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.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules against Colo. law banning conversion therapy for minors
8-1 decision could have sweeping impact
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a Colorado law that bans so-called conversion therapy for minors.
The justices last October heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar. Today they ruled 8-1 in favor of Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist who challenged the 2019 law.
In the case, which was heard by the justices in October 2025, Chiles successfully argued to the court that the law restricting this type of therapy was unconstitutional, leading to it being struck down.
The Supreme Court ultimately found that lower state and federal courts has “erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny,” ultimately reversing the widely discredited “medical” treatment that has support by a very narrow margin of mental health specialists — specifically religious and socially conservative ones. This is despite the fact that Colorado state officials have never enforced the measure in practice, and included a religious exemption for people “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.” The now moot law carried fines of up to $5,000 for each violation and possible suspension or revocation of a counselor’s license.
In the ruling, the court said the law, that specifically applies to talk therapy “impermissibly” interferes with free speech rights of Americans, and despite it being “regard[ed] its policy as essential to public health and safety, but the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for himself and seven other justices from across the ideological spectrum who overturned the low court’s ruling. He went on to add that the original ban “trains directly on the content of her speech and permits her to express some viewpoints but not others.”
Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, which included an in depth summary of her departure from the other eight justices, explaining her fears about the verdict — and its eventual chilling effect on legislation that could attempts to restrict regulatory speech for religious attitudes— despite that these regulations are often made as a direct creation of years of essentially unanimous research, and are vetted though regulatory boards for specific jobs.
“This decision might make speech-only therapies and other medical treatments involving practitioner speech effectively unregulatable,” Jackson wrote on page 32 of the 35-page opinion issued by court in response to her opposing eight members comments on the bench.
Since the ruling late Tuesday morning, a slew of LGBTQ advocacy groups, as well as groups promoting LGBTQ discrimination, have issued statements on the direct impact this will have across the country for LGBTQ people.
Polly Crozier, director of family advocacy at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), provided a statement to the Washington Blade on the court’s decision.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling limited Colorado’s statute that preemptively shielded minors from conversion therapy, but it leaves open avenues for states to protect families from harmful, unscrupulous, and misleading practices that divide parents from their children and put LGBTQ+ youth at risk,” Crozier wrote, pointing to the overwhelming evidence on conversion therapy that argues this type of regulatory legislation is helping those suffering rather than harming. “The evidence is clear that conversion practices lead to increased anxiety, depression, and suicidality. This is a dangerous practice that has been condemned by every major medical association in the country. Today’s decision does not change the science, and it does not change the fact that conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences, and that family advocates, mental health practitioners, and all of us who care about the wellbeing of youth will continue working to shield LGBTQ+ young people and their families from this dangerous practice.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, who leads the nation’s largest LGBTQ advocacy group, also provided a statement, calling the courts choice a “reckless decision.” The statement also points out how their own data (from the group’s philanthropic arm of the organization) was cited in Brown Jackson’s dissent in the amicus brief.
“The court has weaponized free-speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children,” her statement reads. “So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is pseudoscience, not real therapy. It has been condemned by every mainstream medical and mental health association and harms families, traumatizes children, and robs people of their faith communities. It is cruel and should never be offered under the guise of legitimate mental healthcare. To undermine protections that keep kids and families safe from these abusive practices is shocking — and our children deserve better.”
Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit, tax-exempt Christian ministry that uses litigation to promote evangelical Christian values and limit LGBTQ protections, which was designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, was also cited in the court’s amicus brief, but in support of overturning the law.
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s resounding decision in Chiles v. Salazar is a major victory for the integrity of the counseling profession,” Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Council said today. “This ruling ensures the government cannot strip the First Amendment away from licensed counselors and dictate a state-mandated ideology between counselor and client. Talk therapy is speech, and the government has no authority to restrict that speech to just one viewpoint. Counseling bans can now be struck down nationwide so that people can get the counseling they need.”
