Residents sought councilmembers focused on solving real issues rather than spreading fear.
Voters in Odessa, Texas, have decisively rejected the city’s anti-trans stance by ousting three city council members who backed the controversial bathroom ban and electing the city’s first openly gay councilmember.
Craig Stoker, the executive director of the local Meals on Wheels, ran on a platform centered around improving the city’s infrastructure. In contrast, his opponent, incumbent Denise Swanner, focused her campaign on homophobic rhetoric.
Swanner’s campaign distributed political mailers stating that the only thing she and Stoker had in common was being in relationships with men. Although the race was nonpartisan, this was part of Swanner’s effort to associate Stoker with the Democratic Party.
Craig Stoker remained unfazed by the attacks during the campaign.
“None of it was truly about me,” Stoker told the Texas Tribune. “It was their fear of losing a seat, losing an election, losing the title. I came into this campaign with the mindset that I’m going to have to rely on the work I’ve done in the community and the reputation I’ve built preceding me. That’s all I got.”
He added, “I understood the outcome was too important. If I could pull this off, what I would have the ability to do completely outweighed whatever they were slinging at me. And the ability to represent people who have probably never had a voice in the City Council chamber became too important to me.”
Stoker’s strategy resonated with voters. He secured the at-large seat with 56% of the vote, a remarkable achievement in a county where Donald Trump earned 76% of the vote.
His opponent, Denise Swanner, and two other incumbents—Mayor Javier Joven and councilmember Mark Matta—were key figures in a conservative majority on the six-member council. This group had pushed an agenda that included a $10,000 bounty on transgender individuals who use bathrooms or locker rooms not aligned with their sex assigned at birth.
“Voters said this is not how we want our city run… I agree, and we have to do a better job for the people,” said Cal Hendrick, who defeated Joven, in an interview with the Odessa American, which had dubbed the trio “The Squad.”
The election results have sparked hope among residents that city leadership will pivot away from divisive social issues and refocus on critical local concerns like infrastructure.
Odessa gained national attention for its extreme anti-trans bathroom ordinance, which allows any individual—regardless of residency—to sue a transgender person for at least $10,000 in damages for using a bathroom not aligned with their sex assigned at birth. There is no limit on the potential damages.
Last month, the city council expanded the ordinance to apply to private facilities in addition to public ones. The law also enforces criminal penalties, deeming violations a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500. Refusal to leave a bathroom after being asked can result in trespassing charges.
The ordinance defines biological sex based on birth certificates, whether issued at birth or amended for clerical errors. This means transgender individuals with updated birth certificates reflecting their gender identity could still violate the law if they use bathrooms aligning with their gender.
The election marks a significant shift in Odessa’s political landscape and a potential turning point for the city’s future direction.
The activists, part of the group Trans Kids Deserve Better, staged an overnight protest outside the Department of Health and Social Care offices.
In response to the announcement by Health Secretary Wes Streeting and the Department of Health and Social Care that puberty blockers for treating gender dysphoria in trans youth would be banned “indefinitely,” a group of trans youth activists set up a temporary encampment outside Streeting’s office. On December 11, Trans Kids Deserve Better and their supporters set up camp outside Wes Streeting’s office, remaining there overnight until the following day, according to an Instagram post from the group. While puberty blockers have effectively been banned in the U.K. since May, when the Department of Health and Social Care imposed an “emergency ban” on the medication for trans youth, Streeting’s recent announcement on Wednesday further extended the ban. He stated that the National Health Service (NHS) and private doctors are prohibited from prescribing or supplying puberty blockers to trans youth for gender dysphoria treatment until 2027. However, existing prescriptions for trans youth will continue to be honored. In contrast, cisgender youth experiencing precocious puberty are still permitted to receive prescriptions for the blockers.
In an article for Huck Magazine, one of the group’s activists, known as Grin, wrote that “while today isn’t a big change, it is a sign that the denial of our healthcare is now institutionalized.” Gender clinics in the U.K. have faced criticism for notoriously long waiting times, with an August study revealing that trans youth wait an average of two years to begin receiving gender-affirming care.
Grin wrote that Streeting “has promised ‘clinical trials’ on the effects of hormone blockers.” However, many clinical studies on the subject already exist, and the overwhelming majority conclude that hormone blockers are beneficial to the well-being of trans youth.
