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.”
Federal Government
Holiday week brings setbacks for Trump-Vance trans agenda
Federal courts begin to deliver end-of-year responses to lawsuits involving federal transgender healthcare policy.
While many Americans took the week of Christmas to rest and relax, LGBTQ politics in the U.S. continued to shift. This week’s short recap of federal updates highlights two major blows to the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
19 states sue RFK Jr. to end gender-affirming care ban
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced on Tuesday that the NYAG’s office, along with 18 other states (and the District of Columbia), filed a lawsuit to stop U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from restricting gender-affirming care for minors.
In the press release, Attorney General James stressed that the push by the Trump-Vance administration’s crusade against the transgender community — specifically transgender youth — is a “clear overreach by the federal government” and relies on conservative and medically unvalidated practices to “punish providers who adhere to well-established, evidence-based care” that support gender-affirming care.
“At the core of this so-called declaration are real people: young people who need care, parents trying to support their children, and doctors who are simply following the best medical evidence available,” said Attorney General James. “Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online, and no one should lose access to medically necessary health care because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors’ offices. My office will always stand up for New Yorkers’ health, dignity, and right to make medical decisions free from intimidation.”
The lawsuit is a direct response to HHS’ Dec. 18 announcement that it will pursue regulatory changes that would make gender-affirming health care for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible, to access. It would also restrict federal funding for any hospital that does not comply with the directive. KFF, an independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism, found that in 2023 federal funding covered nearly 45% of total spending on hospital care in the U.S.
The HHS directive stems directly from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 Executive Order, Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, which formally establishes U.S. opposition to gender-affirming care and pledges to end federal funding for such treatments.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest and most influential physician organization, has repeatedly opposed measures like the one pushed by President Trump’s administration that restrict access to trans health care.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” a statement on the AMA’s website reads. “Improving access to gender-affirming care is an important means of improving health outcomes for the transgender population.”
The lawsuit also names Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin as having joined New York in the push against restricting gender-affirming care.
At the HHS news conference last Thursday, Jim O’Neill, deputy secretary of the department, asserted, “Men are men. Men can never become women. Women are women. Women can never become men.”
DOJ stopped from gaining health care records of trans youth
U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon blocked an attempt by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to gain “personally identifiable information about those minor transgender patients” from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), saying the DOJ’s efforts “fly in the face of the Supreme Court.”
Journalist Chris Geidner originally reported the news on Dec. 25, highlighting that the Western District of Pennsylvania judge’s decision is a major blow to the Trump-Vance administration’s agenda to curtail transgender rights.
“[T]his Court joins the others in finding that the government’s demand for deeply private and personal patient information carries more than a whiff of ill intent,” Bissoon wrote in her ruling. “This is apparent from its rhetoric.”
Bissoon cited the DOJ’s “incendiary characterization” of trans youth care on the DOJ website as proof, which calls the practice politically motivated rather than medically sound and seeks to “…mutilate children in the service of a warped ideology.” This is despite the fact that a majority of gender-affirming care has nothing to do with surgery.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court ruled along party lines that states — namely Tennessee — have the right to pass legislation that can prohibit certain medical treatments for transgender minors, saying the law is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not involve suspect categories like race, national origin, alienage, and religion, which would require the government to show the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored, sending decision-making power back to the states.
“The government cannot pick and choose the aspects of Skrmetti to honor, and which to ignore,” Judge Bissoon added.
The government argued unsuccessfully that the parents of the children whose records would have been made available to the DOJ “lacked standing” because the subpoena was directed at UPMC and that they did not respond in a timely manner. Bissoon rejected the timeliness argument in particular as “disingenuous.”
Bissoon, who was nominated to the bench by then-President Obama, is at least the fourth judge to reject the DOJ’s attempted intrusion into the health care of trans youth according to Geidner.
District of Columbia
Reasons to be optimistic about 2026
Local thought leaders offer hope for the New Year
It was a year like no other. It began with Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2025 and included a takeover of D.C. police, ICE raids, challenges for the local economy, and other events that have many queer Washingtonians ready for 2026.
