National
Andrew Sullivan doesn’t care what you think
Gay commentator talks new book, state of LGBTQ movement
Andrew Sullivan, the gay conservative commentator known for his early advocacy of same-sex marriage and, more recently, for being a Trump critic, talked to the Washington Blade upon publication of his new book, “Out on a Limb.”
Among the wide-ranging topics he addressed: the AIDS movement’s place in the larger LGBTQ movement; the role of the LGBTQ community in cancel culture; the future for gay men in Afghanistan; and gay men’s attention to fitness and the new role for gyms.
The full interview, which took place by phone on Sept. 13, follows:
Washington Blade: “Out on a Limb” is a collection of your writings, from the past 30 years. Can you tell me a little bit about what the process was for selecting which of those writings should go in this book, and in looking back at them if anything jumped out at you?
Andrew Sullivan: Oh, it was a nightmare process because I’ve written ridiculous amounts of words over the 32 years. And I couldn’t have done it without help from interns and friends, and especially my colleague Chris Bodenner, who trolled through a lot. And I don’t like reading my own pieces after they’ve been published. I don’t know I have a writer’s allergy to it. So I have to say it was kind of agonizing to go through everything all over again. And then last summer I just went through with a couple of other people just try to get some objective take on it because you’re far too close to make it your own, so it took a long time to sort out which was which, and we had to throw out a lot. But in the end I tried to make it so that there are pieces from almost every single year, so it spans, evenly the period that has a multiplicity of topics. And the ones that I think I’m sort of proudest of or that help portray exactly where I’m coming from.
And one of the frustrations of living in the Twitter world is that you can get defined by one sentence you wrote, 25 years ago, and they just hammer that on you and it’s hard for you to show that your work is actually different than that. You’re not the caricature. And so, One way to do that is just simply publish your work and have people look at it and make up their own minds.
Blade: Right. Well, looking at the book and looking at some of the early essays — I mean I’m an avid reader of your column in recent years, but some of the stuff is written before that when I was much younger. One that really jumped out at me was the prevalence of the AIDS epidemic, and its impact on the gay community in the the height of the epidemic in the in the 80s in the in the early 90s. I’d like to ask you to kind of bring that to the present, like, how do you think our approach to the coronavirus compares to our approach to HIV/AIDS back then?
Sullivan: I think one of the things you notice is that there are many similar themes in all sorts of different plagues through history. There’s denial that it’s happening, there are crackpot theories about what’s going on. It tends to divide people who have the virus from people who don’t have the virus. It creates a sense of anxiety, obviously. In all those things, it’s quite similar and often the government bureaucracy is also lumbering. It’s also true that in this case, as with HIV in the end, it was the pharmaceutical companies that gave us the real breakthroughs to actually manage it.
So, more similar in many ways than you might think, but obviously, the differences are huge too and as much as HIV was concentrated so much in a small and separate — in some ways — community and its fatality rate was for a long time, not point-one percent, but 100 percent. It killed everyone, and also it was so selective in its killing that other people could avoid it, or not even notice it or have it be going on around them without even seeing it. And so obviously, it was — for my generation — it was a defining event, quite obviously and I think it’s immeshment with the rebirth of the gay rights movement in the 1990s is absolutely part of the story. I really don’t believe that you could tell the story of gay civil rights in the 90s and 2000s without telling the story of AIDS. I don’t think it would have happened the same way or even at all without that epidemic.
And you know, those early pieces written about in New York and Washington in the 1990s or thereafter are pretty brutal. I mean, I tried to convey what it really was like. I mean, one thing I try and tell kids today is that, imagine the current Blade, which is not as thick or as big as the old Blade, but the Blade you had would be just about enough to contain the weekly obits that used to run each week. And I don’t think those who didn’t live through that will ever understand that. But I hope maybe, with some of the essays in this book, they’ll see a little bit more about what we went through and how we managed to construct arguments for equality in the middle of really staggering loss and pain and fear.
Blade: And yeah, I’ve looked through some of our archival material and definitely the obituaries were a key component if not almost the center of the Washington Blade throughout the AIDS epidemic.