“But we already know what happens when we get them. We get to live happier, healthier lives because our bodies won’t be permanently altered in ways we don’t want,” Grin continued. “The real trial or experiment he has now created is to keep us from our healthcare and see what happens when an entire generation of trans people grows up knowing the trauma they’ve gone through was avoidable. I’ve not consented to be part of that experiment — I just wanted healthcare.”
The group has been targeting Streeting since August as part of a separate campaign called Trans Kids Are Dying, Wes Streeting. According to Grin’s article in Huck Magazine, the group has visited the secretary’s office daily since July, delivering “handmade paper coffins” to symbolize the lives of trans people already lost and those still at risk. Grin also mentioned that the group had received an invitation to meet with Streeting, but that it “never happened,” despite “constant emails to follow up on his invitation.”
On this occasion, the activists left a life-sized cardboard coffin outside Streeting’s office, as detailed in an Instagram post by Jude Guitamacchi, who participated in the overnight protest.
In their Instagram caption, they wrote, “This healthcare ban starts with trans+ kids but won’t end with them. This is about all of us. We must work together and do everything we can to challenge the ban and fight for the human rights of the trans+ community in the UK.”
Michigan Democrats are working to pass a bill that would enshrine same-sex marriage in the state’s constitution. This effort comes in response to concerns that the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn its 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized marriage equality nationwide. Additionally, some Republican lawmakers, including one state congressman, have called to “make gay marriage illegal again.”
Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell declared state laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional, Michigan is among several states where outdated laws or constitutional amendments still prohibit same-sex marriage. As Fox 2 Detroit reports, voters in Michigan approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that defined marriage as “the union of one man and one woman” for all legal purposes.
If the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have hinted they may, Michigan’s marriage equality ban would automatically be reinstated.
In response, Democratic state Rep. Jason Morgan introduced House Joint Resolution F last year, which aims to remove the 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. However, for this resolution to move forward, it must receive support from at least two-thirds of the state Legislature, a goal Morgan says will be difficult to achieve. “I believe the people will vote to support families,” Morgan told Fox 2, though he acknowledged that the legislative support isn’t there yet.
Meanwhile, Republican state Rep. Josh Schriver is actively calling for the reversal of marriage equality. In a recent post on X, Schriver stated that America only “accepted” gay marriage due to a “perverted Supreme Court ruling” and urged that marriage equality be overturned, calling it “not remotely controversial or extreme.” Schriver clarified that his post was meant to pressure the Supreme Court into reversing the ruling that equates “traditional marriage” with gay marriage.
Governor Gretchen Whitmer has strongly opposed any efforts to strip away marriage equality, stating, “Any attempt to strip away gay marriage is wrong.” She reaffirmed Michigan’s commitment to protecting the rights of all citizens, emphasizing that no one should face discrimination based on who they love.
With a 6-3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court that has shown a willingness to overturn longstanding precedents, as seen with the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade, and an incoming second Trump administration, many same-sex couples are rushing to marry before Inauguration Day to secure legal protections in states where marriage equality is still guaranteed.
Despite Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stating that overturning marriage equality was never a campaign promise, Morgan remains concerned that the Trump administration poses a threat to marriage equality. “I do believe that marriage equality is at risk under the Trump administration,” he said.
If the resolution doesn’t pass through the legislature, Morgan is committed to continuing the fight to protect marriage equality in Michigan. As Fox 2 noted, a citizen-driven petition could also push the amendment to the ballot. “It’s just so important,” Morgan said. “This is something I’m very passionate about.”
Military Veterans, Families, and Service Members with Transgender Children Decry NDAA Provision as a ‘Slap in the Face’
Military veterans, active-duty service members, and families with transgender children are condemning a provision in Congress’s annual defense policy bill that targets certain medical treatments for transgender minors, calling it a “slap in the face” based on misinformation and a lack of understanding about the transgender community.
The provision, included in the compromised version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) negotiated by the House and Senate, would block TRICARE, the military’s health insurance program, from covering gender dysphoria treatments for minors that could potentially lead to sterilization, applying to individuals under the age of 18.
Senate Provision Would Have Explicitly Banned Coverage for Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy and Puberty Blockers for Minors
A more specific provision, adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee in its defense bill in July, sought to explicitly prohibit coverage for “affirming hormone therapy” and puberty blockers, as well as other medical treatments for gender dysphoria—distress stemming from a mismatch between an individual’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth—if they “could result in sterilization” for minors.
