National
How will Supreme Court rule on marriage?
Parsing statements, records for hints as to how justices will decide DOMA, Prop 8 cases
Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are expected to issue rulings on the Prop 8 and DOMA cases in June. (Photo public domain)
The nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are expected to reach a decision by the end of June in two high-profile LGBT rights cases on which they heard oral arguments last week challenging California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The justices could reach any number of decisions on either or both of the cases — upholding the anti-gay measures, dismissing the cases for lack of standing or jurisdiction, striking down Prop 8 and DOMA on grounds they violate the rights of same-sex couples under the U.S. Constitution — or even issuing a national ruling in favor of marriage equality.
Predicting how they might rule is tricky. But several of the justices made statements and asked questions during the oral arguments that offered some hints. Perhaps more significantly, many of them have a record of ruling in gay rights cases that might indicate their leanings on marriage. The Washington Blade has compiled profiles of the justices to assess how they might rule in the two marriage cases before them.
In addition to examining their comments during the arguments, the Blade has looked at how they ruled in other high-profile gay rights cases. One is the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans in which the Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2, which would have prohibited municipalities from passing non-discrimination ordinances protecting LGBT people. Another is the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas in which the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws.
The Blade also looked at the court ruling in the 2010 case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In that case, the court upheld the Hastings College of Law’s non-discrimination policy against a challenge from Hastings Christian Fellowship, which sought to overturn the policy to maintain its status as an official school group while prohibiting LGBT people from holding positions as officers.
Chief Justice John Roberts (Photo public domain)
1. Chief Justice John Roberts
The chief justice of the Supreme Court seemed skeptical during oral arguments that Prop 8 and DOMA should be struck down as unconstitutional. He also seemed dismissive of the notion that LGBT people lack political power.
In an exchange with attorney Robbie Kaplan, Chief Justice John Roberts disputed that gay people lack political power — a characteristic that the court has considered in weighing whether a group should be considered a suspect class.
“As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case,” Roberts said.
The chief justice was likely referring to the trend of U.S. senators announcing their support for marriage equality, which just this week added Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). When Kaplan pointed out that no group has been subject to referenda in recent years like gay people, Roberts seemed unmoved.
“You just referred to a sea change in people’s understandings and values from 1996, when DOMA was enacted, and I’m just trying to see where that comes from, if not from the political effectiveness of groups on your side,” Roberts said.
Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, hasn’t ruled on many gay rights cases during his time on the bench. Still, Roberts ruled as part of the dissent that deemed exclusion of LGBT students was acceptable in the Christian Legal Society case.
On the other hand, Roberts in 1996 helped gay rights activists as part of his law firm’s pro bono work in preparation for the Romer case. He also has a lesbian cousin, Jean Podrasky, who attended arguments on Prop 8.
Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, pointed to another comment Roberts made indicating a parent forcing a child to make friends with another child changes the definition of friendship.
“It suggested that he might be less open to recognizing marriage rights for same-sex couples than the Olson-Boies team had anticipated,” Goldberg said.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (Photo public domain)
2. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, viewed by many as the most anti-gay of the justices, mused that being raised by gay parents may not be good for a child — an argument made by many anti-gay groups.
“If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not,” Scalia said. “Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”
Those words are consistent with anti-gay views that Scalia has expressed in the past. Most notably, speaking at Princeton in December, Scalia compared bans on sodomy to laws against murder, saying, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
Since his confirmation to the court, Scalia has not only made anti-gay rulings, but has taken the lead on the opinions. The Reagan-appointed justice wrote the dissenting opinions in the Romer and Lawrence cases and joined with other dissenting justices in ruling for LGBT exclusion in the Christian Legal Society case.
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a professor at Loyola Law School, said Scalia is likely to rule to uphold Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.
“Justice Scalia has made clear in earlier opinions … that legislation can be justified merely by moral disapproval of homosexuality, even though a majority of the court has rejected that position,” NeJaime said. “Moreover, under his theory of constitutional interpretation, he does not believe that lesbians and gay men have a constitutional basis for their claims in these cases.”
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy (Photo public domain)
3. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy
The justice who’s being most closely watched because of his reputation for being a swing vote — and his previous rulings in favor of gay rights — conveyed mixed sentiments during the arguments.
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy contemplated the effect that overturning or sustaining Prop 8 would have on children based on the newness of same-sex marriage.
“We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more,” Kennedy said. “On the other hand, there is … what could be a legal injury, and that’s the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California … that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status.”
A Reagan appointee, Kennedy authored the majority opinions in the Romer and Lawrence cases that struck down anti-gay measures in those lawsuits. In the Christian Legal Society case, Kennedy also ruled in favor of requiring student groups to be open to all students regardless of LGBT status.
That’s what makes Kennedy’s comment questioning the Ninth Circuit ruling against Prop 8, which was largely based on his opinion in Romer, particularly noteworthy.
