There are moments when an incident stops being merely a local story and begins to reveal something much deeper. What happened on June 28 outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico, belongs in that category.

I do not know who painted the rainbow colors on the asphalt and on a roadside guardrail. I do not know what motivated them, and it is not my place to justify their actions. If someone believes a law was broken, there are authorities and legal mechanisms to address that. That is not the point of this reflection.

The point is the words that followed.

Hours after those colors appeared, Pastor Jorge J. Santiago Reyes went live on social media. He said he felt threatened. He described what happened as a physical attack against his church. He appeared angry and disappointed. He called those who painted the rainbow “cowards” and “charlatans.” He expressed frustration with the support that, according to him, the municipal government of Comerío has shown toward the LGBTQ+ community, and with those who support posts related to that community. He repeated several times that the people responsible had “crossed the line.” He ended his message by saying, “These charlatans have to be stopped.”

As I listened to his words, I stopped thinking about the paint.

I began thinking about fear.

There is one phrase the pastor repeated again and again: “They crossed the line.” Yet he never explained what that line was. If he was referring to a possible violation of the law, that is for the authorities to determine. If he meant respect for property, there are also procedures to deal with that. But when that line remains undefined and the message begins to associate a rainbow with a threat, the question changes. It is no longer only about a guardrail or a road. It becomes a question about what boundary, in the pastor’s view, was actually crossed.

Paint can be erased.

A brush can cover the asphalt and return a guardrail to its original color.

What does not disappear so easily is the meaning of those colors.

And perhaps that is where the real conflict begins.

It is significant that this happened precisely on June 28, the day when the LGBTQ+ community remembers a history marked by exclusion, violence, and the struggle for dignity. What represents memory, hope, and the possibility of living without hiding for millions of people was presented by others as a threat.

I do not know why someone painted that rainbow. I do not need to know in order to ask whether those were the words society should expect from a pastor.

A religious leader may feel hurt, frustrated, or angry. What he cannot forget is the responsibility that comes with every public expression. His words do not end when a livestream ends. They move beyond the space of his church, reach people who may never share his faith, and help shape the way others see those who think differently. When a pastor calls other people “charlatans” and “cowards,” says they “have to be stopped,” and turns a rainbow into evidence of an attack, he is no longer speaking only from frustration. He begins to build a discourse that can feed rejection toward a community far larger than the people responsible for that act.

There was another moment in the livestream that caught my attention. The pastor reminded viewers how much he has served Comerío, how much he has accompanied his community, and how much he has worked for it. I have no reason to question that service. I am sure many people can testify to the good he has done.

That is precisely why it was difficult to hear.

Pastoral vocation is not about reminding a town of everything one has done for it when conflict appears. Service does not lose its value when it goes unrecognized; it loses something when it becomes an argument to claim a moral position from which to speak down to others. A person who serves does so because that is the nature of the calling, not because that service grants authority to discredit those who think differently.

As a pastor, that part of the message left me deeply uneasy. Not because I expect ministers of God to be perfect. We are not. But because our words carry weight, we are called to speak with greater responsibility. Some expressions build bridges. Others raise walls. Some words invite encounter. Others end up justifying rejection.

The paint will disappear. A brush will be enough to cover the asphalt and return the guardrail to its original color.

The words will not disappear as easily.

They will remain recorded in a video, shared again and again on social media, and remembered by those who heard them. They will remain long after the last trace of paint has been erased.

When this episode is remembered, it probably will not be because of the rainbow that appeared outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico.

It will be because of the words a pastor chose to use when speaking about it.

And that difference changes everything.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws that ban transgender athletes from school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.

The justices in January heard oral arguments in two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — that challenged laws in Idaho and West Virginia respectively.

Both cases question the constitutionality of laws from both states that block trans girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools — specifically if these bans violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports.

In a 6-3 decision made on party lines, the conservative justices asserted that laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating in sports programs at publicly funded schools does not violate either constitutionally protected right. Notably the ruling does not require any state to categorically bar transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams, or transgender boys from participating on boys’ sports teams.

In the majority for the case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion. It holds that schools can determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex. It also holds that West Virginia did not violate Title IX, which bars educational programs that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sex.

“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”

The Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kavanaugh’s majority opinion. It permissibly maintains female sports for biological females.

In his conclusion, Kavanaugh shares his belief of the importance of sports to women and girls but also a caution that “[n]o student-athlete on either side of the issue … deserves to be ostracized or vilified.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor opinion was concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justices Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor’s opinion.

In her dissent, Sotomayor explains that the majority opinion, while attempting to protect one groups Constitutional rights (those assigned women at birth), it puts another group’s constitutional rights (trans women) at its expense and in principle violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor wrote, eventually pointing to how the states had evaluated issues of trans sports participants prior to these bans as evidence of general omission. “The ban eliminated this individualized approach in favor of categorical exclusion.”

She also pointed out that these rules to not equally exclude, further bolstering her argument that the majority opinion was not created with the truest sense of the Equal Protection Clause at its center.

“Teams “designated” for “females” “shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.” Teams “designated” for “males” do not have the same restriction.”

Jackson wrote in her dissent that this ban does explicitly allow for sex discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding.

“A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ just as much as a cisgender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman’s behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth,” Jackson said. “Either way, the institution has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the case centers on B.P.J., a trans girl who was barred from competing on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams under West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, enacted in 2021. Under the law, it requires participation to be based on the athlete’s biological sex as indicated on their original birth certificate issued at the time of birth.

In Little v. Hecox, the details are slightly different, but ask the same 14th Amendment and Title IX questions but against Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. In this case Hecox, a trans woman and student at Boise State University wished to join the women’s cross-country team, but couldn’t under the law. She, with a cisgender athlete filed a suit against the governor, arguing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment explicitly protects their rights to participate on the woman’s team.

