In a closely contested Senate race in Wisconsin, Republican candidate Eric Hovde is heavily investing in ads targeting incumbent Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and her longtime partner.
When asked by CNN if she believes Hovde aims to remind voters of her sexual orientation, Baldwin responded, “I think he is.”
The ads feature Baldwin’s partner, Maria Brisbane, who heads a private wealth management division at Morgan Stanley, questioning Baldwin’s ethics while subtly highlighting her sexual orientation.
One ad shows a woman in her kitchen stating, “Baldwin’s in bed with Wall Street,” referencing the senator’s relationship with Brisbane. In other instances, Brisbane is labeled Baldwin’s “girlfriend.”
All these ads convey a similar dual message, funded by a significant influx of cash from Republican sources and Hovde’s own wealth.
While Democrats are expected to outspend Republicans overall in the Senate race, Hovde and his supporters have reserved $51 million for advertising from October 1 through Election Day, compared to $39 million for the Democrats.
Hovde’s latest advertisement twists Baldwin’s previous statements against her, featuring a 2009 Senate hearing where she discussed domestic partner benefits.
“Married members must disclose important information about their spouse’s income, investments, gifts, and debts. Surely the public interest would require that these obligations apply to partners of gay and lesbian officeholders,” Baldwin states in a C-SPAN clip.
The ad’s narrator then contrasts this with a recent debate where Baldwin, addressing Hovde, said, “Stay out of my personal life,” highlighting that she and Brisbane are not married.
Baldwin further asserted, “And I think I speak for most Wisconsin women that he should stay out of all of our personal lives.”
Despite Baldwin’s arguments, she faces challenges regarding financial disclosures related to her partner. She clarified to CNN that, unlike a previous domestic partnership, she is not required to disclose Brisbane’s clients due to a lack of a legally recognized relationship. The couple does own a $1.3 million condominium in Washington together.
Baldwin condemned Hovde’s tactics as a dog whistle, designed to distract from his own financial conflicts tied to owning a $3 billion bank.
“I disclose everything I’m required to,” she stated. “I think he’s trying to divert attention from his own questionable judgments.”
“Imagine him on the Banking Committee, regulating banks,” she added. “This is a serious conflict of interest he wants to deflect from.”
Hovde’s ad campaign also targets the transgender community, linking Baldwin to claims about allowing men to compete in women’s sports and supporting a clinic that allegedly provides transgender therapy to minors without parental consent, which has been proven false.
For the latest headlines affecting LGBTQ+ communities worldwide, subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter.
He laughed along as the gay conservative he was speaking with mocked trans kids, describing “a 9-year-old girl” with “a beard.”
During an interview last weekend, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and conservative podcaster Tim Dillon echoed transphobic right-wing rhetoric, with Vance notably stressing to Dillon that he isn’t gay. Dillon claimed that supporters of transgender rights want nine-year-old girls “to have a beard,” while Vance argued that medical transitioning is a form of “conversion therapy” aimed at turning gay individuals transgender. Vance also alleged that the medical industry is profiting from transitioning minors and suggested that “they” are pushing gay kids to believe they’re actually transgender.
“I’m not a gay guy, but I’ve heard this from gay friends of mine…” Vance began, prompting Dillon to burst into laughter at Vance’s insistence on clarifying his sexuality.
“I’ve discussed this with gay friends who feel personally affronted [by gender-affirming care for youth],” Vance claimed. “They wonder if, at 14 and feeling confused, someone would have pushed them to transition. In some ways, it’s like a new version of conversion therapy through pharmaceuticals, as if to say, ‘Oh no, you’re not gay; you’re actually a different gender!’”
In the recent interview, Vance presented no evidence for his claim that cisgender gay youth are being pressured into transitioning. Earlier, Dillon sarcastically questioned why children can’t undergo “life-altering” surgeries, framing it as a sign of “fascism” for opposing it. He joked, “Why wouldn’t you allow an eight-year-old to fully transition?… Why can’t a nine-year-old girl have a beard?” In reality, gender-affirming surgeries are not performed on pre-pubescent children and are almost never performed on minors. Gender-affirming care for young children typically includes choices about clothing, names, and play preferences.
Vance continued, alleging that the medical industry profits from transitioning minors and manipulates government policy to push this, stating, “the very people who are getting rich off this are also lobbying the American Medical Association [AMA] and the U.S. government.” However, the AMA and other medical associations have recommended gender-affirming care as safe and essential for trans youth. According to the Williams Institute, only an estimated 300,000 trans individuals ages 13 to 17 could require such care—a small fraction of the U.S. population.
Dillon expressed skepticism over puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors, saying many believe young children should be left alone, adding, “A lot of gay people feel that way…[but] none of them are ever listened to.” Vance mentioned a friendship strained by his stance on trans youth, citing a former classmate who had argued that puberty blockers are reversible—a point the Mayo Clinic supports, stating that puberty restarts once treatment stops.
The conversation then shifted, with Dillon criticizing “extreme” voices in public debate and calling for a focus on traditional subjects like math and science, echoing right-wing claims against teaching “critical race theory or gender theory.” This reflects the Republican platform, which opposes federal funding for schools promoting “radical” ideologies. Vance criticized anti-racist education as “bullshit” that divides people.
In a tangent about U.S. foreign policy, Dillon mocked the idea of promoting gender inclusivity abroad, saying, “we are there so that drag queens in Russia can have more of a say.” Vance replied that taxpayer funds are “funding programs to teach people that there are nonbinary genders out there.” This exchange, underscoring right-wing criticism of the military’s inclusivity efforts, continued their alignment with far-right narratives on gender and foreign policy.
The interview’s exchange on LGBTQ+ topics begins at the 29:40 mark.
On a scorching hot day in Las Vegas, George Escarero was on a water break from knocking on doors in one of the city’s sprawling gated communities.
The gay, longtime banquet server at the Mirage, whose first language is Spanish, estimated the temperature at 105 but said, “That’s how we go, just walk and walk and walk and sweat and drink water, and if they cuss us out, kind of ignore it. We’re just there to open up, you know, so people can open up their eyes and just see it.”
