LGBTQ activists in New Jersey say they’re fortunate to live in New Jersey as the new administration kicks-off its term by attacking the transgender community and diversity initiatives. Advocates at Garden State Equality say New Jersey sets a standard for legal equality that can inspire states throughout the country.
As part of its education and advocacy “Going Local” programming across the country, the GLAAD Media Institute (GMI) – GLAAD’s training, research and consulting division – convened meetings with local leaders and community advocates at Garden State Equality and throughout the nation. Attendees who complete a program or session with the GLAAD Media Institute are immediately deemed GLAAD Media Institute Alumni, who are equipped to maximize community impact by leveraging their own story for culture change.
The state is known for its tough pro-equality laws like New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), which is considered one of the most comprehensive anti-discrimination laws in the country. Yet, new laws in the state legislature help combat a rise of LGBTQ disinformation and hate speech, straight out of Project 2025. The anti-LGBTQ hate machine has affected dozens of Jersey school board’s policies on book bans, critical race theory, and sex education.
Since Garden State Equality’s founding in 2004, over “230 LGBTQ civil rights laws” have been enacted at the state, county, and local levels. According to the organization’s website, that’s “more laws in less time than in any other state in American history.”
On a federal level, President Trump began his second term signing executive orders to dispute the fact that transgender and gender diverse people exist. On Trump’s first days in office he signed an executive order titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. The order is used to delegitimize trans truth, history, and science, which promptly raised concerns over a federal ban of the “x” gender marker for people of nonbinary, trans or gender nonconforming experience in the United States.
“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female,” President Trump incorrectly said upon signing the order.
Garden State Equality says they’re ready to resist these efforts by the current administration, and continue to encourage diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, while uplifting best practices for LGBTQ youth and adult community members as they have within their state government, says advocates.
“We want our youth to understand that they don’t just live in a bubble here in New Jersey, that the work that they are doing to be activists here in our state is going to influence other states and other students across the nation,” Natalie Hernandez told GLAAD.
Natalie Hernandez, camp director and project manager & trainer; Screenshot by Lana Leonard
Hernandez is the Camp Director of Garden State Equality’s Changemakers Youth Leadership summer program. Empowering youth leaders helps inform the work of other departments and so forth, it’s a collaborative effort to fight for legal equality for the state organization.
Hime Sarah Thomas, project manager and trainer with the Education and Youth Development Department, grew up in a queer family who introduced Thomas to Garden State Equality through the Changemakers Youth Leadership summer program. Thomas works to encourage youth to become “changemakers” by giving them an outlet to express their frustrations, and amplify their voices.
Only a small number of youth actually transition: less than one-tenth of one percent of teenagers with private insurance in the United States are transgender and receive gender-related medicine, according to a study by JAMA Pediatrics.
“These youth need a space where they can talk about all the things that are happening in the news and the world because they don’t have the autonomy to be able to vote and make those choices on who is representing them,” Thomas said.
For Aisling MacDonald, a project manager for the organization’s Training and Trans Resiliency Program, which advocates for the wellness of transgender and gender nonconforming adults and families moving into New Jersey for their LGBTQ protections.
“Our world is ever evolving. There are some very legitimate anxieties, and also… we are really, really fortunate to live here,” MacDonald said.
MacDonald spends much of her day building coalition relationships and legal resources for name changes and documents for trans people who have been under attack on social media, through legislation, and the news.
Hime Sarah Thomas, project manager & trainer; Screenshot by Lana Leonard
“My experience as a woman of trans experience who is from some very particular demographics, and a very particular flavor of multiple marginalizations, is that we do not have a lot of trust for systems, institutions and legislators, especially,” MacDonald said. “And I think more than anything else in 2025 we have an opportunity to build a different kind of community.”
These insights into the LGBTQ community of Asbury Park lead into a larger narrative about community needs in New Jersey and beyond. Even still, Garden State Equality recognizes that there are hurdles that must still be overcome.
More about the GLAAD Media Institute: The GLAAD Media Institute provides training, consultation, and actionable research to develop an army of social justice ambassadors for all marginalized communities to champion acceptance and amplify media impact. Using the best practices, tools, and techniques we’ve perfected over the past 30 years, the GLAAD Media Institute turns education into armor for today’s culture war—transforming individuals into compelling storytellers, media-savvy navigators, and mighty ambassadors whose voices break through the noise and incite real change. Activate with the GLAAD Media Institute now at glaad.org/institute
More than a quarter million LGBTQ+ young people and family members in the U.S. have relocated to other states because of LGBTQ+-related politics or laws, according to estimates outlined in a new report exploring the population’s response to hostile policy environments.
According to the brief compiled by The Trevor Project and Movement Advancement Project, 9 in 10 LGBTQ+ young people say politics have impacted their well-being, while 4 in 10 say they’ve thought about moving to another state because of unfriendly LGBTQ+ politics or laws at home.
The portion was even higher for transgender and nonbinary youth, 94% of whom said politics had affected their well-being and nearly half (45%) who said they’d considered relocating.
“For many LGBTQ+ young people in the U.S., the steady stream of anti-LGBTQ+ news may feel overwhelming right now,” said Steven Hobaica, a research scientist for the Trevor Project, a national LGBTQ+ youth advocacy group focused on suicide prevention. “It’s heartbreaking to see that nearly half of transgender and nonbinary youth have considered moving due to anti-LGBTQ+ policies.”
While just 4% of LGBTQ+ young people ages 13 to 24 reported uprooting because of anti-LGBTQ+ policies, that translates to roughly 266,000 young people and family members based on LGBTQ+ youth population estimates, the groups said.
Trump administration presents new threats
The report comes as President Donald Trump returns to the White House after making gender identity issues a focal point of his campaign. On Monday, after being sworn in, Trump issued a spate of executive orders that included seeking to remove legal protections for transgender people in federal spaces, laying the groundwork to potentially bar transgender individuals from military service and declaring that the U.S. government will only recognize two sexes, male and female.
“No matter a person’s political beliefs, we know, from our research and from what LGBTQ+ young people tell us, that policies like these take a damaging toll on LGBTQ+ young people’s mental health,” said Janson Wu, The Trevor Project’s senior director of state advocacy and government affairs.