Trans rights activists have criticized the highest court in the land’s decision, highlighting it legally allows for discrimination based on gender identity — something they argue is a foundational element of the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law outright called the six conservative justices view of Equal Protection and Title IX as “wrong.” 

“Today’s ruling gets it wrong. And it’s kids who will suffer for it. By upholding these blanket bans, the Supreme Court has allowed states to deny students even the chance to try out for a school team, simply because they are transgender,” Levi told the Los Angeles Blade in a statement. “Policies that categorically bar students don’t advance fairness; they mandate exclusion.” 

She continued, pointing out excluding some for the protection of others does not ensure fairness as the justices are arguing in their opinion.

“When a law bars every transgender girl regardless of age, hormones, or physiology, it isn’t about competitive fairness. It’s about keeping transgender kids out. We can protect women’s sports without doing that. Most of the country already does.”  

Chris Erchull, senior staff attorney at GLAD Law, pointed out that while disappointing, the court does not mandate discrimination as the policy.

“This ruling does not require any state to follow West Virginia’s or Idaho’s cruel, overly-broad approach, and it does not mandate categorical bans on transgender students participating in school sports,” Erchull said. “It also leaves intact broader nondiscrimination protections for transgender students in education, including Title IX’s protections against sex discrimination for LGBTQ+ students. Discrimination has no place in our schools, and we can and should ensure that every student has the opportunity to learn, to thrive, and to know that they belong.”  

Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, also emphasized the bad faith argument the majority opinion pushes for the sake of one exclusionary view of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” Buchert said. “Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports. Now, one population, transgender youth and collegians, are targeted for specific and baseless discrimination. We will not be deterred and will continue to fight back to secure the equal participation that all youth, including transgender youth, deserve.”

Joshua Block, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project also echoed the lasting negative impact this ruling will have for trans Americans.

“This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers.” Block said. “The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls. We will continue to advance the fundamental principle that all young people deserve equal opportunity to thrive and succeed.”

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, who himself is trans, issued a statement, reassuring that while upon face value the decision seems to undermine the rights of trans sports participants, it does not make that the rule.

“Today’s limited decision means that states and schools across the country still have the power to make reasonable rules to ensure fairness without banning all transgender girls,” said Minter. “Like other health or medical considerations in sports, reasonable policies for transgender student athletes rely on individual assessments rather than blanket bans. Every child deserves the chance to play sports with their friends and learn the lessons sports teach, including determination, resilience, and teamwork.” 

Kelly O’Neill, an attorney for Legal Voice’s from Idaho also provided a statement to the Blade.

“It is profoundly unfair to deny a young person the benefits of teamwork and dedication because of who they are,” O’Neill said. “We should be removing barriers for girls and women in sports, not creating new ones.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson came to a similar conclusion.

“No kid — not my kid, not your kid, not any kid — deserves to be discriminated against. Yet this ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are. When politicians convince the public that any girl could be ‘the wrong kind of girl,’ they invite harassment, intimidation, invasive questioning, or even an inspection of their body by a total stranger,” Robinson wrote in a statement shared with the Blade. “It’s sadly just the latest decision by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court to roll back protections for marginalized communities and create a second class citizenship for millions of people. We are sacrificing the dignity, privacy, and safety of America’s young people to solve a problem that was manufactured and exploited for political gain … We must continue this fight with full force until freedom, justice and equal opportunity are not flimsy promises, but nationwide guarantees.”

GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis, who presides over the world’s largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization, issued a statement on the ruling.

“This decision is at odds with the fundamental principles of fairness, freedom, and family that define our country and our communities. By allowing sweeping restrictions on a very small number of transgender students who simply wanted to participate in sports alongside their peers, the ruling creates an unnecessarily unfair playing field,” Ellis said. “Personal freedom and opportunity are best served when our legal protections expand access and guarantee safety for everyone. Today’s decision unfairly strips the rights of a few and threatens the ability of every girl and woman to play the sports they love.”

On the other side of the ideological isle, U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s women and girl trans sport ban. In a statement the Republican called the court’s conservative view of as a win for “women, fairness, and the Gem State.”

“Idaho was the first state in the nation to ban biological men from competing in women’s sports and uphold the opportunities Title IX promised more than 50 years ago,” Risch said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision affirms those protections and the generations of women who fought for fair, equal athletics.”

While many eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court awaiting the verdicts in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, another court case involving transgender rights is unfolding less than a mile away at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — one that could have lasting implications for transgender military personnel.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” directing the Pentagon to prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.

The Trump-Vance administration and Defense Department argued that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the Pentagon this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.

Almost immediately after the executive order was signed, LGBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the order. The plaintiffs argue the Trump administration acted with discriminatory animus and violated the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.

The case — originally filed as Talbott v. Trump and now restyled as Talbott v. USA — includes six active-duty service members and two individuals seeking to enlist. Since the initial filing, 12 additional plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit.

On June 1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked the military ban for active-duty trans service members. The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that Trump’s executive order was illegal — created with the intent to exclude people from military service based on their gender identity.

The Los Angeles Blade spoke with Michael Haley, a staff attorney at GLAD Law who is part of the legal team challenging the ban and seeking to protect the constitutional rights of transgender service members. Haley previously served as an assistant attorney general in the New Hampshire Department of Justice and as a law clerk for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Asked why the D.C. Circuit’s ruling blocking the ban — issued on the first day of Pride month — was so significant, Haley said the decision is about protecting the constitutional rights of trans people that have been under attack since the beginning of the Trump-Vance administration.