As we prepare to welcome the New Year, the Blade asked a range of local thought leaders about what makes them optimistic for 2026. Here are their responses.
June Crenshaw
Deputy Director, Capital Pride Alliance
What gives me optimism for 2026 is the way our LGBTQIA2S+ community supports one another – across identities, neighborhoods, and movements – and because we continue to build our collective powers; we demand and create safer, more inclusive spaces.
Zachary Parker
Ward 5 DC. Council member
I’m optimistic about the upcoming elections and the District’s continued fight for local autonomy. One thing I know for sure is that Washingtonians are tough and persistent, and we’re ready to face any challenge as we keep fighting for D.C. statehood.
Sister Jeannine Gramick
Co-founder of LGBTQ supportive New Ways Ministry
As a nun who thinks politically about the Catholic Church, I’m extremely optimistic that Pope Leo XIV will continue to welcome LGBTQ people. At the conclave, most cardinals knew Pope Francis had (then) Cardinal Proost in mind!
Adam Ebbin
Virginia State Senator representing parts of Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax Counties
I am excited about 2026 bringing the return of the pro-equality governor to Virginia. I believe that Abigail Spanberger will be a champion for LGBT people and it will also be the year that we can finally pass the necessary legislation to send a constitutional amendment to the voters that would guarantee marriage equality in the Virginia Constitution.
Howard Garrett
President, Capital Stonewall Democrats
In 2026, our community can be optimistic because we’ve proven, again and again, that when we organize, we win: at the ballot box, in the courts, and in our neighborhoods. Even amid challenge, LGBTQ+ Washingtonians and our allies are building stronger coalitions, electing champions, and advancing real protections that make daily life safer and more affirming for everyone.
Paul Kuntzler
D.C. LGBTQ activist since the early 1960s, co-founder of Capital Stonewall Democrats
Last Nov. 4, 11 states held elections and Democrats won almost all of the elections. Next Nov. 3, 2026, Democrats will win control of both the House and Senate …An Economist poll reported that 15 percent to 20 percent of those who voted for Trump no longer support him. The results of the elections of Nov. 3, 2026, will be the beginning of the end of Trump and his racist and criminal regime.
Kelley Robinson
President, Human Rights Campaign
This past year has brought relentless attacks against the LGBTQ+ community, but it has also shown the resiliency of queer folks. While this administration has worked tirelessly to oppress us, we’ve met that oppression with courage. As we step into 2026, my hope is that we carry that energy forward and continue protecting one another, fighting back against injustice, and celebrating queer joy. If 2026 is anything like 2025, we know the challenges will be intense, but our community is more determined than ever to meet hate with resilience, and to turn struggle into strength.
Freddie Lutz
Owner, Freddie’s Beach Bar in Arlington and Rehoboth Beach
I am optimistic that the current president will fulfill his promise to boost the economy. We are all suffering – businesses in D.C. I just read it is 17 to 18 percent down. And I’m hoping the president will boost the economy. I always try to remain optimistic.
Nicholas F. Benton
Owner & Editor, Falls Church News-Press
My optimism stems from my belief in the human capacity and generosity of spirit. Those who are committed to those qualities will find a way.
Richard Rosendall
Former president, D.C. Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance
MAGA efforts to demonize LGBTQ people are dangerous but will fail overall because understanding and acceptance have grown and endured. The blue wave in November 2026 will show this.
TJ Flavell
Organizer, Go Gay DC
Hope springs eternal. Nurturing your own wellness is vital to the New Year, including enjoying social and cultural activities through such groups as Go Gay DC – Metro DC’s LGBTQ Community. Also, 2026 ushers in a new tax deduction for charitable giving. Check the IRS website for details. You can make a positive impact in the New Year by supporting good charitable causes like the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center, a safe, inclusive, and affirming space where all members of our community can thrive.
Rayceen Pendarvis
Leader of Team Rayceen D.C. LGBTQ support organization
I have experienced many trials and tribulations in my lifetime, throughout which my spirit has enabled me to find peace despite the turbulence around me. Being optimistic allows me to be a beacon of light for those who may be lost in the darkness.
