- Nicholas Palmer (he/him) – Justice, Fifth Court of Appeals, Texas
- José “Che-Che” Wilson (he/him) – Cook County Board of Commissioners, District 12, Ill.
- Sarah Bury (she/her) – Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Board of Commissioners, Ill.
For more information of the LGBTQ Victory Fund’s endorsments, qualifications, or on how to register to receive an endorsement, visit the organization’s website at victoryfund.org
Congress
New Equality Caucus vice chair endorses Equality Act, federal trans bill of rights
Salinas talks about her personal road to LGBTQ advocacy
Rep. Andrea Salinas, the new vice chair of the Equality Caucus, sat down with the Blade to discuss the battles ahead as she demands protections for LGBTQ Americans.
Salinas is no stranger to government service. The daughter of a Mexican immigrant, she graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, and soon became a valued member of multiple Democratic offices — including working as a congressional aide to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and U.S. Reps. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and Darlene Hooley (D-Ore.). From there, she served six years in the Oregon House of Representatives before being elected to Congress, representing areas south of Salem and parts of southern Portland. With her new role in the Equality Caucus, Salinas vows to push protections for LGBTQ Americans in every room she enters.
The Washington Blade spoke with Salinas last week following her leadership announcement to discuss what the role means to her, why she — as a straight woman— feels it is her duty to fight for LGBTQ protections, and how she views the current state of the country.
When asked why she decided to take on a leadership role within the Equality Caucus, Salinas explained that she was already doing the work — but that the timing of the caucus’s outreach, coupled with what she described as a growing threat posed by the Trump-Vance administration, made the moment feel especially urgent.
“I was actually asked to take on this role because of the work I’ve already been doing. I didn’t seek out a title— the Congressional Equality Caucus came to me, and I was honored by that,” the Oregon representative told the Blade. “I’ve been a lifetime advocate, first as a mother and then as a legislator. With Trump back in office and the shackles off, kids are vulnerable right now, and they’re being attacked. We need champions, and with or without a title, I was going to do this work anyway.”
That work includes passing LGBTQ-related education policy during her time in the Oregon House of Representatives, requiring the Oregon Department of Education to train teachers on how to better support LGBTQ students. She also backed legislation aimed at preventing LGBTQ-related bullying and harassment, while using her platform to ensure educators had the skills needed to address trauma in the classroom. Salinas also pushed for Oregon’s 2013 conversion therapy ban and played a role in defending it.
Salinas said her personal motivation for expanding and protecting LGBTQ rights is rooted in the experiences of her daughter, Amelia.
“My daughter is queer, and she has known who she is since she was a child,” Salinas said. “She presents very masculine, and I’ve had to advocate for her her entire life — from whispers on soccer sidelines to fears about using the bathroom when she was just three or four years old. That kind of bullying and harassment stays with you as a parent. It became part of who I am, part of my ‘mama bear’ advocacy. When I entered public office, continuing that fight was the most natural thing in the world.”
That “mama bear” advocacy, she said, now extends far beyond her own family.
“Across this country, kids are vulnerable right now, and Trump is attacking them,” she said. “My daughter was devastated after the 2024 election— she said, ‘They’re coming after us,’ and she was right. That fear is real, especially for transgender youth. Civil rights should be expanding, not being stripped away from certain communities. That’s why this fight feels so urgent.”
Since returning to the White House in 2024, the Trump administration has moved to roll back anti-discrimination protections, particularly those affecting transgender people. These efforts include barring transgender people from serving openly in the military, blocking access to gender-affirming medical care in federal health programs, challenging state laws that protect transgender students on religious grounds, and arguing that the Constitution entitles employers to discriminate against LGBTQ people based on religious beliefs — even in states with nondiscrimination laws.
For Salinas, the Equality Caucus’s most urgent task under the Trump-Vance administration is advancing what she called a long-sought but non-negotiable priority: the Equality Act.
The Equality Act would add explicit protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity to federal law. Despite more than five decades of debate on Capitol Hill, no version of the bill has yet become law.