“The rationale of the Ninth Circuit was much more narrow,” Kennedy said. “It basically said that California, which has been more generous, more open to protecting same-sex couples than almost any state in the union, just didn’t go far enough, and it’s being penalized for not going far enough. That’s a very odd rationale on which to sustain this opinion.”
Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, said the “single most powerful vibe” she received from Kennedy during arguments was his ambivalence.
“My best guess is that in the Perry case, he will rule in some way that avoids discussion of Prop 8’s constitutionality and that in the Windsor case, he will conclude that DOMA is unconstitutional, but his opinion may invoke federalism as much as it does the Equal Protection Clause,” Hunter said.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (Photo public domain)
4. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
In accordance with his custom, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas remained silent for the duration of oral arguments in the marriage cases.
Thomas is known for not asking questions. In January, after seven years of silence, the George H.W. Bush-appointed justice made news when he broke his tradition and cracked a joke about the competency of an attorney during a case unrelated to marriage.
But Thomas has a history of taking the anti-gay side. He ruled in the dissent in the Romer and Lawrence cases and ruled for LGBT exclusion in the Christian Legal Society case.
Chris Stoll, a senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said oral arguments don’t offer any information on how Thomas might rule, but noted the justice’s history of anti-gay opinions.
“He is quite conservative and historically has voted with the other conservative justices in cases involving LGBT equality,” Stoll said.
5. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Photo public domain)
One justice who has a history of ruling in favor of gay rights indicated a disdain for DOMA during oral arguments.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 1996 law creates two different kinds of unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples: “the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.”
While questioning attorney Paul Clement, Ginsburg more distinctly articulated the problems for gay couples under DOMA by enumerating benefits denied to them under the law.
“The problem is if we are totally for the states’ decision that there is a marriage between two people, for the federal government then to come in to say no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits; your spouse is very sick but you can’t get leave; people — if that set of attributes, one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this?” Ginsburg said.
Ginsburg also has a history suggesting she’d be willing to rule against Prop 8 and DOMA. The Clinton-appointed justice ruled in favor of LGBT advocates in the Romer, Lawrence and Christian Legal Society cases. Prior to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, Ginsburg was a women’s rights advocate and co-founder of the women’s rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
David Gans, civil rights director for the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, said he considers Ginsburg a likely vote to strike down DOMA and Prop 8 based on her history of rulings and comments made in court.
“I think her comments tended to be across the board very skeptical of the justifications offered, and, of course, her record, both as an advocate and justice is to honor the constitutional guarantee of equal protection applies to all persons,” Gans said.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (Photo public domain)
6. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer
The other Clinton appointee on the bench also made comments during the Prop 8 arguments suggesting he might rule in favor of marriage rights for gay couples.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer was dismissive of Cooper’s assertion that marriage is for procreation, observing California allows straight couples who cannot have children to marry.
“What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not?” Breyer said. “I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can’t have children.”
And Breyer’s earlier rulings suggest he would be amenable to striking down Prop 8 and DOMA. Breyer joined Kennedy and other justices in the pro-gay rulings for Romer and Lawrence and sided with LGBT inclusion in the Christian Legal Society Case.
Gans said Breyer’s comments during the Prop 8 arguments indicate his rulings on the anti-gay measures will likely be consistent with his earlier decisions.
“Justice Breyer’s questions during oral argument suggested that he would find that discriminatory marriage laws violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all persons,” Gans said.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito (Photo public domain)
7. Associate Justice Samuel Alito
Associate Justice Samuel Alito expressed concerns about same-sex marriage, quipping that it’s “newer than cell phones or the Internet.”
“Same-sex marriage is very new,” Alito said. “I think it was first adopted in the Netherlands in 2000. So there isn’t a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.”
An appointee of President George W. Bush, Alito hasn’t been on the court long enough to have ruled in the earlier landmark Lawrence and Romer cases. But he wrote the dissenting opinion in favor of LGBT exclusion in the Christian Legal Society case.
Lavi Soloway, a gay immigration attorney and co-founder of The DOMA Project, said he expects Alito to be consistent and issue an anti-gay decision in the cases before him — taking note of the exchange in the Prop 8 case.
“This line of thinking was disappointing; it not only belittled the fight for equality, but suggested that Justice Alito would first need to be convinced of the ‘effects’ of same-sex marriage before he could determine whether gay and lesbian Americans have a constitutionally protected right to marry,” Soloway said. “This exchange suggested to me that Alito will most likely vote to uphold Prop 8, preferring that legislatures continue to wrestle with this issue.”
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Photo public domain)
8. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Another justice — this one appointed by President Obama — asked some of the most pointed questions about whether there’s any reason anti-gay laws could survive the court’s lowest standard of review.
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed attorney Charles Cooper on whether he could conceive of anti-gay laws on other issues other than marriage that could survive rational basis review. The answer from Cooper was that he could not.