The organization said its crisis services saw a 33% increase on Inauguration Day compared to typical volume. But that still paled, it noted, to the sevenfold increase in crisis services experienced the day after the 2024 election.
“No matter your political beliefs or how you feel about the current administration, one thing must be made clear to all of us living in the United States: Real young people’s lives are at risk,” said Trevor Project CEO Jaymes Black.
Recent years have already seen increasing numbers of state laws and proposed legislation targeting the LGBTQ+ community, especially measures aimed at curbing the rights of transgender youth.
“It’s critical that we not only call attention to the negative impact of these divisive political attacks but also highlight that this research supports the idea that more inclusive policy environments lead to better outcomes for LGBTQ young people across a range of measures,” said Logan Casey, director of policy research for Movement Advancement Project.
Hostile climates raise mental, emotional health risk
The organizations said they compiled the report given a lack of research into how LGBTQ+ young people respond to hostile policy environments, despite studies showing that those youths experience greater mental health challenges and higher suicide risk in such environments.
“By gaining more knowledge of how LGBTQ+ young people respond to their policy environment, advocates and policymakers can create or modify policy to better support LGBTQ+ young people and their families,” the report said.
Their joint report is based on data gleaned from The Trevor Project’s 2024 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People, which collected responses from more than 18,600 LGBTQ+ individuals between the ages of 13 and 24. It also incorporates data from Movement Advancement Project, a Boulder, Colorado-based group that tracks LGBTQ+-related laws and policies throughout the U.S. and its territories and assigns each a negative or positive policy index.
More than a quarter (27%) of respondents lived in states with negative policy indexes, the report said. Those individuals were more likely than their counterparts to consider moving to other states and also likelier to travel to other states to receive health care.
The report noted that not all LGBTQ+ young people and their families desiring to relocate have the resources to do so.
“Notably, the same factors that might preclude the ability of LGBTQ+ young people and their families from moving, such as poverty, housing discrimination, and employment access, are the same ones that disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ people of color and increase their risk of mental health and suicide,” the report said.
BANGKOK (AP) — They have been in a committed relationship for more than 13 years, and even had a wedding in 2019. Since then, Danaya Phonphayung and Sunma Piamboon, both women, have considered themselves a married couple, even if same-sex marriages were not legally recognized.
The walls of their home in suburban Bangkok are decorated with faded photos from their happy union, filled with joy and love from their families and friends. Come this Thursday, their wedded status will be recognized by the nation as well, when a law that allows members of the LGBTQ+ community in Thailand to get married and have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples takes effect.
The couple said they can’t wait to formalize their union. They plan to register their marriage at a district office near their home on the very first day that the law allows.
“I think I’ll cry,” Danaya, an office worker, said with a big smile, thinking about the moment that they will sign the paper. “I’m so happy. It’s something that was more than I could’ve dreamed of, that suddenly this day is happening.”
“We live together. We bought a house. We bought a car. But we cannot share these things together like a married couple. When this is happening, we feel that it’s our rights that we need to secure as quickly as possible,” she said.
The marriage equality bill, which sailed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, amended the Civil and Commercial Code to change the words “men and women” and “husband and wife” to “individuals” and “marriage partners.” It would open up access to full legal, financial and medical rights for LGBTQ+ couples.
Sunma, who owns a travel agency, said that she had realized how crucial being legally married was when Danaya was hospitalized with dengue fever, as they don’t live close to her parents.
“The doctors asked me who I was, and I said I was the girlfriend, and they were like, ‘so what’?’ I couldn’t make any decision until her condition became quite serious,” she said. “I was so upset, like, if I had lost her … there would be nothing that could’ve made up for it. So, I think this is very important for both of us.”
How marriage equality became law
Thailand has a reputation for acceptance and inclusivity, but struggled for decades to pass a marriage equality law. Thai society largely holds conservative values. Members of the LGBTQ+ community say they face discrimination in everyday life, although they note that things have improved greatly in recent years.
The government led by the Pheu Thai party made marriage equality one of its main goals. It made a major effort to identify itself with the annual Bangkok Pride parade in June, in which thousands of people celebrated in one of Bangkok’s busiest commercial districts.
Last week, Government House invited dozens of LGBTQ+ couples and activists for a photo op and a meeting with Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and several high ranking officials to celebrate the law coming into effect, making Thailand the first in Southeast Asia and the third place in Asia, after Taiwan and Nepal, to legalize same-sex marriage.
“It is almost like a dream, but it’s not. So, congratulations to all,” Paetongtarn said. “I think it’s very important that the world notice us, and know that in this small country we have this kind of thought. We have this kind of support for our people. So, we all should be proud.”
The organizers of Bangkok Pride have collaborated with relevant government agencies to hold a grand celebration in central Bangkok and facilitate couples who wish to register their marriage on the very first day. They said that more than 300 couples have registered to officially tie the knot on Thursday at the event.
“(The law) is about returning our dignity, and confirming that we also have dignity as a human being,” said Ann “Waaddao” Chumaporn, a gender equality activist and the lead organizer of Bangkok Pride. “That day is going to be meaningful to all the couples that have gone through this journey together. I’d like to thank everyone, every love, that has faithfully struggled so that today would finally happen.”
How the law will be implemented
The government and state agencies in Thailand are historically traditional in outlook. To prepare them for change, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration said that it has organized workshops for staff of all Bangkok district offices who are in charge of handling marriage registration. They included lectures raising awareness about gender diversity and guidance on how to properly communicate with those who come for the service.
“It’s like a missing piece of the jigsaw,” Bangkok Deputy Gov. Sanon Wangsrangboon said at one of the workshops earlier this month. “Society is ready. The law is getting ready. But the last piece of the jigsaw is the understanding from officials.”
He acknowledged there that would be problems in the beginning, but said that he hoped they would gradually improve over time.
After they register their marriage, Sunma said that she’s looking forward to having a “real marriage celebration” with her and Danaya’s families.
“It’s not just the two of us that are happy, but both of our families feel it is a big deal, and it is what everyone has been waiting for. Everyone said they are waiting for Jan. 23,” she said.
