Category: Youth

‘They break you’: Colombia debates a ban on conversion therapy

Read more at NBC News.

Juan Viana recalls having a happy childhood in a Christian community in Bogotá but when he came out as gay at age 18, that all changed.

“Unfortunately, that community of support became a place of deep repudiation of who I really was,” said Viana, now 48.

His family took him to a center for ‘conversion therapy’ — aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity — on the advice of a psychologist.

“I was told that homosexuality was a disease, that it was caused by a demonic force that was going to destroy my family,” Viana said.

He said he went to the center willingly and stayed for months, thinking he was protecting his loved ones from destruction but found himself living in a nightmare.

“They break you in all senses: physically, mentally,” he said.

Several times he thought of taking his own life and tried once, he said.

“They were the darkest moments of my life,” he said.

Such traumatic experiences could become illegal in Colombia, where an estimated one in five LGBTQ people have undergone conversion therapy, according to the government’s Ombudsman’s Office.

Lawmakers are considering a bill to ban conversion therapy in the South American nation. Other countries where it is permitted include China, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

An unknown number of unlicensed rehabilitation clinics in Colombia and elsewhere in Latin America offer such therapy based on the idea that homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender identities are a mental illness that needs to be cured, rights groups said.

The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1990.

In Colombia, LGBTQ advocates have documented a range of conversion therapy practices that include humiliation, exorcism, food deprivation, electroshocks, waterboarding and rape of lesbian women.

The new legislation aims to criminalize the therapy in the conservative and Catholic country, where activists say faith is often used to mask the practices.

“We hope that more and more Colombians will understand that this is what the right to liberty, the right to intimacy and the right to having an identity looks like,” said Carolina Giraldo, a lawmaker for the center-left Green Alliance and a proponent of the bill.

Third time’s the charm?

Two previous proposed bans were defeated after conservative lawmakers and evangelical and Catholic groups mobilized in opposition.

They argued that a ban on conversion therapy could land priests and parents in prison, and some said LGBTQ groups wanted to turn children gay and trans.

Such a ban “infringes upon family autonomy by preventing parents from guiding their children,” said conservative senator Maria Fernanda Cabal after voting against last year’s bill.

From Brazil and Mexico to Spain and Vietnam, at least 17 countries have nationwide legislation in the works targeting the practice, according to ILGA-World, an international LGBTQ rights group.

LGBTQ activists in Colombia hope the third time is the charm.

“When we first started to talk about these practices, people just didn’t believe something like this could still happen in Colombia,” said Danne Belmont, executive director at GAAT, a Bogota-based trans rights group.

Belmont, a trans woman, said she was given testosterone as a child and underwent exorcisms in efforts to change who she was.

Advocates have altered their approach since the first bill was introduced in 2022, trying to broaden its appeal.

In the current rendition, the campaign is not only that LGBTQ people have “nothing to heal” but it asks their parents to “always love them,” Belmont said.

“This bill is aimed at Colombia’s families, at offering safe spaces where people can ask questions about their sexual orientation and gender identity,” she said.

Contrary to claims made by some Catholic lawmakers and ultra-Catholic groups, Father Carlos Guillermo Arias Jimenez of Colombia’s Bishop’s Conference said the latest bill does not contradict religious freedom.

“The church could not accept, nor has it ever taught, the practice of actions aimed at changing or reversing people’s sexual orientation,” he said.

Colombia’s Evangelical Confederation did not reply to several requests for comment.

In Congress, the bill passed its first reading in April with support from members of various political parties, but it must pass two more readings before next year’s elections.

Survivors, not victims

Belmont said trauma often prevents many LGBTQ people from realizing they have undergone conversion therapy until they hear stories from their peers.

A national network was set up in May of more than 50 people who have undergone conversion therapy to share their stories on social media and at events in hopes they will help others.

“Sometimes conversion therapy is a gradual, sophisticated process that mixes religion, spirituality and psychology that lays the ground,” David Zuluaga, 27, who was raised in the small town of Antioquia.

What started as manipulation and social isolation at age 12 turned into being hit in the stomach at age 14 to make him “vomit the spirit of homosexuality,” he said.

The conversion therapy lasted until he was 17, but it took him far longer to understand what had happened, let alone speak about it.

“Fear has to change sides. We used to be ashamed of having gone through this,” said Zuluaga, now an out gay man.

“But they should be the ones who are ashamed of having done this, of still doing this — mistreating, abusing and torturing people.”

According to research by the United Nations’ independent expert on LGBTQ rights, which has documented conversion therapy in at least 100 countries including Uganda, the Philippines and the United States, the practices leave deep physical and psychological traces.