“If that is true, then why aren’t they a class?” Sotomayor responded. “If they’re a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren’t we treating them as a class for this one thing?”
Sotomayor’s response suggests she might agree with the Obama administration that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional.
A newcomer to the court, Sotomayor hasn’t had the opportunity to rule on many of the earlier LGBT rights cases that have come before the bench. But in the Christian Legal Society case, she joined four other justices in ruling student groups had to accept all students regardless of LGBT status.
Notably, Sotomayor was the only one among nine justices who responded to a letter from a North Carolina 6th grader named Cameron urging justices to rule in favor of marriage equality. The justice said she had no comment on the marriage cases, but urged Cameron to keep “dreaming big.”
NCLR’s Stoll pointed to Sotomayor’s exchange with Cooper as evidence she’d rule against Prop 8 and had similar expectations for how she’d rule on DOMA.
“She seemed perplexed and unpersuaded by Cooper’s argument that excluding gay people from marriage somehow promotes ‘responsible procreation’ by different-sex couples,” Stoll said.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
9. Associate Justice Elena Kagan
Yet another justice appointed by President Obama seemed skeptical about arguments presented by proponents of Prop 8 and DOMA.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan suggested to attorney Paul Clement that Congress may have had another motive other than uniformity when it determined to pass the anti-gay law.
“This was a real difference in the uniformity that the federal government was pursuing,” Kagan said. “And it suggests that maybe something — maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity.”
Clement offered a lengthy response in which he talked about federal bans on polygamy and laws after the Civil War allowing freed slaves to marry. But Kagan responded by reading from the House report on DOMA, which states the law was passed “to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality” — deemed a “gotcha” moment that elicited laughter from those in the courtroom.
During the Prop 8 arguments, Kagan was also skeptical of Cooper’s argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation and asked for a legitimate reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
“Is there any reason that you have for excluding them?” Kagan said. “In other words, you’re saying, well, if we allow same-sex couples to marry, it doesn’t serve the state’s interest. But do you go further and say that it harms any state interest?”
Like Sotomayor, Kagan is a relative newcomer to the court and hasn’t had the opportunity to rule on gay cases. During her confirmation hearing, Kagan wouldn’t say whether the she thinks the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.
Still, Loyola’s NeJaime said Kagan seemed bothered during oral arguments by equal protections concerns presented by Prop 8 and DOMA.
“Given her lengthy questions about the relationship between age and procreative ability, she seems unconvinced by the ‘responsible procreation’ rationale for same-sex marriage bans,” NeJaime said. “And given her reading of the House report on DOMA regarding the ‘moral disapproval of homosexuality,’ she is suggesting that the law may not survive rational basis review.”
National
Democrats are trying to disqualify trans candidates. Here’s how
Jordan Korgood suspended Mass. Governor’s Council candidacy after opponent questioned residency
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 14.
By HOPE PISONI | Jordan Korgood has come a long way. In 2023, she ran into financial difficulties while studying at Northeastern University in Boston and ended up unhoused. Ordinary shelters are hotbeds of discrimination and mistreatment for transgender women like her, and the only trans shelter was full. So for five months, she slept in her car, in public libraries and anywhere she could find in order to continue her studies and campus activism.
Korgood, now 24, started a bid in March for a seat on Massachusetts Governor’s Council, a state board tasked with approving judicial candidates. Despite running against an incumbent who has been in office for 41 years, she secured key endorsements from local Democrats and racked up more than 7,000 Instagram followers, the equivalent of nearly one-tenth of primary voters during the last election cycle.
But last month, her momentum was ripped away. It started when Ronald Iacobucci, one of her opponents, noticed that she was still registered to vote in the 2024 election with an old New York address. He proceeded to file an objection with the state, alleging that Korgood didn’t meet the five-year residency requirement. While Korgood has lived in Massachusetts since 2019, she didn’t have a valid address to register in the state while she was unhoused. So she used her mother’s address, where she had lived before moving.
In an email to Uncloseted Media, Iacobucci wrote: “Because serious questions have arisen concerning compliance with those requirements, an objection was appropriate so the matter can be reviewed through the lawful process established by the commonwealth. This objection was nothing personal, it was always about the integrity of the process.”
While most residency challenges like this fail in Massachusetts, the State Ballot Law Commission disqualified Korgood on June 18. While she initially attempted to appeal the decision, the financial and logistical burden became too much — she estimates it drained about 40 percent of her campaign funds. So on July 10, Korgood suspended her campaign.
“I am incredibly frustrated that this is what I have to do at this point,” Korgood told Uncloseted Media. “I’ve spent thousands of hours, I’ve sacrificed my own mental health, my social life, friendships, my professional aspirations and advancement to work on this campaign, and this is how they’re ruling.”
“These are cherry-picking remote issues to target specific individuals,” Eliot Tracz, assistant professor of law at New England Law Boston, told Uncloseted Media. “They’re legitimate laws, but what they’re looking for is a selective application.”