The federal government is set to only recognize two sexes, male and female, under an executive order that President Donald Trump is soon expected to sign.
The order would reverse efforts by the Biden administration to broaden gender identity designations, including on passports.
“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female,” Trump said during his inaugural address Monday, taking an early step to fulfill one of his culture war campaign promises.
The order, a Trump administration official told reporters Monday, is aimed at “defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truths to the federal government.” Male and female “are sexes that are not changeable, and they are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” the official said.
The federal government would also shift from using the term “gender” to “sex,” and that sex would be “an individual’s immutable biological classification,” the official said.
All government agencies would ensure that official documents, including passports and visas, “reflect sex accurately,” the official said. Also, departments running federal prisons, migrant shelters, rape shelters and other “intimate spaces” would be directed to protect single-sex spaces for privacy. And employee records would also adhere to the executive order, as would federal departments’ messaging.
“Agencies are no longer going to promote gender ideology through communication forms and other messages,” the official said, adding that grants and contracts would be reviewed to ensure that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.”
Reversing Biden expansion
Trump’s executive order would dismantle efforts by the Biden administration to be more inclusive of Americans’ gender identification.
As of 2022, US citizens have been able to select “X” as their gender marker on passports. One’s marker does not need to match the gender on citizenship documents or photo ID, nor is medical documentation needed to change one’s gender, according to the State Department.
“We promote the freedom, dignity, and equality of all people – including LGBTQI+ individuals,” the department’s website says. “We are demonstrating this commitment to better serve all U.S. citizens, regardless of gender identity.”
Later that year, Americans were able to start changing their sex identification with the Social Security Administration without needing to provide medical certification. However, Social Security’s record systems still require a designation of male or female, though the administration said it was exploring policy and systems updates to support an “X” designation.
“The Social Security Administration’s Equity Action Plan includes a commitment to decrease administrative burdens and ensure people who identify as gender diverse or transgender have options in the Social Security number card application process,” said Kilolo Kijakazi, the administration’s acting commissioner at the time.
Democrats labeled it “yet another example” of GOP extremists “stirring up divisive social issues to create problems where none exist.”
Republicans in Idaho’s House of Representatives are contemplating a formal statement urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse its landmark 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.
The resolution, proposed by Republican state Rep. Heather Scott, characterizes the court’s decision as an “illegitimate overreach.” Scott’s proposal calls for the restoration of the “natural definition of marriage,” despite the fact that various forms of marriage, including same-sex unions, have existed throughout history.
Rep. Heather Scott stated that the purpose of her resolution is to “affirm our state authority to regulate marriage” during a Tuesday hearing.
The 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, following decades of LGBTQ+ activism. At the time of the ruling, many states still had bans on gay marriage, despite growing public support for such unions.
The decision, made by a 5-4 vote, preceded the appointments of three conservative justices during the presidency of Donald Trump—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have since called for a reconsideration of the Obergefell decision.
While Scott’s resolution holds no legal authority, it will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration. The state committee advanced it on Tuesday, and a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
State House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel (D) and Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow (D) dismissed Scott’s resolution as a “sad distraction,” criticizing it as another attempt by the far-right of the Republican Party to “gin up divisive social issues to create problems where none exist.” They emphasized that “big government has no business telling consenting adults who they should love.”
They added, “This resolution may be a helpful gimmick for winning in closed GOP primaries, but it should be offensive to all Idahoans who value their individual rights and freedoms and just want to live their lives without egregious government interference.”
In 2021, Rep. Scott compared Idaho’s mask mandate to Nazi Germany’s policies. Despite a federal judge ruling that Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, the ban remains on the books. Recent polling shows that more Idahoans support same-sex marriage than oppose it.
“There are many people who clearly do not want us to be here.”
Police in Santa Cruz, California, have charged 45-year-old James Eason with vandalizing The Neighbor’s, a queer bar, just days after it opened. Eason faces charges of vandalism, arson, and committing a hate crime.
The incident occurred early last Tuesday morning when a suspect set fire to a button panel outside the bar’s front door, which is used to assist disabled patrons. The vandal also attempted to push burning napkins through the door’s cracks and carved a homophobic slur into the glass, according to bar owner Frankie Farr, who spoke with Lookout.
“I was like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding, we’re not even open a week,’” Farr said. “[We are] still a bit in shock that it happened so quickly… There are clearly many people who do not want us to exist.”
They contacted the police, and detectives were able to identify the suspect after reviewing surveillance footage from nearby businesses. At the time Eason was named a suspect in the vandalism, he was already in custody at the county jail for an unrelated offense.
The bar opened in early December with a ribbon-cutting ceremony attended by Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley, City Councilmember Sonja Brunner, and more than 100 patrons eager to explore the new space.
Although the city is home to LGBTQ+-inclusive businesses, Farr felt there was a lack of dedicated spaces for queer individuals to meet, socialize, and build a sense of community. In addition to offering food and serving as a performance venue for regional DJs, queer performers, and drag artists, Farr hopes the bar can also support environmental and social movements and attract LGBTQ+ tourists to Santa Cruz.
“It’s pretty depressing to think of all these people driving over the hill or all the way to San Francisco just to find [queer] community when we have it right here,” Farr said.
Months before the opening, Farr shared, “I really want [the bar] to be a place for people who aren’t out or in unsafe situations where they can’t disclose their sexuality to family or others they live with—where they can give a sly little wave and say, ‘I’m just going to hang out at The Neighbor’s.’”
Despite the attack, the bar resumed normal business hours right away. Farr expressed gratitude that the incident wasn’t worse.
“We’re very fortunate that nobody was inside,” Farr said. “However, there are apartments above, and those residents don’t deserve this either. They could have been seriously injured.”
City council members attempted to defund a weekly pizza party for LGBTQ+ students. However, what happened next took everyone by surprise.
In the small town of Ellensburg, Washington, pizza has become an unlikely source of controversy.
City council member Joshua Thompson claims that the weekly pizza gatherings for LGBTQ+ students are influencing high schoolers to adopt a “gay lifestyle” or explore transgender identities, framing the popular dish as a catalyst for these changes.