“It broke my relationship with my family, with spirituality, with my body,” said Viana, who added that it has taken decades to rebuild bonds with his family, trust people and find love.

“Darkness needs to be total to exist. For light to exist, a single spark is enough,” he said.

“The work we’re doing is to multiply these sparks along the way… which we all light up together.” 

0

Only 0.03% Opt Out Of LGBTQ+ Education In Maryland After SCOTUS Gives Them A Right To

Read more at Erin in the Morning.

In June 2025, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling allowing parents to opt out of classes that teach material conflicting with their religious beliefs. The decision, which could affect lessons on everything from evolution to cultural diversity, was driven primarily by challenges to classroom instruction about LGBTQ+ people. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, originated in Maryland’s Montgomery County School District—the state’s largest—which had previously required lessons on LGBTQ+ inclusion without permitting opt-outs. The ruling was celebrated by far-right activists as a major victory in a deep-blue state. But months later, the results are in: of more than 160,000 students enrolled, only 43 families chose to opt out of LGBTQ+ education districtwide.

In a report released on October 2, the Montgomery County School District approved just 58 opt-out requests from 43 families—under 0.03 percent of the district’s 160,000 students. In other words, 99.97 percent of families, even when given the option, chose to let their children learn about LGBTQ+ people.

The books targeted by the handful of families include Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, about the marriage of two gay men; Intersectional Allies: We Make Room for All, which features a genderfluid character; and Planting the Rainbow: Places of LGBTQ+ History in Maryland, which teaches about key moments in the state’s queer history.

For the families choosing to opt out, their children will be placed in separate classrooms or given alternate assignments when LGBTQ+ topics arise. The arrangement underscores a point the school district made during the court fight: creating entirely new materials for such a vanishingly small group is disruptive to classrooms and burdens teachers with unnecessary extra work—all to accommodate the religious beliefs of a tiny minority. Still, because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, those accommodations will now have to be made.

Meanwhile, in Republican-controlled states, officials have taken a far more oppressive approach to LGBTQ+ education. Rather than offering families the option to opt out, many states simply ban the material outright. Under “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” laws—first popularized in Florida and now enacted in 19 states—teachers are prohibited from acknowledging LGBTQ+ people in class instruction at various grade levels. In Texas, several colleges have gone even further, barring professors from recognizing that transgender people exist at all. When contrasted with the minuscule number of families opting out when given the choice, these policies look less like a reflection of public will and more like a top-down morality ban—one that would almost certainly be rejected if parents actually had the freedom to decide for themselves.

Anti-LGBTQ+ school policies remain among the most unpopular measures pushed by Republicans in red states and by the Trump administration. A Navigator Research poll published in August 2023 found that fewer than 25 percent of Democrats and independents—and only half of Republicans—named “protecting children from being exposed to woke ideologies about race and gender in school” as a major priority. Book bans ranked even lower: 92 percent of respondents said such bans were concerning. A more recent Knight Foundation poll echoed those findings, with two-thirds of Americans opposing efforts to restrict books in public schools.

Respondents from Montgomery County, Maryland expressed frustration and vindication after hearing the results of the opt-out process. “Every single one of these ‘anti-woke’ lawsuits and headlines comes from one or a few people making a stink,” said one commenter in a local subreddit dedicated to the county. “Imagine living in Montgomery County and thinking you can opt out of cultural diversity,” said another.

“It looks like most were from elementary schools, but there’s a few from middle schools and two from a high school. Can you imagine what these students’ classmates will think of them?” added a third.

The Supreme Court’s decision is just the latest example of how religious exemptions are being weaponized to roll back civil rights under the guise of “freedom.” Each new ruling gives a single person the power to disrupt an entire classroom, claiming that their beliefs are incompatible with learning about LGBTQ+ people, racial diversity, or any worldview outside their own. These carve-outs have already spread far beyond schools—empowering business owners to deny service to queer customers and pharmacists to refuse medication. But the data out of Montgomery County, Maryland makes one thing unmistakably clear: this crusade is not a mass movement. It’s the obsession of a vanishingly small minority, inflated by a Republican Party that has turned resentment of diversity—and especially of LGBTQ+ people—into the centerpiece of its politics.

0

Massachusetts foster parents lose license after refusing to sign gender affirming policy: “We simply can’t agree to go against our Christian faith”

Read more at CBS News.

A couple from Woburn, Massachusetts has lost their license to foster children after they refused to sign a gender affirming policy form from the Department of Children and Families (DCF).

Lydia and Heath Marvin have three kids in their teens, but they have fostered eight different children under the age of 4 since 2020. Their most recent foster child was a baby with complex medical needs who stayed with them for 15 months.