Korgood isn’t the only trans candidate facing barriers. While a 2025 report by the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute found that trans representation among elected officials has increased by over 700 percent since 2017, candidates still face major hurdles.
Uncloseted Media found examples of trans candidates running for public office in Ohio and Michigan who have been threatened with disqualification over challenges to their eligibility. Often, the challenges come from their primary opponents: fellow Democrats.
“It should be voters, not political opponents, who decide who represents them,” Daniel Hernandez, vice president of political programs at the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, a nonprofit supporting queer candidates for public office, told Uncloseted Media. “This is not a legitimate way to fight — if you have a disagreement on policy, that’s one thing, but to try and target trans people just because of who they are is completely unacceptable, especially in a Democratic primary.”
A growing strategy
The first widely publicized eligibility challenge against a trans candidate Uncloseted Media identified took place in Stark County, Ohio, in 2024. The Stark County Board of Elections, which has the same chairman as the county’s Democratic Party, disqualified Vanessa Joy, a trans woman who was running for a seat in the state legislature. The board cited an obscure state law requiring candidates who changed their name in the last five years to list their former name on candidacy petitions — in Joy’s case, her deadname.
“The original spirit of the law I kind of agree with,” Joy told Uncloseted Media. “But there’s hardly any information about this law ever being enforced.”
Days later, Arienne Childrey and Bobbie Arnold, two other trans candidates, had their eligibility challenged based on this law. While both candidates were cleared to run, that wasn’t the case for Joy, who never made it on the ballot.
Tom Sutton, a political science professor at Baldwin Wallace University, told Spectrum News 1 he had never seen this law enforced in his 30 years of study. At the time, the relevant forms didn’t include a space to list former names, an omission that has since been corrected.
“The only way to find out about it was to dig deep into all of the additional documents on their website,” says Joy. “They used this law against me.”
Similar challenges cropped up in Michigan this year. Joanna Whaley, a trans woman running for a seat in the state legislature, faced a legal complaint from her Democratic primary opponent Frank Liberati, who claimed in April that she should have filed campaign paperwork under her deadname.
“Because both the original and amended affidavits of identity filed by ‘Joanna Michelle Whaley’ contain FALSE statements, she/he cannot be certified to appear on the Aug. 4, 2026, primary election ballot,” the complaint argues.
The county clerk denied the challenge, which deadnames Whaley, because she had legally changed her name. Liberati’s complaint was widely condemned, with the Michigan Legislative LGBTQ+ Caucus calling it “meritless” and “transphobic.”
“It completely backfired on him,” Whaley told Uncloseted Media. “We tripled our cash on hand within a week because of the support that we’ve gotten from our community, and actually are in a stronger position now to win this race.”
While Whaley benefited from the challenge, that’s not the norm. Toni Mua, a trans woman running for a seat in the Michigan legislature, received a complaint from political activist Robert Davis in April who alleged that she also should have run under her deadname.
One of Mua’s opponents, Democrat Arthur Harrington, had discussed the challenge with Davis before it was filed, according to DeNiro Jones, Harrington’s former campaign manager. Jones told Uncloseted Media he sat in on a meeting between the two where they discussed the plan.
Jones also sent Uncloseted Media a screenshot of what he says is a text thread that Harrington sent him. In the screenshot, Davis tells Harrington, “The transgender candidate will be eliminated,” and Harrington responds that “Toni also won’t have the money to fight it.” Those texts were from April 22, two days before Davis filed the challenge.
In an email to Uncloseted Media, Davis called this story “baseless and meritless” and referred to Mua as “an illegitimate candidate seeking attention.”
“A candidate who happens to identify as transgender clearly violated Michigan Election Law and should not have been allowed to appear on the ballot,” Davis wrote. “A person’s sexual orientation nor identity played no part in the litigation seeking to have the person who filed a false affidavit of identity properly removed from the ballot.”
Arthur Harrington did not reply to multiple requests for comment. But in a June statement to Michigan Advance, he denied allegations that he was involved in Davis’s challenge.
These legal fights cost a lot. Korgood paid her lawyer $5,000. And while Mua defeated her challenge, she also had to use an estimated 40 percent of her campaign funds, or $10,000, to fight it.
In its opinion rejecting Davis’s challenge of Mua’s candidacy, the state court of appeals wrote, “Plaintiff misreads the statute … The Court of Claims did not err by concluding that Mua complied with the law or that the Wayne County Clerk did not err in rejecting plaintiff’s challenge.”
“I had to leave my job to run for this open seat,” Mua told Uncloseted Media. “It truly pisses me off, because [Democrats] have always said that they were better than this, and it’s showing truly where their support lies.”
Quinn Allred, executive director at Let Us Lead, a youth-focused voting rights nonprofit, finds these eligibility challenges from Democrats “despicable.”