GLAAD, one of the nation’s oldest non-profit organizations focused on LGBTQ advocacy and cultural change issued a statement pon the verdict, emphasizing what multiple advocate groups have said – this decision will impact an already vulnerable youth population at an elevated high risk.
“The Court once again prioritized malice over best practice medicine,” Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO of GLAAD said in a statement. “In the face of this harmful decision, we need to amplify the voices of survivors of this dangerous and disproven practice, and continue to hold anyone who peddles in this junk science liable.”
Truth Wins Out, an organization that works towards “advancing liberty and democracy through protecting the rights of LGBTQ people and other minorities” called out the court’s majority opinion for its potential for religious extremism and spread of disinformation.
“This ruling is a profound failure of both logic and moral responsibility that confuses ‘free speech’ with ‘false speech’,” Wayne Besen, the Executive Director of Truth Wins Out said in a comment. ” It opens the door for quackery to flourish and allows practitioners of a thoroughly debunked practice to continue harming LGBTQ youth under a thin veneer of legitimacy
Adrian Shanker, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Policy at Health and Human Services under President Biden, who also led LGBTQI+ policy at the agency spoke about the detrimental impact this will have on rules and regulations within the healthcare field that are supposed to be inherently secular by nature.
“No matter what the Supreme Court decided today, it is irrefutable that conversion therapy is harmful to the health and wellbeing of LGBTQI+ youth,” Shanker told the Blade, continuing the Trump Administration’s choice to no longer formally support LGBTQ inclusive policy. “That’s why in the Biden administration we advanced policies to safeguard youth from this harmful practice.”
In an consistently updated document started in 2018 that cites the major harms risks conversion therapy poses to LGBTQ people, the Trevor Project, the leading suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ young people, included that the federal government’s own research proved the practice at best questionable and at worst deadly.
In a 2023 report entitled Moving Beyond Change Efforts: Evidence and Action to Support and Affirm LGBTQI+ Youth, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration stressed that “[sexual orientation and gender identity] change efforts are harmful practices that are never appropriate with LGBTQI+
youth, and efforts are needed to end these practices,” the summary of the fight against conversion therapy in the U.S. reads.
More than 20 states and D.C. banned the widely discredited practice for minors prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Blade last October spoke to conversion therapy survivors after the justices heard oral arguments in the Chiles case.
The White House
Thousands attend ‘No Kings’ protests in D.C.
Protesters demand accountability, defend democracy, and oppose Trump administration
Across all 50 states — and D.C. — more than 8 million people came out nationwide from towns big and small, red and blue, to make their voices heard. That united voice echoed what nearly 20,000 protesters declared in the nation’s capital back in October 2025: the citizens of the U.S. would not sit idly by as President Donald Trump and his administration erode democracy, attempt to restrict human rights, loosens First Amendment protections, and begin wars without congressional approval.
While there were countless differences among the thousands who joined the “No Kings” protests this weekend in the DMV — from creeds and socioeconomic statuses to races, sexualities, and gender identities — there was one thing that united them all during the chilly March 28 weather: a commitment to making their voices heard.
By 10 a.m., the Washington Blade estimated around 200 people had braved bitter winds and temperatures hovering around 40 degrees, with bright sun, to stand along the cherry blossom-adorned streets of Kalorama and Connecticut Avenue. Protesters carried signs large and small from criticizing Trump’s disregard for the “everyman” to handmade signs emphasizing love, calling for the melting of ICE, and addressing issue-specific concerns like ending the wars in Gaza and Iran — both policies propagated by Trump.
While a solid group of D.C. residents came out with babies in strollers and dogs on leashes, the Kalorama protest skewed older with a majority-white crowd.
On the other side of town, the more heavily attended protest in Anacostia started at 1:30 p.m., crossing the Frederick Douglass Bridge.
MS Now estimates that over 20,000 people marched across the bridge, sending a clear message to the president, his administration, and the Republican-controlled federal government: federal overreach is not what the majority of Americans want to see, hear, or witness as protesters in the thousands came out for, as organizers say “the single largest non-violent day of action” in American history.