“Our Christian faith, it really drives us toward that. James says that true undefiled religion is to care for the fatherless,” said Heath.

The couple said they were prepared to care for more foster children until DCF pulled their license to foster in April.

Foster parents cite religious beliefs

That’s because the Marvins refused to sign the agency’s LGBTQIA+ Non-Discrimination Policy because of their Christian faith. Starting in 2022, the policy said that foster families must affirm the LGBTQIA+ identity of foster children.

“We asked, is there any sort of accommodation, can you waive this at all? We will absolutely love and support and care for any child in our home but we simply can’t agree to go against our Christian faith in this area. And, were ultimately told you must sign the form as is or you will be delicensed,” Lydia said.

The Marvins appealed the loss of their license, but lost. They’re considering their options but two other Christian foster families are plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts Family Institute and Alliance Defending Freedom against DCF.

The lawsuit alleges the policy forces parents to “accept[ ] a child’s assertion of their LGBTQIA+ identity”, “address[ ] children by their names and pronouns,” and “support[ ] gender-neutral practices regarding clothes and physical appearance.”

“There is a speech component and also a religious liberty component to the lawsuit,” said Sam Whiting, an attorney with the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Letter from Trump administration

Last week, the Trump administration sent a letter to DCF, addressing the lawsuit and specifically mentioning the Marvins.

“These policies and developments are deeply troubling, clearly contrary to the purpose of child welfare programs, and in direct violation of First Amendment protections,” wrote Andrew Gradison, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families.

LGBTQ+ advocates argue the policy was developed to protect kids. Massachusetts foster parents also receive a monthly stipend.

“The state has an obligation to children to make sure that they’re safe and well protected. And foster parents, they’re not parents. Foster parents are temporary. They’re a stop gap to make sure children can safely go back to their families of origin,” said Polly Crozier, Director of Family Advocacy at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders.

Data collection by DCF is poor but a report by the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ youth suggests that roughly 30 percent of foster children in the state could identify as LGBTQ, similar to data collected in California and New York.

The Marvins argue that DCF has been flexible about child placements in the past for a number of reasons.

“We would love and care and support any child but if there was an issue where we knew that we would have a different position than DCF, we would just be open and talk to them about it,” Heath said.

A DCF spokesperson said in a statement to WBZ-TV, “The Department does not comment on matters related to pending litigation.” 

0

20-year-old targeted by MAGA for political beliefs and trans identity

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A student activist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge says her arrest at a campus public hearing was a targeted attack based on her political views, and alleges police became menacing when they learned she’s transgender.

Gabriela Juárez, 20, was swarmed by campus police after she exceeded her allotted speaking time of three minutes at a campus presidential search forum last week.

At least a dozen other students leapt from their seats in support of Juárez as LSU cops dragged her from the room, Louisiana Illuminator reports.

Six other students were charged with misdemeanors and released from the campus police station after they blocked the police car taking Juárez away.

Juárez was charged with resisting arrest and “interference with educational process,” which is a felony. She was taken to East Baton Rouge Parish Prison.

All of the students involved are members of the LSU chapter of Students for a Democratic Society. The group claims Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) is secretly steering the process to hire the university’s next president to align with the governor’s far-right, Trump-inspired political agenda, while disenfranchising campus leaders, faculty and students. 

Several students at the forum wore T-shirts with the slogan “No MAGA President.” 

LSU cops initially referred to Juárez as “she” or “her,” the activist said in an interview, but began treating her differently when she shared her legal name. Then they turned hostile and referred to her as “he” and “him,” she said. 

At the parish prison, Juárez was strip-searched and forced to stand naked while officers discussed where she should be kept.

“They said to the officer, ‘I have someone here who is bottom parts male but up top fully female,’” Juárez recounted. “And so they had no idea what to do with me.” 

Juárez said she was put into a cell by herself and given a women’s uniform, along with a warning she’d be sexually assaulted anywhere else. Other cops interrogated Juárez about her gender and loudly referred to her as a man, she said.

Juárez said she was denied the opportunity for a phone call after her arrest, but fellow SDS members were able to post a $1000 bond to obtain her release late the same night.

The meeting that led to Juárez’s arrest was chaotic.

She and six other members of SDS made public comments, eviscerating the 20 search committee members and calling them illegitimate.

Several made profane comments, including Juárez, who alleged the only criteria for serving on the committee was to “be a millionaire and suck off the governor.”

“Don’t f**king touch me,” Juárez shouted as the first LSU cop grabbed her arm. 

“Am I being detained?” she shouted as two officers dragged her out of the room and fellow SDS members shouted down cops and committee members in her support.

“Shame on you!” they shouted after Juárez was removed. Those students were also ejected from the meeting.

