Alleged Assault at Shake Shack: Gay Man Reportedly Beaten After Kissing His Boyfriend

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

A video of the incident shows the disturbing assault, with multiple men stomping and kicking the victim as he defensively curls into a fetal position.

A gay man in Washington, D.C., was allegedly assaulted by a group of Shake Shack employees in Dupont Circle after sharing a kiss with his boyfriend while waiting for their food. The incident occurred on Saturday when 28-year-old Christian Dingus, a D.C. resident, attempted to defuse a confrontation between an employee who had objected to the kiss and his boyfriend, who was upset by the employee’s remark.

While we were back there in the restaurant — just for a moment — we began to kiss,” Dingus told NBC News. “At that point, a worker approached us and said, ‘You can’t be doing that here, can’t do that type of stuff here.

Dingus’ boyfriend defended their actions, stating they had done nothing wrong, which led to the two men being escorted outside. As tensions escalated, Dingus told an employee not to speak disrespectfully to his boyfriend. It was then that the Shake Shack employees allegedly began attacking him.

“One of the men forcefully pushed me on my shoulder,” Dingus recalled. “Next thing I know, that seemed to spark the rest of them. They all just started attacking me, dragging me across the floor and continuously punching me in the head.”

A video taken by another patron captured the assault, showing Dingus being knocked to the ground and assaulted by several men, who are then seen running outside to continue the attack.

“There was a clear desire to be violent towards me, and I think it’s very evident in the video,” Dingus remarked.

Dingus explained that after being thrown to the ground, he curled up into a “fetal position” and waited for the attack to end. While he wasn’t sure who stopped the beating, a woman dining at Shake Shack came to his aid, and the person who recorded the video offered it to him.

The incident is being investigated as a hate crime, with police classifying it as a simple assault with an anti-gay bias, according to the Metropolitan Police Department’s report.

A Shake Shack spokesperson stated that all employees involved were suspended pending further review. “We are aware of the incident on Saturday, Aug. 17, at our Dupont Circle location and are taking it very seriously,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “At Shake Shack, the safety and well-being of our guests and team members are our top priority, and we have a zero-tolerance policy for any form of violence.” The company is committed to taking appropriate action based on the findings.

Though an ambulance arrived on the scene, Dingus declined to take it. Later that day, after experiencing severe pain in his jaw, he visited the emergency room, where he was diagnosed with a concussion and trauma to his jaw. The emotional impact of the assault has also been significant.

“You hear all the time that this stuff happens, but I had started to believe it didn’t,” Dingus shared. “I’d been thinking of progress and how great the community is here, and for that to all be shattered like this—it really sucks.”

Read more.

Appeals Court, with Judges Appointed by Trump, Overturns Transgender Worker’s Legal Victory

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

She initially won her case after her employer refused to cover her healthcare, but that decision has since been overturned.

This blog originally appeared at

An anti-trans discrimination ruling from Georgia in May has been nullified by an appeals court, with half of its judges appointed by former President Donald Trump.

The case involves a transgender deputy who was denied equal medical care after the Houston County Sheriff’s Office refused to cover her gender-affirming care through their health insurance policy. This decision follows the county’s expenditure of $1.2 million in legal fees to avoid covering the deputy’s $10,000 surgery.

Sgt. Anna Lange, represented by the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF), filed her lawsuit in 2019 after her employer refused to provide coverage for her gender-affirming care, despite her having worked for the Sheriff’s Office since 2006.

In 2022, a federal judge from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ruled that Sgt. Lange had been illegally discriminated against, referencing the 2020 Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which determined that anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination falls under sex-based discrimination prohibited by Title VII.

While a three-judge panel from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Lange’s favor in May, the full court later ordered the case to be reheard, vacating the prior decision after Houston County appealed. A date for the new ruling has yet to be set.

In the 2022 case, Lange was awarded $60,000. This latest ruling will have significant implications for transgender individuals in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

Six of the 12 judges on the court were appointed by Donald Trump, making it one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country.

