Opinions
‘Don’t Say Gay’ for sex education
Far-right politicians using abstinence-only playbook to target LGBTQ students
The Administration for Children and Families recently sent letters to health departments in states and territories across the United States, requiring them to remove “all references to gender ideology” from the Personal Responsibility Education Program that provides federal funding for sex education. It’s a disturbing move that mirrors how from the 1980s through the early 2000s, the Bush administrations threatened to and did cut federal funding to states and schools that refused to teach abstinence-only sex education as part of the Purity Culture Movement.
Similar to contemporary “Don’t Say Gay” movements that empower parents seeking to remove references to LGBTQ individuals from classrooms and libraries, abstinence-only sex education has been proven to be deeply ineffective and harmful to children. These parallels are more impactful than ever, as the administration regulates what sex education can be taught in schools by withholding funding. It’s a sex education version of “Don’t Say Gay” that shows how modern anti-LGBTQ legislation is a new form of purity culture, and one bent on eliminating not only representation but also education about LGBTQ bodies.
Understanding this history is vital to unpack and argue against sexual education restricts any discussion of trans, nonbinary, and queer people.
In the 1980s, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act, or the “chastity law.” Title XX of the Public Health Service Act, this act funded a program, which has received more than $125 million to date, that encouraged young people to practice “chastity.” It wasn’t until 1993, following the lawsuit Bowen v. Kendrick by the ACLU that programs functioning out of the AFLA were not permitted to utilize religious references or use churches as host spaces. For the first time, AFLA programs also had to be medically accurate despite a 2004 report by the office of Rep. Henry A. Waxman found that two-thirds of abstinence-only education materials included false information.
By 1996, Title V of the Welfare Reform Act set up a new system of grants providing funding to states that offered abstinence-only sex education. Title V required that federal funding received would be matched by state funds — for every $5 of federal monies, $4 of state monies would be contributed to a program that “teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.” Title V was followed by Title XI, §1110 of the Social Security Act, that provided grants to community-centered (including faith) organizations.
This funding often required educators to not teach young people — 12-18-year-old children were targeted by the program — about contraception or other safe-sex practices. This program later moved to the Administration for Children and Families, known as the Community-Based Abstinence Education program. In 2006 alone, $176 million dollars was spent in state grants, and the new program released a new program that urged educators to emphasize traditional family values, including explicit instructions that “material must not encourage the use of any type of contraception outside of marriage or refer to abstinence as a form of contraception.”
While these programs largely went defunct by 2009 when President Barack Obama removed almost all funding for abstinence-only sex education, the Community-Based Abstinence Education and Title V programs continue to allocate funding. A new bill–Senate Bill 3 sponsored by Senator Shay Shelnutt–on the docket for the Alabama Senate’s 2026 session seeks to require any sex education program or curriculum taught in a public K-12 school to “encourage abstinence from all sexual activity.” The bill would also require a parent or guardian’s permission before a child could be part of sex education, establishing an opt-in option rather than an opt-out that was discussed this past March in New Hanover County.
As students return to school in New Hanover County, they face a new sex education program — one that removes lessons on gender and sexuality. This includes removing discussions of gender roles and the LGBTQ+ community. This past March, the New Hanover County Board of Education voted to change its sex education programs to comply with federal mandates related to gender identity, namely executive orders like the one signed on Trump’s first day in office that denied the existence of trans, intersex, and nonbinary individuals.
This was also deeply influenced by Trump’s Jan. 29, 2025 executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” stating that within 90 days of the order, the Secretary of Education, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Health and Human Services would provide an Ending Indoctrination Strategy “eliminating Federal funding or support for illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools, including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology.” The New Hanover County Board of Education’s vote also came after the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights mandated that districts remove DEI, or programs or initiatives focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
While the option of establishing an opt-in program rather than an opt-out one were squashed by the Board of Education and were opposite staff recommendations, they were brought up during the conversation–setting a dangerous precedent, and as the Administration for Children and Families’s letters this past week reveal, historical (and present) funding restrictions surrounding sex education directly mirrors current efforts to remove mentions to LGBTQ+ identity and same-sex relationships.