Hormone treatments, which typically involve doses of testosterone or estrogen, can have mixed effects on fertility, while puberty blockers, used to delay physical changes like breast development or voice deepening, are not known to significantly affect fertility on their own.
Branden Marty, a Navy veteran with a transgender daughter, criticized such policies, noting that they reflect a broader failure to listen to medical experts. “With policies like this, and we’ve seen them in states and at the federal level, legislators and politicians and leaders within our system of government are not listening to experts,” Marty said.
He emphasized that gender-affirming care is about working with healthcare professionals to provide support to families, helping transgender and nonbinary children understand their identities, and ensuring they can live healthy, fulfilling lives at school and home. “It’s about helping a child understand themselves and develop a positive self-appreciation,” he added.
Major Medical Groups Affirm Gender-Affirming Care as Medically Necessary, Lifesaving, and Essential
Leading medical organizations have consistently stated that gender-affirming healthcare for both transgender adults and minors is medically necessary and can be lifesaving. These groups strongly oppose efforts by state and federal governments to restrict access to such treatments, arguing that they are essential for the well-being and mental health of transgender individuals.
Other GOP-backed proposals to reverse the Pentagon’s abortion travel policy and prohibit TRICARE from covering gender-affirming care for transgender service members were removed from the final version of the bill. This suggests that Republicans believe the ban on care for transgender minors will be sufficient to secure broader support for the measure, even if other contentious provisions are excluded.
Democrats Push Back Against NDAA Over Transgender Care Prohibition; White House Remains Silent on Veto
At least one Democrat, House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), has announced he will vote against the NDAA over its prohibition on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Other Democrats, including Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), also refused to advance the bill on Tuesday, citing the “ideological riders” attached to the legislation, which typically enjoys bipartisan support.
On Tuesday, House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) stated that he disagreed with the inclusion of the healthcare provision in the final NDAA and was not involved in its decision. However, he stopped short of opposing the overall $883.7 billion defense package.
The White House has not yet indicated whether President Biden, who has previously pledged to veto legislation that discriminates against transgender people, would sign the bill in its current form.
Speaker Mike Johnson Defends NDAA Provision as Victory for Troops; Air Force Chief Disagrees on “Lethality” Impact
During a news conference on Tuesday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hailed the provision barring TRICARE coverage for gender-affirming care for minors as a victory “for our troops and for our country.”
“We spent a lot of time and effort working on it,” Johnson said of the negotiated NDAA text, emphasizing that service members and their families deserve the best support possible. In a statement on Sunday, Johnson argued that “woke ideology” had infiltrated the military, and that permanently banning transgender medical treatment for minors would help refocus the military on “lethality.”
However, an Air Force chief, who requested anonymity due to his active-duty status, expressed disagreement with Johnson’s characterization, stating that he saw no connection between the provision and improving the “lethality” of the U.S. armed services.
Air Force Chief and Spouse Criticize NDAA Provision, Argue It Undermines Military Readiness
“As someone who has served for over 20 years and is involved in high-level decision-making on the morale, health, welfare, training, readiness, and equipping of service members, I cannot link those things,” said an Air Force chief, identified only as “J,” in an interview with The Hill.
“I don’t understand how he [Speaker Johnson] comes to that conclusion, because, in my mind, it doesn’t make sense at all. Taking away something that families are relying on distracts us from the mission and the task at hand to remain as lethal as we are,” said J, whose teenage daughter is transgender and currently receives medical care covered by TRICARE.
J’s spouse, referred to only as “H,” also weighed in, criticizing the provision’s potential impact on military families. “You can’t say this is going to help our military when you’re scaring military families,” H said, expressing concern about the stress and uncertainty the provision could create for service members and their loved ones.
Military Families Weigh Impact of NDAA Provision on Health Care and Future Service
If the NDAA passes in its current form, “J” and “H,” who live on the West Coast, are considering supplemental health insurance or paying out-of-pocket for their child’s care—options that could put significant strain on the family’s finances. With more than two decades of military service and just two-and-a-half years remaining on his commitment, “J” is also rethinking his future in the military.
“I have a strong desire and propensity to continue to serve, but this will definitely weigh on my and my family’s decision to continue serving,” said “J.” “It’s difficult, but my family’s got to come first.”