City council member Joshua Thompson sparked controversy when he declared that the weekly Pizza Klatch at Ellensburg High School—a safe space for LGBTQ+ students and allies—was a “target on minors” and claimed it was influencing students to adopt gay or transgender identities.
During a council meeting in the Yakima Valley town of Ellensburg, Washington (population 18,703), Thompson proposed cutting the $1,400 annual funding for the program, which provides pizza and a supportive environment for an average of 27 students each week. The program, initiated by the Ellensburg Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Commission in 2023, aims to foster connection and safety for LGBTQ+ youth.
Councilwoman Sarah Beauchamp, a mother of an LGBTQ+ child, strongly defended the funding, emphasizing its importance for students’ well-being. “$1,400 a year for these kids to hang out and have friendships,” she said. “We are not making them transgender. We’re not turning them homosexual by having a place for them to gather and feel safe.”
Thompson’s motion to defund the pizza program failed, as did a compromise amendment requiring parental permission for students to attend. Ultimately, the council voted 4–3 to approve the DEI Commission’s $10,000 budget request but excluded the $1,400 for the weekly pizza gatherings.
However, the funding shortfall was quickly addressed by Ellensburg resident Steve Verhey, a former council candidate who raised over $2,200 through an online fundraiser within days. “I’m a little bit annoyed at having to do the city council’s job for them,” Verhey told KNDO News. “The city council’s job is to keep everyone who lives in Ellensburg safe and to give them the conditions they need to thrive.”
Thanks to community support, the Pizza Klatch will continue to provide a welcoming space for LGBTQ+ students—funded entirely by private donations—for another year and beyond.
New York City officials have corroborated reports from other local jurisdictions: there has been a noticeable uptick in the number of marriages across the country, often referred to as the “Trump bump.”
While the city doesn’t record details about couples’ gender or immigration status, anecdotal evidence suggests that many of these marriages stem from concerns about the potential rollback of marriage equality for same-sex couples under a possible second Trump administration.
The New York City Clerk’s Office, which manages the Marriage Bureau, reported 8,537 marriage license appointments in November 2024—the month Donald Trump was re-elected for a second term. This marks a 33% increase compared to November 2023, according to data provided by the agency to The City.
In the weeks leading up to the 2024 election, New York City recorded approximately 1,500 marriage license appointments per week. That number surged to 2,365 in the week immediately following Donald Trump’s re-election, representing a 55% increase. Appointments remained above average for the rest of November but dipped to 1,914 by the week ending December 3.
“We already fought for it. I don’t want to have to do it again,” said Ryan Addario, 36, referencing marriage equality as he exited the Marriage Bureau in Lower Manhattan with his new husband, Nicholas Caycedo, 39. The Bronx residents joined other couples voicing concerns about the future of same-sex marriage under a conservative Supreme Court.
“I just didn’t want to have any potential obstacles,” Addario explained.
Many couples interviewed shared similar fears that the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage, could be overturned by the Court’s conservative supermajority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have previously signaled their willingness to revisit the ruling.
Although Donald Trump has not campaigned on overturning marriage equality, his administration’s anti-LGBTQ+ appointees and policies have left many concerned. Trump’s incoming press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, dismissed these fears, stating to NBC News that concerns over marriage equality are “sadly mistaken” and fueled by “media fear-mongering.” She emphasized that overturning the decision “was never a campaign promise.”
However, legal experts warn that future changes remain possible. Slate’s legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern recently suggested on the Outward podcast that while the current 6–3 conservative majority might not immediately overturn marriage equality, a further shift—such as replacing Justice Sonia Sotomayor under Trump—could create the conditions for such a reversal.
Attorney Diana Adams, executive director of the Chosen Family Law Center, advised same-sex couples, particularly those with children, to secure their legal relationships through marriage. “Having a legal connection to your child, having a legal connection to your partner is very, very helpful,” Adams said. “If you were intending to get married, this is the time to get married.”
Some newlyweds may have simply been celebrating Trump’s electoral success as a New Yorker. Trump significantly improved his 2020 margins in his native Queens and won nearly 70% of Staten Island’s vote in 2024. Data on borough-specific marriage rates, however, was unavailable.
Outside the Marriage Bureau, the mood was a mix of urgency and joy. “There’s so much uncertainty in the world right now,” said Caycedo. “The one thing that is certain is our love. And I was like, ‘let’s surrender to that.’”
The Supreme Court has adjourned early, bringing an end to the oral argument session. A ruling in the case of US v. Skrmetti is expected to be issued by June 2025.
Tennessee Attorney Compares Trans Care to Lobotomies
Tennessee’s Solicitor General, Matthew Rice, in response to a question from Justice Brett Kavanaugh about why laws regulating gender-affirming care shouldn’t be left to the states, compared gender-affirming care to the discredited medical practice of lobotomies—removing part of the brain to treat mental illnesses.
He falsely claimed that lobotomies were widely supported by the medical community in the early 1900s, suggesting that gender-affirming care should be regulated in a similar manner. However, as Alejandra Caraballo, an attorney and instructor at Harvard Law CyberLaw Clinic, points out on BlueSky, leading medical organizations at the time opposed lobotomies, making Rice’s comparison highly inaccurate.
Sotomayor Asks How Banning Gender-Affirming Care Protects the Public
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questions how Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice’s claims about banning gender-affirming care protect the public, emphasizing that “when you’re 1% of the population, it’s very hard to see how the democratic process will protect you.”
The Court’s decision could have broader implications, potentially affecting gender-affirming care for adults as well. If the Court accepts Tennessee’s argument about the possible medical risks, this reasoning could be used in future cases to restrict all forms of care.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asks how Rice’s policies would apply to issues like bathrooms or sports. Rice attempts to distinguish transgender-based challenges from sex-based challenges, arguing that this case is about the medical risks of transgender healthcare, while bathroom and sports cases focus on gender rights and equity. However, he provides minimal rationale for how this distinction would work.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises concerns about how the gender-affirming care ban mirrors past racist laws, noting that both seek to deny access to public services based on personal characteristics.