Sullivan: They were. And you know because we were much a closer community then, because this was before apps, this was before social acceptance. We tended to know everyone, because we met and socialized in the bars and clubs and in the gyms and the parks, and so it was terrifying how many of the faces that you saw in those obits you knew, even if you didn’t know them as friends, as many of us did, you knew them as faces in the bar, and to watch them all be struck down in such numbers was obviously a formative event for all of us, those of us who were, where I am, which is I’m late 50s now, we really experienced something unique. Many of the people we experienced it with are gone. And I think there’s often a sense of incomprehension that the younger generation really doesn’t understand what happened, and worse, really doesn’t care.
Blade: Really doesn’t care? I mean, that’s a very strong statement. What are you basing that on?
Sullivan: The lack of any discussion of it, any memory of it, anyone under the age of 30 ever asking me, or anyone who lived through it, what it was like. I mean, you tell me where the memory of it is held. Am I missing something?
Blade: The memory, if you’re speaking of just public discussion, even within the gay community, I think it is very faded.
Sullivan: It’s almost as if it didn’t happen. This is quite common, you know, with plagues, too. Like the 1918 plague was disappeared in the memory hole, very quickly.
But this was such a traumatizing event for so many of us. Now, the truth is, most other communities have children, and they tell their children and that’s how the memories — for example the Holocaust or even the Vietnam War and other things — are perpetuated. We have no — by and large we don’t have kids and we don’t tell them those stories. And so each generation is afresh and they do see it as something that happened. I don’t think they’re not aware of it, but it’s certainly not something that’s a particular interest, I think, to most young gay men.
Blade: It’s certainly very sobering to read those essays in the book that depict what’s going on at the height of the AIDS epidemic at that time.
Sullivan: I obviously tried to air some internal laundry, as it were. I tried to talk about things that other people didn’t want to talk about, and of course that got me into trouble. But I think the essays stand up.
Blade: I feel almost awkward asking you this next question because it has very much to do with talking about the present of what’s happening in the in the gay rights movement, but you did bring up civil rights — how that animated the gay movement in the 90s in the early days, and now the situation with the Human Rights Campaign president being terminated after being ensnared in the report on the Cuomo affair, and a public dispute with the board. I want to ask you how representative do you think that situation is of the LGBTQ movement?
Sullivan: Well I would say this: I do think it’s simply a fact that the core civil rights ambitions of all of us have been realized. It’s almost entirely done. These groups are desperately searching for things to do. But since gay people and transgender people are now protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is as a strong a protection as you can get, and since we can marry one another anywhere in the country and since we can serve our country in the military, they’ve really not got much left. So of course, they start entering into different areas like the issue of race, or the issue of gender or sexual harassment. And this is just a desperate attempt to stay relevant in some way. There’s no reason for them, I don’t think, to really function the way they functioned before. The movement is done, and I think a lot of people understand that, which is why maybe one of the underlying reasons why Mr. David disappeared is because membership income has plummeted, as I understand it.
And also, I think this is a sense in which the current mainstream — what I would call the alphabet movement people, the LGBTQRSTVWXYZ people — they don’t represent most gay men and women, and lesbians or even, I don’t think, a lot of trans people. And I think it’s certainly not a gay rights movement at this point. I think gay men are a complete afterthought. So, I just think it’s a function of — it’s the price of success is catastrophic success. Let’s put it that way. And you know, once you’ve achieved your things, you should shut down and move on. And they have to keep inventing and creating new senses of crisis of massive discrimination or huge waves of alleged trans genocide resources. This is all completely fanciful, and not related to actual reality, and those of us who actually went through some serious shit can see what is unserious about this.
Blade: I think a lot of our readers are probably going to point out these transgender women are being forced into these dangerous situations to make a living and because of that they are suffering violence.
Sullivan: Yes. That is true and awful, obviously. But is it an epidemic? No. Is the murder rate higher for that group and other groups in society? So far as we can analyze that, no.
I don’t know what the solution is to the other thing, and how do we help trans people not be forced into those horribly dangerous situations. That’s what we should definitely consider — how we as a community could help avoid that. But I don’t see what an organization is going to do about it except raise money off it.