Outside, as her fellow SDS members and other students shouted and aimed their phones at officers, Juárez was searched, handcuffed, and placed in the back of an LSU Police cruiser.  

Juárez says she was targeted.

“In a moment where they are actively cultivating a panic around the presence of Latinos and the presence of trans people, and especially transgender women,” Juárez said, “I do believe that that – combined with the fact that I have a high profile on campus – led to them wanting to make an example out of me, and wanting to intimidate me specifically, and to use me as a show of force to scare other students into being silent.”  

The 20-year-old has political enemies, she said.

In September, Juárez was called out by the Louisiana Republican Party, which demanded that LSU discipline the activist for comments critical of slain conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk.

Juárez shared an Instagram story that referred to Kirk as a “world famous fascist” with the caption “rejoice.” 

0

Loudoun (VA) School Board approves LGBTQ proclamation despite opposition

Read more at Loundon Times-Mirror.

Loudoun County School Board proclamations are typically noncontroversial, but a proclamation recognizing October as LGBTQ+ History Month drew three no votes at the board’s Sept. 30 meeting.

Language in the proclamation says it honors the “history, achievements, and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people” and celebrates “the strength, resilience, and impact of the LGBTQ+ community, whose contributions have enriched the cultural, educational, and civic life of Virginia and the world.”

The proclamation — whose approval comes as some 600 Republican-sponsored, anti-LGBTQ bills, including 17 in Virginia, have been proposed around the nation — includes a repudiation of discrimination.

“We reject discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression, and instead affirm kindness, acceptance, and respect as the foundation of our learning community,” the proclamation states. “Our school division is stronger when every student and staff member can live authentically and feels a true sense of belonging, and when we embrace the full diversity of our community.”

April Chandler, Algonkian; Linda W. Deans, Broad Run; board Vice Chair Anne P. Donohue, At Large; Arben Istrefi, Sterling; board Chair Melinda M. Mansfield, Dulles; and Sumera Rashid, Little River, voted yes.

Deana L. Griffiths, Ashburn; Karen “Kari” LaBell, Catoctin; and Lauren E. Shernoff, Leesburg, voted no.

The proclamation was initially included in the board’s consent agenda, which has items that are approved en masse.

However, Griffiths, who typically has abstained from voting on proclamations since taking office in 2024, wrote in an email that she moved the proclamation to the regular agenda, so she could speak about why she was voting against it.

“There is a meaningful difference between formally recognizing a group in history and promoting that group for its lifestyle to our students,” Griffiths said at the meeting. “It crosses the line into advocacy and raises serious concerns under the (Trump) executive order protecting our children from inappropriate content in our schools.

“Our communications must remain age appropriate and leave conversations about sensitive information to parents. Schools exist to teach children how to read, write, and think critically. Not engage them in conversations about sexuality at any age where they are far too young to process it.”

The January executive order from President Donald J. Trump that Griffiths referred to says people cannot identify as the opposite sex they were born as. It says the administration will “enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality,” including cutting federal funding used to “promote gender ideology.”

The Trump administration said in August it was suspending or terminating funding to Loudoun County Public Schools over its policy allowing transgender students to choose which bathroom or locker room they use. Federal money accounts for about $47 million of the current $2 billion LCPS budget.

Shernoff wrote in an email that some constituents complained to her after she voted for the proclamation last year about the way LGBTQ+ History Month was celebrated in schools. Specifically, their complaints were about how “certain spirit days” were celebrated and the effect on young students.

“I did some research into it and that in conjunction with knowing that LCPS also proclaims LGBTQ+ Pride Month in June, I decided to not support this,” Shernoff said. “I did however support the anti-bullying proclamation which specifically names and protects students based on their gender identity. I remain committed to ensuring all students are protected, safe, and can achieve to their fullest potential.”

LaBell said in an interview that she supported the proclamation last year because it was on the consent agenda and voting against it would’ve meant voting against everything on the agenda.

She said she opposed the proclamation because some of the issues it raises are “too political”  to promote in school and might be inappropriate for young students to discuss.

Like Shernoff, LaBell said she voted for the Pride Month and anti-bullying proclamations, but believes one proclamation related to LGBTQ issues annually is enough.

“You want history? Put it in Pride Month,” she said. “It just seems to me it’s being pushed more so than anything else in our school system at this point in time. And it’s a family issue. It shouldn’t be a political issue in our schools.”

Two groups that support LGBTQ rights criticized the rationale of Griffiths, LaBell and Shernoff.

Candice Tuck, an Equality Loudoun board member, said the proclamation isn’t about promoting sexuality.