The panel’s decision in May stated, “Because transgender persons are the only (insurance) plan participants who qualify for gender-affirming surgery, the (county’s) plan denies health care coverage based on transgender status.”

It also concluded, “Houston County deprived Lange of a benefit or privilege of her employment by reason of her nonconforming traits, thereby unlawfully punishing her for her gender nonconformity.”

Paxton files lawsuit against Biden administration over transgender worker protections

This blog originally appeared at The Hill.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has once again filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, this time targeting federal protections for transgender employees in the workplace.

The lawsuit, submitted Thursday in federal court, is directed at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Justice Department (DOJ). It challenges the legality of agency guidelines that define workplace harassment under federal law, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent their enforcement.

The EEOC guidelines, though not legally binding, assert that denying employees accommodations based on their gender identity—such as misgendering transgender workers or denying them access to gender-appropriate restrooms—constitutes unlawful workplace harassment.

In Thursday’s lawsuit, Paxton, alongside the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, claimed the opposite. “The Biden-Harris Administration is once again attempting to rewrite federal law through undemocratic and illegal agency action,” Paxton stated. “This time, they are unlawfully weaponizing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to force private businesses and States to adopt ‘transgender’ mandates—Texas is suing to stop them.”

The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Texas’s Amarillo Division, where U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, presides over most cases. Last month, Kacsmaryk dismissed Paxton’s request to block an earlier version of the EEOC guidance, stating that a new complaint was required.

The EEOC declined to comment, referring inquiries to the DOJ, which did not immediately respond. Paxton, a vocal critic of progressive LGBTQ protections, has filed numerous lawsuits against the Biden administration since 2021, with most being directed to Kacsmaryk, according to the Texas Tribune.

Read more.

Bulgaria’s New Anti-LGBTQ+ Law Takes Effect, Sparking Calls for EU Intervention

This blog originally appeared at POLITICO.

The legislation has sparked nationwide protests and drawn condemnation from human rights organizations.

On Friday, Bulgaria officially published the text of a contentious law banning LGBTQ+ “propaganda” in schools after President Rumen Radev declined to veto the bill. The amendment to the education code, introduced by the far-right, pro-Russian Revival party and unexpectedly supported by pro-European Union parties, prohibits the “propaganda, promotion, or incitement” of LGBTQ+ “ideas and views” in schools, though the specifics remain vague. The law passed with a significant majority in parliament on August 7, sparking protests across the country, including the most recent demonstration in front of the presidential palace on Thursday.

“This law isn’t just a Bulgarian issue; it’s a Russian law that has infiltrated the heart of Europe,” said Rémy Bonny, executive director of Forbidden Colours, an LGBTQ+ rights advocacy group, in an interview with POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook. He called on the European Commission to intervene and hold Bulgaria accountable.

Senior members of the European Parliament’s LGBTI Intergroup also urged action, sending a letter last week to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Equality Commissioner Helena Dalli. The letter implored the Commission to “urgently condemn” the new law.

“This law is a direct attack on the LGBTIQ+ community, particularly targeting children,” wrote group co-presidents Kim van Sparrentak from the Netherlands and Marc Angel from Luxembourg. “Such ‘anti-propaganda’ bills endanger children and youth by fostering a hostile environment where LGBTIQ+ children may face bullying, harassment, and increased health risks.”

In response, the European Commission confirmed that Commissioner Dalli had sent a letter on August 13 to Bulgarian Education and Science Minister Galin Tsokov, seeking more information about the legislation.

“The Commission remains unwavering in its commitment to addressing discrimination, inequalities, and the challenges faced by LGBTIQ individuals, including in education, as highlighted in our LGBTIQ Equality Strategy of November 2020,” a Commission spokesperson stated.