Blade: What if we’ve experienced catastrophic success as you say in the moment, I was going ask you what qualities we should be looking for in the next Human Rights Campaign president, but maybe —
Sullivan: I don’t think there should be one. I think somebody will wind it down is what I would hope for. I know that’s going to get people nuts, going to send people nuts, but no, what are their goals now, what are they really fighting for? What measures do they want us to pass? That’s what I want to know, except for this Equality Act, which most of which has already been done. I mean, we were told in the 80s that they wanted to have this ENDA. I mean, it’s been going on forever. And we were told in the 90s we should put off marriage equality. Remember, HRC was against it for the first 10 years on the grounds it would upset the Democrats and the Clintons. We should wait, because only the employment discrimination issue really matters, and here we are 30 years later and they’re still pushing the same bill except it doesn’t have anything else in it because most of it’s already been done by the Supreme Court. So, it has to turn itself into an organization that’s supporting, for example, a group like Black trans people, and again, the question is, what does that mean, supporting them? What does it mean? I don’t know what it means, except their ability to raise money.
Blade: That kind of brings me to the next question: I know you’ve said many times that the gay rights movement is over, but what about the —
Sullivan: It’s not over as such, I mean obviously we have to be vigilant about the gains we’ve made and we have to be clear that we rebut lies. There’s still work to be done within our own community to each other. So I don’t mean that’s over, but the idea that we are trying to advance core civil rights, we have got them. You’ve got to learn to take “yes” for an answer.
Blade: The question I want to pose, if that is the case that we have our core civil rights, what about the gay press? Do you think there’s still a role for the gay press or are you just simply humoring me by doing this interview?
Sullivan: No, obviously. There’s press for almost every community in the world, and so absolutely, yes. There are issues that come up, all sorts of questions that we have to discuss from our businesses, to our clubs, to our bars to our culture. I mean, for example, we need coverage of the meth epidemic that is, in my view by far, the biggest crisis facing gay men right now, and which you almost never hear discussed in the gay press or in the gay rights organizations. And yet, that is, I fear, a huge crisis for us, killing God knows how many men. And the gay press has a role in bringing that to light, and opening a discussion of that and helping us find solutions to that. So, there always will be a need for a gay press.
Blade: And in some ways, for the gay press I would say that that makes things, there’s advantages and disadvantages to that. Advantages in that it’s a well-defined niche and disadvantages in the fact that it has to compete more with mainstream publications.
Sullivan: Yes. You didn’t use to. I mean, you used to be the only place to get any bloody news about the gay community, now you can’t get through the pages of the New York Times without being told something new about some part of our world, excessively so I might think. Come on, it gets kind of crazy at times.
Blade: Is there an example of something you think was crazy that you saw recently?
Sullivan: Well I think you know the way the New York Times covered Pride for weeks on end. I mean, at some point, you’re just like enough already.
Blade: I want to talk about Afghanistan, I was reading one of your recent columns before you went on vacation, about the rightness of that war finally coming to an end because it was — I think you call it the most pointless war that America has ever fought. That’s not the exact quote, but something along those lines. And in that column, you do acknowledge there are situations that this withdrawal has had an impact on. You go through a list, and one of them is gay men who would be executed in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. So, if you welcome this withdrawal, what about the consequences for a gay man in Afghanistan?
Sullivan: It’s horrifying. And in my view, we should be doing better at focusing on the gay people who are truly oppressed in the world, and they’re in brutal regimes, often with no political rights, not just in Eastern Europe, Poland, the Middle East and Africa. These are people gay people who are really, really up against the wall in many places. And I think we need to be very aggressive in helping many of them who are really beleaguered get asylum. I was on the board of Immigration Equality for quite a long time. And I’m very proud of the work Immigration Equality does on the asylum question, but I think we’ve learned we can’t occupy half the world to try and defend gay rights. It’s a wildly impractical move. We can highlight their plight, we can help some escape, but we can’t occupy the world and make it better for gay people, I’m afraid.