Rice tries to differentiate gender-affirming treatments like hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers, arguing that the medical justification differs when these treatments are administered to transgender children versus cisgender ones. Jackson counters, pointing out that the treatments affect the body similarly, and suggests that Rice is contradicting his own argument about the dangers of these treatments by claiming they have different effects based on gender identity.
Tennessee’s Lawyer Begins Arguments Against Gender-Affirming Care and Immediately Confuses Everyone
Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice takes the floor, arguing in favor of restricting gender-affirming care and allowing Tennessee’s ban to take effect. He asserts that gender-affirming care for minors offers no benefits, a position that contradicts the views of leading medical organizations such as the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenges this, noting that “every medical treatment has risks, even Aspirin,” and emphasizing that there is no valid reason to restrict gender-affirming care on those grounds. She also points out that halting the development of sex-based characteristics is inherently sex-based and therefore discriminatory. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoes this argument, pushing back against Rice’s claims that the issue is not sex-based, highlighting that attempting to restrict breast growth, for example, is inherently sex-based.
The Court’s confusion deepens when Rice argues that boys with gynecomastia—a condition causing enlarged breast tissue—who take puberty blockers lack a “medical purpose” for doing so, further muddling his argument and drawing continued pushback from the Justices.
“6th Circuit Got It Wrong,” Strangio Says, Citing Flawed Reasoning for Upholding Health Care Ban
ACLU attorney Chase Strangio argues that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals “got it wrong” in reinstating Tennessee’s S.B. 1 ban on gender-affirming care, asserting that the court incorrectly applied rational basis review to the case. He argues that intermediate scrutiny should have been applied instead.
Rational basis review is a type of judicial review used to assess whether governments are acting in accordance with regulations. In contrast, intermediate scrutiny involves a more rigorous constitutional review to determine if a legal action aligns with the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits sex-based discrimination.
In response to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Strangio also emphasizes that these issues are deeply intertwined with advocacy for gay rights, referencing historical bans on cross-dressing and transgender people entering the military—issues that have also impacted gay individuals.
Strangio further addressed Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s attempt to shift the discussion to transgender people in sports, briefly arguing that anti-discrimination measures could be used to support the inclusion of trans women athletes, while clarifying that this is not the central focus of the current case.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, asking whether gender identity is immutable, citing detransitioners and gender fluidity as reasons to suggest it might not be. Strangio responded by emphasizing that there is strong evidence supporting the idea that the underlying basis of gender is immutable. He explained that while individuals may experience changes in their conception of their gender identity, their gender itself is not something that can be willingly altered. What remains constant, he said, is that their gender is different from the sex assigned at birth.
Alito then compared trans people to individuals with schizophrenia, suggesting that both could have different treatments. Strangio rejected this comparison, arguing that these are fundamentally different issues. He clarified that, regardless of any variations in how trans people experience their identities, being trans is an immutable status that does not shift in the same way mental illnesses do.
Chase Strangio Draws from Court’s Role in Pandemic Regulations & Says Transition Regret is Rare
ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio drew parallels between the Court’s involvement in pandemic regulations and its role in evaluating gender-affirming care, emphasizing that the Court should respect expert medical opinions in both contexts. He also addressed concerns about transition regret, pointing out that it is rare and that the overwhelming majority of individuals who pursue gender-affirming care report positive outcomes. Strangio argued that this underscores the importance of allowing access to such care, as it is supported by medical evidence and expertise. ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, the first openly trans person to argue before the Supreme Court, drew from the Court’s role in regulating public health during the COVID-19 pandemic to argue against Tennessee’s S.B. 1, asserting that SCOTUS should rule against the ban in the interest of the common good. He used the same rationale the Court applied in reviewing public health policies during the pandemic to advocate for the preservation of gender-affirming care.
Strangio also addressed claims about high regret and detransition rates, arguing that such figures are often misrepresented to serve a particular agenda. He referenced the ACLU’s reply brief submitted to SCOTUS, which details the organization’s response to these mischaracterizations.
In response to questioning from Justice Alito, Strangio maintained that gender-affirming care for minors is life-saving, noting that it significantly reduces the risk of suicide. He also pointed out that, contrary to claims in the Cass Review, numerous studies show improved mental health outcomes for transgender individuals following gender-affirming care.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the ban on gender-affirming care is discriminatory, highlighting how it targets a specific group based on their gender identity. She pointed out that such policies are a direct violation of equal protection principles.
ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio then spoke, making history as one of the leading voices in the case. Strangio reiterated the importance of respecting expert medical opinions and legal protections for transgender individuals, advocating for the right to gender-affirming care. His powerful arguments further cemented his role in the ongoing fight for transgender rights.
In response to a line of questioning from Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson illustrates how denying transgender people medical care is discriminatory, highlighting that such care is often granted to cisgender individuals. Jackson compares these discriminatory policies to those implemented in the 1950s and 1960s on the basis of race, referencing Loving v. Virginia, which overturned bans on interracial marriage.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar echoes this argument, drawing parallels between the logic used in Loving and the current case.
Shortly thereafter, Chase Strangio, the first openly trans lawyer to speak before the Supreme Court, argues in favor of overturning S.B. 1. Strangio, representing the American Civil Liberties Union and the plaintiffs, responds to Justice Clarence Thomas’s question about his proposed solution, stating that he would want to ensure gender-affirming care for minors is authorized, particularly for his plaintiffs.
Kavanaugh Presses Lawyer on Constitutionality & Veers into Asking About Sports
Justice Brett Kavanaugh presses ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio on the constitutionality of gender-affirming care bans, questioning whether such regulations are in line with constitutional protections. Kavanaugh’s line of questioning shifts when he asks about the implications for transgender athletes in sports, seeking to understand how anti-discrimination measures in this case could apply to sports-related issues. Strangio responds, emphasizing that while the inclusion of trans athletes is an important issue, it is distinct from the core question at hand, which focuses on the legality and necessity of gender-affirming care.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar why SCOTUS should apply intermediate scrutiny (a type of judicial review to assess constitutionality) to Tennessee’s S.B. 1. Prelogar argues that by imposing restrictions based on assigned sex at birth, the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which inherently calls for additional scrutiny.