Human rights organizations, including Action, Buditelkite, Forbidden Colours, LevFem, Feminist Mobilisations, and Deystvie, have condemned the bill. A petition asking the Bulgarian president to veto the amendment garnered about 7,000 signatures, and academics have issued an open letter urging the same.

Kostadin Kostadinov, chairman of the Revival Party that introduced the legislation, hailed the adoption of the law as a “historic breakthrough” last week, declaring that “LGBT propaganda is anti-human and won’t be accepted in Bulgaria.”

Same-sex marriage remains unrecognized in Bulgaria, and the country has yet to ratify the Istanbul Convention, which aims to combat violence against women.

In 2024, Bulgaria was ranked the third-worst in the EU for LGBTQ+ rights protections, with only Romania and Poland scoring lower, according to ILGA-Europe, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group that annually evaluates the state of LGBTQ+ rights across Europe.

Bulgaria’s law mirrors similar legislation passed in Russia and Hungary in recent years, which also target LGBTQ+ rights. Georgia’s government has introduced a comparable draft law as well.

Bulgaria’s Ministry of Education, Ministry of Justice, and the prime minister’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The US Supreme Court denies protections for LGBT students in certain states

This blog originally appeared at REUTERS.

WASHINGTON, Aug 16 (Reuters) – On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to allow the Biden administration to enforce a significant portion of a new rule aimed at protecting LGBT students from discrimination based on gender identity in schools and colleges. This decision affects 10 Republican-led states that had challenged the rule.

The justices declined the administration’s request to partially lift lower court injunctions that had blocked the rule from being implemented under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. As a result, the U.S. Education Department is unable to enforce the rule, which was announced in April and scheduled to take effect on Aug. 1, in Tennessee, Louisiana, and eight other states while litigation continues.

The Biden administration aimed to reinstate a crucial provision that clarifies that discrimination “on the basis of sex” includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, the rule contains several other provisions unrelated to gender identity.

The administration requested the Supreme Court’s emergency intervention in two lawsuits: one filed by Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, and multiple Louisiana school boards, and another brought by Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, and an association of Christian educators.

When the rule was announced, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon stated, “These final regulations clarify Title IX’s requirement that schools promptly and effectively address all forms of sex discrimination. We look forward to working with schools, students, and families to prevent and eliminate sex discrimination.”

On the other hand, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill criticized the rule as a federal overreach, arguing that it would undermine Title IX. She also condemned what she referred to as Biden’s “extreme gender ideology.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill criticized the federal rule as part of a political agenda that disregards significant safety concerns for young women in schools across the country. “This rule forces schools to change their behavior, language, and policies regarding private spaces for girls and women. It is enormously invasive and goes far beyond a mere suggestion; it is a mandate that well exceeds their statutory authority,” Murrill said when announcing the state’s lawsuit.

The plaintiffs, including the states, argued that the rule would compel schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms aligning with their gender identities, and require faculty to use the pronouns that correspond with those identities. These lawsuits are among several that have successfully blocked the rule in 22 states, nearly all Republican-governed, contending that the Biden administration is unlawfully rewriting a law originally designed over 50 years ago to protect women from discrimination in education.

On July 30, the administration achieved a victory when a federal judge in Alabama declined to block the rule in that state, as well as in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. However, the following day, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted that ruling.

The Biden administration’s rule introduces numerous changes to regulations combating sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, extending protections to LGBT individuals and strengthening safeguards for pregnant students, parents, and guardians. The administration argued that protecting LGBT students under Title IX is a “straightforward application” of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2020 decision, which determined that a similar law, Title VII, prohibits workplace discrimination against gay and transgender employees.

However, U.S. Judge Terry Doughty in Monroe, Louisiana, and U.S. Judge Danny Reeves in Lexington, Kentucky, concluded that Title IX’s reference to sex pertains only to “biological” males and females, and that the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling does not apply in this context.