“I think it’s hard to understate the importance of that order, because what is really significant is that the ban is based entirely on the administration’s dislike of transgender people, and not based on any real concerns about lethality and unit cohesion,” Haley said. “The circuit court went through in pretty good detail, identifying all the ways in which it’s clear that the administration is doing this to harm transgender people, and not for any kind of real military benefit. It’s a really striking and important decision that shows all of our plaintiffs have been serving with distinction, earning medals and commendations, and the fact that they are transgender does not factor into the equation.”

On Tuesday, the plaintiffs will ask the court to certify the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all trans service members affected by the military ban. Asked what class certification would accomplish, Haley said it would allow future rulings in Talbott to apply not only to the named plaintiffs but to all trans service members covered by the case.

“The class certification, if the court approves it — and we’re hopeful that it will — will mean that any final judgment that comes out of this case will apply not just to our named plaintiffs, but to all transgender service members serving. Simply certifying a class does not necessarily change things on the ground for folks now, but it will ensure that our final judgment, or future judgments within this proceeding, apply to everybody and not just the named plaintiffs.”

Haley said the current legal landscape has created significant uncertainty for trans troops, leaving many unsure of their futures — both those serving stateside and those stationed overseas.

“Unfortunately, there’s just really not a lot of transparency around how the government is implementing the ban,” he said. “We are hearing from service members, including our own plaintiffs, who are receiving notices that they are going to be put before separation boards, but we have no insight into their timing, their decisions for who they notify, when and why, or how they are viewing the D.C. Circuit’s order. We’re going to have to wait for a little bit more of the court process to happen before we can speak with any certainty.”

Asked whether the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court — as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested in a post on X — Haley said the central constitutional question is whether the policy is rooted in discriminatory animus.

“It will be extremely hard for any court to deny that a policy that identifies a group of people and calls them dishonest, lacking integrity, and lacking a warrior spirit — in spite of all the evidence — is motivated by animus. That’s an argument under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which says everybody is entitled to equal protection of the laws and forbids singling out a group of people and treating them disfavorably just because you don’t like them rather than because of some legitimate purpose … I think that’s going to be the central question.”

Haley also explained how the current policy differs from the trans military ban Trump announced in 2017.

“The first thing goes back to that same question of animus. The D.C. Circuit recognized that this time around, the policy on its face calls transgender people dishonorable and lacking integrity and things like that. We did not have as clear evidence as we do this time around that this is not actually about military readiness — it is about trying to harm transgender people.”

Haley echoed that view, arguing the administration’s “updated” policy is aimed at excluding trans people rather than improving military readiness.

“The fact that they are trying to push out people who are serving simply because they’re transgender goes to show that this is about harming that group rather than making sure the military can function,” Haley said.

He said the current policy is significantly broader, affecting active-duty trans service members rather than primarily those seeking to enlist.

“The other major difference is how this ban is treating folks who are serving. The last time around, those who were already serving were allowed to continue serving and the ban only applied to people seeking to join the military. This time around, the ban is going further and trying to push out people who are serving with distinction and performing to standards, which is just more evidence that this is not about any actual military benefit.”

Haley also outlined the two categories of evidence GLAD Law has presented to the court to challenge the administration’s claims that trans service members undermine military readiness.

“One [type of] evidence about these individual service members — they have served on nuclear submarines, flown Navy planes, reached ranks requiring Senate confirmation, served as field medics, and continue to excel in extremely demanding roles,” he said. “The other category is testimony from high-ranking military personnel who oversaw the inclusion policy and saw transgender people serving without any of the concerns the government now claims.”

“These are people who have to meet the standards just like anybody else, and if they meet the standards, they should be able to continue to serve. We had four years under the previous administration implementing that policy without any of the issues the government now claims, and that’s pretty strong evidence that it was working.”

Asked about the human toll of the policy — and the thousands of trans service members who have been forced out of the military or are uncertain about their futures — Haley said those personal stories have become a driving force behind the legal challenge.

“I have really heard stories of lives torn apart. These are people who, in some cases since they were children, dreamed of serving, achieved extremely high levels within the military, built their lives around it, built their families around it, and have now been sitting in limbo for more than a year not really knowing what’s coming next.”

He said the disruption extends far beyond losing a job, affecting long-term careers, financial security, and retirement plans.

“For those who have left, they have left a life where they had known no other type of career. In many cases they had served for long periods and were planning on availing themselves of the military benefits they had earned through long-term service, and because they were pushed out too soon, they are now having to reorder both their short-term and long-term lives.”

Haley also described service members stranded overseas, unable to return home or continue serving while they wait for the legal process to play out.

“We know of people who are effectively stranded on bases overseas, unable to come home but also unable to serve, and are just waiting for this to move forward so they can see their families again, whatever the outcome. It’s been really devastating, especially for a group of people who raised their hand to serve and protect.”

Asked what trans service members should take away from the upcoming class certification hearing, Haley encouraged them to stay informed through organizations such as SPARTA Pride, a nonprofit organization representing trans service members, veterans, their families, and allies.

“Until we get an order from a court saying, ‘This is what’s next,’ it’s hard for us to guess, and we certainly don’t want to send folks in the wrong direction. Folks should follow organizations like GLAD Law, NCLR, and SPARTA because they’re providing day-to-day updates as these developments happen.”

Second Lt. Nicolas “Nic” Talbott, U.S. Army, one of the plaintiffs in the case, spoke with the Blade last year about what it has been like to be a capable and willing service member stripped of his career because of the policy.

“It’s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery,” Talbott told the Blade. “There are no documented cases that I’m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender … Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.”

Talbott added that a more diverse military is ultimately a stronger military because it brings together people with different backgrounds and perspectives to solve complex problems.

“I think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is … We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of … and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.”

