News
Gorsuch confirmed to the dismay of LGBT rights supporters
Senate approves new justice after nuking filibuster

The U.S. Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
The U.S. Senate confirmed on Friday Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court much to the dismay of LGBT rights supporters who think he’ll oppose LGBT rights and Democrats who say the seat was unfairly awarded to him.
The Senate confirmed him to the seat by a largely party-line vote of 54-45, although Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) joined Republicans to confirm the nominee. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who’s recovering from back surgery, missed the vote.
Russell Roybal, deputy executive director for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said in a statement the confirmation amounts to “the triumph of bullying over moderation.”
“Taking their lead from the Bully-in-Chief Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell twisted and turned the rules of the Senate to ram this extremist nominee through — slashing and burning safeguards for moderation, such as the rule calling for a 60 votes threshold needed to confirm an Associate Supreme Court Justice,” Roybal said. “We now have a new Justice who is so conservative that he makes Antonin Scalia look moderate,”
The Gorsuch confirmation is a win for President Trump after a first 100 days in office marked by questions about his presidential campaign’s relationship with Russia, the failure of legislation he endorsed to repeal Obamacare and national security challenges in Syria and North Korea.
But Democrats put up a fight in the road to confirmation, citing Senate Republicans’ unwillingness to even hold a hearing for President Obama’s choice for the seat — U.S. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland — when it was first made open by the death of the U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia last year.
Democrats on Thursday successfully filibustered by the nomination after speaking out on the Senate floor against Gorsuch on the Senate. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who said he’d filibuster any nominee other than Garland, spoke for 15 hours on the Senate floor against Trump’s nominee.
In the end, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was able to move forward by changing the rules and exercising the “nuclear option,” which ended the ability for senators to filibuster nominees to the Supreme Court. McConnell cited as precedent for this action former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid ending the filibuster in 2013 for administrative appointments and lower court judicial nominees.
Commending McConnell for his actions to ensure the confirmation of Gorsuch was Tony Perkins, president of the anti-LGBT Family Research Council.
“Leader McConnell is to be commended for holding fast to historical precedent of not allowing an outgoing president to pack the Court with ideological jurists on his way out of the White House,” Perkins said. “The Supreme Court vacancy after the death of Justice Scalia became a defining issue of the 2016 presidential election. President Trump made history by telling voters who he would appoint to the Court by providing a list — the American people chose him and he in turn chose from the list, keeping his promise.”
LGBT rights supporters have expressed concerns about Gorsuch largely because of his record as a judge on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Chief among those concerns is a ruling the Hobby Lobby case in which he determined the retail chain should afforded “religious freedom” despite requirements under Obamacare to deny contraceptive coverage for female employees. Many LGBT rights supporters say that could be a prelude to Gorsuch being willing to institute “religious freedom” carve-outs in LGBT non-discrimination laws.
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.
In a 2005 op-ed for the National Review “Liberals & Lawsuits,” Gorsuch excoriated the progressive movement for seeking advancements in the courts, identifying same-sex marriage an issue that should be decided elsewhere a decade before the Supreme Court would rule for marriage equality nationwide.
Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of GLAAD, condemned Senate Republicans for the confirmation of Gorsuch in a statement based on his anti-LGBT rulings and writings.
“Republicans in the Senate just destroyed a steadfast American tradition for the purpose of confirming a person to the U.S. Supreme Court who will most certainly vote in opposition to the safety and well-being of the LGBTQ community and many marginalized groups for his entire career on the bench,” Ellis said. “With his history of siding against transgender Americans and arguing against marriage equality, Neil Gorsuch is yet another reprehensible pawn in the Trump Administration’s goal of erasing the LGBTQ community from the fabric of America.”
During his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage is “settled law,” but added “there is ongoing litigation about its impact and application right now,” suggesting he thinks limitations to the ruling are still on the table. According to the Human Rights Campaign, Gorsuch also refused to answer in response to written questions from the Senate whether he thinks LGBT people are eligible for protections under current federal civil rights laws.
Stan Sloan, CEO of the Family Equality Council, said in a statement he hopes concerns about Gorsuch’s views on legal protections for LGBT people prove incorrect now that the jurist has been confirmed to the Supreme Court.
“Family Equality Council opposed the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and we are disappointed that this confirmation is now a reality,” Sloan said. “We hope that our fears concerning his ability to assure fair treatment of LGBTQ individuals and families — and members of all marginalized communities — will now be proven wrong, and that Justice Gorsuch rises to support and protect the civil liberties of all Americans.”
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