The administration has emphasized that most of the rule does not concern gender identity and should be allowed to take effect. However, they agreed that two key provisions—one regarding restrooms and locker rooms and the other potentially involving the use of pronouns—could remain blocked while the appeals proceed.

Additionally, the administration clarified that the rule does not alter “existing requirements governing sex separation in athletics,” noting that this issue is subject to a “separate rulemaking.”

Both the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied requests to partially enforce the rule, leading the administration to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.

In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear another case from Tennessee, involving a Republican-supported ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. The court is scheduled to hear that case in its next term, which begins in October.

Read more.

Kim Coco Iwamoto will make history as Hawaii’s first transgender lawmaker after defeating the House Speaker

Despite being the most powerful Democrat in the state, he was defeated by her.

In Hawaii, transgender woman Kim Coco Iwamoto (D), a former member of both the Hawai’i Civil Rights Commission and the Hawai’i Board of Education, has just made history. She defeated the incumbent in her district’s Democratic primary, becoming the first transgender person elected to the legislature. Iwamoto unseated state House Speaker Scott Saiki, who had held the position for three decades, winning by a margin of about 5%. Iwamoto received 49.3% of the votes, while Saiki garnered 44.6%.

“It feels incredible, especially knowing that so many powerful figures endorsed him,” said Iwamoto. “I wasn’t just running against him; I was up against the entire Democratic establishment.”

Kim Coco Iwamoto has a distinguished career as an attorney and has been elected twice to the Hawai’i Board of Education. In the mid-2010s, she was appointed as a commissioner to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. Despite previous unsuccessful runs for office, including a bid for lieutenant governor in 2018 and two challenges for Saiki’s seat, Iwamoto has remained a prominent figure in progressive politics.

Recognized by former President Barack Obama for her work, Iwamoto is a strong advocate for progressive causes. She aligns with groups that share the politics of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), supporting initiatives like the Green New Deal, increasing funding for public education, mass reform of the criminal justice system, and investment in affordable housing.

Iwamoto is also a staunch supporter of LGBTQ+ rights. Her campaign website outlines her commitment to prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender expression, and identity. She advocates for fully funding enforcement divisions at state agencies to ensure compliance with non-discrimination laws. Additionally, she believes that every unaccompanied minor deserves a safe home, including LGBTIQ+ minors in foster and group homes.

In contrast, Saiki has let his long record of public service define his policy stance. His contributions include helping to pass a ban on conversion therapy, supporting Title IX protections in the state, fighting financial inequality between men and women, and allocating millions to combat homelessness. Saiki has served as the speaker of the House since 2017.

Gay man released from Qatar after being “honey-trapped” by police in Grindr sting operation

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

Aviña’s family, along with LGBTQ+ rights advocates worldwide, launched a campaign for his return, which finally succeeded this week.

A British gay man, who was jailed in Qatar after being entrapped by the police, has finally been allowed to leave by Qatari authorities and has returned to the United Kingdom after enduring months of imprisonment in inhumane conditions.

Manuel Guerrero Aviña, a dual British-Mexican citizen, was arrested in February 2024 in Qatar, where homosexuality is illegal. Aviña, a former employee of Qatar Airways, was convicted of drug possession in what has been described as a “honey trap.”

Aviña revealed that he had responded to fake messages on Grindr, which were actually sent by the police.

Aviña explained that he was lured to a location in Doha after responding to a Grindr profile, which he believed would lead to a meeting with other gay men. However, the police were waiting to arrest him. During the arrest, authorities claimed they found methamphetamine in his apartment, though Aviña insists the drugs were planted.

He was jailed on February 4 and, in June, was handed a suspended six-month prison sentence and a fine by the Al Sadd Criminal Court in Doha.

While in jail, Aviña, who is HIV-positive, was deprived of the antiretroviral medication he needed. He was also forced to sign documents written in Arabic, a language he does not speak, without the assistance of a translator. Additionally, he was coerced into identifying which contacts in his phone were his sexual partners and endured what he described as “psychological torture.”