SPARTA Executive Director Kara Corcoran, an Army infantry officer with 18 years of service who is currently being separated under the trans military ban, said the upcoming class certification hearing could determine whether relief extends beyond the named plaintiffs.

“When the D.C. Circuit Court recently ruled to affirm Talbott v. USA’s preliminary injunction, SPARTA Pride was relieved to see their powerful conclusion: that this policy was not based on any evidence, but in unconstitutional animus toward transgender people,” Corcoran said in a statement to the Blade. “However, the post-CASA climate meant what was originally a universal injunction now only benefited the small number of active duty plaintiffs. This limited scope left behind the thousands of other transgender service members whose rights were also violated. Certifying the case as a class action would ensure that an ultimately positive outcome in litigation would apply to all patriots impacted by the discriminatory policy — not just the few dozen who signed on to be plaintiffs last year.”

Corcoran said the hearing carries implications far beyond the trans military community, arguing that the case could shape how courts respond when constitutional protections are challenged.

“The entire transgender military community and their families are waiting with profound anticipation and hope for the court’s decision, knowing it could determine the future of their military careers, their livelihoods, and their families. But the gravity of tomorrow’s hearing reaches far beyond those directly affected. It will serve as a test of whether our government will uphold its constitutional duty when another branch openly discriminates against a marginalized group of Americans who answered the call to serve with self-sacrifice, honor, and integrity. This is not simply about transgender service members — it is about the precedent the judicial system sets for every American when equal treatment under the law is challenged.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is scheduled to hold the class certification hearing on Tuesday at 2 p.m. ET.

Friday marks 11 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Constitution protects same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Despite that major win for LGBTQ+ people nationwide, the case may be on shakier ground than originally thought.

Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that determined the Constitution extends its protection of rights to same-sex couples and that states must recognize marriage licenses for same-sex couples from other states, was decided using a combination of cases from several states.

The central arguments in the case rested on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, as well as collateral spousal and parental rights.

Cases in play

The first case came from Michigan with DeBoer v. Snyder, where a lesbian couple, who were not legally allowed to marry in the Mitten State, attempted to adopt their third child but could not both obtain legal parental rights. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse initially received a favorable ruling in district court, with the judge finding that the Michigan Marriage Amendment — which barred same-sex marriage in the Midwestern state — violated the Equal Protection Clause. The same day, the case was appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, eventually making its way, along with the other five cases, to the highest court in the land.

Ohio had multiple cases that ultimately contributed to the judicial acknowledgment of same-sex marriage rights in the U.S.

The Supreme Court case most commonly associated with the fight for same-sex marriage — Obergefell — originated in Ohio. Beginning as Obergefell v. Kasich in the state, James Obergefell knew his longtime boyfriend, John Arthur, was suffering from ALS. Knowing Arthur’s life would end shortly — and understanding the couple could not legally marry in Ohio — they boarded a medically equipped plane, accompanied by a nurse and Arthur’s aunt, Paulette, and flew to BWI Airport in Maryland. There, they were legally married. Over the next several months, Arthur’s health continued to decline until he eventually passed away in October.

The legal battle began after Arthur died, as Ohio law refused to acknowledge that Obergefell was his husband and would not list him as Arthur’s surviving spouse on his death certificate. Obergefell challenged the decision, arguing it was unconstitutional and pursuing legal action. The local Ohio registrar agreed that refusing to recognize their out-of-state marriage license — which Ohio had recognized for different-sex couples in the past — discriminated against the couple. Despite that, the state attorney general continued to defend Ohio’s same-sex marriage ban.

The judge ultimately ruled that “a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized,” marking another step toward marriage equality. Ohio appealed the ruling, and the case ultimately contributed to the establishment of same-sex marriage protections under the federal Constitution.

The second Ohio case, Henry v. Wymyslo, much like DeBoer v. Snyder, involved parental rights for adopted children. The case included four couples — three lesbian couples who lived in Ohio and adopted children while residing there, and one gay couple from New York with an adopted son born in Ohio. The four couples filed a lawsuit against Ohio, seeking to require the state to list both parents on their children’s birth certificates.

Eventually, the judge — the same one who presided over Obergefell v. Kasich — ruled that the state must list both parents on their children’s birth certificates. Like many cases that make their way to the Supreme Court, it went through multiple appeals before ultimately reaching the nation’s highest court.

Kentucky also had two cases that contributed to the legal battle for same-sex marriage.

The first, Bourke v. Beshear, revolved around Gregory Bourke and Michael DeLeon, a same-sex couple married in Canada in 2004, and Randell Johnson and Paul Campion, who were married in California in 2008. Like DeBoer v. Snyder and Henry v. Wymyslo in their respective states, the plaintiffs challenged Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage and its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions so that both parents could be acknowledged on their children’s birth certificates.

The judge ultimately ruled, much like in Obergefell v. Kasich, that states constitutionally must recognize legally performed out-of-state marriages.

Love v. Beshear is the second case from the Bluegrass State.

Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James were denied a marriage license by Kentucky county clerks. The couple’s legal team filed to join Bourke v. Beshear, another case actively challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, and the motion was approved, with the case restyled as Love v. Beshear. The judge ultimately ruled that Kentucky’s bans on same-sex marriage explicitly “violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable.”

The final case, Tanco v. Haslam, involved four same-sex couples who filed suit in Tennessee. Each couple had married outside Tennessee before moving to the state, with nearly all relocating for employment. One worked for the military, whose marriage was already recognized by the Department of Defense; one worked for the state; and two were professors. Seeking to have their out-of-state marriages recognized in Tennessee, the four couples filed Tanco v. Haslam in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The court eventually granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the three plaintiff couples but denied the request to overturn Tennessee’s same-sex marriage ban.