“There have been many brave queer pioneers throughout history who have fought for civil rights, who have been inventors, and who have moved our democracy forward,” Tuck said in an interview. “There is no reason that the queer community cannot be recognized for those accomplishments without individuals in our community perverting their history.”

Meredith Ray, the head of Loudoun4All, noted in an email that Griffiths previously said she wouldn’t vote for any proclamations, but chose to single out the LGTBQ+ proclamation for criticism.

Ray called Griffiths’ decision “malicious” and said her remarks were “ignorant commentary” on the issue.

“Recognition of history is not ‘promotion of a lifestyle.’ LGBTQ+ students, staff, and families exist in Loudoun and deserve the same dignity as everyone else. Griffiths’ attempt to frame recognition as ‘inappropriate content’ is harmful, especially to young people who already face higher rates of bullying and mental health struggles when leaders stigmatize them,” Ray said. “In fact, decades of research show that inclusive education that teaches respect and representation is one of the most effective ways to prevent bullying and improve school climate.”

0

Appeals court rules for Colorado and LGBTQ rights and against Catholic parishes in state preschool case

Read more at KUNC.

Preschoolers with LGBTQ parents or who identify as LGBTQ can’t be shut out of religious preschools that are part of Colorado’s state-funded preschool program, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The decision, which upholds a key part of a lower court decision, represents a major win for the state and a defeat for the two Denver-area Catholic preschools at the center of the case.

Tuesday’s decision provides the latest answer to a question being asked in several cases percolating in state and federal courts: Can private religious schools that accept public education dollars refuse to enroll certain kids based on religious principles?

Along with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal, a Maine federal district court and a Utah state court are among those who have said no.

It’s possible the U.S. Supreme Court could eventually weigh in, though it’s not clear which case will advance to the high court.

In its 54-page ruling, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that it found no proof that the Colorado Department of Early Childhood took actions that “evidence religious hostility” as the two Catholic preschools claimed.

The state’s universal preschool program “went to great effort to be welcoming and inclusive of faith-based preschools’ participation,” the decision said.

The three-judge panel also found that the early childhood department, which runs the preschool program, had applied its nondiscrimination policy in a neutral way to both religious and non-religious preschools.

The policy bars preschools from discriminating based on a variety of factors, including sexual orientation and gender identity. State officials cited the policy in denying the Catholic preschools a waiver that would have allowed them to keep LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families from enrolling.

In a statement Tuesday, Gov. Jared Polis said, “We are building a Colorado for all, where every student is free from discrimination and this voter-approved initiative continues to enroll approximately 70% of all eligible four-year-olds each school year and many faith based and secular providers are operating terrific preschools that serve parents and children well.”

Tuesday’s ruling essentially upholds the status quo in the universal preschool program, meaning that participating preschools can’t shut out LGBTQ children or children with LGBTQ parents.

The three appeals court judges who ruled Tuesday were Gregory Phillips, Veronica Rossman, and Richard Federico. Phillips was appointed by President Barack Obama, and Rossman and Federico were appointed by President Joe Biden.

Nick Reaves, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Catholic preschools in the case, sent Chalkbeat a short statement about the ruling.

“Colorado is punishing religious schools and the families they serve for following their faith. The Tenth Circuit’s decision allows the state’s anti-religious gamesmanship to continue. We will keep fighting to ensure that every preschooler in Colorado can access quality, affordable education.”

Conflict arose as state preschool program rolled out

The Colorado case began in 2023 as the state was launching its new universal preschool program, which provides tuition-free preschool to 4-year-olds statewide. The $349 million program serves more than 40,000 children and allows families to choose from public, private, or religious preschools.

Of more than 2,000 preschools participating in the program this year, about 40 are religious.

St. Mary Catholic Virtue School in Littleton and Wellspring Catholic Academy in Lakewood wanted to join the program when it started, but didn’t want to admit LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families.

They asked for an exemption from state rules banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but the Colorado Department of Early Childhood refused. The two preschools never joined the program, and in August 2023, the parishes that ran the preschools sued the state. (Wellspring Catholic Academy closed in December 2024.)

In June 2024, a federal district court judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter largely ruled in the state’s favor.

He wrote of Colorado’s non-discrimination rules: “The purpose of the requirement is not to invade religious freedom but to further the implementation of a strongly embraced public value.”

The parishes quickly appealed.

Unfolding alongside the Catholic preschool case is a separate lawsuit over universal preschool brought by an evangelical Christian preschool in southern Colorado. Unlike the Catholic preschools, that school, Darren Patterson Christian Academy, joined the universal preschool program when it launched.

While officials there never sought to keep LGBTQ children or families out, their lawsuit said state non-discrimination rules could force the preschool to hire employees who don’t share its faith or to change school policies related to restrooms, pronouns, and dress codes.

