“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.”
Ugandan officials have expressed support for the incoming U.S. president.
As the results of the U.S. presidential election were revealed on November 5, showing that former President Donald Trump had secured a second term, homophobic political leaders in Uganda celebrated 7,000 miles away, in the capital city of Kampala.
“The sanctions are gone,” said Anita Among, Uganda’s parliamentary speaker, addressing members of parliament. She was referring to her previous U.S. travel ban imposed by the Biden administration on June 16, 2023, after Uganda passed the controversial “Kill The Gays” law on May 28, 2023.
The law, officially named the Anti-Homosexuality Act, was signed into effect by President Yoweri Museveni on May 28, 2023. The legislation imposes life imprisonment for same-sex acts, up to 20 years in prison for “recruitment, promotion, and funding” of same-sex “activities,” and the death penalty for those convicted of “attempted aggravated homosexuality.”
As the results of the U.S. presidential election were revealed on November 5, showing that former President Donald Trump had won a second term, homophobic political leaders celebrated 7,000 miles away in Uganda’s capital, Kampala.
“The sanctions are gone,” said Anita Among, Uganda’s parliamentary speaker, referring to the fact that she had been barred from entering the U.S. by the Biden administration on June 16, 2023, following Uganda’s passage of the “Kill The Gays” law on May 28, 2023.
The law, officially called the Anti-Homosexuality Act, was signed into law by President Yoweri Museveni on May 28, 2023. It mandates life imprisonment for same-sex acts, up to 20 years in prison for the “recruitment, promotion, and funding” of same-sex “activities,” and the death penalty for those convicted of “attempted aggravated homosexuality.”
On May 8, Among declared that the law’s enactment proved “the Western world will not come and rule Uganda.” The following day, she tweeted: “The president … has assented to the Anti-Homosexuality Act. As the parliament of Uganda, we have answered the cries of our people. We have legislated to protect the sanctity of [the] family. We have stood strong to defend our culture and [the] aspirations of our people,” thanking Museveni for his “steadfast action in the interest of Uganda.”
Among further stated that Ugandan MPs had resisted pressure from “bullies and doomsday conspiracy theorists” and urged the country’s courts to enforce the new law. The passage of this bill, along with Among’s and other African homophobes’ celebrations of Trump’s re-election, indicates the likely direction for Africa’s LGBTQ+ community over the next four years.
For years, political and religious leaders across Africa, including both Christian and Muslim zealots, have exploited homophobia to consolidate political and religious power. They claim that same-sex relations and gay rights are foreign imports from the West and use homophobia to position themselves as defenders of African values. By stoking fear and division, they galvanize popular support and votes.
However, as others have pointed out, homophobia itself is a Western import, rooted in colonial history. From sodomy laws inherited from colonial rule to the parliaments passing these laws today, the tools used by homophobes in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa are themselves colonial legacies.
And homophobia in Africa is intensifying.
In mid-March 2023, Museveni told the Monitor newspaper that “Western countries should stop wasting the time of humanity by imposing their social practices on us.” Kenyan President William Ruto echoed these sentiments in the same month, declaring that “our culture and religion does not allow same-sex marriages.”
On April 2, 2023, Museveni called on African leaders to reject “the promotion of homosexuality,” claiming that homosexuality posed a “big threat and danger to the procreation of the human race.” He further asserted that “Africa should provide the lead to save the world from this degeneration and decadence, which is really very dangerous for humanity.”
On December 29, 2023, Burundian President Evariste Ndayishimiye, speaking in Cankuzo province, made a defiant statement that powerful nations “should keep” their aid if it came with an obligation to extend rights to LGBTQ+ people. He added, “If we find these people in Burundi, they should be taken to stadiums and stoned, and doing so would not be a crime.”
In Ghana, lawmakers have been debating the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, which was introduced in August 2021. Under current law, same-sex relations are punishable by up to three years in prison. However, the new bill criminalizes even identifying as LGBTQ+, outlaws being transgender, and introduces jail sentences of up to 10 years for advocating for LGBTQ+ rights. It also mandates that all citizens report perceived LGBTQ+ individuals or activities to the authorities.
The bill passed in the Ghanaian parliament on February 28, though President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has not yet announced whether he will sign it, pending the outcome of two Supreme Court cases challenging its constitutionality. On July 17, the Supreme Court postponed a ruling on the bill until all legal challenges are resolved.
Former Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama, a leading candidate in the upcoming elections, expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage and transgender rights. He stated during a meeting with clergy in eastern Ghana, “The faith I have will not allow me to accept a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman.” He also rejected the notion of someone changing their gender, stating, “I don’t believe that anyone can get up and say I feel like a man although I was born a woman and so I will change and become a man.”