To SCOTUS

All of these cases contributed to the legal challenge against same-sex marriage bans across the country and ultimately led to a 5-4 ruling that allowed same-sex couples to have their marriages recognized in all 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and D.C.

The justices voted as follows: Anthony Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan supported Obergefell while Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito all dissented.

The court held that the 14th Amendment — specifically its Due Process Clause — guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, regardless of the gender of those getting married.

The court also ruled that another provision of the 14th Amendment — the Equal Protection Clause — extends the right to marry enjoyed by different-sex couples to same-sex couples, finding that denying same-sex couples that right violates their right to equal protection under the law.

Some of the Supreme Court justices who dissented argued that this was a state issue, not a federal one, because the Constitution makes no mention of same-sex couples. They said it was beyond the purview of the court to decide whether states must recognize or license such unions. The dissenters argued that the majority was engaging in judicial policymaking, which they contended is not permitted under U.S. law.

Another argument made by the dissenting conservative justices was that the majority opinion infringed on religious freedom by engaging in this “judicial policymaking” rather than allowing state legislatures to determine the laws governing marriage.

Since the ruling

According to data from the Williams Institute, 823,000 same-sex couples are now legally married — more than twice the number in 2015 — as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The ruling also increased the number of same-sex families raising children, largely because it removed legal barriers and paperwork restrictions that had prevented same-sex couples from being listed as parents. The data shows there are nearly 299,000 children under the age of 18 being raised by married same-sex couples as a result of Obergefell.

The states that saw the largest increases — and the most favorable changes to marriage rates — were in the South. The percentage of cohabiting same-sex couples who were married between 2014 and 2023 increased from 38 percent to 59 percent.

Many of the married same-sex couples surveyed said marriage improved their sense of safety and security (83 percent), life satisfaction (75 percent), and relationship stability (67 percent).

“Marriage equality has significantly benefited the lives and well-being of same-sex couples, their families, and the communities where they live,” said Christy Mallory, interim executive director and legal director at the Williams Institute.

Future of Obergefell

While same-sex marriage remains the law of the land, there have been multiple attempts by conservative and religious figures in America to reverse it.

In 2025, Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Ky., who made headlines 10 years earlier after refusing to issue marriage licenses following the striking down of same-sex marriage bans, approached the Supreme Court with the goal of getting Obergefell overturned.

She argued that the ruling put her religious beliefs at odds with her job and asked the court to strike it down. The consensus was nearly unanimous, holding that when a person serves as an agent of the state, they cannot place their personal religious beliefs above state policy because they are acting on behalf of the government.

Thomas, one of the Supreme Court’s most conservative justices, has also attempted to plant the seeds for overturning Obergefell.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ultimately restricted abortion access in the country, he wrote a concurring opinion suggesting that Obergefell, along with several other precedents, should be “reconsider[ed].”

Later, without directly addressing Obergefell, Thomas told an audience at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law that he didn’t “think that … any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel.”

While President Donald Trump has not implemented any executive restrictions on same-sex marriage during his presidency, his administration has made it clear that it opposes continued efforts to expand protections for same-sex couples, particularly when doing so conflicts with claims of “religious freedom.” The administration has attempted to remove sexual orientation and gender identity from federal health care and housing nondiscrimination protections and has significantly restricted the rights of transgender Americans.

Currently, same-sex marriage remains federally protected by the Respect for Marriage Act, and the Supreme Court has thus far declined to overturn Obergefell.

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted a request from multiple transgender people for a temporary restraining order, blocking the disclosure of plaintiffs’ and class members’ medical information to the Justice Department.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla approved the Temporary Restraining Order and Provisional Class Certification, preventing any further information from being provided to the Trump-led DOJ.

The medical data was requested through subpoenas issued by the Trump-Vance administration’s DOJ to multiple hospitals in New York City — most notably NYU Langone — which halted its Transgender Youth Health Program in May following a federal push to stop providing trans minors with gender-affirming care.

In May 2026, NYU Langone Hospitals received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Fort Worth, Texas, demanding that the hospitals turn over the identities and sensitive health information of any patient who had received medical treatment for gender dysphoria while under the age of 18 at NYU Langone between January 2020 and May 2026.

Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit, “Coe, et al. v. Blanche, et al.,” against the Trump-Vance administration on behalf of three families with trans youth and two trans young adults who were minors when they began care, in June 2026.

The lawsuit requests a temporary restraining order blocking the DOJ from violating the patients’ constitutional privacy rights by obtaining identifying and sensitive health information as part of its investigation into unspecified health offenses. The DOJ issued subpoenas to NYU Langone and other similar healthcare institutions in New York City, including Mount Sinai, that provide or have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans minors. All plaintiffs have filed under pseudonyms to maintain their privacy and anonymity.

Multiple leaders of organizations that helped push for the restraining order provided quotes about the ongoing situation and what it means for the fight for trans children’s access to healthcare in the U.S.

“Today’s order from the court is a victory for the basic privacy of our clients and all families like theirs across New York City. It is no secret that this administration will use every lever in its power to attack transgender people and fulfill its misguided goal to ‘end’ gender-affirming medical care — care that is legal and protected in New York State. Using subpoenas to attain the identities and sensitive health information of transgender young people to effectuate such goals should send chills down the spine of every American. Our laws and our Constitution recognize that we all have a right to confidentiality about the most intimate and private information about ourselves,” said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel and health care strategist at Lambda Legal. “Whether a young person receives any type of medical care is a decision for that patient, their family, and their doctor, not for political appointees to decide, interfere with, or know. The government cannot abuse its powers to violate the constitutional rights of transgender young people and their families. It is an enormous relief for these families that the court has stopped them from doing so as this case proceeds.”