“In Michigan, it really does feel like democracy is on the line,” says Progress Michigan’s Denzel McCampbell.
Escarero is one of an “army” of canvassers deployed by the Culinary Workers Union in Nevada and was adamant that “it’s time for a big change.”
Your LGBTQ+ guide to Election 2024
Stay ahead of the 2024 Election with our newsletter that covers candidates, issues, and perspectives that matter.DailyWeeklyGood News
“Instead of taking stuff away and making the rich richer,” Escarero shared from his pitch, “Kamala is there to help out, and she knows what we’re going through because she was one of us.”
“Kamala Harris was middle class, like all of us,” he said. “She was a hard worker, started from the bottom, worked her way up. They cannot, like, say, ‘Well, you know what, Kamala, you got juiced in.’ No, she worked from the bottom.”
Escarero said his experience meeting with voters was “probably like 50% are really nice, and 50%” the ones who cuss him out.
Culinary UnionGeorge Escarero, banquet server at The Mirage, canvasses on a hot summer day in Las Vegas. | Culinary Union
Those numbers track with election polls in Nevada, which show an electorate evenly divided between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump supporters in a swing state that could determine the outcome of a dead-heat presidential election.
Nevadans have an unpredictable history at the polls. Out of the last 12 national elections, the state split six to six voting for a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate, while the margin for Democrats has narrowed in every election since Obama won in 2008. President Joe Biden carried the state by just 2 points in 2020.
Share Your Opinion
What are you feeling as we approach Election Day?
Anxiety
Excitement
Sadness
Relief
JoyResultsVote
While Democrats hold majorities in the State House and Senate, Nevadans chose conservative Republican Joe Lombardo for governor over Democratic incumbent Sisolak in 2022. However, U.S. Sen. Jackie Rosen, a Democrat running for her second term this year, holds a narrow lead over Trump-endorsed Republican Sam Brown.
Adding to the voter volatility: an electorate where unaffiliated voters outnumber both Democrats and Republicans in the state.
In 2018, Nevada voters approved a new Automatic Voter Registration system, mandating the Department of Motor Vehicles register new voters or those with lapsed party registration as “unaffiliated” unless they opt out or choose a party.
AVR created 142,484 new Nevada voters in 2020; less than a third chose to call themselves Democrats or Republicans.
It’s a new, mostly young pool of voters open to persuasion and put off by the status quo, said Nevada state Rep. Cecelia González (D), who identifies as queer and bisexual and is running for a second term in the Nevada Assembly.
“Younger voters and people of color really feel alienated by this two-party system, and they really connect with candidates that meet voters on a more personal level, right?” she said. “The shift reflects a growing frustration with traditional party politics and a desire for candidates who speak to the real issues, and not just these partisan talking points.”
The 32-year-old, of Mexican and Thai descent, says she feels the same frustrations. ” Because I’m younger, that’s where I focus on to try to get out the vote.”
Cecelia GonzálezNevada State Rep. Cecelia González (D) speaks with a student in her district in Las Vegas | Cecelia González
18 to 34 year olds make up a whopping 30% of registered voters in Nevada and are the largest block after those over 55, who are historically less persuadable but more inclined to vote than their younger peers. Less than half of the youngest cohort claim Democratic or Republican party allegiance.
While she’s running as a Democrat, González says she knows where those voters are coming from when they meet on the campaign trail.
“They identify with me not just because I’m a woman, not just because I’m Mexican or Latino or Asian. It’s the fact that I resonate with these lived experiences because I come from the same backgrounds.”
“Young people, Latinos, and Asian communities are really what’s going to get the vice president and Walz across the finish line,” she said.
As for canvassing the day we spoke, González said door-knocking was off the table.
“It’s so hot. It’s literally 114 today,” she gasped.
Even before the large influx of unaffiliated voters, party loyalty was on the decline in Nevada. The state’s libertarian “live and let live” ethos has further blurred the distinction between Democrats and Republicans.
That’s reflected in some of the most progressive LGBTQ+ policies and legislation in the country, and it’s one reason the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy group, is targeting “equality voters” in Nevada, hoping to appeal to Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters alike in their swing state efforts to get voters to the polls.
But no constituency is a monolith, including the fast-growing Latino population, whose rapid growth has helped transform Nevada into a majority-minority swing state.
The minority share of the population in Nevada rose to just over 54% with the last U.S. Census. Meanwhile, the percentage of the non-Hispanic white population in the state continues its historical decline, dropping from over 83% in 1980 to just 46.4% in 2022.
Those facts haven’t translated, however, to guaranteed loyalty to Democrats, who in years past — as defenders of civil rights and the working class — could count on Latino voters. Their once-uniform support has narrowed and fractured.
The shift is even greater among young Latino men in Nevada: 53% of male Latino voters ages 18 to 34 support Trump while just 40% support Harris. Similar numbers among Latino men ages 35 to 49 add up to a major deficit in a key constituency that could tip the election.
It’s why getting face-to-face with those voters before Election Day is the “number one priority” for both González and George Pappageorge, Secretary-Treasurer of the Culinary Union and lead organizer of what he proudly calls “the largest walk program in the state of Nevada.”
“They come and work for the union,” Pappageorge said of the hundreds of canvassers on leave of absence from their day and night jobs, including guest room attendants, cocktail and food servers, porters, bellmen, cooks, bartenders, and laundry and kitchen workers from the union’s membership.
“They work six days a week. They have Friday off and they’re out in the heat, getting chased by dogs and knocking on doors to turn out the vote,” he said.
The Culinary Union and its affiliates represent more than 60,000 workers in the state, with members from 178 countries. Estimates put the number of LGBTQ+ hospitality workers at one in five, and the union is one of the largest healthcare consumers in the state, with coverage provided for more than 145,000 Nevadans.
Who is elected in any election — locally, statewide, or nationally — has a direct bearing on the union’s ability to thrive, or survive.