And it has a historical precedent — purity culture has roots in the Social Purity Movements of late 19th and early 20th centuries that sought to eliminate social impurities, like sex work and contraception use, along with LGBTQ+ identity and representation. Perhaps the best example are the 19th-century Comstock laws. Anthony Comstock, an infantryman during the Civil War, tipped police about sex trade merchants and got his anti-contraceptive bill passed on March 3, 1873. Comstock was instrumental in the passing of a federal law with his namesake in 1873 criminalizing the distribution of pornography, contraceptives and information about them, and any materials that could be used to produce an abortion.
The Comstock Act of 1873 also classified LGBTQ+ publications as “obscene” and prohibited their transport through the US Mail. It wasn’t until 1958 that classifying LGBTQ+ materials as “obscene” was overturned by the Supreme Court. In 1954, the Los Angeles Postmaster argued based on the Comstock Act that One: The Homosexual Magazine was obscene and thus could not be transported via the mail, but four years later, the Supreme Court ruled in One, Inc. v. Olesen that the Comstock Act had limited application over written materials.
Today, anti-abortion activists are debating the resurrection of the Comstock Act of 1873, which is still in effect but has largely become dormant in the last 150 years. The law is still technically enforceable and could be used to stop the distribution of contraceptives and abortion medications and supplies through the mail and local carriers.
Modern anti-trans legislation uses some of the same language that Comstock did over 150 years ago and abstinence-only educators did over 20 years ago that access to information about sexual intercourse, contraceptives and abortion will cause people to seek them out. It’s the same argument used within late 20th and early 21st purity culture to mandate the erasure of queer and trans people from libraries, classrooms, and public spaces, which conservative Christian leaders argue that they can stop children from “becoming” gay by “protecting” them from all discussions of LGBTQ+ identity and expression.
So the news of these letters from the Administration for Children and Families are not surprising but rather show how far-right Christian politicians are mobilizing the abstinence-only sex education playbook to target discussions of LGBTQ+ identity in schools. After the Mahmoud v. Taylor Supreme Court case that ruled in June 2025 that parents could opt their children out of lessons that including books with LGBTQ+ representation on the basis of religious rights, this aim to restrict federal funding on the basis of including LGBTQ+ representation and discussions of LGBTQ+ identity in sex education is the next logical step to “Don’t Say Gay” in classrooms.
Emma Cieslik is a D.C.-based museum worker and public historian.
Opinions
Why I’m supporting Gary Goodweather for D.C. mayor
In a word, longtime local resident has the character for the job
Hey fellow LGBTQ+ Democrats, this is worth reading! Especially if you’re a voter in Washington, D.C. who’s planning to cast a ballot for the nomination of local candidates in the District of Columbia in 2026.
Because next Tuesday June 16 is a really Big Deal for D.C. Democrats. It’s the first time in two decades that the doors to filling the crucially important job of mayor are wide open because no incumbent is on the ballot.
That is, Mayor Muriel Bowser is not running for election. Instead she will — at last, and after three terms in office — symbolically ride off into the political sunset. And to considerable and well deserved applause. Because she’s been rightly lauded for many important accomplishments, including her well documented record of supporting the many diverse issues concerning the LGBTQ+ community.
But she’s been equally derided for her far too spineless a record recently, of (not) effectively opposing President Donald Trump and his outrageous stationing of outsider National Guard armed troops all across D.C. This despicably sad state of affairs has been a grim statement that Washington, D.C. (not being a state) is subject to the Donald’s feral instincts for nastily mean-spirited retributions. But she’s been meek and mild, and even actively complicit with Trump, when other mayors have told Trump to buzz off. And they succeeded.
But enough about Mayor Bowser. Her “sell by date” fast approaches. The old order changes. And a new day dawns.
Next Tuesday, two candidates of this old (and by now seriously outmoded) order seek to win the coveted Democratic nomination for mayor on June 16. First, there’s Janeese Lewis George, who’s a great first or second choice by any measure. And (ahem) then there’s Kenyan McDuffie.
But this is Ranked Choice Voting and it’s brand new. It’s not “either/or” binary, just like we now appreciate that sexual orientation and identity are also non-binary.