“We’re thankful the court has granted our emergency request to protect the privacy interests of transgender New Yorkers and their families,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “Patients and families trust their doctors with their most intimate, private information and should trust in turn that this information will be protected from impermissible and harassing demands for disclosure from the federal government or anyone else. For the past year, the Trump administration has not only decided that it knows better than these families and their doctors what their medical needs are, but has also sought to obtain troves of sensitive information about patients in New York. We will continue to fight on behalf of these families and the fundamental liberty of all transgender New Yorkers and those who come here to seek needed medical care.”

“New York’s laws recognize that transgender youth deserve fundamental privacy protections for their sensitive medical records and unobstructed access to the care they need,” said Bobby Hodgson, deputy legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “As the Trump administration tries to bully transgender youth, scare families, and intimidate healthcare providers into dropping their patients, we’re thankful the court found these tactics are likely unconstitutional and put a stop to them here in New York.”

As states across the country grapple with a rapidly changing federal landscape under President Donald Trump, governors have increasingly become the first line of defense — or enforcement — on issues ranging from healthcare and education to LGBTQ+ rights.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in New York, Trump’s home state, where the 2026 gubernatorial race is shaping up as a high-profile battle over the future of LGBTQ+ protections.

Incumbent Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul is seeking a second full term as New York’s 57th governor and the state’s first female governor. She enters the race with strong support from LGBTQ+ advocates and organizations, including an endorsement from the Stonewall Democrats of New York City. Earlier this year, Hochul was also endorsed by progressive leaders like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is running alongside New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams as her lieutenant governor candidate.

Throughout her tenure, Hochul has signed a series of measures aimed at strengthening protections for LGBTQ+ New Yorkers, particularly transgender residents.

Among the most notable is New York’s “Trans Safe Haven Act,” which protects out-of-state trans youth, their parents, and medical providers who travel to New York to access legally protected gender-affirming care. Hochul has also signed legislation requiring health insurance plans to cover HIV prevention medications, including PrEP and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), without out-of-pocket costs.

Additionally, Hochul signed a Long-Term Care Bill of Rights that prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ+ seniors and people living with HIV in long-term care facilities.

“As the birthplace of the LGBTQ+ rights movement, New York has long been at the forefront of advancing equality,” Hochul said in a statement during Pride month. “During Pride month, we celebrate New York’s vibrant LGBTQ+ community and acknowledge the importance of protecting the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ New Yorkers. This month and every month, we proudly stand with the LGBTQ+ community and remain committed to building a more inclusive and equitable future for all where everyone can live freely with dignity, safety, and respect.”

On the Republican side, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman has emerged as the party’s leading candidate. Blakeman is running with Madison County Sheriff Todd Hood as his lieutenant governor pick.

Blakeman, Nassau County’s 10th county executive, was first elected in 2021 after defeating Democratic incumbent Laura Curran. He previously served as a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a Nassau County legislator, and a Hempstead town councilman.

A longtime supporter of Trump, Blakeman appeared alongside the president during a 2024 event honoring slain NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller.

LGBTQ+ advocates have frequently criticized Blakeman for his positions on trans issues, particularly his opposition to trans women participating in women’s sports.

In February 2024, Blakeman signed an executive order barring women’s sports teams that include trans women from using Nassau County athletic facilities. The policy applies to youth, collegiate, and professional teams. Teams that include trans men were not affected. The order has since been halted by the New York State Appellate Division swiftly issued an injunction halting enforcement while the plaintiffs appeal the decision

Ahead of announcing the order, Blakeman repeatedly referred to trans women as “biological males” and argued they should compete on men’s or co-ed teams. LGBTQ+ rights groups condemned the policy, saying it discriminates against trans athletes and contributes to the marginalization of trans youth.

Trump endorsed Blakeman’s gubernatorial campaign in December 2025, shortly after U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) announced she would not seek the Republican nomination. The president made his endorsement via Truth Social that “Bruce is MAGA all the way, and has been with me from the very beginning.”

The Los Angeles Blade contacted Blakeman’s campaign seeking comment on his LGBTQ+ policy priorities and views on issues including nondiscrimination protections, trans rights, and healthcare access. The campaign did not respond.

The race highlights two sharply different approaches to LGBTQ+ policy in a state widely regarded as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, home to the 1969 Stonewall uprising that helped launch the contemporary movement for LGBTQ+ equality.

Despite the ideological contrast, early polling suggests Hochul remains the clear favorite. Most public surveys show the incumbent holding a double-digit advantage over her potential Republican challengers, with some polls placing her lead at roughly 20 percentage points ahead of the November election.

The Barack Obama Presidential Center held media previews on Thursday ahead of its official Juneteenth opening, marking the debut of the first presidential center dedicated to the 44th and only Black U.S. president.

The 19.3-acre campus, located on Chicago’s South Side within historic Jackson Park, features a museum, garden, basketball court, and a new branch of the Chicago Public Library.

Multiple artifacts related to the LGBTQ+ rights movement appear in the presidential museum’s collection, though none appeared to be on display at the time of publication, according to the center’s website.

Among the objects in the collection are the pen Obama used to sign the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prohibited gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from serving openly in the military; a set of Harvey Milk commemorative stamps honoring the first openly gay elected official in San Francisco; and an Out2Enroll rainbow sweat wristband used to connect communities — specifically LGBTQ+ people and their families, friends, and allies — with health insurance coverage options available under the Affordable Care Act.

The artifacts reflect a broader LGBTQ+ legacy associated with the Obama presidency.

During the televised opening ceremony, former first lady Michelle Obama thanked her husband for “standing up for marriage equality.”

During his presidency, Obama took a number of actions affecting LGBTQ+ Americans, including repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” signing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, directing the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court, expanding federal benefits and leave to same-sex domestic partners of federal and Foreign Service employees, broadening Affordable Care Act coverage for LGBTQ+ health issues, including HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, and signing a 2014 executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The opening event drew numerous celebrities, including Stevie Wonder, Christina Aguilera, Oprah Winfrey, and Tom Hanks.