Kavanaugh then shifts to a separate line of questioning, bringing up the issue of trans women in women’s sports. This leads Prelogar to admit that she believes there should be restrictions on trans women in sports. However, she tries to pivot back to arguing that such restrictions on gender-affirming care should not be in place.
Research indicates that trans women do not have an inherent advantage in sports after transitioning for the prescribed amount of time. Studies have shown their performance to be on par with cisgender women, and there is no evidence of trans women disproportionately dominating women’s sports.
Fertility Issues Don’t Just Affect Trans People, But Intersex People Too, Lawyer Argues at SCOTUS
During arguments at the Supreme Court, a lawyer emphasized that fertility issues are not exclusive to transgender individuals but also affect intersex people. The lawyer argued that restrictions on gender-affirming care could have broader implications, including for intersex individuals who may face similar challenges in accessing reproductive healthcare. This point was raised to highlight the intersection of medical and legal issues affecting both trans and intersex communities.
In response to a line of questioning from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh about how gender-affirming care could impact fertility—one of the arguments for banning such care being that trans kids might face fertility issues later in life—U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argues that while fertility issues are indeed a concern in transgender care, they are not unique to trans individuals. Prelogar points out that there are solutions available for these issues, which are also found in treatments allowed under S.B. 1, such as invasive surgeries on intersex infants.
Intersex individuals, whose genitalia do not align with typical male or female expectations, are often subjected to invasive surgeries in infancy, which can permanently restrict their ability to have children due to forced conformity to societal norms. Despite these concerns, many anti-transgender policies, including S.B. 1, allow for gender-affirming care for intersex minors, even though advocates call for restrictions on mandatory conforming surgeries and treatments.
Additionally, many intersex individuals identify as transgender, linking these issues inextricably in discussions about gender-affirming care and reproductive rights.
Sam Alito Brings Up Restrictions on Women’s Rights to Oppose Trans Care
Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about restrictions on women’s rights while arguing against the case for gender-affirming care. He suggested that limiting certain aspects of gender-affirming care could be justified by broader discussions around women’s rights. In his questioning, Alito implied that policies restricting transgender care could be seen as part of a larger debate about the rights of women, sparking further discussions about the intersection of gender, rights, and healthcare.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argued that previous SCOTUS rulings, particularly Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (which overturned Roe v. Wade) and Geduldig v. Aiello (which allowed the denial of insurance benefits for work loss due to pregnancy), do not support the claim that Tennessee’s S.B. 1 constitutes sex-based discrimination. He pointed out that both rulings suggested that restrictions on pregnancy-related insurance coverage and abortion do not qualify as sex-based discrimination.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar countered, asserting that neither of these rulings applies to the current case. She argued that the previous decisions refer to more individualized healthcare concerns, which are unrelated to the broader, sex-based characteristics addressed by hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers. These treatments, Prelogar emphasized, are inherently sex-based and therefore should not be governed by the same arguments made in those earlier rulings.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the conversation, echoing Prelogar’s points that the issue at hand is fundamentally about sex classification. She also reiterated her criticisms of the Cass Review and responded to Alito’s claims about European countries restricting care, pointing out the inaccuracies in those statements. Sotomayor pressed for further clarity, helping to illuminate key aspects of Prelogar’s arguments.
U.S. Solicitor General States Her Case as Conservative Justices Bring Up Cass Review
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar presented her case before the Supreme Court, defending the constitutionality of gender-affirming care and challenging the restrictions posed by Tennessee’s S.B. 1. As she argued, conservative justices, including Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, raised concerns about the findings in the Cass Review, which suggests that gender-affirming care for minors may lead to negative psychological and medical outcomes.
Prelogar countered these claims by stressing that the Cass Review’s conclusions are not representative of the broader medical consensus. She pointed out that numerous studies and expert medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, strongly support gender-affirming care as effective and essential for the well-being of transgender minors.
Her responses focused on the scientific evidence and medical expertise backing gender-affirming care, challenging the use of the Cass Review as a central argument for limiting such care.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar began outlining her case that Tennessee’s S.B. 1 constitutes discrimination based on biological sex. She argued that because testosterone and estrogen affect individuals differently depending on whether they were assigned male or female at birth, and because these medications vary based on assigned sex, the restriction of gender-affirming care amounts to sex-based discrimination.
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts then began their questioning. Alito referenced the controversial Cass Review, a report from the United Kingdom that has been used to justify restricting puberty blockers. The report has faced criticism from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and Yale researchers for its unscientific approach.
Justice Thomas sought clarification on the specific effects of hormone treatments on youth, while Chief Justice Roberts asked about the Court’s role in regulating individualized care and whether such decisions should be left to the states.
Prelogar maintained that, regardless of the specific details or arguments presented, S.B. 1 is fundamentally discriminatory, emphasizing that no other medications are subject to such broad restrictions in other countries.
All three justices who questioned Prelogar were appointed by Republican presidents.
Supreme Court Hearing on Oral Arguments Begins; Protesters on Both Sides Outside Court
The Supreme Court hearing on the challenge to Tennessee’s S.B. 1 began, with oral arguments being presented inside the Court. Outside the building, protesters gathered on both sides of the issue, with supporters of transgender rights advocating for the protection of gender-affirming care, while opponents of the policy voiced their support for the restrictions. The atmosphere outside was charged with emotion as both sides made their voices heard in what is expected to be a pivotal case for transgender rights and healthcare access.
Live coverage of the oral arguments presented to SCOTUS is beginning on C-SPAN, with the session set to last until approximately 2 p.m. Eastern, when the oral arguments will conclude.
As the courthouse prepares for cameras inside, reporters outside the building are focusing on protests from both sides of the debate. While advocates for transgender care are present, they are scarcely featured in media coverage. In contrast, disproportionate attention is given to opponents of transgender care, including pseudoscience activist groups like Do No Harm and Gays Against Groomers, as well as anti-trans politicians such as Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL).
People’s Lives Have Been Turned Upside-Down by Gender-Affirming Care Bans
The ongoing gender-affirming care bans have had a profound impact on many individuals, turning their lives upside-down. For transgender youth and their families, these bans have created uncertainty and fear, as they are now faced with limited access to essential healthcare. Many are grappling with the emotional and physical toll of losing access to treatments that are crucial for their well-being, while others are forced to relocate or seek care in more supportive states. The broader consequences of these bans are reshaping lives, highlighting the personal struggles tied to the political and legal battles surrounding transgender rights.
