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.”
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.
The White House
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.
President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.
While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.
“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.
“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”
His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.
White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.
Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”
He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.
The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.
Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.
His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.
Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.
National
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”
The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.”
This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.
As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.”
Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation.
By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents.
With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”
This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions.
While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933.
In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare.
Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people.
The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.
The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.”
As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.”
In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.
Blade contributor, husband exchange vows in D.C.
Ghanaian president welcomed to Philadelphia amid backlash over anti-LGBTQ bill
PHOTOS: ‘No Kings’ rally and march
‘Out for McDuffie’ event held at D.C. gay bar
‘Jonah’ an undeniably compelling but unusual memory play
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
DeSantis signs emergency bill that restores Fla. ADAP funding
Introducing the Torchbearers Awards honoring queer, trans women and nonbinary people
New IOC policy bans trans women from Olympics
A surtax would end this war quickly
-
Pennsylvania4 days agoPa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
-
Florida5 days ago
DeSantis signs emergency bill that restores Fla. ADAP funding
-
a&e features4 days ago
Introducing the Torchbearers Awards honoring queer, trans women and nonbinary people
-
Sports4 days ago
New IOC policy bans trans women from Olympics