The two marches on Saturday differed in both theme and location — the Kalorama protest felt like a small-town demonstration in a big city, covering a wide variety of topics, whereas the Anacostia protest was more focused, directly calling out and pushing back against the actions of Stephen Miller (the White House chief of staff)and other Trump allies.
Many participants shared their reasons for marching with glee — shouting as cars honked in support passing by and discussing the broader issues within the current political climate with those standing next to them: some neighbors, some friends, others complete strangers. Regardless, an important discussion was happening across the city.
A surprise to many participants — and the Blade reporter covering the event — was seeing U.S. Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) stand outside in near-freezing temperatures with her staff and some signs.
Jacobs used the exclusive — and more intimate — ability to speak on her experience watching everything unfold from inside the halls of Congress.
“We had votes until midnight last night, so I couldn’t make it back to San Diego for the march, but it’s important to show up and cheer on people standing up and making their voices heard,” Jacobs said. “This is just the start. We need to make our voices heard every day through the end of the year.”
Jacobs also used the opportunity to criticize congressional inaction from those on the other side of the aisle, reminding the Blade that a legislator’s job is to protect and secure the people they represent — not the interests of a wannabe king or corporations that back many congressional campaigns through PACs.
“It makes me angry at my Republican colleagues who won’t stand up to Trump. Actions like this inject courage into my colleagues — they need to see that the American people have their back,” she added, eventually emphasizing the public responsibility lawmakers have to protect the Constitution and everyone in the country (which the Supreme Court had pointed out as far back as 1886 with Yick Wo v. Hopkins). “Congress is not going to save people. This is about everyone showing up and making our voices heard and building the democracy we want.”
Ashley Gould, a tourist visiting from Missouri, told the Blade that despite Washington being seen as one of the most politically active towns in the country, over the past few years, she and many other politically active Missourians have been preparing for this moment and were zealous to have their voices heard together as one.
“I’m actually visiting my sister from Missouri, and we’ve been doing this since the first No Kings protest [there]. I wanted to see how you guys did it here,” she said. “As someone in a red state, we’re not represented in Congress right now, so I don’t personally have a say in any of this. If I can do one small thing, I want kids in our town to see me trying to make a difference, get petitions signed. This is all we have.”
Gould continued, “I don’t know if it’s going to cause an impact for elected officials, but I hope that little kid who sees us with the posters sees that we do have a voice—and maybe one day they can, if they can’t right now.”
Gary Bowman, another early protest-goer, held a sign that pointed out the obscurity — and unconstitutional nature — of the current administration’s actions.
“I hate the direction the country is going in, and Donald Trump is not fit to be in office,” Bowman said, adding that his choice of sign exemplified that. “It’s obvious based on his policies — his attacks on the trans and LGBTQ communities — that he’s trying to suppress people. And the Republican Congress isn’t helping.”
When asked how the phrase “No Kings” resonates with him, especially since this is the third one held in two years, Bowman said it may be catchy for headlines or help inspire creative signs (like Trump on a golden throne or toilet), but the march and protest are about something much more important.
“‘No Kings’ is a catchphrase for me; I’m more concerned about losing our democracy. We, the people, have a voice we should use,” he said, elaborating on how this administration’s course of action disregards rules designed to prevent an authoritarian — or wannabe-authoritarian — from taking power. “I don’t think Trump is overstepping … I think he’s shattering democratic norms. He wants to do what’s right for Donald Trump, not for anyone else.”
He concluded bluntly that unless everyone — including Republicans in power — stand up to the president for these ludicrous choices, change won’t happen, regardless of how loud he or any other Trump critics scream at protests.
“Until we have a Congress that would actually look at protests and take action, it won’t matter. He’ll just get pissed off and act against them,” Bowman said.
When asked what he could say to those in charge, he finished strongly: “If I could say one thing to him? Fuck off, Donald Trump.”