In Kenya, opposition parliamentarian Peter Kaluma introduced the Family Protection Bill in February 2023. The bill, which mirrors aspects of Uganda’s law, would impose prison sentences of up to 10 years or even the death penalty for same-sex relations. The bill is currently being reviewed by a parliamentary committee, with a full vote expected soon. President William Ruto, an evangelical Christian, has endorsed this legal crackdown on LGBTQI+ rights.
In Mali, the National Transitional Council, effectively the country’s legislature after a military coup in 2020, approved a new penal code on October 31 that criminalizes same-sex relations by 132 votes to one. The exact penalties for same-sex acts remain unclear, but the Justice and Human Rights Minister, Mamadou Kasogue, confirmed that “anyone who indulges in this practice, or promotes or condones it, will be prosecuted.”
Trump’s foreign policy advisors are already preparing an explicitly anti-LGBTQ+ rights agenda for his second term. The Project 2025 report, crafted under the guidance of the Heritage Foundation, proposes that the U.S. “stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars” and cease pressuring African governments to respect human rights, including LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and abortion rights.
The report claims that “African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the US social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives,” and suggests that the U.S. should focus on “core security, economic, and human rights engagement” without promoting “divisive policies that hurt shared goals.”
The implementation of this policy shift on LGBTQ+ rights in Africa will be overseen by Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and his selection for Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. They will be tasked with promoting and funding homophobic groups across the continent, a strategy that is expected to be pursued with enthusiasm.
While African leaders claim they are defending the continent from Western influences, they are in fact advancing their own agendas, often in partnership with right-wing Christian nationalists in the West. However, LGBTQ+ communities in both Africa and the West share a common interest in resisting these attacks, and civil society groups, along with human rights advocates, are increasingly active. As LGBTQ+ activist Eric Gilari from Kenya stated, “One day we shall defeat these assaults on our human rights and triumph in equality and inclusion for LGBTQ persons within African countries. This ideal must be our guiding light in this moment of darkness and tears.”
The nine-day trial featured witnesses with varying levels of credibility.
A Missouri county judge has upheld the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
In a 74-page ruling issued on Monday, Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter stated, “If we don’t let a 16-year-old buy a six-pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes, or allow an adult to purchase them for the teen, should we permit the same child and parent to decide to permanently alter the teenager’s sex?”
The restrictions on gender-affirming care, passed by Missouri lawmakers in 2023, prohibit minors from using hormones, puberty blockers, and undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. The law also blocks state funding for gender-affirming care for adults through Medicaid and for incarcerated individuals in state prisons.
The ACLU of Missouri and Lambda Legal have promised to appeal the ruling.
Judge Craig Carter acknowledged the “ethical minefield” of the case, writing that “the medical profession stands in the middle” with “scant evidence to lead it out.”
The nine-day trial featured witnesses of varying credibility, with the state’s Solicitor General Joshua Divine introducing partisan politics into the proceedings. Some experts presented research that had been retracted, which the plaintiffs argued was problematic. Divine maintained that the scientific community had dismissed the research due to “cancel culture.”
Carter’s ruling was partly based on testimony from Jamie Reed, a whistleblower who previously worked at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Reed’s affidavit helped inspire the gender-affirming care ban. She testified that the hospital treated many patients with mental health issues without comprehensive psychological evaluations. There was disagreement at trial over whether a licensed therapist’s evaluation was sufficient for gender-affirming care, or if a psychologist or psychiatrist was required.
The judge found Reed’s testimony credible, noting, “Her testimony does not arise from any ideological or other bias.” He also pointed out that Reed is married to a transgender individual.
Reed is now the executive director of the LGBT Courage Coalition, an advocacy group that opposes gender-affirming care for minors. The day before she testified, her partner announced he was discontinuing testosterone treatments and “detransitioning.”
While Carter accepted Reed’s credibility, he was less convinced by some of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. He expressed concerns about deferring to organizations like WPATH, which the plaintiffs relied on. WPATH, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, is a professional group that sets standards for gender-affirming care, but Carter noted that it self-describes as being “committed to advocacy.”
Ultimately, Carter’s ruling emphasized U.S. Supreme Court precedent that grants lawmakers broad discretion in areas “fraught with medical and scientific uncertainty.” He concluded that there is “an almost total lack of consensus as to the medical ethics of adolescent gender dysphoria treatment,” and therefore, the state legislature has the authority to ban the care.
There is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that transgender girls possess a substantial biological advantage in sports.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, along with attorneys general from 23 other states, filed an amicus brief advocating for the prohibition of transgender girls participating in sports.