We have made enormous progress, but you only have to think about what’s happening in Poland or Hungary, or the Muslim world, or Afghanistan or Iran or even places obviously in Africa to to see we have a huge amount of work to do, and I wish you would focus on them now and be a beacon for them and to help them but I don’t think you do that by force of arms. … There are limits to what we can do and there were terrible consequences for overreaching those limits.
Blade: You said there is work to be done to help these people and you mentioned asylum as being one option, but is that all there is? What will this work look like?
Sullivan: Well I think we can help fund groups and organizations. I think people in this country will be happy to help, I certainly think it would be worth helping more than it would be sending money to the Human Rights Campaign. So, yes, I think I mean different ways you can — you can support Immigration Equality, for example, which does the legal work for asylum cases. Incredibly important. Wins almost every single one. Reach out to people who are in those places and communicate with them and support them. There are groups that help with money and help with just morale.
Blade: Speaking more generally about the concept of American intervention overseas to advance democracy, you’ve gone through a transformation on your view. You’ve talked quite a bit about your regret for supporting for the Iraq war. Was there a pivotal moment for you when you changed your view on this, or was it something that was more of a gradual evolution?
Sullivan: It wasn’t that gradual because the evidence of the failure of the war was almost immediate. So it did happen quite quickly, but for me, obviously the emergence that we were torturing prisoners was a complete deal breaker for me that many of us supported foolishly but with good intentions, we wanted to prevent and stop this murderous monster, Saddam, from torturing and killing people. And when we tried to remove him, ended up torturing people, you have a classic irony, and one that we have to repudiate …
One of the things that I do, when I think about the gay stuff is that — I don’t want to toot my own horn — but in the 90s, there was a handful of us supporting marriage equality. And these pieces in the book are the key building blocks of the argument in the 90s, and I think there is something of value in the history of seeing how we crafted those arguments, how we made a liberal argument, how we brought in conservatives, how we talked openly and debated openly with our opponents.
I mean, I did an anthology that included all the views against marriage equality. I did my own pieces but I also published Maggie Gallagher and Bill Bennett, for example. And I think that’s, that’s a part of the history that has been missed.
The 90s were the time when we formulated, honed, finessed the arguments, despite opposition from the gay rights establishment. I think we crafted successful arguments that went on to win. And that’s a really crucial thing, and there was only a handful of us that was doing that at the time. And so, I’m really proud of that legacy in this book. These are the arguments that help give us marriage equality, and it required reframing the gay rights movement around the question of our humanity, our common ground with straight people with formal legal equality, and has absolutely nothing to do with wokeness, or with attacking people for being bigots, or all the anger energy that is today aimed at demonizing your opponents. We attempted to persuade our opponents, not demonize them.

Blade: That wonderfully brings me to my next question because I was going to ask you, with the marriage victory six years ago now — in essence was that a restructuring of marriage, an institution that has been around for as long as almost probably humanity has been around. I’m just wondering if the restructuring of that institution played a role in contributing to the emergence of woke ideology that we’re seeing now.
Sullivan: I don’t think so. Most of the people that are now in the throes of woke ideology really were not interested in marriage equality and were completely absent in the campaign. They were also absent in the campaign for military service, because the people running the gay rights movement today, didn’t like marriage as an institution. They wanted to end it, and they opposed the military as a militaristic and an enemy institution, just as today’s extremists also oppose gay cops. So I don’t think that. I do think, however, that having won core ramparts for our civil rights, they had to find something else to do and screaming at straight people, and at cis people seems to be the new mode. I don’t think it helps anyone the way this campaign is currently being conducted nothing some of the extremist elements in trans ideology, are setting back the image and rights and dignity of gay people and trans people for that matter.
Blade: ‘Woke ideology’ is also very closely associated with the emergence of cancel culture. If you think, not too long ago, being gay would get you cancelled though it was not, the concept wasn’t exactly those words. For example, I think Billie Jean King, when she was either outed and came out as lesbian, and as a tennis player, she lost all of her sponsorships. This is years ago. It was so shocking at the time. Is there a special role for the gay community in addressing cancel culture and to what degree do you think we’re fulfilling it or not, or even contributing to it?