In February, a federal judge appointed by Donald Trump ruled in favor of Darren Patterson Christian Academy.

The state appealed the ruling in March. The case is ongoing.

0

Texas A&M President resigns over controversy in LGBTQ teachings

Read more at Yahoo.

The President of Texas A&M University, Mark Welsh, resigned last week amid controversy over a viral video between a professor and a student debating gender ideology.

Welsh stepped down officially on Friday, September 19, according to a press release where the Chancellor Glenn Hegar thanked Welsh for his service to the university and the nation.

“President Welsh is a man of honor who has led Texas A&M with selfless dedication,” said Hegar. “We are grateful for his service and contributions. At the same time, we agree that now is the right moment to make a change and to position Texas A&M for continued excellence in the years ahead.”

The former president resigned while the university faces heated backlash after a video was posted of a student calling out a professor for teaching gender ideology in the classroom.

Professor Melissa McCoul was sharing an image of a “gender unicorn” that demonstrates concepts of gender expressions, identity and sexuality while reading “Jude Saves the World,” a novel about a 12-year-old who comes out as nonbinary, according to The Texas Tribune.

The student said it was illegal according to an executive order signed by President Trump and went against her religious beliefs.

“[M]y Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male,” Trump wrote in the executive order.

State Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Texas, reposted the video on X.

“The governor and lieutenant governor and speaker have been telling everybody for two years now that we passed bans on DEI and transgender indoctrination in public universities,” Harrison wrote on his X account. “The only little problem with that? It’s a complete lie. … The state of Texas — despite what the governor said in his tweet yesterday, that this is a violation of law — there is no state law that we passed.”

Professor McCoul was later fired, according to press reports.

Former A&M President Welsh allegedly defended the inclusion of LGBTQ content in the classroom.

“Those people don’t get to pick who their clients are, what citizens they serve and they want to understand the issues affecting the people that they’re going to treat,” Welsh said in an audio recording posted by Harrison on X. “So there is a professional reason to teach some of these courses.”

In the past few years, Texas has been one of many states fighting LGBTQ and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in schools.

0

Do foster parents have to affirm LGBTQ+ kids? Massachusetts says ‘yes.’

Read more at WGBH.

A pair of Christian couples in Massachusetts are suing the state, saying their rights were violated when they lost their foster licenses over their views on gender and sexuality.

The couples — Audrey and Nick Jones, in Worcester County, and Greg and Marianelly Schrock, in Middlesex County — argue their First Amendment rights to freedom of religious exercise and freedom of speech are being violated in the lawsuit filed in federal court this month.

Their argument hinges on a state requirement that foster parents sign an agreement that they will “support, respect, and affirm the foster child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression” — and that refusing to do so forced them out of the foster parent role.

The case comes as Massachusetts faces a dire shortage of families willing to serve as foster parents. The Joneses and Schrocks would provide a loving home for any child — including a gay or transgender child, their attorney told GBH News.

But, as Audrey Jones told their licensing agent, she and her husband “cannot support a child dating someone of the same sex or affirm a child who wanted to use different pronouns.” They argue the policy is unconstitutionally restrictive and ultimately harms foster children who have no place to go.

LGBTQ+ advocates told GBH News they were saddened and outraged by the case and worry it will test the strength of anti-discrimination laws. They specifically point to the vulnerability of LGBTQ+ youth in foster care: Nationally, 40% have run away or have been kicked out of their homes for being LGBTQ+, and LGBTQ+ youth who are in foster care are three times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBTQ+ youth who are not, according to the Trevor Project.

“These are already traumatized kids facing additional trauma because of their identity — and this isn’t about the foster parents,” said Tanya Neslusan, the executive director of MassEquality. “When you are parenting children, it is never about the parents — it is about the children and making sure that their needs are prioritized. And if you can’t in good conscience do that, then that’s really what it comes down to.”

This lawsuit follows a similar case filed two years ago by Mike and Kitty Burke, a Catholic couple from Southampton. They sued after being denied a foster care license because they would “not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA,” per court filings. Attorneys for the state recently asked the court to dismiss that case since the Burkes have since moved to Florida.

“Because it’s a state-run system, the state has to have some leeway to make some decisions about … what it means to keep a child emotionally safe and healthy while that child is in state custody.”

Josh Gupta-Kagan, Columbia Law School

Mallory Sleight, an attorney on the Jones-Schrock case who works for the Alliance Defending Freedom’s parental rights team, says her organization has been contacted by six Massachusetts families about this issue. The Joneses and Schrocks, she says, previously served as foster parents without issue and want their licenses back. But she said requiring them to sign the agreement violates their religious beliefs.