“Instead of saying ‘trans people shouldn’t be running,’ [they’re entering] into this respectability politics and saying ‘oh, it’s actually because the names don’t match up, or it’s because of this residency law,’” Allred told Uncloseted Media. “[It’s a] special brand of cowardice that it takes for a Democrat to target a queer person who is also running for office.”
Uneven enforcement
While challenges to candidates’ residency aren’t uncommon in Massachusetts, they usually fail, according to Western Mass Politics & Insight, a long-running blog by local political and legal analysts.
The blog says most officials with authority over elections have a “great reluctance … to remove an individual from the ballot.” This makes Korgood’s removal unusual.
And while the State Ballot Law Commission says it considers many factors when determining a candidate’s residency and “no factor standing alone can be dispositive,” it largely cited Korgood’s voter registration in its decision despite other evidence that supports her eligibility, including apartment leases and membership in city programs.
“While there’s an undertone of legitimacy to some of those claims, it’s very selective,” Tracz says. “Most of us, when we move to a new state, don’t bother to go through the process of getting rid of our registration to vote in the prior state.”
Throughout history, Massachusetts candidates who faced similar challenges have been left on the ballot. These include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who received a tax credit in Utah reserved for primary residences, and Brockton, Mass., mayoral candidate Hamilton Rodrigues, who had gotten his voter registration in Brockton removed and hadn’t voted in the city for over 10 years.
Months after Joy’s disqualification in Ohio, the Mahoning County Board of Elections struck down a similar challenge against Republican Tex Fischer, a cisgender man who changed his legal name. They allowed him to stay on the ballot.
Tracz says a judge would likely find selective enforcement like this questionable.
“[That rule is] applicable to any candidate, and the question then becomes ‘Is this only being enforced against a select group of candidates?’” he says. “Why are we only investigating a specific type of candidate? I think that will give some courts pause.”
Making existing challenges worse
Trans candidates face hurdles beyond eligibility challenges. A June report from the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute found that nearly two-thirds of LGBTQ candidates face in-person harassment and nearly 80 percent of them face online harassment.
“Whether it’s threats of violence, coordinated harassment campaigns, attempts to remove people from the ballot, the cumulative effect is the same: public service becoming more difficult and less accessible to the LGBTQ community,” says Hernandez of the Victory Fund.
Whaley says the increased attention from Liberati’s challenge brought even more harassment her way. She says she reports death threats to the police weekly and has a security detail at every public appearance. Security has become her second-largest campaign expense, and for good reason; in October, her team intervened when a man wearing a Make America Great Again hat followed her around with a gun at a No Kings rally.
“At the end of the day, I want to get home to tuck my kids in bed,” Whaley says. “We could be using that money for other things, but we’re having to use it to just keep me alive.”
Eligibility challenges distract from the candidates’ policies. Childrey remembers one woman telling her she couldn’t vote for her because she’s “only about the rainbow people.”
“Most of what [I’m] talking about is affordability, funding for our public schools … bread and butter issues,” Childrey told Uncloseted Media. “There is an assumption, because we’re trans, that that’s all it is.”
Barriers also pile up intersectionally. Nearly one-third of trans people experience homelessness at some point in their lives, a rate eight times higher than the general population. This means barriers for unhoused people disproportionately affect trans candidates.
“Trans youth, trans people of color, students, those who are unhoused like [Korgood] was, or who are disabled or low-income — those barriers only compound,” Allred says.
What could change?
Zein Murib, a political science professor at Fordham University, says these incidents demonstrate the need for more leniency with official documentation, arguing that a candidate’s deadname or legal sex aren’t relevant information. Today, 45 states accept common-law names, or the name a person uses in everyday life regardless of their ID, for other legal procedures, and Whaley says this should apply to campaigns as well.
Besides these policy changes, Allred says LGBTQ advocacy groups should allocate more funds to defend trans candidates from eligibility challenges. And Hernandez says that more people should condemn these tactics and show support for those targeted.
“We need to make sure that we set the expectation that everyone … is rejecting these tactics that are disproportionately burdening our trans candidates,” he says. “We have to call it out when we see it, and we have to make sure that we are not just letting candidates fight these fights themselves.”
Mua says that she doesn’t see a future for herself or other trans people with the Democrats unless the party stands up for them. “I refuse to put myself into a party where I don’t see my safety and protection being vital.”
While Korgood says she is saddened by this outcome, she doesn’t intend for her political career to end.
“I’m incredibly proud of what we were able to accomplish, and while I am beyond disappointed and frustrated that this is how this is ending, I am so grateful that I earned the support and the attention of thousands of people in this race.”
Uncloseted Media also reached out to the Stark and Mahoning County Boards of Elections as well as the office of the Secretary of State in Ohio, and the Elections division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under which the State Ballot Law Commission serves. None replied.