Aviña’s family and LGBTQ+ rights advocates around the world launched a campaign for his release, which was finally successful this week.

The X account @QatarFreeManuel announced yesterday, “At this moment, Manuel flies free and dignified towards London! We are grateful for the unwavering support in this fight for justice. There is no doubt that ‘solidarity is the tenderness of peoples.'”

A statement posted on the account reads, “Manuel and his family thank you for your tireless support in this emblematic struggle against injustice, homophobia, and in favor of human rights for all people. But, as the saying goes, the struggle goes on, it is not over, and it will not end until there is justice for all. Manuel’s case, and all the cases we have defended, teach us that only organization, solidarity, and courage can change this world and its injustices.”

Aviña himself spoke about his release, stating, “Although I welcome the fact that I can leave the country, I still condemn the unfair trial I have been subjected to and the torture and ill-treatment I endured during my preliminary detention.”

He added, “I urge the UK and Mexican governments to raise concerns with the relevant Qatari authorities about the unfair trial and the violations of due process.”

Read more.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Urges State Fair to Remove Gun Ban

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is threatening legal action against the city of Dallas and the State Fair of Texas after the fair announced a new policy prohibiting guns on the fairgrounds this year.

Why it matters: The updated safety protocols come in response to a shooting incident last year that left three people injured. Previously, the fair allowed visitors with a valid handgun license to carry firearms. The shooter involved in last year’s incident did not have a license.

The latest: The State Fair of Texas recently announced new security measures, including a ban on all firearms except those carried by licensed peace officers. Paxton responded by sending a letter to interim city manager Kim Bizor Tolbert, claiming that the gun ban violates state law because the fairgrounds are city-owned. He warned that if the issue isn’t resolved within 15 days, he will take the matter to court.

The big picture: Texas has some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation, allowing most adults over 21 to carry firearms without a license. While schools and courtrooms are exceptions, private entities, like amusement parks, can impose their own restrictions.

Friction point: Fair Park, where the State Fair is held, is owned by the city of Dallas, but the fair leases the grounds during the event. Paxton argues that because the property is city-owned, the State Fair cannot legally ban firearms. However, fair officials contend that, as a private entity, they have the right to enforce their own safety policies.

State of play: The State Fair of Texas is a major event, drawing over 2.3 million attendees last year. In response to safety concerns, the fair has implemented measures like weapons detection systems at entry points and restrictions on unaccompanied minors after 5 p.m.

Context: More than 70 Republican state legislators have signed a petition urging the fair to reconsider its gun ban, arguing that gun-free zones are less safe. Fair officials, however, maintain that banning guns is in line with practices at other large gatherings and is necessary to ensure a safe, family-friendly environment.

What they’re saying: In a statement, fair officials acknowledged the significance of the issue for many Texans but stood by their decision, emphasizing their commitment to safety.

Zoom in: Cameron Alexander Turner, the 22-year-old accused shooter from last year’s incident, has been indicted on multiple felony charges, including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. His trial is scheduled for October.

What’s next: Paxton has given Dallas 15 days to change the ban, threatening civil penalties of $1,000 to $1,500 per day if they do not comply. The State Fair is scheduled to run from September 27 to October 20.

Arkansas Supreme Court Affirms Decision to Reject Abortion Rights Petitions | AP News

This blog originally appeared at AP News.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — On Thursday, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the state’s decision to reject petitions for an abortion rights ballot initiative, preventing the measure from appearing on the November ballot.

The ruling is a setback for organizers seeking a constitutional amendment in the heavily Republican state, where opposition to abortion is widely supported by top leaders.

Election officials ruled that Arkansans for Limited Government failed to meet state legal requirements, primarily because they submitted documents related to paid signature gatherers separately instead of as one bundle. The group argued they should have been allowed more time to submit any additional required documents.