Sullivan: I’ve lived it. I’ve been canceled by virtually every faction. I, my first book of marriage equality was picketed by the Lesbian Avengers, when I went to bookstores. Gay left activists tried to cancel me by publishing my personal ad, trying to accuse me of spreading AIDS, which was an unbelievable lie. I’ve had glasses thrown at me by gay rights activists, but I was also cancelled by the right when I stood up for us, and also oppose aspects of the war and of the Republican Party, and I’ve been one of the strongest critics of the Republican Party in this millennium that you can find. So I think if the alphabet people have their druthers, they would get me canceled today. They just can’t, because I’m now independent, and they can’t pressure advertisers or editors to fire people for the wrong views. But that some elements look to cancel people who help pioneer a lot of gay rights in the modern era strikes me as not exactly productive.
If you’re cancelled by the left or the right somewhat continuously, you only have to go back to your core supporters your core readers, and the general public, and that’s what Substack has enabled me to do, though it’s what also the original Daily Dish did. I’m not sure without those I would have been able to really keep up the fight in the 2000s for marriage equality, for example.
Blade: This animosity that you’ve experienced both on the right and the left, having glasses thrown at you, having your personal ad doxxed as it were — given your contributions to the gay rights movement, has that reaction surprised you?
Sullivan: No. Not really. I think that, look, divisions in arguments within the community are are healthy, not unhealthy. And I think, for reasons I didn’t choose, I became a very prominent gay person in the 90s, just by virtue of the fact that I was out from the get-go, first generation to be out from the get go, and when I became editor of the New Republic, I was the only openly gay journalist in the mainstream media in Washington or New York. I know that sounds insane, but it’s true. I was it. Who else were they going to talk to? And so, inevitably, I came, in ways that I never intended, to represent gay people but I never said that. I said that I only represent myself. I have no claim to represent anybody else, but that’s not the way the media works and I think people were enraged by that, and enraged when I said things that were not totally party-line. …
This is very common in minority communities where, you know, there’s a tall poppy syndrome where someone emerges and seeks to represent people, they have to be cut down pretty quickly. So part of that’s inevitable and certainly during the 90s and early 2000s, especially in the 90s dealing with AIDS, you can see why people were desperate and angry, and didn’t want any, any of the slightest internal debate. So I understand that. However, the cruelty of some of it. The viciousness of some of it. The real core homophobia, involved in it. I mean, how homophobic is it to find someone’s personal ad is blasted out to smear that person. That’s been done to gay men forever but it was done by gay activists against a gay man. There’s some deep ugliness out there, and it comes from frustration. It comes obviously from a sense of people’s own histories of being beleaguered and having their dignity removed. It comes from a sense of helplessness, comes from a sense of not having your own voice. So all that’s understandable. I just think people could have been a little less, and could still be, a little less personal and vicious about it toward other people.
Blade: I want to go back to marriage equality and win six years ago. Are there any consequences of that decision that you did not foresee?
Sullivan: I don’t think I foresaw that, once all these main achievements were won, that the gay rights movement would radicalize so quickly into something extremely left wing. That I didn’t fully anticipate. I thought the successes would probably help calm things down. We could move on to other issues we needed to resolve or need to be tackled. But essentially, I didn’t see the emergence of this hugely intolerant and ideologically extreme version of — it isn’t even gay rights anymore because this stuff is hostile, even for categories like homosexuality once you destroy categories all of sex, gender and sexual orientation, which means that gayness is on the chopping block for these people as well. They’re essentially in favor of dismantling our society. And I don’t think most gay men and lesbians actually want to dismantle our society. I think they want to make it better. I think they want to make it more humane. I think they want to make it more just. But I don’t think they want to dismantle the concept for example of biological sex. I don’t think they want to dismantle the concept of homosexuality, which is attraction to people of the same sex. And I think eventually gay people are going to wake up and realize this movement really is about the dismantling of homosexuality.

Blade: Building off of what you said about the tall poppy syndrome in the gay community, which you experienced, let’s look at that for a different community and that is Caitlyn Jenner within the transgender community in her run for governor. She’s arguably the most prominent transgender figure in recent months, even though many people in the transgender movement abhor that. Given what Caitlyn Jenner has done, do you think the transgender community owes a sort of thanks for bringing visibility to a different audience?