Jameson Woosley and Elena Lacayo were standing on the corner of Kalorama Road, holding their baby tight as pink cherry blossom trees swayed behind them, as if to cheer on the protesters.
“It’s the degradation of democracy. Every day there’s an overreach by the executive branch, and Congress just sits on their hands,” Woosley said, standing side by side with Lacayo.
“It’s terrifying for my baby. This administration has turned people who’ve done nothing wrong into criminals — it’s Orwellian. Up is down, war is peace,” Lacayo noted. “I was raised in another country with authoritarians… I’m a citizen here, and I’m going to use every right I have to advocate for those who can’t.”
Lacayo then spoke about how, for many, direct protests against government action (and inaction) are the only choice — especially under a supermajority federal government with the White House, Supreme Court, and both chambers of Congress.
“We have no choice but to believe change can come. This is what we can do. We must continue fighting; that’s what the human spirit is about,” she said.
Woosley emphasized the growing impact of the protests, saying, “Every protest gets bigger, and opinion polls keep swinging in the right direction … We need to speak up and get all the right people out to bring positive change.”
“These people are nothing without us,” Lacayo added.
Beth Davis, a former resident of Kalorama, shared with the Blade that this place holds special meaning for her — and her children — which is in part why she chose this one over the larger protest in Anacostia.
“I used to live in the neighborhood, so this is special for me. It’s easy to bring the kids and let them be part of the movement,” Davis said, as her elementary-aged children ran around the manicured grass while bundled up, enjoying the lively atmosphere.
“What’s happening to immigrant communities is horrific, and I want to show solidarity. Also, the Iran war — it’s terrifying what’s happening,” she added before explaining what the “No Kings” name actually means to her. “’No Kings’ makes me think of the extreme grab for power — it’s unprecedented.”
Davis then noted the importance of protesting when it seems like the main goal is often to iisolate : “Coming to protests makes people feel like they’re not alone, and that momentum carries into elections,” she explained, noting why she not only brought her two children to this protest—and many others in the past as well– but uses these as real world teaching moments. “We bring kids to teach them their civic responsibilities. My oldest has been to about ten protests.”
Another remarkable aspect of D.C. protests is the diversity of participants. Teachers, retail workers, students, and even some congresspeople turned out. In Kalorama on Saturday, the No Kings protest brought out Anne Plant, a biochemist and fellow at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where she was previously chief of the Biosystems and Biomaterials Division.
Plant focused on many issues when speaking to the Blade, but started with what many consider the most important: Trump-era policies making civic engagement more difficult, particularly regarding civil rights.
“A lot of things are going wrong, and the only way to change them is for people to act. D.C. has no statehood, no vote — it’s a civil rights issue,” Plant said. “To deny the vote to any group of U.S. citizens doesn’t make sense. These people work for us; we should be able to hold them accountable.”
She held a small, hand-painted sign with two cohesive messages: “Reject Fascism. Defend democracy.”
“Some of what’s going on now is not healthy for society. No one will benefit; it’s just ruination,” Plant concluded. “Seeing more people out here shows that others feel the same, and momentum is what it takes to move things.”
Religious activists also joined the marches. Sister Diane and Sister Claire, two Catholic nuns, were out protesting Trump and his agenda.
“We’re sisters, Catholics in support of LGBTQ rights. I work with immigrants, and we wanted to stand in solidarity,” Sister Diane said.
Sister Claire reflected on the era the U.S. is in now: “It’s so disturbing. I’m almost glad my folks aren’t alive anymore for all they cared about. It’s heartbreaking, but we need something for the future.”
John Jones, another attendee teeming with energy and anger against the regime, captured the urgency of the moment succinctly.
“We’ve got to do something. I needed to be part of the community and let them know we’re tired of all the madness,” Jones told the Blade before detailing specific atrocities by the Trump-Vance administration.