Ann, a military veteran and spouse of a senior Pentagon officer, echoed similar concerns. Her teenage son is transgender, and she explained that the latest NDAA adds another layer of complexity to their family’s ability to relocate and maintain stability. Ann, who requested to be identified only by her middle name due to her husband’s active duty status, expressed frustration with the uncertainty the provision creates for families like hers.
Military Families Feel Increasing Pressure as Gender-Affirming Care Restrictions Spread
“The country is kind of closing in on us, like we’re running out of places to go,” Ann said, reflecting on the growing restrictions surrounding gender-affirming care. “Especially with something like the NDAA and just seeing the writing on the wall about a national ban on gender-affirming care.” She referenced one of President-elect Trump’s campaign promises, adding, “The little safety bubbles are getting smaller and smaller.”
Since 2021, more than half of the U.S. states have either heavily restricted or outright banned some forms of transition-related care for minors—and, in some cases, adults. The Supreme Court also appears poised to uphold a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for youth, further escalating concerns among families in similar situations.
Ann, a military veteran who served eight years, including a 15-month combat tour in Iraq, and her husband, a four-time combat deployer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, have spent roughly five years apart due to their service. The couple now faces the additional strain of navigating an increasingly hostile landscape for transgender care while managing the demands of military life.
Transgender Child Thriving with Gender-Affirming Care, but Family Faces Uncertainty with NDAA Provision
Now relocated to Virginia, Ann shared that her transgender child is “thriving” with the support of gender-affirming care provided through TRICARE. He enjoys fencing, watching sports, and playing in his school’s band. Academically, he has excelled, though Ann noted that his geometry class this year has been a bit “humbling.”
“Trans kids are kids. They are, the overwhelming majority, thriving and doing well and contributing to their community,” Ann said. “They’re happy and they’re healthy, and that’s like all that parents want, right?”
However, while Ann’s husband is not yet ready to retire, the potential loss of coverage for their son’s care would force the family to rethink their future. “If coverage for our son’s healthcare is taken away, that’s pretty much marking the end of the road,” Ann said, expressing the deep uncertainty and frustration many military families like hers are grappling with in light of the proposed policy changes.
Military Spouses Express Concern Over NDAA Provision and Its Impact on Transgender Service Members and Their Families
“If that’s the way we’re going to be treated … if that’s the tone that Congress and the government wants to set, then that’s pretty unfortunate,” said Ann, reflecting on the potential consequences of the NDAA provision. “You’re going to lose combat experience; you’re going to lose leaders with decades of valuable experience that the military needs.” She continued, “It’s a scary world out there, so it’s a pretty sad state of affairs for our national security that you’re going to ask folks to make that decision and not support their families.”
“C,” a veteran spouse whose husband served in the military for 26 years, described the NDAA’s gender-affirming care provision as “an enormous slap in the face.” She, too, has concerns about the direction the military is taking. “C” requested that she be identified only by her first initial because her transgender child, now an adult, is not publicly out as trans.
“C” and her husband both come from military families, and their child had plans to follow in their footsteps with a military career. But with the ban on TRICARE coverage for transgender healthcare and the looming possibility that President-elect Trump may reinstate a policy barring transgender people from serving openly, “C” worries about whether the military will remain a safe place for her child. “It’s all they’ve ever wanted — to be like their dad, to carry on a family tradition of service to the country,” she said. “I don’t think I can truly even express how devastating it would be for them to not be able to fulfill those dreams.”
Similarly, “B,” a military spouse from the Southwest, expressed concern about the long-term implications of the NDAA provision. While the measure doesn’t directly affect her own daughter, an 18-year-old college student, she fears it could set a troubling precedent. “This is kind of a slippery slope,” said “B,” who requested anonymity because her husband, an airman, is actively serving. “If this becomes the first federal law to prevent transgender youth from getting this healthcare, what’s to stop [Congress] from removing TRICARE coverage for trans people of all ages?”
“B” continued, “I do get concerned about that moving forward, that this could impact my daughter, this could impact older trans adults. I don’t know where this ends, so I think it’s a really dangerous road to start down.”