One family from Texas shared their experience of living out of their van in a truck stop in Connecticut, driven by the increased cost of living after relocating to escape Texas’ anti-trans laws. Another parent who made a similar move from Texas to Connecticut remarked that while Connecticut launched a campaign inviting families from anti-trans states to relocate, the state did little to address the issue of affordability. These families are facing significant financial and emotional challenges as they seek safety and access to gender-affirming care in a more supportive environment.
The Trans Rights Supreme Court Case Is Also About Whether Sexism Is Now Legally Allowed in America
The ongoing Supreme Court case challenging gender-affirming care is not just about healthcare access for transgender individuals—it also raises broader questions about whether sexism is now legally permissible in the United States. At the heart of the case is the argument that restricting gender-affirming care based on assigned sex at birth constitutes sex-based discrimination, which may set a dangerous legal precedent. If the Court rules in favor of such bans, it could embolden future policies that discriminate on the basis of sex, further entrenching harmful gender stereotypes and limiting the rights of transgender individuals and other marginalized groups.
Slate’s legal writer Mark Joseph Stern explained in an article the critical stakes in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the challenge to Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban currently being heard by the Supreme Court. Stern outlines how this case goes beyond the rights of transgender individuals, addressing broader questions about gender equality and the legal protections against sexism.
Stern notes that the pro-trans side argues that banning a trans boy from receiving testosterone therapy while allowing a cisgender boy to receive the same treatment is blatantly sexist. The only difference between the two is their assigned sex at birth, which makes the restriction inherently discriminatory. However, the appeals court disagreed, creating a new “biological difference” exception and arguing that the ban hurts both trans boys and trans girls equally, thereby making it not a violation of sex-based discrimination.
According to Stern, Skrmetti isn’t just about transgender rights—it’s a case that questions the future of gender equality under the law. The key legal issue is whether laws that deny medical care based on sex should trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts. Stern emphasizes that, according to long-established legal precedent, the answer should be yes. If the Court rules otherwise, it could undermine constitutional protections against sex discrimination and pave the way for laws enforcing harmful gender stereotypes. While transgender Americans would be most immediately affected, Stern argues that the case has broader implications for everyone’s ability to reject rigid gender roles without facing state-enforced oppression.
LIVE UPDATES: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Challenge to Gender-Affirming Care Ban By Mira Lazine
Today, the United States Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the case United States v. Skrmetti, which centers on Tennessee’s 2023 bill, S.B. 1, that bans gender-affirming care for minors. While no decision will be made today, the arguments presented are expected to have far-reaching implications for transgender rights across the nation, particularly concerning access to gender-affirming care for minors.
The case involves three families of transgender youth in Tennessee who are challenging the state’s ban on providing their children with life-saving healthcare. The ban also impacts several doctors who seek to provide care to consenting patients. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee initially ruled to overturn the ban, but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to go back into effect, prompting the case to be brought before the Supreme Court for a final ruling.
The plaintiffs in this case are supported by the Biden-Harris administration and the Department of Justice, which challenge the legality of such a broad ban on gender-affirming care. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and attorney Chase Strangio, along with Lambda Legal and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. On the opposing side, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, along with Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice, represents the state of Tennessee. The United States government is also involved as a third party and is represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
LGBTQ Americans Consider Moving to Mexico Amid Post-Election Concerns
CAROLINE SAVOIE | Contributing Writer
In the wake of the U.S. presidential election, many LGBTQ Americans are grappling with uncertainty about their future, with some contemplating relocating to safer, more inclusive destinations. Mexico, particularly Puerto Vallarta, has become a top choice for those seeking a new home.
With its affordable cost of living, thriving LGBTQ communities, and proximity to the U.S., Mexico is increasingly being seen as a viable option for those looking to escape the rising political tensions back home.
“The fear is palpable”
Lance Blann, a Dallas-based realtor known for his TikToks offering advice on navigating real estate transactions in both the U.S. and Mexico, has witnessed a surge in inquiries from LGBTQ individuals looking to move south. According to Blann, there has been an unprecedented spike in questions about obtaining residency in Mexico since the election.
“It’s crazy, the number of people contacting me wanting to know how to get residency in Mexico,” Blann said. “I don’t think people are overreacting to be scared. You can hear the fear in their voices. It’s palpable.”
Lance Blann
Blann has been helping people explore real estate opportunities in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico’s premier LGBTQ destination. Known for its welcoming atmosphere, Puerto Vallarta has earned a reputation as a safe haven for LGBTQ individuals, drawing expats from around the world.
“Puerto Vallarta, alongside Palm Springs, is one of the safest places in North America for the LGBTQ community,” Blann said. “It’s not like Cancun or Playa del Carmen. You feel safe from the cartels here, for the most part, and the community is strong.”
Thanks to his growing social media presence, Blann has become the go-to realtor for LGBTQ individuals considering a move to Mexico. His TikTok videos, which offer practical advice on everything from obtaining dual citizenship to purchasing property, have made him a trusted resource. This newfound visibility has resulted in a surge of inquiries, particularly since the election.
“People are scared about the next four years, and it’s not just retirees; it’s people in their 40s who feel alarmed,” Blann said.
Former Dallasite Larry Cook retired to Puerto Vallarta in May this year
Larry Cook, a gay man who retired to Puerto Vallarta in May 2024, says he is living proof that relocating to Mexico can be a transformative experience. Cook and his husband purchased a condo in Puerto Vallarta’s Zona Romantica in 2021.
“I never thought I’d retire here. I always imagined Greece,” Cook said. “But after visiting Puerto Vallarta several times, I never wanted to leave.”
Now, Cook is building a home in the up-and-coming Fluvial neighborhood, just three miles from the Zona Romantica.
“It’s got a residential feel, but you’re still close to the action,” he said. “Puerto Vallarta is a true community, not just a tourist destination.”