The brief specifically requests the Supreme Court to review and overturn an injunction issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had blocked Arizona’s ban on transgender athletes.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall collaborated with Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin to draft the amicus brief, with support from attorneys general in 22 other states, including Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
The injunction being challenged was issued in September by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous 3-0 decision. This injunction blocked Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act, a law imposing a blanket ban on transgender girls participating in girls’ sports, regardless of their transition timeline or use of puberty blockers. The lawsuit challenging the law was filed by two transgender girls and their parents seeking to overturn the ban.
In the court’s decision, Judge Morgan Christen wrote, “[The law] permits all students other than transgender women and girls to play on teams consistent with their gender identities. Transgender women and girls alone are barred from doing so. This is the essence of discrimination.”
The amicus brief presented several arguments in favor of the ban. One claim was that implementing policies allowing transgender girls to join girls’ sports teams would be costly and logistically difficult for schools—despite evidence showing that many schools nationwide have successfully adopted trans-inclusive policies without significant challenges.
The brief also asserted that sex and gender identity are not equivalent under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, a stance that contradicts legal precedent established in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that protections against sex-based discrimination include transgender individuals due to their gender identity.
Additionally, the attorneys general argued that the Circuit Court’s ruling was legally flawed. They suggested that the decision could be interpreted in ways more favorable to their case and called for a rational-basis review. This review would evaluate whether the plaintiffs’ claims were consistent with constitutional equal protection principles or whether they failed to meet that standard.
It remains uncertain whether these arguments will prevail. The Supreme Court has not announced whether it will hear this case. However, the Court has already agreed to consider United States v. Skrmetti, which will address the legality of state bans on gender-affirming care for minors.
Evidence does not support claims that transgender girls have a significant biological advantage in sports. In fact, studies indicate that transitioning, including the use of puberty blockers, can mitigate differences and create a fairer playing field.
Despite this, anti-trans rhetoric continues to shape these legal battles. “Our coalition is determined to preserve the 50 years of work that expanded opportunities and leveled the playing field for girls and women in sports,” Attorney General Marshall stated in a press release.
He added, “But the left continues to pander to a small minority of their base… Parents of daughters are rightfully outraged at the loss of positions on teams and college scholarships. As our multiple briefs to the Supreme Court show, it’s time to return to fairness in opportunity for sports.”
The bill affects all students across the state and will limit the rights of thousands of transgender individuals if signed into law by the governor.
On Wednesday, the Ohio State Senate approved Senate Bill 104, a transgender bathroom ban for all students in the state, including those in higher education.
Titled the “Protect All Students Act,” the bill passed with a 24-7 vote, strictly along party lines.
The bill states, “A school shall designate each student restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room that is accessible by multiple students at the same time, whether located in a school building or in a facility used by the school for a school-sponsored activity, for the exclusive use by students of the male biological sex only or by students of the female biological sex only.”
The bill will soon be sent to Governor Mike DeWine (R) for either approval or veto. While he is expected to sign it, the Associated Press reports that he will first conduct a legal review.
The ban exempts school faculty, children under 10 who require family assistance, and individuals with disabilities.
Rather than defining gender, the bill relies on the concept of biological sex, which it defines as “the biological indication of male and female, including sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual’s psychological, chosen, or subjective experience of gender.”
The bill does not address or provide exceptions for intersex individuals, who do not fit neatly into traditional biological sex categories.
The Ohio Center for Christian Virtue strongly supports the bill. “Today is a huge victory for children and families in Ohio,” said David Mahan, the group’s policy director, calling it “common-sense legislation.”
However, Jocelyn Rosnick, Policy Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, expressed strong opposition. “We are incredibly disheartened by the Ohio General Assembly’s continuous attacks against transgender and gender non-conforming individuals across Ohio. Senate Bill 104 is a cruel invasion of students’ rights to privacy, which could result in unwarranted governmental disclosures of private, personal information.”
She added, “If allowed to go into effect, SB 104 will create unsafe environments for trans and gender non-conforming individuals of all ages. This bill ignores the material reality that transgender people endure higher rates of sexual violence and assaults, particularly while using public restrooms, than people who are not transgender. All Ohioans deserve to access the facilities they need, in alignment with their gender identity, without fear of harassment or bullying. The ACLU of Ohio remains steadfast in our commitment to standing with trans Ohioans and is closely considering next steps.”
In recent years, an increasing number of LGBTQ+ individuals have been relocating from red states to blue states, and in some cases, even moving abroad. This video examines the factors behind this migration, the challenges faced by those making the move, and the effects on both the states they leave and those they settle in. We’ll explore the political and social forces fueling this exodus, the economic impacts, and the potential long-term consequences for the LGBTQ+ community and society at large. Join us as we share the personal stories of those who have made this difficult decision and reflect on the communities they’ve left behind.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.