Sullivan: I think, you know, in the old days, our view was this: We always seek converts; we’re not seeking heretics. If you want more people to join you, you’re prepared to accept support from anywhere on your core issues. And if you do that, if you have open arms and a big tent and say, ‘Yeah. You agree with us on this, then we’re delighted to have you on our side.” That’s what did with marriage. Now, the people who want to be with you have to be subjected to these incredible ideological litmus tests. They have to be parsed and they have to be shredded, often, in their reputations.
Now, I’m not a supporter of Caitlyn Jenner. To be honest with you, I’m more of the “South Park” view of Caitlyn Jenner, but what the fuck? She is out there, she did help raise visibility for trans people. In the end, if you want to win and if you want to persuade people, you want as many different views representing you as possible, and so it’s a good thing if there are gay Republicans, a good thing that there are trans Republicans, a good thing that we can appeal to more people. We now have the majority of Republicans supporting marriage equality. When I started out that was unbelievable. So it’s — what I feel is that we’re stuck in a movement that’s really about finding enemies, destroying leaders and consumed with resentment and anger, and those kinds of movements are not only not very pretty, but they don’t often succeed.
Blade: And you see that being applied with Caitlyn Jenner in the transgender community?
Sullivan: Well, yeah. I think the minute you say something even slightly off accepted orthodox, they want you destroyed.
There are lots and lots of Americans who support trans rights if you are not convinced the biological sex doesn’t exist. There are compromises here.
Blade: I want to ask a couple of general questions. With what we’re seeing now, has Biden been living up to your expectations as president?
Sullivan: Pretty much, to be honest I wasn’t hugely — I was the “anyone but Trump” person. And I thought of the candidates, I thought Biden was the most plausible. I actually argued that he would be the best candidate a couple years ago. It’s in the book.
I think that’s all I’d say, except he’s turned out to be much more left in domestic policy than a lot of people — a lot of people realize, although I certainly expected it.
Blade: OK give me an example of that.
Sullivan: In enacting government-wide race and sex discrimination policies, making hiring and firing in the federal government, dependent upon your race and sex, sexual orientation or gender roles, as opposed to can you do that job or not?
Blade: I guess I don’t know the specific initiative. You’re talking about the executive order implementing Bostock?
Sullivan: The equity initiative across the — run by Susan Rice. With every government department, they have to make sure that they’re discriminating against certain race and sex in order to get the balance right.
Blade: What about Trump? Have you reevaluated anything about him since he left office?
Sullivan: I think my basic initial feeling about him remains, that he’s just out of his mind. There’s no way this person is a rational or credible person who belongs in human society. He’s a completely crazy person. And that’s fundamentally the problem, but he’s also a brilliant demagogue. I’m still worried about him.
Blade: What does that worry entail?
Sullivan: That he can come back and be president. That’s what I’m worried about. Obviously, it’s too soon to say, but the way in which he and increasingly his party treats the Constitution as if it is a game to be rigged as opposed to a set of rules we all agree to — really, really, unnerving deeply undemocratic, authoritarian impulse.
Blade: I also want to ask you — It might be uncomfortable, crossing boundaries here, but I’m just going to have at it because I’ve seen you at VIDA gym, quite a few times and it looks like you try to keep yourself in good physical shape. Is that something that you’ve always been attentive to, exercise? I’m just kind of curious because I think a lot of our readers are attentive to it too, so I’m just kind of wondering what if you could talk describe your experience with it.
Sullivan: Look, being gay — yeah, I think it’s part of — I’ve done weight training forever and ever and ever. And, you know, it’s good for you, especially as you get older. For me, it’s a way of taking my mind off everything else that’s in my head, and working out for an hour — I try to with a trainer — can be just mentally reviving, because it gets my mind off its usual patterns. I’ve been a bit of a bodybuilder in a way. It’s gone up and down, or whatever. It depends on — COVID was obviously a huge blow to it. Yeah, you know, it’s just how I live. It’s been like that forever, and the gym is also, I think become an important — with the collapse of gay bars, it’s become an important social institution more than it used to be, actually.