“We find that the Secretary correctly refused to count the signatures collected by paid canvassers because the sponsor failed to file the paid canvasser training certification” in the proper manner required by law, Justice Rhonda Wood wrote in the 4-3 majority opinion.

A dissenting justice argued that the decision undermines Arkansans’ rights and essentially alters the state’s initiative process.

“Why are the respondent and the majority determined to keep this particular vote from the people?” wrote Justice Karen Baker, who is currently running against Wood for chief justice. “The majority has succeeded in its efforts to change the law in order to deprive the voters of the opportunity to vote on this issue, which is not the proper role of this court.”

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning the nationwide right to abortion, efforts have been made to let voters determine the issue state by state. On Tuesday, Montana became the eighth state to place an abortion measure on the ballot for this fall.

Supporters of abortion rights have prevailed in all seven states where abortion questions have gone before voters since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

In a statement, Arkansans for Limited Government called the ruling “a dark day in Arkansas.”

“This effort has generated a wave of fiercely engaged Arkansas women,” the group stated. “We are outraged. We will not back down. And we will remember this in November.”

Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders took credit for the ruling on Thursday: “Proud I helped build the first conservative Supreme Court majority in the history of Arkansas, and today that court upheld the rule of law, and with it, the right to life,” she posted on X.

Arkansas currently enforces a near-total abortion ban, allowing the procedure only when the woman’s life is endangered by a medical emergency.

The proposed amendment would have blocked laws banning abortion within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy and permitted it afterward in cases of rape, incest, threats to the woman’s health or life, or if the fetus was unlikely to survive birth. However, it would not have established a constitutional right to abortion.

The ballot measure did not gain backing from major national abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood, as it still allowed abortion to be banned after 20 weeks—an earlier cutoff compared to other states where the procedure remains legal.

Had all the signatures been verified, the more than 101,000 signatures submitted by the July 5 deadline would have been enough to qualify the measure for the ballot. The threshold was 90,704 signatures from registered voters across at least 50 counties.

In a prior court filing, election officials stated that 87,675 of the signatures were collected by volunteers. However, they could not determine if 912 signatures came from volunteers or paid canvassers. The court’s majority ruled that only signatures gathered by volunteers could be counted, resulting in the campaign falling short of the required number.

“This is a win for the rule of law in Arkansas and for those who have followed the rules for years to participate in the state’s ballot initiative process,” said Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin, who represented the secretary of state’s office.

Arkansans for Limited Government and election officials clashed over whether the petitions complied with a 2013 state law that requires campaigns to identify each paid canvasser by name and confirm that they were informed of the rules for gathering signatures.

Supporters of the measure argued that they had followed the law regarding their documentation, including identifying each paid signature gatherer. They also claimed that the abortion petitions were being treated differently compared to other initiative campaigns this year, citing similar filings by two other groups.

State records indicate that on June 27, the abortion campaign submitted a signed affidavit with a list of paid canvassers and a statement affirming that the petition rules had been explained to them. Additionally, the July 5 submission included affidavits from each paid worker, acknowledging that the group had provided them with all the rules and regulations required by law.

The state argued in court that the documentation was non-compliant because it was signed by someone from the canvassing company, rather than a representative of the initiative campaign. The court did not issue a ruling on this specific point.

However, the majority on Thursday emphasized that the required documents needed to be submitted as one bundle to ensure that “the Secretary has all the necessary information together and organized when he begins the process.”

The court also noted that the June 27 filing did not account for 74 of the paid gatherers used by the abortion campaign.

In a separate dissent, Chief Justice Dan Kemp argued that the court should have instructed the state to count all of the signatures and appointed a special master to examine the contested facts.

“This case presents an anomaly in Arkansas jurisprudence,” Kemp wrote.

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ballot-arkansas-supreme-court-48c208d49d82b467fbcc4b9c2724617a

Former gay and bisexual students of Tim Walz praise his life-changing guidance

This blog originally appeared at REDDIT.