It also attracted political figures from both sides of the aisle. One notable exception was President Donald Trump, who was not invited to the ceremony. All other living former presidents were invited and attended.

The Obama Presidential Center will open to the public on June 19, with tickets available on its website.

An intersex teacher in Florida who was fired is alleging in a new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filing that he was terminated based on assumptions that he was transgender.

Shepard Scalf in the filing says he was assigned female at birth but identifies as male.

According to Monday’s filing with the EEOC, submitted on Scalf’s behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, and the law firm of Chanfrau & Chanfrau P.L., the school district fired Scalf on the basis of his sex and the presumption that he is trans. 

Scalf was hired for the 2025-2026 school year at Patriot Oaks Academy in the St. Johns County School District to teach language arts to 6th- and 7th-graders, after previously working in another Florida school district.

During the hiring process, Scalf submitted paperwork that disclosed he had been assigned female at birth. He was born with an intersex variation with XY chromosomes, and he lives as and presents as a man.

On Aug. 28, 2025, Patriot Oaks Academy Principal Drew Chiodo scheduled an emergency meeting with Scalf. The principal was directed to read a letter from the school district superintendent informing Scalf that he must either submit his resignation or be fired. 

According to the ACLU, Scalf was provided with no legitimate reason for his termination and had not received any prior warnings or disciplinary actions. At the time of his termination, Chiodo told Scalf his work was “exemplary” and that Scalf had “met every expectation.”

“Receiving this ultimatum was confusing and overwhelming. Everything had been going so well — I couldn’t understand why this was happening,” Scalf said. “The start of a school year is always brimming with promise and excitement, and I was looking forward to continuing my teaching career at Patriot Oaks until I was cornered into resigning. It became clear to me that being fired had nothing to do with my qualifications or teaching — it was about who I am.”

According to the filing, Scalf received communications that the termination followed complaints from a parent about his gender identity. However, the filing also claims that his gender identity, sex assigned at birth, and intersex status were never mentioned in his classroom.

In a 2020 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County found employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The ACLU is claiming that under that ruling, Scalf’s rights under Title VII were violated.

“Six years ago, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that employers cannot fire someone for being gay or transgender because doing so is discrimination because of sex,” said Shana Knizhnik, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, in a press release from the ACLU. “The same reasoning protects intersex people, who have long faced discrimination because their bodies and lives do not conform to narrow expectations about what a man or a woman is supposed to be. Mr. Scalf was an exemplary teacher, but despite his performance and qualifications, he was forced out of his job because he did not fit those expectations. As politicians and institutions increasingly seek to police sex and gender, intersex people are too often caught in the crossfire alongside transgender people — but federal civil rights law protects everyone from this kind of discrimination.”

Samantha Past, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Florida, stated in a press release that Florida’s public school system is increasingly hostile towards LGBTQ+ people.

“At a time when Florida’s public schools are increasingly targeted by disruptive state policies and in the midst of a teacher shortage crisis, St. Johns County School District chose to unlawfully oust a qualified and respected educator. Everyone deserves the opportunity to work and contribute to their community without fear of being targeted because of who they are. Mr. Scalf is no exception,” Past stated.

UFC fighter Josh Hokit, in a crude post-match stunt, told podcaster Joe Rogan that, “Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right America?”

The incident occurred as part of President Trump’s UFC Freedom 250 event held on the White House lawn on Sunday night. Hokit won his fight then gave an interview to Rogan on stage when he made the remark.

Trump has not addressed the incident but has a history of attacking the Obamas using racist imagery. 

White House spokesperson Steven Cheung responded to questions by saying, “He had a great win last night. He showed toughness and the ability to pressure his opponent both on his feet and on the ground.”

BET’s report on the incident noted, “The ‘Michelle Obama is a man’ claim is not new. It is a transphobic and racist conspiracy theory that has been used against the former First Lady since 2007, weaponizing both transphobia and the misgendering of Black women, who are often targets of similar attacks.”

Friday marks 10 years since a gunman killed 49 people inside the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.

The massacre, which, at the time was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, left the LGBTQ community in this country and around the world reeling. It also prompted renewed calls for gun control.

The OnePulse Foundation, which Pulse owner Barbara Poma founded after the massacre, raised upwards of $20 million for a memorial that never materialized. 

The city of Orlando in 2023 purchased the Pulse property for $2 million. Crews earlier this year demolished the former nightclub. The city of Orlando has pledged $12 million for a permanent memorial that is scheduled to open in 2027.

Washington Blade Editor Kevin Naff and International News Editor Michael K. Lavers reported from Orlando in the days after the massacre. Here are their reflections a decade later.

Describe the scene when you arrived in Orlando. Where did you go first?

NAFF: Most mainstream reporters headed for the Pulse nightclub, but it was already roped off with police keeping bystanders at least a full city block away. Instead, I hurried to The Center, Orlando’s LGBTQ community center, downtown. I expected to find it locked down with tight security but instead the doors were flung open and everyone inside was busy at work. No tears, just dedicated staff and volunteers working the phones to secure visas and free plane tickets for relatives of the victims. The director gave me a tour and in the back storage room were pallets and pallets of bottled water stacked to the ceiling. When I asked what all the water was for, he said the city had issued a call for blood donations and the lines to donate were 1,500 deep in 100-degree heat. So The Center drove around to all the sites to deliver water to all those standing in line. 

That scene was so inspiring and a testament to the strength and resiliency of the LGBTQ community. We’d seen tragedy before and knew how to respond.

LAVERS: I arrived in Orlando about 14 hours after the massacre took place. The city was shellshocked.