Congress
Political drama in Angie Craig’s Minn. Senate race heats up
Lesbian lawmaker running to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Tina Smith
After an historic and expensive July 4th fireworks display capped Donald Trump’s self-indulgent commemoration of America’s 250th birthday, voters are now watching state races explode into political pyrotechnics as Democrats fight to win majorities in Congress and Republicans plan to keep buying power.
With the midterm elections just over three months away and several primary races still undecided, most pundits predict the decline in Trump’s approval ratings will result in Democrats winning the House, if infighting doesn’t turn off voters.
Democrats’ dream of taking the U.S. Senate, however, turned into a nightmare with the scandalous Graham Platner debacle in must-win Maine. Energized party leaders hope to put on a master class in democracy as they pick a new candidate before July 27.
The hike to Senate victory is still steep. Republicans have a 53-47 advantage — meaning Democrats must win eight of 11 competitive races, including defending seats currently held in Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Georgia, for a net gain of four seats.
LGBTQ people intent on reversing Project 2025’s prolific erasure might focus on lesbian U.S. Rep. Angie Craig’s race in Minnesota.
With the retirement of Democratic U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, The Cook Political Report’s out guru Amy Walter labeled the open seat “likely” Democrat but with only a +3-point advantage.
New York Times Polling data reporter Alex Lemonides notes that “Trump lost Minnesota by four percentage points in 2024, and Minnesotans have not sent a Republican to the Senate since the 2002 midterms, so a Republican win in the general election would buck the trend.”
But this whole election cycle is about bucking trends. With so many Democratic Socialists defeating establishment candidates, “socialist” is no longer a slur, forcing Trump to switch to the old Cold War charge of Communist!
In Minnesota, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)-backed candidate Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan is out-polling Craig, a more centrist Democrat who flipped a battleground House seat in 2018. Their primary is on Aug. 11.
Republicans are salivating over challenging Flanagan for her administrative role in the scandal that forced Gov. Tim Walz to forgo a third term and deal with widespread fraud in social programs.
Former NBC’s Sunday Night Football sideline reporter and current political podcaster Michele Tafoya has a built-in “bro” audience. The announcement of her Republican candidacy was featured on ESPN.com.
“As Minnesota’s senator, I will clean up the system, fighting corruption, ending the fraud, and protecting your tax dollars,” Tafoya said. “I will protect what’s fair and safe, standing with our law enforcement officers, deporting dangerous criminals, and keeping female sports for female athletes.”
Craig responded quickly. “Trump’s hand-picked candidate just jumped in the race for U.S. Senate,” she said on social media. “Minnesota needs a Senator who will stand up and fight for our state – and we know it won’t be MAGA Michele.”
Craig tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters that she has been happy to represent Minnesota’s Second Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2019. Now she wants to represent the entire state as a U.S. senator.
“The state of Minnesota has been so good to me and my family,” says Craig, who chose to move to the state because it would accept her family.
Craig grew up in a mobile home park in Arkansas, one of three children of a single mother. She worked her way through the University of Memphis, earning a degree in journalism, and became a reporter with the Memphis Commercial Appeal.
She has a long history of fighting for LGBTQ rights, including her own. In the late 1990s, while living in Tennessee, Craig and her then-partner, Debra Langston, adopted their first son, Joshua. Under Tennessee law at the time, only one of them could be recognized as an adoptive parent; Craig was listed as Langston’s roommate.
The birth mother wanted the couple to have Joshua, but her parents intervened, seeking to adopt him. The courts had to decide if Langston and Craig were “fit” parents. One appellate court judge objected to the boy being raised by “open, practicing lesbians,” but his two colleagues disagreed, and Langston and Craig won the precedent-setting case in 2000, albeit with lots of caveats.
“The issue in this case is not whether the members of this court approve the homosexual lifestyle or the adoption of children by homosexuals, but rather whether the adoption of this child by this prospective parent is in the child’s best interest. As in any adoption case, the determinative issue was and remains what is in the child’s best interest,” wrote Judge Alan E. Highers in his opinion concurring with the majority in ruling In re: ADOPTION OF M.J.S. in the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
By then, Craig was working in corporate communications for Smith & Nephew, a multinational maker of medical equipment, and the couple had another son, Jacob, born to Craig through alternative insemination. She and her family moved to London, where the company was based, in the early 2000s. They returned to the U.S. in 2005; Craig went to work for another medical equipment company, St. Jude Medical, in the suburbs of Minneapolis. She later said it was the least lucrative job offer she had, but she took it because she knew the area was welcoming to LGBTQ people.
Craig and Langston separated in 2006, and Craig married Cheryl Greene in California in 2008. They have four sons and three grandsons, with a fourth on the way. Greene is a former middle school teacher still involved with youth programming.
Craig worked for LGBTQ equality within her company and for statewide marriage equality in Minnesota. She also fought against an anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment in 2012, which voters rejected. The state legislature passed a marriage equality bill the following year that Gov. Mark Dayton signed into law.