“DCF has said that these families are required to agree ahead of time that they would use any chosen pronouns,” she said. “And by using chosen pronouns, you are agreeing that a boy is in fact a girl, or a girl is in a fact a boy. And biblically, these families simply do not hold that belief. And by speaking that belief, especially to a child, they are violating their own religious convictions.”

Legal experts say this case follows more than a century of legal battles and legislation about the role religion can play in the foster care system — and, in the last few years, how that overlaps with LGBTQ+ foster children. Experts agreed that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent openness to religious discrimination lawsuits could give the plaintiffs reason to hope.

In the lawsuit, the families suggested a less restrictive policy that would give the Department of Children and Families discretion about which children are placed with which parents. Department leadership could choose to not revoke foster parents’ licenses and instead just give social workers leeway to not place gender non-conforming children with such parents — a stance the Boston Globe Editorial board endorsed last week.

“If the department wants to, the department can specifically match them with children that they think would be good fits for their homes. So that could be religious children — because there are religious foster children who would love to be with religious foster parents who they could go to church with and be in Sunday school and read the Bible with,” Sleight told GBH News.

“By using chosen pronouns, you are agreeing that a boy is in fact a girl, or a girl is in a fact a boy. And biblically, these families simply do not hold that belief.”

Mallory Sleight, an attorney representing the Joneses and Schrocks

Still, some experts doubt the merits of the case. They say the rights of the legal parent or guardian and the child’s right to health and safety will outweigh the rights of a foster parent acting as a temporary caretaker.

“This is not like going to speak in the town square,” said Josh Gupta-Kagan, a Columbia Law School professor who focuses on children and families issues. “Because it’s a state-run system, the state has to have some leeway to make some decisions about … what it means to keep a child emotionally safe and healthy while that child is in state custody.”

And advocates say they want LGBTQ+ children to feel safe and comfortable in their foster homes.

“We would hope that the goal of every foster parent coming into the system to help … we hope that everyone comes in thinking: ‘I will affirm every child no matter their race, their gender identity, their sexual and their sexual orientation,’” said Shaplaie Brooks, executive director of the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth.

Brooks said the Department of Children and Families has been “moving the needle” on helping LGBTQ+ youth in the foster care system — but says that big steps still need to be taken. Her commission has been helping support couples fostering LGBTQ+ children, connecting them with gender-affirming care resources.

“Especially as of late … DCF has tried to center the needs of each child as best as possible in their care,” she said.

In fact, Gupta-Kagan imagines a hypothetical lawsuit if the policy didn’t exist and the state allowed foster parents to not affirm or support LGBTQ+ youth — a lawsuit “that the state is not fulfilling its obligation to keep children in its custody safe.”

A spokesperson for DCF told GBH News it does not comment on pending litigation. State attorneys have not responded to the complaint in court, and an initial hearing hasn’t been set yet in the case.

0

Iowa must pay $85K because state troopers blocked trans students from Capitol restrooms

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Six months after Iowa removed gender identity as a protected class from its civil rights laws, the state now must pay $85,000 to LGBTQ+ students ejected from the Iowa Capitol in 2020, among them trans students who were denied access to the building’s bathrooms.

Iowa Safe Schools, an LGBTQ+ youth advocacy group, sponsored the visit of about 150 Iowa students and chaperones to the Capitol to meet with legislators in 2020. The group’s then-executive director, Nate Monson, told the Iowa Register that, at the time, Iowa State Patrol troopers told several transgender students they couldn’t use one of the bathrooms and had to use a gender-neutral restroom instead.

When Monson intervened, arguing that the troopers’ directions were inconsistent with state law, the entire group was ordered to leave. 

“I went up to the trooper and said, ‘No, that’s not what the law says,’” Monson said. “The civil rights code includes gender identity. He told me it did not. Then I told him yes, it did. And he said, ‘Well it doesn’t include bathrooms.’”

The students were then told to leave the Capitol altogether, that they had been banned from the Capitol grounds, and they would be arrested if they returned.

The students and several Iowa Safe Schools leaders filed suit in 2022, alleging sex-based discrimination, harassment, and unlawful retaliation.

Under terms of a settlement agreement — filed in July and approved by the Iowa State Board of Appeals on Tuesday — the state will pay the students and group leaders to settle the case without admitting any wrongdoing. 

“These individuals were exercising their constitutional and civil rights when they were singled out and removed from the Iowa Capitol solely because of their identity and their affiliation with an LGBTQ+ organization,” said Devin C. Kelly, an attorney for the plaintiffs, following the Board of Appeals approval.

“At a time when LGBTQ+ Iowans and their families continue to face growing challenges, this settlement reaffirms a simple truth: all Iowans are equal under the law,” Kelly added.