A second Trump administration, Pappageorge said, would be “a threat to our existence.”
“This is a guy that jokes with his billionaire buddies about firing striking workers, who brags about crossing picket lines and really has a lot of promises, a lot of promises. But the problem with Trump is that he lies, and he lies a lot.”
Ted Pappageorge, Secretary-Treasurer of the Culinary Union, speaks with a fellow member at a get-out-the-vote meeting in Las Vegas.
“Look, if the election was today, we think Trump would win,” Pappageorge said, “but the election is not today, and our job is to make sure that here in Las Vegas we are contesting every single vote. We’re knocking on every single door. We’re talking to every single person in that household, to union members and their family members, and we’re driving the votes.”
“When you have those kinds of conversations” with voters, Pappageorge said, “you have an opportunity to drive votes and persuade folks. And we think these votes are winnable.”
“But we’ve got to do the work,” he added. “It’s going to be extremely close.”
Escarero, the banquet worker, agreed, sharing, “I even get goosebumps. But I feel, even though it’s going to be a tight, I know she’s going to win.”
Asked what Harris’ pledge to fight for “the freedom to love who you love” meant to him, the longtime union member paused and asked, “To me?”
Then he started to cry.
“I was living the life that it wasn’t,” Escarero said through tears. “I had to fake — I had to fake who I was, and now we have a freedom. Now we can get married. No discrimination. Do the military.”
“That’s why I get very emotional, because I had a tough life, because I had to act like somebody that I wasn’t. You know what I mean?”
With people cursing and dogs chasing him, Escarero shared what kept him going through the hot days canvassing.
He remembered “a knock not too long ago” when he asked a middle-aged white woman, “‘If you don’t mind,’ I said, ‘What side are you on?’ I said, ‘Do you have a plan? Are you on the Trump side or…?”
“‘Oh no, no, no, no, honey,’” she interrupted, pointing to a small Harris-Walz sign in her car. “‘You see my sign out there in the window?’ She goes, ‘Give me a big one and I’ll put it in the front yard.’”
“Let’s fight for our rights,” Escarero said, before heading back out into the heat.
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
With rising concerns about the stability of Obergefell, states nationwide are moving quickly to safeguard protections for LGBTQ+ residents.
Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade has created a national crisis in abortion access, fears have surged within the LGBTQ+ community and among allies that marriage equality could face a similar fate. Several conservative voices have indicated a desire to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, with Justice Clarence Thomas openly suggesting it merits reconsideration.
In response, states across the country are working to place marriage equality measures on their ballots to help secure protections if Obergefell is ever overturned. In this upcoming election, three states will feature ballot measures addressing marriage equality.
California: Proposition 3
On the California ballot, Proposition 3 aims to repeal Proposition 8, a 2008 measure that restricted marriage to unions between a man and a woman. Although the Supreme Court ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional in 2013, it remains embedded in California’s Constitution. Should Obergefell be overturned, California’s existing constitutional language would once again restrict same-sex marriage.
The ballot text states:
A YES vote: Updates the California Constitution’s language to reflect current marriage laws, with no change to who can marry.
A NO vote: Maintains the existing language, with no change to who can marry.
Supporters of Prop 3 emphasize the urgency of enshrining marriage equality in California’s Constitution. “In California, we believe in the fundamental right to marry the person you love,” said State Sen. Toni Atkins (D). “With civil rights under attack across the nation, the time to act is now.”
California Rep. Robert Garcia (D) added, “Prop 3 is about defending equality for all. As ballots go out, I urge every Californian to vote yes and stand with us in supporting love and respect for all.”
Colorado: Amendment J
In Colorado, Amendment J seeks to remove language in the state’s Constitution defining marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. The amendment’s ballot language reads:
A YES vote: Removes the clause limiting marriage to heterosexual unions.
A NO vote: Retains the existing constitutional language on marriage.
However, Amendment J does not introduce new protections, leaving marriage equality ambiguous. “It’s our responsibility to uphold justice and equality in our Constitution,” said State Sen. Joann Ginal (D), who sponsored the measure. “While protections exist now, our Constitution still contains outdated language.”
State Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis (D) shared that “our LGBTQ community fears the potential rollback of their rights.”
Hawaii: Question 1
Hawaii’s Question 1, also known as the “Hawaii Remove Legislature Authority to Limit Marriage to Opposite-Sex Couples Amendment,” proposes removing a 1998 provision that permits the legislature to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in Hawaii, but if Obergefell is overturned, this constitutional language could threaten it.
The ballot language reads:
A YES vote: Removes the legislature’s authority to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
A NO vote: Retains the legislature’s authority to limit marriage.
Governor Josh Green (D) expressed his support for Question 1, stating, “Our Constitution should protect the civil rights of all Hawaiians. Voting yes on this amendment advances equality for our LGBTQ+ community.” U.S. Senator Brian Schatz echoed this sentiment, saying, “Hawai’i’s Constitution should reflect our values of diversity and dignity for all, which is why I’m voting yes on Question 1.”
These ballot measures reflect a nationwide effort to protect marriage equality amid uncertainty around the future of Obergefell, as states work to ensure protections for LGBTQ+ residents.
The vice-presidential candidate received an even lower score than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Republican vice-presidential candidate Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) received a zero rating on the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) newly released Congressional Scorecard for the 118th Congress.
This biannual report evaluates each member of Congress on their record regarding LGBTQ+ rights, assigning scores out of 100. Vance’s zero score indicates he did not support HRC’s stance on any LGBTQ+-related legislation.
This comes as no surprise, as Vance recently attributed America’s educational challenges to transgender inclusion, alleging that teachers are too occupied with “radical ideas” about gender to focus on fundamental academics. He also opposed the federal Respect for Marriage Act and, last year, refused to confirm U.S. foreign ambassadors, claiming they lacked sufficient opposition to LGBTQ+ rights. Additionally, Vance introduced Senate legislation aimed at banning gender-affirming care for trans youth and limiting access for trans adults.