Cook highlighted the city’s affordable healthcare and low cost of living as major advantages. His experience mirrors what many LGBTQ expats discover when they move to Mexico: not only does the country offer affordability, but it also provides a sense of safety.
“I feel safer here than I did in Oak Lawn at night,” Cook said, referring to Dallas’s well-known Gayborhood.
Realtor Bob McCranie created the FleeRedStates.com website
LGBTQ Americans Flee to Mexico Amid Political Uncertainty
For Bob McCranie, a Dallas-based Realtor who created FleeRedStates.com, the rising wave of LGBTQ Americans exploring a move to Mexico isn’t a shock. Having helped countless LGBTQ individuals and families relocate through his real estate network, McCranie has witnessed a significant uptick in inquiries, particularly following political shifts in the U.S. According to McCranie, his website’s traffic spiked dramatically on Election Night.
“Queer migration has been a constant conversation among my friends for the last three to five years,” McCranie said. “But election years always drive it up. This time, we’ve seen a flood of inquiries.”
McCranie’s website, FleeRedStates.com, connects LGBTQ people with Realtors across the U.S. who understand their unique needs. The site features an interactive map with details about state governments and LGBTQ protections.
“When I first started [the website], people told me I was fear-mongering,” McCranie said. “But the things I’ve been talking about are happening. Parents of trans children, same-sex couples — they’re all worried about their safety and rights.”
Along with his real estate work, McCranie is part of the LGBTQ Real Estate Alliance, an organization supporting LGBTQ individuals in navigating the housing market.
“When you’re moving, you need someone who understands your family’s needs,” McCranie said. “That’s even more important when moving abroad.”
For some, McCranie said, the choice to leave the U.S. is about safety and survival. “I’m scared that the rights we fought for will be reversed and swing back even harder against us,” he explained. “I used to tell people that Dallas or Austin would always be safe for LGBTQ people. Now, I can’t say that with confidence anymore.”
Mexico as a Safe Haven
Puerto Vallarta has long been a popular LGBTQ destination, but increasingly, it’s becoming a permanent home for many. Blann notes that Mexico legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2022, with the state of Jalisco, where Puerto Vallarta is located, leading the way as early as 2016.
“This city is a safe haven, even for LGBTQ Mexicans,” Blann said.
Beyond legal protections, the sense of community is what draws many LGBTQ expats to Puerto Vallarta. The city is home to around 80,000 expats, offering a diverse and inclusive environment. Cook, who recently relocated to the area, emphasized the strength of the LGBTQ community there.
“Puerto Vallarta is a true community, not just a tourist destination,” Cook said. He noted that plans are underway for a new community center for LGBTQ youth and seniors, filling gaps in services that many expats feel are lacking in the U.S.
Affordable Healthcare and Low Living Costs
Cook said he was surprised by the high quality of healthcare in Mexico. “Healthcare here is excellent, better than what I was getting in the U.S.,” he shared. “Doctors own their own businesses, and you can just walk in without an appointment. I’ve had visits where they spent an hour with me, and I only paid $35, including two prescriptions.”
For pet owners, Cook’s experience was equally striking: he paid only $850 for a procedure on his dog in Puerto Vallarta that would have cost him $4,500 in Dallas.
Additionally, property taxes in Mexico are remarkably low. Cook paid just $75 in taxes on his condo in 2023, compared to the $8,000 he paid for his home in Dallas.
Navigating the Move
McCranie stresses the importance of working with real estate agents who understand the unique challenges LGBTQ individuals may face when moving abroad. He shared that some agents have even introduced him and his partner as “brothers” to avoid potential discrimination.
For those considering the move, McCranie emphasized the importance of understanding local laws and communities to ensure a smooth transition.
Blann, Cook, and McCranie all agree that while moving to Mexico can be life-changing, it’s not a decision to make lightly. Cook recommends spending at least six months in Puerto Vallarta on a tourist visa to get a feel for the area before making the move permanent.
“Explore the neighborhoods, figure out what terrain and weather you’re comfortable with,” Cook advised.
But beyond escaping political instability in the U.S., Cook urges potential expats to ensure that they’re drawn to the lifestyle in Puerto Vallarta. “Don’t move here just because of Trump,” Cook said. “Make sure you want the lifestyle Puerto Vallarta offers. It’s not enough to just want to leave the U.S.; you need to want to live in Mexico.”
Planning the Move
Jamie, 72, and her wife Carrie, 77, have been considering a move to Puerto Vallarta since Trump’s election in 2016. The couple, who have been together for 10 years and married for two, have known Cook and his husband Clint since their Dallas days. They’ve been thinking about relocating for some time, especially after seeing friends make the move.
“We visited Portugal a while back, but it just didn’t feel right,” Carrie said. “We’ve been thinking about moving since Trump won in 2016. It’s not just about escaping; it’s about finding a place where we can live without constantly being afraid of policies that will take away our rights.”
Having been active in LGBTQ rights protests in the 1970s, Carrie said the energy to continue fighting is gone. “Now, we’re just tired,” she said.
Drawn by the positive experiences shared by their friends, Jamie and Carrie are seriously considering Puerto Vallarta. They plan to visit in February to explore the area firsthand.
“I always pictured myself living out of the country when I was younger,” Jamie said. “Now, my family understands my concerns about the political climate, and they’re supportive.”
Jamie, who has a background in wildlife rehabilitation, is excited to continue her passion in Puerto Vallarta. “It feels like the right place,” she said.
A Final Decision
The potential erosion of LGBTQ+ rights in the U.S. is a major concern for Jamie. “I think it’s possible that gay marriage could be overturned,” she said. “If that happens, it’s just one more sign that things are eroding.”
Despite their emotional ties to Dallas, Jamie and Carrie are ready to let the future guide their decisions. “We’ll see what happens after January and after our trips to PV,” Jamie said. “I’m so grateful that my lifetime has been blessed. Now it’s time to look at my options.”
Blann, who’s received a flood of inquiries since the election, said he is planning an informational seminar to address the growing interest from LGBTQ individuals looking to relocate.
“People are scared about Project 2025, about the future of LGBTQ rights in the U.S.,” Blann said. “But Puerto Vallarta offers a sanctuary, a place where you can feel safe and be part of a community.”
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.