In a letter to the Board of Appeals, state attorney Jeffrey Peterzalek made it a point to say that the plaintiffs’ legal claims “would now not be allowed” under the updated Civil Rights Act.

With Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds’ signature in February, Iowa became the first state in the nation to remove a previously protected class from its civil rights laws. The change took effect July 1.

0

LGBTQ clubs, teachers’ union sue to block parts of Texas DEI ban in public schools

Read more at the Dallas Morning News.

A Plano teacher, a Houston high schooler, the Texas teachers’ union and a network of LGBTQ clubs filed a federal lawsuit in August to block parts of a new Texas law that bans certain student groups from public schools.

The law, which took effect Sept. 1, bars schools from sponsoring a “student club based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” It also forbids schools from providing instruction, guidance or programming on sexual orientation or gender identity. Schools are barred from helping in the social transitioning of a transgender child, which can include using new names or pronouns.

A former faculty sponsor for a Gender and Sexuality Alliance in Plano ISD; a Houston high schooler; the Gender and Sexuality Alliances Network, a nonprofit that represents GSA clubs in Texas schools; and advocacy group Students Engaged in Advancing Texas say their freedom of speech and expressive association “will be irreparably suppressed” under the new law.

Texas AFT, the teachers’ union, joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff Sept. 15.

“S.B. 12 is one of the most extreme education censorship laws in the country, undermining the free speech rights of Texas students, parents, and educators,” said Brian Klosterboer, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas, who filed the suitin the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.“We’re challenging this law in court because our schools should be places of truth, inclusion, and opportunity — not fear and erasure.”

The lawsuit names Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath as a defendant, as well as Plano, Katy and Houston ISDs.

“Plano ISD is obligated to comply with the law as written unless or until the courts provide further direction,” said Zoheb Hassanali, the district’s assistant director of communications, public relations and social media.

He said district staff have received training to ensure compliance with the law.

“Our focus continues to be on educating and supporting our students, and we will not allow external litigation to distract us from that responsibility,” he added.

Houston ISD’s press office said the district does not comment on pending litigation.

Representatives from Katy ISD and the Texas Education Agency did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

The legal action comes as school districts across Texas are adopting policies to comply with the state law, which prohibits diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in K-12 schools.

Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Allen, who introduced the legislation, said it ensures parents are at the “head of the table when it comes to their kids’ education.”

In addition to the ban on LGBTQ clubs, the legislation requires schools to get a parent’s permission before a child can join any school club.

“Our schools should be about teaching history and reading, writing and math and civic responsibility,” Leach said as he advocated for the bill in the Legislature. “We need to get away from some of the more toxic social issues.”

If the law is not blocked, all 22 student-run Gender and Sexuality Alliance clubs registered with the GSA Network will likely shut down, according to the filing.

Leach criticized the organizations during legislative discussions, calling them “school-sponsored and school-sanctioned sex clubs.” Supporters and members of the clubs say they provide safe and welcoming spaces for students.

The groups in the lawsuit say the ban “ostracizes” students “who have a sexual orientation or gender identity that differs from other students.” It also “harms allies of LGBTQ+ students who seek to learn about issues impacting their friends and advocate for a safer and more inclusive school environment,” according to the filing.

At least one Gender and Sexuality Alliance in Plano ISD disbanded ahead of the law’s implementation date, according to court documents. Students tried to start a new club, but school administrators said it would not be allowed.

One student decided to be homeschooled because the club shut down “and the fact that their affirming name and pronouns will no longer be respected by teachers and staff,” court documents read.

The law has created “a climate of fear and discrimination” in the Plano ISD school, “where the voices of LGBTQ+ students and educators are suppressed.” The school is not identified in the lawsuit, and the teacher and student plaintiffs go by pseudonyms to protect them from retaliation.

The Plano ISD teacher, who was also the faculty sponsor of the now-disbanded Gender and Sexuality Alliance, said the law’s “vague and broad” requirements create “a massive gray area about how and whether she can support her transgender students.”

Texas AFT, the teachers’ union, said it has already received a “high volume of inquiries” from members on its grievance hotline about what the law means, its “harsh professional consequences and the harm it is causing their relationships with their students and concerned parents.”

For a Houston high schooler at Kinder High School for the Performing and Visual Arts, the law could mean she can’t join or start a Gender and Sexuality Alliance at her new school.

The high schooler participated in GSA in middle school, where she “found community and support in her own experience of coming out as an LGBTQ+ student and felt safer and happier,” the filing reads.

Under the law, she worries she won’t have that same experience. She already feels the law “is suppressing her ability to speak with teachers” about certain topics, including social transitioning.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