My first choice is clear because I know him. His name is Gary Goodweather. But so, who is this outsider candidate for mayor anyway?
It goes like this. First, together with his remarkable wife, successful D.C. Realtor Meredith Margolis, Gary and their two college age kids are all 20-year residents of Dupont Circle. I actually first met Gary and Meredith a year ago at a BBQ event, when he was a speaker at the historic, progressive, feminist Woman’s National Democratic Club.
So once again, who’s this Gary Goodweather? And why should you seriously consider him for your personal first or second or even third choice?
Here’s why. He’s new to politics in the conventional old paradigm of “politics.” But he knows Washington, D.C. forwards and backwards and inside and out. Because he’s been involved for many years in successful local private sector business investments, including the development of neighborhood-based BIDs, or Business Improvement Districts including the one in NoMa.
And his thinking is typically “out-of-the box.” For example, he’s currently an actual active advocate for establishing agriculture in our densely populated urban environment — through so-called “tiered gardens.” Yes, D.C., trust me, this is an actual thing. And yes, it requires street smarts to deal with challenging zoning issues; but it’s a real example of what fresh blood and new thinking and real imagination can bring to our hogtied and often over-regulated city.
Gary was in the U.S. Army and the National Guard for four years as a captain in the armored command. He earned his MBA in finance from Johns Hopkins University in night school.
If elected, Gary would be D.C.’s first Jewish mayor. (His is Reform Judaism. Repair the breach!)
He’s become my friend and I admire his intelligence and diligence and imagination and in a word his character.
Here’s what he said to me about what he calls his political North Star: “All D.C. residents should be protected, regardless of who they love. Love is love. Love who you want. Identify how you choose to be.”
Look, it’s always time for good weather in our city. Maybe it’s time for Gary Goodweather as mayor too. First choice or second choice. Then let’s all see what happens next.
David Hoffman is a freelance writer and retired federal government civil servant. He is a longtime resident of the H Street Northeast corridor. He is a member of both the Woman’s National Democratic Club and DSA, Democratic Socialists of America Metro DC chapter.
Opinions
Don’t just vote for change — vote for Hope Solomon for mayor
LGBTQ community isn’t separate from Washington’s story — it is our story
My name is Hope Solomon, and I’m running for mayor of Washington, D.C.
I’ve spent my entire life here. I attended D.C. Public Schools. I grew up working in my family’s small business here in D.C. I live in Dupont Circle. For 17 years, I worked in national security with the Department of Defense, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security. Then last July, I got DOGE’d by Elon Musk.
I don’t recommend it as a career strategy.
But it did give me something I hadn’t had in a long time: perspective.
For the first time in years, I had space to slow down and ask a simple question: Why does it feel like Washington is being run by the same small group of people playing musical chairs, while everyone else is just expected to live with the results?
That’s when I decided to run.
I wasn’t raised in Washington’s political circles. I was raised in Washington. There’s a difference.
Some of my earliest memories are going to see the AIDS Quilt on the National Mall with my mother. I didn’t fully understand it at the time, but I understood enough to know it mattered—because it made something the country had been trying not to see completely impossible to ignore.
My family’s version of a home-cooked meal has always been Annie’s or Mr. Henry’s. I grew up going to Pride, the High Heel Race, drag brunches, and drag shows. As a kid, I thought that was just what cities were like—sequins, show tunes, queens, neighbors, everything mixed together.
Turns out that wasn’t every city.
It was Washington.
The arts shaped me just as much as anything else. I started at Fillmore Arts Center, trained for years with the Washington School of Ballet, and performed across the city—from the Kennedy Center to Warner Theatre to Lisner Auditorium.
The arts taught me discipline and confidence. But more than that, they taught me something Washington has always understood: A city works when people are free to be exactly who they are.
Growing up here, LGBTQ+ Washingtonians were my neighbors, my teachers, fellow business owners, artists, friends, and family.
They helped build the Washington I know.
And that’s why this moment matters.
Washington is facing a budget crisis. Small businesses are struggling. The federal government is openly hostile toward our city. But what worries me most isn’t just policy—it’s whether we lose what makes Washington itself while trying to fix it.