Zar
Team Rayceen organizer
My reason for optimism is this: death. Life is a cycle of time, change, and destruction. Everything is impermanent; the time any person rules is finite and eventually all empires end.
DJ Honey
Team Rayceen supporter
Despite the noise, I see 2026 as a year where queer people continue choosing community over isolation. Even when challenged, our culture keeps evolving. We are more visible, more creative and intentional about building spaces that protect each other and center joy without asking permission.
Nick Tsusaki
Owner, Spark Social House, D.C. LGBTQ café and bar
I’m optimistic for 2026 because it feels like the tide is turning and we’re coming together as a community.
District of Columbia
Rush reopens after renewing suspended liquor license
Principal owner says he’s working to resolve payroll issue for unpaid staff
The D.C. LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush reopened and was serving drinks to customers on Saturday night, Dec. 20, under a renewed liquor license three days after the city’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board suspended the license on grounds that Rush failed to pay a required annual licensing fee.
In its Dec. 17 order suspending the Rush liquor license the ABC Board stated the “payment check was returned unpaid and alternative payment was not submitted.”
Jackson Mosley, Rush’s principal owner, says in a statement posted on the Rush website that the check did not “bounce,” as rumors circulating in the community have claimed. He said a decision was made to put a “hold” on the check so that Rush could change its initial decision to submit a payment for the license for three years and instead to pay a lower price for a one-year payment.
“Various fees and fines were added to the amount, making it necessary to replace the stop-payment check in person – a deadline that was Wednesday despite my attempts to delay it due to these circumstances,” Mosley states in his message.
He told the Washington Blade in an interview inside Rush on Saturday night, Dec. 20, that the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) quickly processed Rush’s liquor license renewal following his visit to submit a new check.
He also reiterated in the interview some of the details he explained in his Rush website statement regarding a payroll problem that resulted in his employees not being paid for their first month’s work at Rush, which was scheduled to take place Dec. 15 through a direct deposit into the employees’ bank accounts.
Several employees set up a GoFundMe appeal in which they stated they “showed up, worked hard, and were left unpaid after contributing their time, labor, and professional skills to Rush, D.C.’s newest LGBTQ bar.”
In his website statement Mosley says employees were not paid because of a “tax related mismatch between federal and District records,” which, among other things, involves the IRS. He said the IRS was using his former company legal name Green Zebra LLC while D.C. officials are using his current company legal name Rainbow Zebra LLC.
“This discrepancy triggered a compliance hold within our payroll system,” he says in his statement. “The moment I became aware of the issue, I immediately engaged our payroll provider and began working to resolve it,” he wrote.
He added that while he is the founder and CEO of Rush’s parent and management company called Momentux, company investors play a role in making various decisions, and that the investors rather than he control a “syndicated treasury account” that funds and operates the payroll system.
He told the Blade that he and others involved with the company were working hard to resolve the payroll problem as soon as possible.
“Every employee – past or present – will receive the pay they are owed in accordance with D.C. and federal law,” he says in his statement. “That remains my priority.”
In a follow-up text message to the Blade on Sunday night, Dec. 21, Mosley said, “All performers, DJs, etc. have been fully paid.”
He said Rush had 21 employees but “2 were let go for gross misconduct, 2 were let go for misconduct, 1 for moral turpitude, 2 for performance concerns.” He added that all of the remaining 14 employees have returned to work at the time of the reopening on Dec. 20.
Rush held its grand opening on Dec. 5 on the second and third floors of a building at 2001 14th Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street next to the existing LGBTQ dance club Bunker.
With at least a half dozen or more LGBTQ bars located within walking distance of Rush in the U Street entertainment corridor, Mosley told the Blade he believes some of the competing LGBTQ bars, which he says believe Rush will take away their customers, may be responsible along with former employees of “rumors” disparaging him and Rush.
Out actor talks lead role in ‘Fiddler on the Roof’
This gay author sees dead people
Holiday week brings setbacks for Trump-Vance trans agenda
Your guide to D.C.’s queer New Year’s Eve parties