Sen. Vance’s close alignment with Donald Trump—who worked to dismantle LGBTQ+ rights during his first term—further underscores his adversarial stance toward LGBTQ+ people.
Other senators who scored zero on the HRC report include Mitt Romney (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Marco Rubio (R-FL). In the House, members receiving zeros included Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Jim Jordan (R-OH), James Comer (R-KY), Greg Steube (R-FL), Dan Bishop (R-NC), and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who is noted for his outspoken anti-LGBTQ+ positions.
Interestingly, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), despite her frequent opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, scored an 8 for supporting HRC’s position on four bills—having voted against larger spending bills containing anti-LGBTQ+ measures. However, the report did not analyze her reasons for these votes.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, 217 members of Congress scored 100, demonstrating a full commitment to advancing LGBTQ+ rights and countering anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. Among those with perfect scores were senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), John Fetterman (D-PA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and Laphonza Butler (D-CA), the first Black lesbian to serve in the Senate. Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) scored a 93, as she missed two votes and did not co-sponsor specific anti-discrimination bills.
In the House, representatives like Adam Schiff (D-CA), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) achieved scores of 100. Every out LGBTQ+ House member also received a perfect score. Former Rep. George Santos (R-NY) was excluded from the scorecard due to his expulsion before completing his term.
Steny Hoyer, celebrating his perfect score, highlighted Congress’s duty to combat discrimination, especially against LGBTQ+ Americans facing hostility from MAGA Republicans. “I will continue to work with Democrats to advocate for LGBTQ+ Americans and their rights,” Hoyer stated.
HRC president Kelley Robinson underscored the increasing attacks on LGBTQ+ inclusion in Congress, condemning the addition of anti-LGBTQ+ measures to key legislation. She also noted the success of organizers in blocking over 100 anti-LGBTQ+ riders. “With a record-high 75 million Equality Voters nationwide, informed voting and representation matter now more than ever,” Robinson affirmed, emphasizing the LGBTQ+ community’s resilience and the Senate’s critical role in protecting rights against extreme measures from the House.
In Georgia, where Republicans hold a trifecta with control of the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature, LGBTQ+ community leaders and political strategists are working hard to show that progressive values extend beyond Atlanta.
With about 8 million registered voters in the state, Georgia’s Secretary of State reports an increase of 121,898 active voters since the December 2022 runoff election, a critical number in a battleground state that could shape the nation’s future.
In September, the Georgia State Election Board decided that all ballots would be hand-counted, a move many see as an effort to delay or disrupt the election process. Democrats, who previously urged Gov. Brian Kemp (R) to hold an ethics hearing, filed a lawsuit to remove members of the elections board believed to be loyal to former President Donald Trump. While a judge dismissed the case in early October, a Fulton County Superior Court judge issued an injunction blocking the hand-counting rule on the first day of early voting, citing concerns over the rule’s timing and the potential for “administrative chaos.”
Georgia’s status as a battleground state has gained significant attention in recent years. Stacey Abrams’ 2018 gubernatorial campaign was seen as a test to prove that a sustained voter outreach effort by Democrats could turn the state from red to blue. In the 2020 election, Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump by 11,779 votes, securing Georgia’s Electoral College votes and reinforcing its potential influence on the national stage. This momentum was further solidified in 2022 when Sen. Raphael Warnock won his runoff against Republican Herschel Walker, affirming Georgia’s role as a true swing state.
A key factor in this shift has been the dedication of LGBTQ+ community leaders and political strategists. They have mobilized voters from diverse backgrounds across the state, proving that political power extends beyond Atlanta. Through grassroots organizing and voter engagement, they’ve built coalitions that reflect the growing diversity and progressive energy in Georgia, demonstrating their significant influence in shaping the state’s political landscape.
Georgians are championing people over politics.
At just 28 years old, Mo Pippin (they/them) is one Georgian determined to shift the state from purple to blue. In 2023, they co-founded FTR Political Strategies to enhance local election engagement and voter education.
“Here in Roswell, which is just a stone’s throw from Athens, we’re working to simplify large, often daunting federal issues into local and state matters that are relatable and relevant to people,” Pippin shared with LGBTQ Nation. “We aim to connect voters with better representatives. I firmly believe that young people are ready to engage in conversations with those who are different from us. One of our main strategies for engaging voters is canvassing—we knock on doors.”
Pippin noted that some voters have cautioned them to be cautious while canvassing in traditionally conservative areas of Roswell, suggesting that the assumption is rooted in a belief that local residents might not be welcoming and could even be hostile.
“When I look at our state government and don’t see anyone who resembles me or shares my values, it’s easy to assume that those elected through popular vote naturally represent our entire population. But that’s not true,” they explained. “Voter turnout in the state is alarmingly low due to various structural barriers. People are often overwhelmed with responsibilities like getting their kids to school, commuting to work, and ensuring their families are fed and healthy. Many simply don’t have the time or energy to engage in the political process.”
Organizations like Georgia Equality, the state’s largest and oldest LGBTQ+ advocacy group, are actively engaging, educating, and advocating for the community. Over the past year, they played a crucial role in defeating nearly 20 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in the state legislature by regularly attending hearings, votes, and meetings at the state Capitol alongside other pro-LGBTQ+ organizations. The group also mobilized the community, organizing over 5,000 individuals to call their representatives during the legislative session.
“Our priority is to ensure that no LGBTQ+ Georgian is left behind,” said Noël Heatherland (they/them), statewide organizing manager for Georgia Equality, in an interview with LGBTQ Nation. “We strive to remember and include everyone, especially those who don’t live in the Atlanta bubble, particularly during a time when civic engagement and making our voices heard is crucial.”
Heatherland, a native of Albany, Georgia, noted that the queer experience in the state’s southern region presents unique challenges and concerns. While recent reports indicate that many LGBTQ+ voters are motivated to support the Democratic Party due to issues like restrictions on women’s rights and bans on medical care for transgender youth, they are also focused on a range of issues affecting various communities.