Because the soul of this city is in places like Annie’s. It’s in neighborhood restaurants, small theaters, Pride celebrations, independent businesses, and the people who make this city feel like home.
As mayor, I’ll fight to protect that. I’ll stand up for LGBTQ+ rights, support LGBTQ+ youth, invest in the arts, strengthen public safety, and back the small businesses that keep our neighborhoods alive.
Most importantly, I’ll lead with the understanding that the LGBTQ+ community isn’t separate from Washington’s story.
It is Washington’s story.
If you want another career politician, you’ve got plenty of options.
If you want someone who was shaped by this city, believes in this city, and is ready to fight for this city, I’m asking for your vote.
Learn more at HopeForDC.com. On Election Day, don’t just vote for change. Vote for Hope.
Hope Solomon is a candidate for D.C. mayor.
Opinions
Vote Kenyan McDuffie for D.C. mayor
He will best protect D.C.’s interests amid federal meddling
Elections are always important, but this year in D.C. they will bring major changes. Because of that, your vote in the Democratic primary on June 16 is more important than ever. D.C. is so overwhelmingly Democratic it is a near certainty the winners in the Democratic primary will win the general election. So, I urge everyone eligible, take the time to vote.
D.C. makes it very easy. Every registered voter has received a ballot in the mail. I cast mine before I left for a vacation. When you read this don’t put your ballot in the mail, rather vote at an early voting location, or put your ballot in one of the drop boxes around the city, or vote in person on June 16. You can find the locations for these options nearest you by going to the DCBOE website.
This year for the first time D.C.is dealing with rank choice voting, and who you rank second, or third, can make a difference in the outcome. It is important to note that you don’t have to rank the candidates. You can bullet vote for the one you like, or rank up to five. If there is one or more you like, you can simply choose a #1 and #2. Again, there is no requirement that you rank more people. From what I am seeing, in most of the races, even if five, six, or more, are running and listed on the ballot, in most of those races it will come down to one or two who have any chance. The way the city handles giving out our public money, it will cost us a lot of taxpayer dollars for all those people with no chance at all to win. I hope after these elections the Council will take a close look at how we do our public financing, and reform it. I am all for public financing, just not at the rate D.C. does it. We must ensure anyone who gets city money, accounts for every penny of it. It should never be spent on personal items. If it is not all used, it needs to be refunded to the city.
I have not made endorsements in every race, but clearly the most important race this year in D.C. is for mayor. After 12 years of Muriel Bowser serving as our mayor, there will be someone new sitting in that office after Jan. 1, 2027. What people must remember when voting for mayor, is the person we elect, even if Democrats take back Congress, and I think we will, must continue dealing with the felon in the White House for the first two years of their term. We have seen doing that requires the skill to walk a tightrope. While fighting him on nearly all he is doing, it’s crucial the mayor understands they must not alienate him to the point where he goes all out to attack the city, and the residents here. Remember, home rule gives the felon in the White House, and Congress, enormous power over us. Congress gets to review all our legislation, and our budgets, before they become law. The president controls the D.C. National Guard, and the federal agencies that in many cases get involved, and impact the work of our city. That includes housing, parks, the MPD, and others. There is only one person on the ballot who fully understands that, and has shown, by word and action, they know how to deal with him in the way that will benefit all the people in our city. That person is Kenyan McDuffie. I urge your #1 vote for him. If you have decided to vote for one of the other candidates, I would hope you would list him on your ballot as #2.
Then for Democratic Council-at-large I urge you to consider a #1 vote for Kevin Chavous. Then Brian Schwalb for Attorney General, Phil Mendelson for Council Chair, and Brooke Pinto for delegate to Congress. For Ward 5 Council I recommend Zachary Parker. For Democratic Party slots, I urge a vote for all those running on the Democrats United for a Free D.C. slate.
Then for the Independent Council-at-Large seat I urge a vote for Jacque Patterson or if you vote for Doni Crawford, rank Jacque #2.
Again, the results of this election will determine the future of the District of Columbia. It is the most important election here in years. I urge everyone who can vote in the primary to do so. Your vote can make a difference to you, and all your neighbors.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