Her daughter, who has been accessing gender-affirming care through TRICARE, came out to “B” and her husband when she was just 12. “It was a very steep learning curve for us … I had never even heard the word ‘cisgender’ before,” said “B.” They sought advice from medical professionals, mental health providers, and other parents before making the decision to support their daughter’s medical transition. “This wasn’t something that we went into blindly or quickly,” she emphasized.
In 2021, while living in Texas, the family was forced to split up after the state began investigating parents who provided their children with gender-affirming medical treatments, with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott calling it “abusive.” “B” fled Texas with their daughter, who had to restart her senior year of high school, while “B”’s husband, unable to leave his post, stayed behind. The family has since reunited, but “B” declined to disclose their current location, citing privacy and safety concerns.
“My spouse is active-duty military. If these lawmakers saw him in the hallway in Congress, they would shake his hand and thank him for his service,” said “B.” “They trust him with sensitive information, and they trust him with the security of the nation, but somehow they can’t trust him with making informed medical decisions for his own child?”
Gay Spanish teacher has won $90,000 after suing her school district for allegedly punishing her for supporting LGBTQ+ students.
Eileen Brennock filed a lawsuit claiming she was subjected to a hostile work environment at Mountain View Middle School in Oregon’s Newberg School District. According to Brennock, the hostility stemmed from her speaking out against Principal Terry McElligot, who, she alleges, told staff at a September 2021 meeting that it was unacceptable to tell students it is okay to be LGBTQ+, as reported by Oregon Live/The Oregonian.
She also claims the now-retired administrator instructed staff not to display Black Lives Matter or Pride signs in their classrooms to avoid “poking the bear.” At the time, the school board had recently implemented a policy banning both types of displays, though a judge later ruled that policy unconstitutional a year after its enactment. The lawsuit claims that after the meeting, Brennock reported McElligot’s alleged statements to Assistant Principal Lindsey Kopacek, who dismissed her concerns, telling Brennock that McElligot never made those comments and that she must have imagined them “due to cortisol and stress levels.”
Brennock responded that if a student told her they were gay, she would say, “Me too!”
Following this exchange, the lawsuit states that Brennock endured a hostile work environment and filed a complaint with the Oregon Department of Education. Even after the department ruled in her favor, Brennock allegedly continued to face harassment from school officials. The department found that the school had violated its agreement, failing, among other things, to implement required staff training on LGBTQ+ issues.
Brennock also accused the district’s former superintendent, Stephens Phillips, of using a gay slur. She further claimed that the district altered the wording in an anti-discrimination presentation to refer to LGBTQ+ identities as a “lifestyle” and LGBTQ+ people as being from the “opposite side of the fence.”
The school district denied McElligot’s use of hateful language at the staff meeting but argued that even if she had said it, it wouldn’t have been discriminatory because it was “not intended to be.”
The Oregon Department of Education disagreed, stating in its ruling that the district “misunderstands what constitutes discrimination under the law.” The ruling emphasized that the alleged comments “clearly articulated that teacher conduct toward students belonging to certain protected classes should be different than conduct toward other students.”
Although the school district did not admit liability in the settlement, it agreed to publicly commit to fostering an inclusive environment for both students and staff. The district also promised to make discrimination complaint forms available online and in print starting the next school year.
Mace faces accusations of staging a “self-serving publicity stunt.”
A 33-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly assaulting Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) in retaliation for her recent opposition to trans rights.
“I was physically accosted at the Capitol tonight by a pro-tr*ns man,” Mace wrote on X. It’s unclear why she chose to censor the word “trans,” but given her outspoken anti-trans views, she may be signaling that she considers it a term to be stigmatized.
“One new brace for my wrist and some ice for my arm and it’ll heal just fine,” she continued. “The Capitol police arrested the guy. Your tr*ns violence and threats on my life will only make me double down. FAFO. #HoldTheLine.”
A statement from U.S. Capitol Police confirmed that foster youth advocate James McIntyre of Illinois was arrested for allegedly assaulting Mace after lawfully entering the building through security. According to sources who spoke to Axios, the incident occurred during an event for the Foster Youth Caucus, of which Mace is a co-chair.
However, three eyewitnesses have accused Mace of fabricating the assault, claiming that she and McIntyre simply exchanged a standard handshake, during which he asked the Congresswoman to protect trans rights.
“From what I saw, it was a normal handshake and interaction that I would expect any legislator to have with a constituent,” former foster youth and LGBTQ+ rights advocate Elliot Hinkle told Imprint.