Omarion Smart, a senior at Georgia State University and a native of Bainbridge, Georgia, shares this perspective. As the policy director for Voters of Tomorrow, a social welfare organization created for Gen Z by Gen Z, he emphasizes that housing, food security, and the cost of living are top priorities for queer voters heading to the polls this November. Heatherland adds that queer voters in Georgia are also concerned about providing quality education for their children and ensuring their safety in schools. According to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, the LGBTQ+ population in Georgia constitutes about 4.7% of the state’s total population, with 27% of them being parents.
“The majority of Georgians share common ground on these issues,” Smart stated. “We all believe that housing should be affordable, that we deserve access to healthcare, and that Medicare and Medicaid should be expanded. Concerns about the economy, housing, the rise of anti-transgender rhetoric, and reproductive rights are all critical issues for voters in Georgia. No single issue takes precedence over the others. Yet, we have legislators who don’t represent the diverse population of our state, and it’s time for that to change.”
Smart’s concerns came to the forefront this August when Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones (R) established the Georgia Senate Special Committee on the Protection of Women’s Sports, claiming it aims to ensure that female athletes in Georgia can compete fairly. Smart views this committee and its objectives as “disgusting.”
“It’s clear that this committee isn’t meant to genuinely address these issues,” Smart remarked. “That’s just the nature of politics in our state. Their true goal is to spread their blatant hatred without facing accountability for it.”
“The majority of Georgians share common ground on these issues,” Smart stated. “We all believe that housing should be affordable, that we deserve access to healthcare, and that Medicare and Medicaid should be expanded. Concerns about the economy, housing, the rise of anti-transgender rhetoric, and reproductive rights are all critical issues for voters in Georgia. No single issue takes precedence over the others. Yet, we have legislators who don’t represent the diverse population of our state, and it’s time for that to change.”
Smart’s concerns came to the forefront this August when Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones (R) established the Georgia Senate Special Committee on the Protection of Women’s Sports, claiming it aims to ensure that female athletes in Georgia can compete fairly. Smart views this committee and its objectives as “disgusting.”
“It’s clear that this committee isn’t meant to genuinely address these issues,” Smart remarked. “That’s just the nature of politics in our state. Their true goal is to spread their blatant hatred without facing accountability for it.”
“The Cobb County school system has been enacting numerous book bans and implementing discriminatory policies,” strategist Pippin noted. “If she wins, control of the Cobb Board of Education would shift, putting a stop to the madness occurring there. Her district is highly competitive, and I’m fully supporting her.”
One candidate with a personal stake in the matter is JD Jordan, who is running against John Albers for Georgia Senate District 56.
“He is fighting to protect his children from harmful state policies. The incumbent is a co-sponsor of anti-trans legislation that jeopardizes healthcare access for JD’s kids,” Pippin explained. “He has five children aged 14 to 19, two of whom identify as transgender.”
Georgia Equality’s Heatherland emphasized that Albers is not friendly toward LGBTQ+ individuals or their allies and is unwilling to listen to them when they come to the Capitol to discuss issues—even if they are his constituents. The district is currently being viewed as one of the most “flippable” in the state.
“It’s one thing to advocate for LGBTQ+ children and, specifically, transgender individuals when you’re campaigning in Atlanta, where about 85% of your audience agrees with you,” Pippin added. “It’s a completely different challenge to do that in a district as red as SD56. JD is bravely fighting that battle and working to dispel the misinformation directed at the queer community. He embodies the supportive father figure many of us in the community wished we had while growing up.”
As conservative-led anti-LGBTQ+ boycotts gain momentum, some once-called allies are starting to cave under pressure.
“The evolution of a company’s policies, branding, and reputation is a continuous work-in-progress,” said Bob Witek, a trailblazing LGBTQ+ business leader and communications strategist.
Today, concepts like DEI are mainstream, and marketing to LGBTQ+ customers is routine—but that wasn’t the case thirty years ago. Witek was among the pioneers who helped major companies in the early ’90s become some of the first to openly embrace and affirm LGBTQ+ individuals, both as valued customers and essential members of the workforce.
“We want companies to take action because it aligns with their values — with who they are and what they aim to achieve in the world,” Witek said. “Not just to make people feel good, but to empower them as well.”
The PR disaster that altered the course of history
Witek noted that “vice-driven” businesses like tobacco, alcohol, and some apparel brands had long marketed in LGBTQ+ bars and publications before other industries were willing to take the same risk. These companies were hesitant, fearing the usual anxieties of backlash—concerns that supporting LGBTQ+ causes or advertising to LGBTQ+ customers could alienate their cis-het customer bases.
However, in 1993, a public relations disaster forced American Airlines to confront its values. Witek’s involvement in handling this crisis helped shape modern history beyond the business world.
The crisis began when an employee requested all linens be changed after a group of gay men flew onboard. The memo detailing this request leaked, sparking public outrage. In response, American Airlines issued a swift apology. Company leaders realized they likely had LGBTQ+ employees and customers to protect. They updated the airline’s nondiscrimination policy to include sexual orientation, and they became the first Fortune 100 company to develop a dedicated LGBTQ+ marketing team.
A few months later, another incident unfolded when a passenger with late-stage HIV was forcibly removed from a flight for attempting to self-administer IV medication. Protests and boycotts loomed. Witek and his team worked with American Airlines to transform its culture, encouraging the company to respond with authenticity and embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as a core value rather than just a marketing strategy.
The airline implemented new policies, educated employees, and supported LGBTQ+ advocacy efforts, including HIV/AIDS activism. According to Witek, this was a significant shift from merely “checking boxes” to doing the hard work of cultivating new cultural norms that met the real needs of the LGBTQ+ community.
That same year, Witek collaborated with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to create a prototype for what would become the Corporate Equality Index (CEI). This benchmarking tool rates businesses based on their social responsibility, internal policies, and benefits—focusing on LGBTQ+ inclusion.
“Our goal isn’t just to sell more products to gay people,” Witek said, “but to ensure they are fully engaged and leading in every aspect.”