“Rounding up legal people who follow the rules — throwing them away just because he’s racist, or his friends tell him to be racist. Helping pay for a war, bombing Gaza, killing people for no reason, manipulating the stock market for personal gain. It’s crazy,” he said, still holding out hope that small acts — like the protest gathering — show everyday Americans they have power, advocating for even more people to come out for the next No Kings protest.
“I hope protests can spark change. I won’t hold my breath, but the more people out here, the more they [in power] seem to be listening.”
Patty Bowring, who had moved with her family from the United Kingdom to join her husband in D.C. for his career, is set to return soon due to immigration restrictions. She, her children, and her mother came out to protest because she believes it is just as important for non-citizens to have the right to both protest and exist in a country founded and enriched by immigrant and enslaved labor.
“Even though we’re British, we’re leaving America in two months because of the administration. But this affects everybody — it’s hugely dangerous and worrying,” Bowring said.
Despite the somber mood, she kept a smile and joked: “I hope it’s the death of dinosaurs and that nothing more radical comes next. I want them to be happy,” also pointing out that the mixed messages at the protest could dilute impact. “Protests need a clearer message. ‘Anti-fascist’ should be the focus; too many other messages muddy things.”
Finally, John Norrin highlighted the continuity of civic engagement, informing the Blade that this protest — albeit a smaller version — happens every week on the corner.
“I’m here with friends, looking for more,” Norrin said. “There’s a regular protest every Thursday morning, and I’m going to start joining … The kings today are mostly figureheads, but we also have dictators not called kings who act like one. We have an elected representative trying to be a king.”
He, much like others around him — even with Jacobs standing mere feet away — criticized Congress’ inaction.
“Congress is understepping. They should assert their rights under Article One — declare war, impose tariffs — but they’re too afraid to follow their oath,” Norrin said, eventually shifting to a note of hope. “If at least 3.5 percent of the populace regularly protests, there’s a good possibility for change. I hope that happens here. Some friends will go to Connecticut to join larger groups. I had to figure out which protest in D.C. to join—it took a while.”
Ghana
Ghanaian president welcomed to Philadelphia amid backlash over anti-LGBTQ bill
Lincoln University cancelled event with John Mahama
Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama, known for making anti-LGBTQ legislative promises, was scheduled to appear at two local colleges this week — but plans have changed. Although Mahama will still attend a community dialogue at Temple University, he will no longer be honored at Lincoln University — a Chester County HBCU. He will, however, be presented with an award by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. The cancellation of the Lincoln event came shortly after LGBTQ activists spoke out about his appearances.
“Due to unforeseen circumstances, the university is cancelling the visit from President John Dramani Mahama,” Athena Griffith-Howard, associate vice president of marketing and communications at Lincoln University, told PGN.
According to a press release about the scheduled event, Mahama was set to receive an honorary doctorate from Lincoln University on Thursday, March 26, “in recognition of his outstanding contributions to public service, democratic governance, peaceful international and inter-African relationships, and global advocacy for justice, equality, and education.”
Although Griffith-Howard did not respond to additional questions about the matter, Joy News — an independent news organization that markets itself as the “most credible” journalism in Ghana — reports that the university has rescinded his honorary degree and cancelled the visit due to Mahama’s anti-LGBTQ stance.
“It is both surprising and regrettable that, just hours ago, the Embassy received a communication from the university indicating that concerns had been raised by a group regarding President Mahama’s perceived position on Ghana’s Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill,” a statement released by the Ghana Embassy on March 24 reads.
Mahama has repeatedly vowed to sign the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill into law if it passes out of parliament. He has also made statements against queer and transgender people.
“The position of my government [is that] marriage is between a man and a woman. A person’s gender is determined at birth. And then also, that the family is the foundation of our nation. That is our position,” Mahama said in a speech on Nov. 18, 2025.
Intimacy laws — which criminalize LGBTQ sex and the use of sex toys — already hold a three-year prison sentence under Ghana law, stemming from legal frameworks that previously governed the country when it was controlled by the British government. Ghana became the first African country to gain independence from European colonization in 1957 — but rather than repeal the antiquated law, leaders chose to incorporate it into their own penal code in 1960. The country’s supreme court upheld the law in 2024.