Hinkle further noted that McIntyre’s arrest – he is also a former foster youth – sends a troubling message: “It sends a chilling effect of, you’re not actually safe to go to Capitol Hill and share an opinion that is true for you, that isn’t violent — because right now if you do, a congressperson might say that they were physically assaulted and call the police on you. So how would a young person in care feel safe?”
In a Facebook post, foster youth advocate Lisa Dickson expressed her frustration with Mace’s actions at the event: “I want to express deep disappointment in the fact that Congresswoman Nancy Mace came to a national foster youth event, told participating youth that it was a safe space — and literally had one of them arrested by Capitol police for simply shaking her hand and asking about trans rights.”
She added in a follow-up: “Today was not the day or the time for a self-serving publicity stunt – especially not a politician lashing out at a vulnerable young person who just took her at her word that, when helping foster youth, ‘all suggestions are welcome.’”
Mace, who has long espoused anti-trans views, has escalated her rhetoric since trans Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-DE) won her race for Congress in November.
In response to McBride becoming the first trans person ever elected to Congress, Mace introduced a resolution to ban trans women from using women’s facilities at the Capitol, as well as legislation to bar trans people from using restrooms on all federal property. This comes despite the fact that trans people have been working at and visiting the Capitol for years without incident, and McBride, as a member of Congress, would receive her own private bathroom.
Although Mace’s resolution has not yet been voted on, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has already instituted a rule prohibiting trans people from using restrooms that correspond with their gender at the Capitol complex.
Over the past several weeks, Mace has continued to escalate her anti-trans rhetoric, even casually using an anti-trans slur in reference to protestors.
After a group of trans rights protestors demonstrated against her, she filmed a social media video in which she said, “Alright, so some tr***y protestors showed up at the Capitol today to protest my bathroom bill, but they got arrested, poor things. So I have a message for the protestors who got arrested. You ready?”
She then took out a bullhorn, despite already being audible through her microphone, and proceeded to read the standard Miranda rights into the bullhorn while facing a police officer. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”
Her use of the slur sparked widespread backlash.
And now, it appears that Mace is regularly using the bigoted term in her rhetoric.
“My staff has arrived to another wonderful morning in Washington, DC. Good morning, tr*nnies. #HoldTheLine” — Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace), December 9, 2024.
Mace has been leveraging transphobia as a cornerstone of her political career since before she was elected to Congress. In her first campaign, she falsely claimed that a law requiring “transgender equality in the military” existed, blaming her Democratic opponent for it and suggesting that it would result in a Marine Corps base in her district being shut down. The claim was entirely fabricated—no such law existed, and the Marine base remains operational today—but it helped her secure a seat in Congress.
In her second run for office, Mace ran an ad accusing her opponent of providing “SEX CHANGE SURGERY. PUBERTY BLOCKERS. GENDER CHANGING HORMONES. FOR CHILDREN?” Despite the fact that her opponent was a doctor at a hospital that did not provide gender-affirming care, the smear campaign was effective, leading to the opponent’s forced resignation.
Mace’s record on LGBTQ+ rights is abysmal, scoring just 15 and 14 out of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard. She has voted against the Equality Act, which would ban federal discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, and opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because it included protections for transgender inmates.
In her ongoing crusade against trans rights, Mace has referred to Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-DE) as “it” and as a “man,” and has made efforts to block McBride from using women’s restrooms at the Capitol. In addition, she has started selling anti-trans t-shirts and has stated that it’s “offensive” for McBride to believe she is “equal” to other congresswomen.
The Freedom to Read Act safeguards both books and the librarians who curate them.
On Monday, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D) signed the Freedom to Read Act into law, making it illegal for libraries and public schools to ban books.
“Across the nation, we have seen attempts to suppress and censor the stories and experiences of others,” Murphy said in a statement. “I’m proud to amplify the voices of our past and present, as there is no better way for our children to prepare for the future than to read freely.”
On social media, Murphy also emphasized that “reading freely is key to helping our children become lifelong learners.”
“Part of our responsibility as educators and education policymakers is to empower students by providing access to diverse ideas, knowledge, and perspectives,” said New Jersey Acting Education Commissioner Kevin Dehmer. “The Freedom to Read Act demonstrates our commitment to the educational excellence that defines our state. Through this legislation, we are protecting the integrity of our libraries, curated by dedicated professionals, and ensuring these resources are available to help every student grow as a critical thinker.”