The CEI pushes companies to go beyond token gestures and make meaningful changes to their corporate structure. It’s also a way for LGBTQ+ people to evaluate which businesses truly support queer rights. Witek emphasized that it’s not just about sponsorships during Pride Month but about fostering long-term relationships with nonprofits, advancing trans healthcare, and tackling discrimination in areas like marriage and employment.
American Airlines became one of the first major corporations to sponsor the Human Rights Campaign, setting a new standard for corporate involvement in advancing LGBTQ+ rights.
Beyond benefits, Witek encouraged companies to create employee resource groups (ERGs), which allowed LGBTQ+ employees to shape corporate policies, advocate for resources, and foster camaraderie. These ERGs not only connected like-minded employees but also helped those from different backgrounds communicate better—normalizing LGBTQ+ identity at a time when the community was far less visible.
Witek’s firm also worked with National Coming Out Day, which in 1993—during the era of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”—was not just a feel-good campaign but a mobilization effort to encourage visibility and acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.
Harnessing the power of the queer dollar
Witek and other pioneering LGBTQ+ communications strategists have sought various ways to increase community visibility by sharing data about LGBTQ+ buying power and economic trends with major corporations. He emphasized that, while LGBTQ+ individuals may be cynical and cautious, they tend to be loyal to brands that genuinely support them.
What was once an intuitive belief is now backed by research: LGBTQ+ individuals and their allies are more loyal to brands that advocate for LGBTQ+ causes, enforce workplace protections, and feature LGBTQ+ stories and characters in their advertising.
Early adopters of LGBTQ+ inclusive strategies sometimes faced backlash, but as data highlighted the advantages of openly supporting the queer community, companies became more confident in navigating these transitional periods.
“They would see firsthand the visible contributions and economic opportunities that LGBTQ+ individuals bring, and then they’d want to harness that,” Witek explained. “They’d want to hire, retain, and engage with them.”
As more brands sought to attract LGBTQ+ customers, inclusive advertisements—like IKEA’s groundbreaking TV spot featuring an openly gay couple—helped shift public perception and acceptance. This, in turn, supported the community’s efforts to transform social and political landscapes over the decades.
“Companies can play a significant storytelling role in normalizing LGBTQ+ experiences,” Witek noted. “They’ve changed the way Americans think in no small part.”
A 2020 study by GLAAD and Procter & Gamble revealed that cis-het Americans who encountered LGBTQ+ representation in advertising and media were much more likely to engage with LGBTQ+ individuals, feel comfortable around them, and support LGBTQ+ rights.
As public acceptance grew, some companies took their commitments to LGBTQ+ people more seriously, placing a greater emphasis on DEI efforts. Analyzing metrics like those provided by the Corporate Equality Index (CEI) has become crucial for companies aiming to maintain a positive reputation among LGBTQ+ consumers and potential employees. When policies or practices fall short, business leaders face pressure to keep up with competitors who may excel in this area.
The authenticity gap
Not every company has earned trust in the LGBTQ+ community. Some have approached engagement in a transactional manner, seeking to gain interest without truly becoming allies.
“Companies may implement more LGBTQ+-affirming policies to stay competitive, but I want them to do so authentically,” Witek emphasized.
Brands that treat LGBTQ+ individuals as mere transactions are increasingly missing out on the benefits of genuine engagement. Rising transphobia has led some companies to retract their visible support, signaling to consumers that they lack clarity about their identity, their target audience, and their core values.
For instance, Bud Light faced backlash and a boycott from conservatives after partnering with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney in 2023. Before sales began to decline, two marketing executives took a leave of absence, and the company announced a shift in its advertising focus toward sports and music.
“As far as I’m concerned, for a company to hire a trans person and then not publicly stand by them is worse than not hiring a trans person at all,” Mulvaney later told the New York Times.
This kind of pandering resulted in Bud Light losing support from both conservatives and progressives, leading to significant financial losses.
Integrity matters
More people are coming out than ever before, yet the American political and social landscape is regressing in some areas as conservatives gain traction with their messaging about LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly trans youth. This shift is making it less safe for individuals to be visible once again.
According to the HRC, 84% of LGBTQ+ individuals are out to at least one person at work, but many still choose to remain closeted or cautious in their workplaces. This includes a quarter of LGBTQ+ young adults who are out in other aspects of their lives but not at work. Data from LinkedIn shows that only 35% of LGBTQ+ professionals feel they can be authentic at work, and 75% have engaged in code-switching to fit in.
Trans individuals face higher rates of unemployment and underemployment, and LGBTQ+ people often earn less than their peers. Moreover, openly LGBTQ+ business leaders, especially trans individuals, are still notably absent from the boards of most major companies.
Kelley Robinson from the HRC criticized companies that are scaling back their DEI efforts in response to conservative backlash in a recent LinkedIn post, while also celebrating a record-breaking 1,400+ companies participating in the 2025 Corporate Equality Index.
This highlights a significant divide at a time when LGBTQ+ individuals are establishing stronger expectations for brands to act as allies. Moving forward, engaging with LGBTQ+ individuals as customers and employees will increasingly reflect what Witek has advocated from the beginning: that leaders who seek LGBTQ+ business and talent must build those relationships with integrity.
“Gay people should not be the victims of economics. We should be the drivers,” Witek emphasized. “That’s our whole purpose as a firm—to influence positive outcomes, not to settle for second-class status.”
Texas and its GOP allies are “utilizing LGBTQ issues as a wedge,” civil rights advocates warn.
In May, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services established a rule recognizing gender dysphoria as a disability under federal anti-discrimination laws, aligning with the findings of most courts over the past decade. This rule signaled to states that discrimination against transgender individuals in areas like employment, education, health care, child care, and housing could breach federal disability protections, with the Biden administration ready to defend it.
Now, a lawsuit spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has 17 states seeking to have the rule completely overturned, including several provisions unrelated to transgender issues. Notably, this coalition consists of 15 states that have enacted restrictions on gender-affirming care and have adopted various anti-trans measures.