In 2016, when she ran for Congress in Minnesota’s 2nd District, a Republican stronghold for more than a decade, she told the Twin Cities Pioneer Press that the fight for custody of Joshua gave her strength.
“Whether I win or lose on Election Day, I know that that won’t be the hardest thing or the biggest challenge that I’ve ever faced,” said Craig, then 44. “When you get up every day and wonder, ‘Am I going to (still) have my child the next day?’ you get pretty good at being focused on the big picture.”
“I’ve always talked about my family openly” on the campaign trail and in office, Craig, co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. Often at events in her district and around the state, she’ll meet someone who mentions they have an LGBTQ family member, she notes. She finds that if she listens to constituents and addresses what’s important to them, her identity isn’t an issue.
What Craig has addressed for constituents includes health care costs, such as capping the out-of-pocket cost of insulin and limiting overall out-of-pocket drug costs for people on Medicare. These came from a bill introduced by Craig and became provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022. She also wants a public option for health insurance, an increased child tax credit, and she introduced a bill to eliminate federal taxes on Social Security benefits.
In a June 19 SurveyUSA poll, Minnesotans say their single most important issue is inflation (39%) and cost of living, followed by health care, immigration, gas prices, and the war in Iran.
But immigration may soon jump to the front as more information leaks out about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents shooting and killing Lorenzo Salgado Araujo during a traffic stop in Houston on Tuesday morning, July 9. Homeland Security says the father, with no criminal record, driving to work, ignored verbal instructions and tried to ram their vehicle. ICE shot him in self-defense — the same excuse ICE used on Jan. 7, 2026, when an ICE agent killed nonviolent protester Renee Good. In both instances, video footage proved ICE lied.
Also caught on tape was Craig’s angry confrontation with Republican Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) on the House floor the day Good was killed after Emmer supported ICE on social media. The story and her response went viral.
But Craig continues to be criticized for voting for the Laken Riley Act, named for a woman who was killed by an undocumented immigrant. It allows for undocumented immigrants to be detained or deported if they are simply accused of crimes, even nonviolent ones. Critics say she has never apologized — but she has.
In a commentary for The Minnesota Star Tribune in May, Craig wrote, in part:
“The text of the bill did not include the word deportation. I made the difficult decision to vote for it. Democrats like Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff — leaders I deeply respect — all came to the same conclusion.
But as I stood side by side with protesters on the streets of Minneapolis and opposite dozens of armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the Whipple Federal Building after Renee Good’s killing — and again after the killing of Alex Pretti — I couldn’t help but question whether I made the right call last year … It’s also become clear that supporting any bill that gives ICE new authority in this administration was the wrong decision. And I regret my vote.”
“What happened under Operation Metro Surge was horrific,” Craig tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. The U.S. can secure its borders in a humane fashion while providing a path to citizenship for undocumented people, those brought here as children, and others, she adds.
On LGBTQ rights, Craig says the Equality Act has been a huge priority of hers in the House and would remain so in the Senate.
Since 2019, Craig has introduced the John Lewis Every Child Deserves a Family Act that “would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or marital status in those programs, prohibit the use of federal funds for so-called ‘conversion therapy’ and create a resource center for LGBTQ+ foster and adoptive youth within the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families,” according to a press release.
Another priority is passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for the late civil rights activist and longtime congressman. “I was lucky enough to serve with John Lewis,” she says.
Additionally, Craig supports campaign finance reform. The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that further loosened restrictions was “just another blow to our democracy,” she says. She supports limits on Supreme Court terms.
On foreign policy, she condemns Trump’s war of choice in Iran. “The administration has had zero strategic objectives,” she says, adding that the war has caused “tremendous economic damage,” such as the spike in gas prices.
And though Craig supports a two-state solution to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict, with Palestinians having their own state, her campaign does not accept direct donations from AIPAC’s political action committee — the pro-Israel group held fundraisers for her before her Senate announcement — another point exploited by primary opponent Flanagan.
On gender-affirming care for transgender youth, Craig says politicians should not interfere with decisions made by young people and their parents. Regarding trans girls and women in sports, she says the matter is best handled locally — and that local conversations can foster understanding.
But Craig has had a strong public reaction to federal transphobia. After that, then-U.S. Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) and Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) introduced the Protect Women’s Sports Act in December 2020. Craig released the following statement:
“As a lesbian woman, I am no stranger to prejudice and intolerance — but this legislation is beyond the pale. Plain and simple, the Protect Women’s Sports Act is transphobic — and this type of discrimination has no place in the halls of Congress. Especially at a time when the transgender community is suffering from a tragic rise in suicide rates and experiencing a surge of transphobic violence, such a bigoted and appalling effort is simply unacceptable. Queer and transgender women must stand together in the face of intolerance — and I am proud to do so today by emphatically denouncing this narrow-minded and hateful legislation, which is harmful not only to transgender women but to the LGBTQ community at-large.”