Though the law will not take effect for a year, both the New Jersey state librarian and state education commissioner can begin implementing it as necessary. The law stipulates that libraries cannot ban books based on the origin, background, or views presented in the text or by its authors. Librarians are also prohibited from removing books they personally disagree with.
Additionally, school boards and library governing bodies are required to establish policies for curating and removing materials, as well as implementing systems for addressing book challenges.
The legislation also shields public library staff from criminal and civil liability for actions taken in good faith under the law, such as stocking “diverse and inclusive material” and providing residents access to all library materials.
New Jersey joins other states like Illinois, California, and Maryland, which have enacted similar measures in response to the rising trend of book banning. Last year, Illinois became the first state to pass such a bill, addressing the growing national concern over restricted access to books.
A recent report from the free-speech nonprofit PEN America revealed a significant surge in book bans during the 2023-2024 school year, with more than 10,000 books banned across the U.S. This is a sharp increase from the 3,362 books banned the previous year.
PEN America highlighted that banned books often include titles featuring romance, sexual experiences, rape or sexual abuse, as well as works with LGBTQ+ themes or those addressing race, racism, and characters of color.
Florida and Iowa have led the nation in book bans, recording over 8,000 instances between the two states. These bans are largely driven by stricter laws aimed at limiting access to certain books.
The organization also noted that these figures likely undercount the total number of book bans, as many go unreported. Schools have also implemented “soft” book bans, including policies that discourage students from checking out certain books, restricting who can access specific materials, canceling book fairs, and removing classroom collections.
City council members attempted to defund a weekly pizza party for LGBTQ+ students. However, what happened next took everyone by surprise.
In the small town of Ellensburg, Washington, pizza has become an unlikely source of controversy.
City council member Joshua Thompson claims that the weekly pizza gatherings for LGBTQ+ students are influencing high schoolers to adopt a “gay lifestyle” or explore transgender identities, framing the popular dish as a catalyst for these changes.
City council member Joshua Thompson sparked controversy when he declared that the weekly Pizza Klatch at Ellensburg High School—a safe space for LGBTQ+ students and allies—was a “target on minors” and claimed it was influencing students to adopt gay or transgender identities.
During a council meeting in the Yakima Valley town of Ellensburg, Washington (population 18,703), Thompson proposed cutting the $1,400 annual funding for the program, which provides pizza and a supportive environment for an average of 27 students each week. The program, initiated by the Ellensburg Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Commission in 2023, aims to foster connection and safety for LGBTQ+ youth.
Councilwoman Sarah Beauchamp, a mother of an LGBTQ+ child, strongly defended the funding, emphasizing its importance for students’ well-being. “$1,400 a year for these kids to hang out and have friendships,” she said. “We are not making them transgender. We’re not turning them homosexual by having a place for them to gather and feel safe.”
Thompson’s motion to defund the pizza program failed, as did a compromise amendment requiring parental permission for students to attend. Ultimately, the council voted 4–3 to approve the DEI Commission’s $10,000 budget request but excluded the $1,400 for the weekly pizza gatherings.
However, the funding shortfall was quickly addressed by Ellensburg resident Steve Verhey, a former council candidate who raised over $2,200 through an online fundraiser within days. “I’m a little bit annoyed at having to do the city council’s job for them,” Verhey told KNDO News. “The city council’s job is to keep everyone who lives in Ellensburg safe and to give them the conditions they need to thrive.”
Thanks to community support, the Pizza Klatch will continue to provide a welcoming space for LGBTQ+ students—funded entirely by private donations—for another year and beyond.
New York City officials have corroborated reports from other local jurisdictions: there has been a noticeable uptick in the number of marriages across the country, often referred to as the “Trump bump.”
While the city doesn’t record details about couples’ gender or immigration status, anecdotal evidence suggests that many of these marriages stem from concerns about the potential rollback of marriage equality for same-sex couples under a possible second Trump administration.
The New York City Clerk’s Office, which manages the Marriage Bureau, reported 8,537 marriage license appointments in November 2024—the month Donald Trump was re-elected for a second term. This marks a 33% increase compared to November 2023, according to data provided by the agency to The City.