The states’ objections to the new federal rule include concerns about the time, money, and resources required to accommodate employees with gender dysphoria. This includes using appropriate pronouns, eliminating sex-specific dress codes, and allowing access to gender-aligned restrooms and locker rooms. Nebraska’s attorney general worries that the state’s restrictions on gender-affirming care could expose it to disability rights complaints and federal investigations. Meanwhile, South Dakota claims the rule effectively creates a new category of potentially disabled individuals whose gender care would need to be covered by Medicaid.
However, gender dysphoria is just one aspect of the comprehensive 130-page federal rule. It also includes protections for disabled parents in child welfare cases and ensures that hospitals do not use disability status to decide who receives care during crises, such as equipment shortages in a pandemic. Additionally, the rule adds Long Covid to the list of conditions that may be recognized as disabilities and enhances protections against unnecessary institutionalization, mandating that care be provided in the least restrictive environment, preferably within the community.
Striking down the entire rule would have significant repercussions for disabled Americans and other marginalized groups who depend on federal agencies to interpret long-standing laws that protect their rights, explains Mia Ives-Rublee, senior director of the Disability Justice Initiative at the Center for American Progress. “LGBTQ issues are being used as a wedge,” Ives-Rublee says. “The real attack is on the regulatory process of the federal government, and this will affect nearly every interaction disabled individuals have with the services and supports they rely on.”
The new rule addresses two federal laws aimed at protecting people with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination based on disability by the federal government, federal contractors, and—through Section 504—by organizations or employers receiving federal funds. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, expanded these protections to cover most aspects of public life, such as education, public accommodations, and transportation. Both laws define a disability as “a physical or mental impairment” that “substantially limits” major life activities.
At the time the Rehabilitation Act and ADA were passed, gender dysphoria was not a recognized medical condition, and both laws explicitly excluded conditions like “transvestism, transsexualism,” and “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments” from their definition of disability. However, over time, courts and medical professionals have recognized that many individuals who experience a mismatch between their gender identity and the one assigned at birth suffer significant psychological distress and negative impacts on their daily lives. In 2013, gender dysphoria was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Since then, individual lawsuits—the primary way the ADA is enforced—have helped shape legal precedent that views gender dysphoria as a protected health condition, with courts increasingly seeing its exclusion from disability protections as discriminatory. Ben Klein, senior director of litigation and HIV law at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, notes that the exclusion of gender dysphoria was “rooted in clear bias,” a concept that judges easily recognize.
In 2022, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appeals court to rule that gender dysphoria could be considered a disability under federal disability protection laws. The court’s decision centered on the distinction that gender dysphoria’s impact on daily life separates it from the ADA’s definition of gender identity disorder. (The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case in June 2023, allowing the ruling to stand.) Other federal courts have reached similar conclusions, recognizing that gender dysphoria is distinct from gender identity disorder, or that it arises from a physical impairment due to a mismatch between a person’s body and their gender identity—something that can be addressed through gender-affirming care.
When finalizing its updated rule—the first administrative update to Section 504 in 50 years—the Department of Health and Human Services cited this evolving body of case law, which it said has “shifted the legal landscape of disability discrimination protections.” But the states involved in the Texas-led lawsuit, filed quietly in September, appear uninterested in these legal developments.
The lawsuit focuses on the ADA’s original exclusionary language, arguing that what is now understood as gender dysphoria should still be classified as a gender identity disorder under the law. “The Biden Administration is again abusing executive power to sidestep federal law and impose unscientific, unfounded gender ideology on the public,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a press release announcing the suit. “Texas is suing because HHS lacks the authority to unilaterally redefine statutory definitions and classify ‘gender dysphoria’ as a disability.”
Beyond the gender dysphoria issue, the lawsuit also raises concerns about the “new regulatory burdens” and “significant costs” the rule could impose on state Medicaid programs. States like Alaska, Montana, and Nebraska argue that the rule’s “least restrictive setting” requirement will be difficult to implement due to shortages of healthcare workers and the unique geographical challenges of their regions.
Klein and Ives-Rublee pointed out that both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA were intentionally written in broad terms, allowing for ongoing reinterpretation and refinement by federal agencies as scientific and public understandings of disability evolved. When the ADA was enacted, Klein notes, transgender identities were pathologized. “One of the ADA’s primary goals is to combat discrimination and dispel myths and stereotypes, particularly surrounding stigmatized health conditions,” he explains. “Gender dysphoria is a prime example of a stigmatized health condition.”
The current Texas case is merely one front in the broader strategy employed by GOP officials to advance their anti-trans agenda. As previously reported, many Republican attorneys general—often from the same states involved in the Paxton lawsuit—are threatening major medical associations with criminal investigations for advocating for transgender youth’s access to gender-affirming care.
Ives-Rublee cautions that the Texas lawsuit is part of a larger, coordinated effort to undermine federal agencies’ authority to interpret civil rights laws, including protections for pregnant workers and access to reproductive healthcare. This extensive conservative initiative aims to weaken the administrative state and has gained momentum following a series of Supreme Court rulings last term, one of which diminished courts’ deference to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous laws.
Since the gender dysphoria lawsuit was filed in the federal district court in Lubbock, Texas, any appeal will be heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, known for its sharply conservative rulings in recent legal history. If the 5th Circuit sides with the states in this case, it could create a legal conflict with the 4th Circuit’s ruling, potentially compelling the Supreme Court—dominated by a far-right supermajority—to intervene. “I am almost 100 percent sure this is their intention,” Ives-Rublee asserts.
For decades, LGBTQ+ rights have been leveraged as a tool to mobilize conservative voters.
LGBTQ+ ballot initiatives have often served as a wedge issue to galvanize conservative voters, impacting freedoms typically protected by the government. The 2024 election continues this trend, with November marking another instance of LGBTQ+ civil rights being subject to public debate.
In New York, voters will decide whether to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in the state constitution’s anti-discrimination amendment. Additionally, reproductive rights will also be on the ballot in ten states.