Equality Florida, the state’s LGBTQ advocacy group, and other organizations held a press conference at The Center shortly after my flight from D.C. landed. I drove there from the airport. Terry DeCarlo, who was The Center’s executive director at the time, along with then-Equality Florida Executive Director Nadine Smith and others spoke on behalf of a community that was reeling. The Center at the press conference handed out business cards that read, “You matter.” I had it in my wallet when I drove to a makeshift memorial that was a block from Pulse — the police had cordoned off the area immediately around the nightclub. A local resident who I interviewed told me that she did not know if her friends who were at Pulse when the gunman opened fire survived. Another person with whom I spoke shared a similar story. 

A torrential downpour began shortly after I arrived. The storm was an apt metaphor for the raw emotion of that horrific day.

What’s your most prominent memory of covering the Pulse massacre?

NAFF: I was covering a vigil in downtown Orlando when then-Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s motorcade arrived unannounced. To that point, he had not addressed the LGBTQ angle and seemed to be downplaying the fact that this was an attack on our community. I hurried to the front row as he held an impromptu news conference. To my dismay, he took only three short questions from TV reporters then rushed away. I grabbed his communications director and insisted that Scott take a question from the LGBTQ media. She agreed and told me to wait next to the SUV. When Scott approached, I asked him, “What is your message to LGBTQ Floridians?”

To my surprise, he sputtered, stammered, and broke into tears before telling me, “This was an attack, what else can you say? This was an attack against the gays, an attack against Hispanics, an attack against our country, our nation and it’s disgusting. The biggest thing we do now is ask how to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

It was his first public acknowledgment that the LGBTQ community was the target of the attack.

LAVERS: Two moments stand out for me.

The first moment is when then-President Barack Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Orlando on June 16, four days after the massacre. I was one of the reporters who the White House asked to be part of the local press pool. I was about 50 feet away from Obama and Biden when they placed bouquets with 49 flowers — one for each of the victims — at a makeshift memorial between City Hall and the Dr. Phillips Center for the Performing Arts in downtown Orlando. Obama in remarks he made to the press pool mentioned one of the gay victims who had once said, “We cannot be afraid.” The emotions of the last four days simply became too much, and I broke down. Another reporter who was part of the press pool who was standing next to me realized I had broken down. She put her hand on my back to console me.

The second moment came a few weeks later when I was in Puerto Rico to cover the community’s response to the massacre and to interview victims’ relatives. Orlando has a very large Puerto Rican community, and nearly half of those who died at Pulse were of Puerto Rican descent.

I drove to Caguas, a city that is roughly 20 miles south of San Juan, the island’s capital, on July 7, and interviewed Aida Velázquez in her small apartment. Her son, Frankie “Jimmy” de Jesús, died at Pulse. Aida talked about her son, and she showed me pictures of him. Jimmy also danced Jíbaro, a Puerto Rican folk dance. The interview took place less than a month after the massacre — Jimmy’s funeral took place in Caguas less than two weeks earlier.

I sat in my car after the interview and sobbed uncontrollably for nearly five minutes. Nothing can possibly prepare you for interviewing a mother who had just lost her child in the most horrific way possible. 

How did the local community respond and what about their response gave you hope or inspiration?

NAFF: In addition to the staff at The Center working to assist victims and their families, everyday Orlando residents stepped up to help however they could. At the downtown vigils, straight mothers and fathers carried signs offering hugs to anyone who needed them. I encountered a group of young teenage males who approached a group of law enforcement officers and appeared to perform for them. When they finished, I asked what they were doing and they told me that they were straight friends who lived in Orlando and wanted to do something to help so they composed an uplifting rap song and walked around performing it for anyone who needed cheering up. 

LAVERS: The way that Orlando rallied around the LGBTQ community was simply inspiring. 

Imam Muhammad Musri, president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, at a memorial service that took place at the Dr. Phillips Performing Arts Center on June 13 said his organization was “united as Americans when it comes to standing with the LGBT community and their rights to live freely and to practice their lives here.” This comment underscored the outpouring of support that Orlando showed its LGBTQ community after Pulse. It was also a call for the better angels among us to reject hate in all of its forms.

What surprised you most about the experience?

NAFF: I was most surprised — and moved — after talking to Rev. Debreita Taylor of Oasis Fellowship Ministries, an LGBTQ-affirming ministry. 

“My message is love. Period. Love. Period. There’s nothing in the word of God that faith leaders can go to that teaches hate,” she told me. “Have faith and believe that evil and hate can be eradicated one person at a time. How do you treat someone? How do you embrace someone who treats you wrong? We all bleed, laugh, hope and have great victories and major defeats. And so, you know me, even if you don’t know my name — I’m you.”

LAVERS: It admittedly took me quite a while to fully process what I experienced in Orlando — I was focused on doing my job as a reporter, which was to cover the story, and, most importantly, show the human impact of what had happened. I suppose one surprising aspect of the time I spent in Orlando was that I found myself feeling more defiant against those who seek to destroy our community. They want us to live in fear, and I refuse to give them that satisfaction. 

What, if anything, changed as a result of Pulse?

NAFF: In the immediate aftermath of the attack, queer spaces began rethinking their approach to security, which has served us well in the years since. Sadly, just a year later, Pulse was bumped to the No. 2 deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history when a gunman opened fire on the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas, killing 60 people. Americans and their politicians never learn from these largely preventable tragedies. The carnage continues. 

LAVERS: Gun violence remains a shameful scourge in this country. Our community remains vulnerable to violence and discrimination. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other politicians here in Washington, around the country, and overseas continue to use our community to advance an anti-equality agenda. The carnage continues, as my colleague correctly notes, but our community remains strong and defiant. That gives me hope.