In the weeks leading up to the 2024 election, New York City recorded approximately 1,500 marriage license appointments per week. That number surged to 2,365 in the week immediately following Donald Trump’s re-election, representing a 55% increase. Appointments remained above average for the rest of November but dipped to 1,914 by the week ending December 3.
“We already fought for it. I don’t want to have to do it again,” said Ryan Addario, 36, referencing marriage equality as he exited the Marriage Bureau in Lower Manhattan with his new husband, Nicholas Caycedo, 39. The Bronx residents joined other couples voicing concerns about the future of same-sex marriage under a conservative Supreme Court.
“I just didn’t want to have any potential obstacles,” Addario explained.
Many couples interviewed shared similar fears that the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage, could be overturned by the Court’s conservative supermajority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have previously signaled their willingness to revisit the ruling.
Although Donald Trump has not campaigned on overturning marriage equality, his administration’s anti-LGBTQ+ appointees and policies have left many concerned. Trump’s incoming press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, dismissed these fears, stating to NBC News that concerns over marriage equality are “sadly mistaken” and fueled by “media fear-mongering.” She emphasized that overturning the decision “was never a campaign promise.”
However, legal experts warn that future changes remain possible. Slate’s legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern recently suggested on the Outward podcast that while the current 6–3 conservative majority might not immediately overturn marriage equality, a further shift—such as replacing Justice Sonia Sotomayor under Trump—could create the conditions for such a reversal.
Attorney Diana Adams, executive director of the Chosen Family Law Center, advised same-sex couples, particularly those with children, to secure their legal relationships through marriage. “Having a legal connection to your child, having a legal connection to your partner is very, very helpful,” Adams said. “If you were intending to get married, this is the time to get married.”
Some newlyweds may have simply been celebrating Trump’s electoral success as a New Yorker. Trump significantly improved his 2020 margins in his native Queens and won nearly 70% of Staten Island’s vote in 2024. Data on borough-specific marriage rates, however, was unavailable.
Outside the Marriage Bureau, the mood was a mix of urgency and joy. “There’s so much uncertainty in the world right now,” said Caycedo. “The one thing that is certain is our love. And I was like, ‘let’s surrender to that.’”
Anti-trans activist and far-right provocateur Matt Walsh demanded that transgender individuals be “completely erased from the earth” during an anti-trans rally outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
That morning, oral arguments commenced in the case of United States v. Skrmetti, which challenges Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The outcome of this case is expected to shape the future of gender-affirming care access across the country.
Walsh was joined by other anti-trans figures, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), as they spoke outside the Supreme Court while pro-trans rights activists attempted to drown out their message. The New Republic reports that there were approximately four times as many pro-trans protesters as anti-trans ones.
“Children have a right to be protected from all of those people over there who want to harm them and damage them and destroy them, and they will be,” Walsh declared.
“So to the trans activists over there who are claiming this is all about the rights of children, I say again: Yes, you’re right, it is. They have a right to be protected from you. Children have a right to be protected from all of those people over there who want to harm them and damage them and destroy them.”
“They are gonna lose,” he continued. “They are losing right now. We are not going to let them harm our children. This case is just the beginning of the fight. It is not the end. We are not gonna rest until every child is protected, until trans ideology is entirely erased from the earth. That’s what we’re fighting for, and we will not stop until we achieve it.”
Walsh also stated, “There’s no such thing as a ‘trans kid.’ That doesn’t exist. Those kids are not trans. They are confused, and their confusion has been exploited by quacks and abusers. They are abuse victims. They are not trans kids.”
Walsh, the author of Church of Cowards, is known for producing anti-trans documentaries and promoting harmful rhetoric online. He has advocated against no-fault divorce and compared raising gay children to human trafficking or amputating limbs. He has also faced accusations of defending those who commit child sexual abuse.
Moreover, Walsh has stated that “two men shouldn’t be allowed to adopt,” opposed diversity initiatives within the Republican National Committee, and has relentlessly attacked transgender people. His actions include starring in a feature-length comedy film intended to mock trans women and girls fighting for the right to compete in sports in alignment with their gender.
In a November 7, 2022, appearance on conservative podcaster Joe Rogan’s show, Walsh described homosexuality as a result of humans being a “fallen species,” attributing it to “our fallen human nature” and “proclivities towards sin,” explaining his opposition to same-sex marriage.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.