Blade: Do you mean in the way that it fosters a sense of networking and community?
Sullivan: Well, you know, it’s where you saw me, where you can, you know — the way that we used to more often in clubs and bars. … It is an important social institution as well as a fitness place. Sometimes VIDA U Street is incredibly intimidating, because there’s unbelievably huge and beautiful men there, and you always start finding yourself feeling puny in comparison.
Blade: Yeah, tell me about it.
Sullivan: That’s the arms race, you know, that’s men’s function of being a man more than being gay, I think. It’s just men are triggered by more superficial bodily attraction than women, and we are better able to — for good or ill — to dissociate the person from the body as it were. And so, where we’re competing with each other, you know, it’s a death race, really.
Blade: That was going to bring me to my next question because I was going ask you if you think gay men are paying too much attention to their physical bodies, to physical fitness.
Sullivan: I can’t judge anybody. I think it all depends on how you want to live your life and I don’t think it’s a problem as long as it’s healthy. I mean, it’s better than other things you could do with your life. But yes I think insofar as we have unbelievably exacting standards of physical beauty, and we punish people we don’t — or really isolate or marginalize people that don’t live up to them, you see groups of friends in the gay community — you see it here in Provincetown a lot — where it’s surprising how they all have the same level of handsomeness or beauty. There’s not a mix. I mean in the classic sense of beauty: big arms, big chest, you know, blah blah blah. And, that is, I think there’s a slight cruelty to some of that sometimes.
I think the bear world has helped a lot, as it were, soften that, literally, figuratively. You have a piece about bears in the book. But look, a beautiful man is a beautiful man. I mean there’s a reason you go to VIDA also because they’re fucking beautiful and extremely attractive, and no gay man should oppose that. It’s just that when we cross one another, sometimes we’re terribly cruel to each other.
Blade: Is that a function of being a man or a function of being gay?
Sullivan: It’s a function of being a man in a world where there are no women to check it because all the incentives are there. You’re just catering to your own — the thing about that is that we do it ourselves all the time. But yes, it does matter, in the gay world, if you’ve got a nice body, right?
And it’s not fair, yes. But it’s sometimes you just got to hack it. But then there’s always people out there who don’t like that, and we’re not used to that and plenty of life outside the gym, people have different ways of coming together, whether it be book clubs or just hanging out in the same bar or cafe, or the sports teams and so on and so forth. The range of gay life is so much larger than it used to be, which is so wonderful.
And that’s also in the book, too, the end of gay culture. I would say this: This book is really the story of someone in my generation, going from the 80s to today, the 2020s, the 80s to the 20s basically. We experienced something that no gay generation has ever experienced before or will ever experience again. We lived through the most exhilarating period of advances in gay dignity, rights and visibility. At the same time as we went through a viral catastrophe, and that combination of thrill and terror, you can hear it in the dance music at the time. This incredible high energy disco music with lyrics that would make you slit your wrists, with lyrics of great darkness and sadness. You hear it in Pet Shop Boys, particularly, Eurasia, all those synthpop energizing bands of the 80s and 90s.

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,” sending it back down to a lower court.
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.
Democratic Senator, running for reelection in Colorado, John Hickenlooper issued a condemnation of the practice on his X (formerly Twitter). “Conversion therapy is cruel and inhumane, plain and simple. This SCOTUS decision is dangerous for LGBTQ+ Americans,” Our LGBTQ+ community deserves safety, acceptance, and love. We won’t ever let up in our fight for a better nation.”
Conversion therapy is cruel and inhumane, plain and simple. This SCOTUS decision is dangerous for LGBTQ+ Americans.,” the former Governor said on the platform. “Our LGBTQ+ community deserves safety, acceptance, and love. We won’t ever let up in our fight for a better nation.”
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.
-
Out & About5 days agoCelebrate cherry blossoms the drag way
-
Botswana5 days agoLorato ke Lorato: marriage equality, democracy, and the unfinished work of justice in Botswana
-
Japan5 days agoJapanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
-
Opinions5 days agoThe outrage economy is not the LGBTQ community