In 1999, as a teacher, Tim Walz founded his high school’s first gay-straight alliance. His former GSA students still hold fond memories of him.

Minnesota Governor and Vice Presidential hopeful Tim Walz (D) left a lasting impact on generations of students through his work as the founder of the Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) at Mankato West High School. Today, some of his former GSA students are sharing stories about how Walz and his wife, Gwen, provided them with personal support and guidance.

One such student, Jacob Reitan, recalls being bullied for his sexuality. Turning to Walz for help, he found a mentor who made a profound difference in his life.

“Both Tim and Gwen were incredibly supportive of their gay students, and they modeled values of inclusivity and respect,” Reitan shared with MSNBC. “I was bullied in high school, and their values not only helped me, but also, I believe, helped the bully. It showed the bully a better path forward, and I can’t think of anyone better than Tim Walz to guide America on that better path.”

While introducing Tim Walz as her running mate to a crowd of 14,000 in Philadelphia last Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris highlighted his work as a high school teacher and football coach in 1999. Walz played a key role in advising the school’s first Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) to support LGBTQ+ students.

“Tim understood the importance of a football coach getting involved,” Harris noted. “He became the group’s faculty advisor, making the school a safer place for everyone.”

At that time, the AIDS epidemic was still fresh in the nation’s memory, having devastated the LGBTQ+ community, and Minnesota had laws criminalizing same-sex sexual encounters and banning same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court did not overturn these laws until 2003 and 2015, respectively.

Seth Elliot Meyer, a bisexual former student, initially thought he’d clash with Walz, given that Walz was a hunter and football coach.

“I was a leftist punk rock, anti-everything kind of kid,” Meyer told MSNBC. “But in the year that I had him, I learned that he truly cared about everyone and wanted us all to feel seen.”

Meyer added, “High school was tough for me, and I often felt like teachers wanted me to be someone else. But Walz was one of the few who encouraged me to be myself and speak my mind. He welcomed challenges and wanted to challenge things himself.”

Larissa Beck, an ally who attended the GSA and had Walz as a history teacher, ran into him years later at the state Capitol, where he remembered her.

“We’re talking about 20-something years ago, and to have your 10th-grade geography teacher remember you after all that time means something,” she said. “I couldn’t call him ‘Gov. Walz’—he’ll always be ‘Mr. Walz.’ He was the teacher who greeted every kid every morning, giving high fives and fist bumps. He was deeply involved in the school community.”

Another former student, Emily Scott, recalled how Walz inspired her during a trip to China. “We were on a riverboat cruise in Guilin, and I turned to Mr. Walz and said, ‘I love this. I love China. I want to do this for the rest of my life.’”

“And then he set up the next 10 years of my life. He told me, ‘Emily, you’re going to go to the University of Wisconsin at Madison, major in Chinese, and then move to China to get a job.’ That’s exactly what I did for the next decade.”

Walz’s commitment to LGBTQ+ rights has been a consistent thread throughout his career. When he ran for Congress in the early 2000s, he consulted with the Reitan family about running on a platform supporting gay marriage. He wanted to look his gay students in the eyes and say he was on their side.

As a U.S. House member, Walz supported the repeal of the military’s ban on out gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members and worked to secure enhanced funding for and prosecution against hate crimes motivated by anti-LGBTQ+ bias.

As governor, Walz has continued his advocacy. He has opposed bans on trans athletes in school sports and, in April 2023, signed a law protecting people seeking gender-affirming care from out-of-state investigations and prosecutions. He also signed an executive order directing the Minnesota Department of Health to report on the safety and effectiveness of gender-affirming healthcare.

In May 2023, Walz signed a bill outlawing the use of anti-LGBTQ+ “panic defenses” and legislation preventing libraries from removing books with LGBTQ+ themes. In April 2023, he also banned so-called conversion therapy, the widely discredited practice aimed at changing someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