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill — often simply referred to as “the anti-LGBTQ+ bill” — would further criminalize LGBTQ people and expression and add new risks for allyship. If passed, the punishment for intimacy violations would increase to a possible five-year prison sentence. LGBTQ people could also be punished for simply identifying as LGBTQ with a new three-year prison sentence.
The proposal would also ban LGBTQ serving organizations, even those that only partly serve LGBTQ people. Violations would include up to five years in prison. Allies could face 10 years in prison for supporting LGBTQ people or promoting LGBTQ rights online, in newspapers, or through other verbal or written communications. Journalists who report on LGBTQ topics are also at risk.
The bill would force families and community members to report those found in violation of the statute to local law enforcement.
“If the parliament of the people of Ghana endorse the bill and vote on it and pass it and it comes to me as president, I will sign it,” Mahama said during his November speech.
Since the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill was introduced in 2021, LGBTQ Ghanaians and allies have experienced widespread discrimination and physical violence — including harassment and arrests, raids on LGBTQ centers (which have led to at least one closure), as well as a hostile media landscape. When the bill was first passed by parliament in 2024, anti-LGBTQ incidents more than doubled.
The proposal was not signed into law by the former President Nana Akufo-Addo, who characterized the proposal as a backsliding of human rights. At the time, Ghana’s finance ministry also warned that signing the bill would place several billions of dollars in funding in jeopardy as a similar anti-LGBTQ bill in Uganda led the World Bank to suspend new funding to that country.
This threat would be especially difficult for Ghana to bear given recent funding cuts made by the Trump administration, which have been especially problematic for some African countries.
Ghana previously relied on USAID funding for social programs and health services, but Trump’s funding cuts led to a $156 million loss — including approximately $78 million that previously funded malaria prevention, maternal and child health, family planning, reproductive health, nutrition, and the fight against HIV/AIDS.
Despite the funding cuts, anti-LGBTQ leaders — including those in Ghana — have been emboldened and empowered by the Trump administration’s own anti-LGBTQ efforts, citing that they no longer fear economic sanctions if their own anti-LGBTQ bill passes.
According to activists, Mahama urged parliament to reintroduce the bill after he took office in January 2025 — around the same time Trump began issuing executive orders, which have negatively impacted LGBTQ Americans.
Mahama is currently in the U.S. to lead a delegation at the United Nations to advocate for reparatory justice for the Transatlantic Slave Trade. He will present a landmark resolution to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on March 25 — seeking a formal declaration of the Transatlantic Slave Trade as a crime against humanity. The visit also includes a wreath-laying ceremony to honor the lives of enslaved Africans who perished in the U.S.
LGBTQ rights advocates keenly understand the importance of holding the U.S. accountable as direct drivers of the Transatlantic Slave Trade and for the atrocities that occurred to African people on American soil as the country built its economic and social power off of their oppression.
In a press release about Mahama’s visit to Philadelphia, a growing coalition of Philadelphia’s LGBTQ and allied leaders — including Philly Pride 365, GALAEI and ACT UP Philadelphia — called the invitation to speak at Temple University “even more concerning” given the human rights focus of the delegation.
“You cannot come to a global stage calling for justice, repair and recognition of historical harm while simultaneously supporting or advancing policies that criminalize and endanger another marginalized group,” said Tyrell Brown of Philly Pride 365 in the joint statement. “That contradiction is not just political. It reflects a fundamental failure to understand intersectionality and the interconnected nature of oppression.”
“Justice is not selective. Human rights are not conditional,” Brown continued. “If we are serious about repair, it must extend to all people — especially those currently being targeted by state-sanctioned harm.”
There is a colonialist link between the continued oppression of LGBTQ Africans with harmful rhetoric and money coming from the U.S. At least 20 US-based conservative Christian groups, which have spent over $54 million since 2007 on anti-LGBTQ efforts in Africa, are linked to anti-LGBTQ bills and laws across the continent.