“We have to keep pushing the Equality Act— there’s no way around that. No one should be discriminated against in housing, employment, credit, or healthcare because of who they are,” Salinas said. “Republicans are making LGBTQ identity a political wedge because they think it’s expedient, and that’s unacceptable. Sexual orientation and gender identity should not matter in determining someone’s access to opportunity. Yet here we are, still having to fight for that basic principle.”
Salinas added that advancing legislation like the Equality Act requires compassion— even when that compassion is not returned— and a commitment to education.
“We have to meet people where they are— Democrats, Republicans, independents, all of them. Until you know a family, or understand someone’s lived experience, it can feel abstract and overwhelming,” she said. “Education, compassion, and empathy are essential to moving the dial. When people understand this is about human rights, not politics, conversations start to change. That’s how we build broader support.”
She also emphasized the need for a federal transgender bill of rights, which would provide explicit protections for transgender Americans amid what she described as an increasingly hostile federal environment.
“A transgender bill of rights would clarify that discrimination against transgender and nonbinary people is illegal — in employment, housing, credit, and healthcare,” Salinas said. “What’s happening right now, with efforts to criminalize doctors for providing evidence-based care, is unheard of and dangerous. We also need to ban conversion therapy nationwide, because states are increasingly trying to undo those protections through the courts. These safeguards are about ensuring people can live safely and with dignity. That should not be controversial.”
Mental health is another central focus of Salinas’s work. She said ensuring children have access to support— particularly LGBTQ youth— is critical to their long-term wellbeing.
After the Trump administration eliminated the LGBTQ-specific option from the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, Salinas said her reaction was one of outrage.
“When Trump shut down the 988 press-three option for LGBTQ youth, I was apoplectic,” she said. “It is one of the simplest, most upstream ways to save lives, and it felt arbitrary, cruel, and inhumane. We know the suicide risk among transgender youth is far higher than among non-LGBTQ kids. Connecting them with someone who understands their experience can be life-saving. This should be bipartisan, and I’m going to keep pushing to restore it.”
“You cannot be what you cannot see….” she added while reflecting on the handful of LGBTQ leaders who have— and continue to— navigate the halls of Congress to protect their community. “When Sarah McBride was elected, my daughter met with her and walked out glowing… joyful, hopeful, and excited about the future. That kind of representation changes lives. Electing LGBTQ leaders changes the trajectory for people across the country. Grassroots organizing and electoral power go hand in hand, and we need both.”
With Salinas’s experience in both the Oregon House of Representatives and the U.S. House of Representatives, she said that while one arena may reach more people, change often begins locally, especially when combating anti-LGBTQ attacks.
“I’ve seen how misinformation fuels fear at the local level— whether it’s school board fights or bathroom debates rooted in baseless claims. There is no data to support these scare tactics,” she said, echoing her past work with the Oregon Department of Education. “What actually helps is facts, education, and training teachers to better support LGBTQ students. I passed legislation in Oregon to give educators real tools to prevent bullying and harassment. That kind of work matters just as much as what we do in Congress.”
Despite just being named vice chair of the Equality Caucus, the Blade asked Salinas what legacy she hopes to leave, particularly when it comes to LGBTQ advocacy.
“I want people to be able to live authentically, without fear from their government or their neighbors. That means passing real legislation— the Equality Act and a transgender bill of rights— so protections are not dependent on who’s in power. Civil and human rights are meant to expand, not contract.
“I’ve been doing this work since I became a mother, and I’ll keep doing it for as long as it takes. My daughter deserves it, and so does every LGBTQ person in this country.”
Netflix’s ‘The Boyfriend’ is more than a dating show
Snow, ice, and politics: what is (and isn’t) happening
50 years later, it’s still worth a return trip to ‘Grey Gardens’
Marc Shaiman reflects on musical success stories
Human Rights Watch sharply criticizes US in annual report
This queer comedy show will warm you up
Out dancer on Alvin Ailey’s stint at Warner Theatre
Unconventional homes becoming more popular
D.C. Council urged to improve ‘weakened’ PrEP insurance bill