Voters in California, Colorado, and Hawaii will determine whether to repeal their states’ constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
Same-sex unions have consistently been a prominent issue in state referendums, with 34 states presenting the question to voters since 1998, many passing constitutional amendments against same-sex partnerships. This tactic was notably used to rally conservative voters in the 2004 election, when 11 states enacted such amendments in support of George W. Bush.
Until 2012, marriage equality lost at the ballot box every time. That year, voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington approved same-sex marriage, following a shift in national public opinion that saw support for same-sex marriage surpass 50% around 2009.
Though the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision in 2015 invalidated all state anti-marriage equality amendments, many remain in state constitutions. Activists are now working to repeal these amendments, especially in light of concerns that the conservative-dominated Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell, as suggested by Justice Clarence Thomas after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
“Saving” the Children
The first state ballot initiative related to LGBTQ+ rights emerged in California during the 1978 election. Proposition 6, known as the Briggs Initiative, aimed to ban individuals engaged in “public homosexual activity” from working in California public schools. It drew national attention and condemnation from then-President Jimmy Carter and then-Governor Ronald Reagan. This initiative reflected a broader trend of states repealing anti-discrimination measures, influenced by Anita Bryant’s successful 1977 campaign in Florida to repeal a local ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. Harvey Milk played a pivotal role in the campaign against Prop 6, which was defeated by a 16-point margin.
Over the years, various state ballot initiatives have sought to either legalize or ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, with voters increasingly favoring anti-discrimination measures. For instance, in 1988, Oregon voters revoked the governor’s authority to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, and in 2018, Massachusetts voters upheld a law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.
Maine and Oregon have frequently put LGBTQ+ rights to a vote. In Maine, voters initially blocked same-sex marriage in 2009 but approved it in 2012, both times with 53% of the vote. Anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in Maine were denied by referendum in 1998 and 2000 but were later approved in 2005. In Oregon, voters defeated a “don’t say gay” measure in 2000 by a 5.7% margin.
The concept of recognizing sexual orientation as a protected identity has also been subject to multiple votes, often as a conservative strategy to prevent the inclusion of “homosexuality” in anti-discrimination ordinances. In the 1990s, voters in Oregon, Idaho, and Maine supported allowing sexual orientation to be a protected identity.
Additionally, ballot-driven voter ID laws in states like Arkansas and North Carolina may hinder voting access for transgender individuals and other marginalized members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Regardless of the specific ballot measures, the state representatives elected this year will greatly influence LGBTQ+ rights. Legislatures controlled by Republican officials have introduced or passed numerous anti-LGBTQ+ bills in recent years, targeting issues such as gender-affirming health care, bathroom access, accurate IDs, inclusive education, and participation in sports. Supporting pro-equality candidates at both the state and local levels will have long-lasting effects on these laws.
Vote Like Your Rights Depend on It
Civil rights for various groups have been subject to public referendum numerous times since 1868, similar to questions regarding the legality of discrimination based on race, sex, and disability. Initially, voters supported discriminatory measures, but over time, support for equal rights has increased. Women’s rights gained traction in the 1970s, while support for LGBTQ+ rights began to emerge in the 2000s.
The determination of civil rights is increasingly influenced by courts and legislatures, which are becoming more conservative. The notion that constitutional rights can be dictated by public opinion has permitted racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination to become codified into law.
Public opinion on LGBTQ+ rights, particularly for LGB and transgender individuals, remains conflicted and volatile. While the majority currently supports anti-discrimination laws, relying on ballot measures is not a guaranteed path to securing rights.
As LGBTQ+ rights are again on the ballot, it is crucial to vote this year—both on referendums concerning LGBTQ+ rights and for candidates who can promote pro-equality legislation.
The Department of Defense has announced that 800 military members who were discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) have received upgrades to honorable discharges.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin shared the news today, highlighting that just over a year ago, the Department began proactively reviewing the records of former service members discharged due to their sexual orientation under DADT. These individuals may have been eligible for an upgrade to their discharge status or a change to their reason for separation but had not yet applied for the change.
“After a year of exceptional work, the Military Department Review Boards directed relief in 96.8% of the 851 cases that they proactively reviewed,” Austin said.
This marks a significant step in addressing the injustices faced by LGBTQ+ service members during the DADT era.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) was a 1990s policy that prohibited gay and bisexual individuals from serving openly in the military. Under this policy, service members couldn’t openly declare their sexual orientation, but the military was also barred from actively investigating, harassing, or discriminating against non-straight personnel. While it aimed to provide some level of protection, the policy still enforced secrecy and led to the discharge of countless LGBTQ+ service members.
An estimated 14,000 service members were separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) with less-than-honorable discharges before the policy was repealed in 2011. These discharges meant that veterans received fewer benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, including assistance with home loans, tuition, and healthcare.
Last year, a group of veterans filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Department of Defense, seeking to overturn their less-than-honorable discharges. The lawsuit argued that many veterans, discharged because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, were given a discharge status or separation codes publicly linked to “homosexuality,” depriving them of the benefits they earned through their service.
Veterans with less-than-honorable discharges often face significant hurdles when applying for jobs, apartments, and loans, as they are required to present their DD-214 discharge papers — documents that can involuntarily out them as LGBTQ+ every time they are shown.
“This case is not about damages,” said Jocelyn Larkin, one of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit. “It’s about changing that piece of paper because the impact of changing it is so incredibly consequential for our clients.”
This past January, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), and Chris Pappas (D-NH) sent a letter to Secretary Austin urging him to expedite the process of upgrading less-than-honorable discharges for LGBTQ+ service members. They noted that many veterans who sought upgrades have experienced a prolonged, burdensome process that often required legal help, and that many were unaware they even had the option to seek an upgrade.
Today, Secretary Austin reported that 96% of the service members separated under DADT have now received honorable discharges. “We will continue to strive to do right by every American patriot who has honorably served their country,” Austin said.
To stay up-to-date on the latest news shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide, subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.