“We support the reparations resolution. The argument it rests on is morally sound,” reads a press release issued by JustRight Ghana — a Ghana-based human rights organization. “The transatlantic slave trade classified human beings as property based on what they were born as. It said that certain categories of people, by virtue of their birth, had no rights, no dignity, and no protection from the power of the state.”
“That is the same logic that runs through every clause of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2025. Section 3 says that being born with a particular sexual orientation makes you a criminal,” the press release goes on to state. “The moral architecture is identical. The only thing that has changed is who the target is.”
The World Affairs Council of Philadelphia still intends to present Mahama with its International Statesperson Award on March 27.
A blurb about the award on the institution’s website reads, “The International Statesperson Award of the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia is the highest honor the Council bestows — a tribute for global leadership. It is presented periodically and awarded to distinguished international figures and world leaders whose work has advanced the twin goals of peace and freedom and resulted in a significant positive impact on world affairs.”
Mahama is also still invited to participate in a community dialogue event that will be held at Temple University on the evening of March 26. The event is advertised as celebrating Ghanaian music and artistic culture, comedy, and heritage — featuring celebratory performances as well as a dialogue with Mahama and other national leaders.
“Attendees will have the opportunity to hear firsthand from the president on Ghana’s vision and emerging opportunities, engage in conversations that help shape diaspora partnerships, and explore business, investment, and cultural collaboration opportunities,” reads an Instagram post about the event. “The evening also marks a historic moment as part of the president’s first official visit to Philadelphia.”
The event was planned before Lincoln University canceled its conferment and according to a press release, Mahama intends to convene with people of the Ghanaian diaspora during the Temple University visit.
“This conversation reflects something bigger than a single event,” reads an Instagram post published by Temple University Black Alumni Alliance about the event. “It represents connection across the diaspora, leadership across borders, and the importance of creating spaces where global perspectives and lived experiences can meet.”
In response to PGN’s request for comments and answers to questions, Steve Orbanek, Temple University’s executive director of communications and media relations, emailed the following statement:
“Temple University unequivocally opposes the exclusion of or discrimination against members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Temple takes pride in providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for all students, faculty, staff, alumni, neighbors and friends regardless of their race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation or identity.
“President Mahama will be in the United States to attend the United Nations General Assembly during the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The US-Ghana Chamber of Commerce invited him to participate in a community event and approached Temple about using a venue on campus.
“As a public university, Temple regularly provides space for speakers as part of our ongoing commitment to academic inquiry, open dialogue and public service. We have made venues available for third-party organizations, including political parties or campaigns, regardless of their political viewpoint or stance. The presence of any speaker on campus is not an endorsement by Temple University of the speaker or their views.
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill that has been recently reintroduced in Ghana’s Parliament is deeply troubling and runs counter to the mission and values of Temple University. Temple’s strength is its people, and every member of our community adds to the cultural richness of our institution. We are committed to cultivating an educational environment founded on respect, open-mindedness, and the appreciation of others.”
The Philadelphia coalition of LGBTQ leaders rejects the idea that hosting a speaker does not reflect the views of the host institution and underlined that platforming political leaders with ties to problematic policies still produces harm.
“Providing a platform to a leader advancing policies that endanger LGBTQ lives and undermine HIV prevention is deeply irresponsible. Institutions of higher education should not normalize or legitimize harm under the guise of dialogue,” said Sam Sitrin of ACT UP Philadelphia in the joint statement.
“Universities should be spaces that uphold human rights and evidence-based public health,” added Jose Demarco of ACT UP Philadelphia. “Hosting leaders associated with policies that criminalize LGBTQ people and undermine HIV prevention sends the wrong message at a time when lives are at stake.”
Temple’s Center for Anti-Racism — an initiative of Temple’s Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, Advocacy, and Leadership (IDEAL) — which is promoted on flyers and social media as hosting the event, has not responded to PGN’s questions or requests for comments. The event, which was previously included on the university’s events listings, is no longer visible but has not been canceled as of Wednesday, March 25. It is unclear if the university is taking any steps to protect or uplift LGBTQ students during the event.