Craig has been endorsed by prominent LGBTQ groups, including the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, the Human Rights Campaign PAC, Equality PAC, and LPAC. She has also been endorsed by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, plus many nationally known political figures, such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).
Flanagan has the endorsement of Smith and her predecessor, Al Franken, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and, from outside the state, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sanders, among others. U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and the state’s governor, Tim Walz, so far haven’t made endorsements.
“I’m ready on day one” to serve in the Senate, says Craig, noting her four terms in the House, her substantial career before going into politics, and her two votes to impeach Trump. “If we can take the House and Senate, we can put a cap on this administration.”
This is a cross-post from Karen Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
South Carolina
Who might replace Lindsey Graham? The contenders and their LGBTQ records
Long-time SC senator died suddenly on Saturday.
Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has died, and what he has left behind is a power vacuum for his U.S. Senate seat — and within the Republican Party.
The South Carolina senator had been a major part of Republican politics up until his Saturday death at his home in Washington, reportedly of an aortic dissection related to arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
Graham has been a fixture in government at both the state and federal level. He began his political career in the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1992, representing the Palmetto State’s 2nd District before eventually moving to the federal government.
He moved up to Capitol Hill after his 1994 run for the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2003 he stepped across the rotunda to the Senate in 2003 following the retirement of longtime U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond.
He consistently opposed LGBTQ rights while alive.
He voted against the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, saying the decision should be left up to state governments, and the 2013 Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
With Graham’s sudden passing, the Republican Party is scrambling to find a replacement who can advance both its goals and those of the president as Republicans’ supermajority in the federal government begins to shrink.
Among those reportedly in the running is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the highest-ranking openly LGBTQ federal official in American history and fifth in the presidential line of succession.
Bessent, a South Carolina native, was formerly a supporter of the Democratic Party and donated to several Democratic presidential candidates before switching parties in 2017 following Trump’s election in 2016. He later donated $1 million to Trump’s 2017 presidential inaugural committee.
On Sunday, Bessent was also fielding calls from people asking him to run, according to a person familiar with the communications. A person close to Bessent told Politico that he is not interested in the seat, saying he is happy in his role as Treasury secretary, a position he has long wanted.
The Washington Blade reached out to the Treasury Department for comment, but did not receive a response by publication time.
One of the most anticipated and widely discussed names for the vacant Senate seat is Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette.
Evette is a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump and has gone as far as criticizing Republicans for not supporting the conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Trump also endorsed her gubernatorial campaign, though she ultimately lost to her now-boss, Gov. Henry McMaster.
McMaster has a long history of opposing LGBTQ rights.
During an October 2022 gubernatorial debate, McMaster said that if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Obergefell v. Hodges, he would enforce South Carolina’s preexisting law banning same-sex marriage. In 2022, he also signed legislation requiring student athletes from elementary school through college to compete on teams corresponding to the sex listed on their birth certificates.
Other names reportedly being considered include U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who has had a contentious relationship with LGBTQ issues during her time in Congress. She began as a supporter of LGBTQ rights, becoming one of the few Republicans to publicly support the Respect for Marriage Act, before making a complete about-face as transgender issues became a central part of the Republican Party’s political strategy.
As part of that strategy, Mace introduced a resolution to ban trans women from using female restrooms in the U.S. Capitol, a move she acknowledged was in direct response to the election of U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first out trans person elected to Congress.
In a November 2024 post on X, Mace wrote: “We support gay marriage, and voted for the Respect for Marriage Act twice. However, if you think protecting women is discrimination, you are the problem. We don’t care if you’re trans, if you have balls we don’t want you in the women’s bathroom.”
Two other names being floated are U.S. Rep. Russell Fry, who represents South Carolina’s 7th Congressional District, and U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, who represents the state’s 5th Congressional District.
Trump recommended Graham’s sister, Darline Graham, should serve as the state’s temporary senator in a post on Truth Social on Monday.
“This would be a fabulous tribute to Lindsey, who loved her dearly!” Trump wrote on his social network.
The scramble comes as Republicans hold increasingly narrow majorities over Democrats in both the Senate and House, potentially complicating efforts to advance Trump’s agenda. That agenda includes continuing the war in Iran, securing Todd Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general, and adding $350 billion in defense spending to the SAVE America Act — a controversial proposal deemed a “Jim Crow 2.0” among voting rights advocates.
McMaster is expected to announce Graham’s interim replacement on Monday at 4 p.m.
Mexico’s first openly gay mayor killed
Democrats are trying to disqualify trans candidates. Here’s how
Political drama in Angie Craig’s Minn. Senate race heats up
Suzanne Goode wants efficient spending, better infrastructure for Rehoboth
Aparna Raj expected to become second LGBTQ member of D.C. Council
Ron Singer, owner of popular Mount Vernon gay bar Leon’s, dies
Gay Fla. Democrat Elijah Manley sees opportunity in Trump’s second term
Calendar: July 10-16
Gay librarian to discuss new novel at Green Lantern