The Philadelphia coalition of LGBTQ leaders called the decision to host the event in light of the local community’s response “harmful and careless.” They also raised concerns about Temple University’s process to repair wounds and are pressuring Temple to cancel the event and formally apologize to Philadelphia’s LGBTQ community.
“According to organizers, the university had knowledge of the concerns surrounding President Mahama’s [anti-LGBTQ] record as early as Thursday [March 19] but did not conduct meaningful outreach to community partners, nonprofits, or local leaders most impacted by the issue,” the coalition’s press release reads.
“When institutions fail to proactively engage communities on issues of this magnitude, it reveals a disconnect between stated values and actual practice.”
Coalition members joined additional Philadelphia-based leaders in sending a letter to Temple University’s IDEAL initiative and Center for Anti-Racism — noting their concern for the event but also openness to dialoguing directly with the event’s organizers to seek intentionality and transparency.
“This is not an abstract policy discussion. It is about the safety, dignity, and survival of LGBTQ people globally. For many in our communities, including African and Caribbean diaspora members here in Philadelphia, these policies have direct emotional, familial, and cultural impact,” the letter reads. “Hosting this dialogue without intentional accountability risks legitimizing rhetoric and policies that endanger lives.”
Those who signed the letter described themselves as leaders who are Black and Brown, LGBTQ, representatives of HIV/AIDS organizations, and individuals working in government, civil society and DEI spheres in Philadelphia. They include activists of ACT UP Philadelphia, representatives from SMUG International and Bebashi, Ronda Goldfein of the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania, Jacen Bowman of Philadelphia Black Pride, Andre Ford of The COLOURS Organization, Sappho Fulton of Womxn Beyond Borders, Hazel Edwards of GALAEI, Simon Trowell of Mazzoni Center, José Benitez of Philadelphia FIGHT, Tyrell Brown of Philly Pride 365, Darius McLean of William Way LGBT Community Center, state Rep. Andre Carroll, state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, Philadelphia Councilmember Kendra Brooks, and Philadelphia Councilmember Rue Landau.
They underline that proceeding without addressing concerns would risk harm to the very students and communities IDEAL purports to support.
“As Black and Brown and African LGBTQ leaders, with the support of our allies, we are requesting that the organizers of this event include questions about this truly dangerous legislation and highlight the real world impact on Ghanaian LGBTQ people, their families and their communities,” the letter insists. “Though we believe in autonomy for all nations, and that Americans should not dictate the policy of other nations, we also believe that these deadly policies should not go unquestioned or unchallenged, especially since this event is sponsored by IDEAL, which has a strong commitment to the BIPOC, LGBTQ, and Ghanaian students at Temple.”
They underlined that questions about the matter should come directly from the event’s organizers rather than become the responsibility of the community during a Q&A. The signed leaders hope to receive a response by Wednesday evening — and PGN will follow up with continued reporting when more information about the university and community’s plans are known.
“Silence, in this moment, is not neutrality: it is complicity,” the letter emphasizes.
Senegalese president signs bill that further criminalizes homosexuality
Md. lawmakers reaffirm legislative priorities
Supreme Court rules against Colo. law banning conversion therapy for minors
Thousands attend ‘No Kings’ protests in D.C.
Blade contributor, husband exchange vows in D.C.
Celebrate cherry blossoms the drag way
Lorato ke Lorato: marriage equality, democracy, and the unfinished work of justice in Botswana
Japanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
The outrage economy is not the LGBTQ community
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
-
Out & About4 days agoCelebrate cherry blossoms the drag way
-
Botswana4 days ago
Lorato ke Lorato: marriage equality, democracy, and the unfinished work of justice in Botswana
-
Japan4 days ago
Japanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
-
Opinions4 days ago
The outrage economy is not the LGBTQ community
