Delegates voted overwhelmingly, 692 to 51, in favor of removing the ban.

Today, the United Methodist Church made a historic decision to repeal its ban on LGBTQ+ clergy, with an overwhelming majority of delegates voting in favor of inclusivity.

At the General Conference of the church, delegates voted 692-51 to remove the ban, according to the Associated Press.

Upon the announcement of the vote, applause filled the convention hall, and some LGBTQ+ advocates were moved to tears.

The delegates also approved a measure that prohibits penalties for clergy who officiate same-sex weddings and protects those who decline to perform them from facing repercussions.

There is also anticipation for an upcoming vote on whether the church should replace its Social Principles document, which currently states that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching” and defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Methodist Church has been gradually progressing towards LGBTQ+ inclusivity. In November 2023, 261 congregations in Georgia departed from the church, citing its perceived lack of anti-LGBTQ+ stance as a reason.

In 2019, The United Methodist Church’s General Conference declared that congregations could depart from the denomination until the conclusion of 2023 “due to conscientious objections regarding alterations in the guidelines and provisions of the Book of Discipline concerning homosexuality practice, or the ordination or marriage of openly practicing homosexuals, as determined and ratified by the 2019 General Conference, or the decisions or inactions of its regional conference on these matters thereafter.”

The United Methodist News Service reports that since the 2019 announcement, 7,286 congregations, which is more than one in five, have been authorized to disaffiliate from the denomination. In 2023 alone, over 5,000 of these disaffiliations occurred.

Conservatives who departed from the denomination have established the Global Methodist Church. This group holds the belief that “human sexuality is a gift of God to be affirmed within the legal and spiritual covenant of a loving and monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.”

Pol’ Atteu was hospitalized for two days following the assault, suffering from a concussion, a fractured shoulder, bruises, and various other injuries.

In September 2019, during a charity fashion show in Los Angeles, gay fashion designer Pol’ Atteu was violently assaulted by a man upset that his daughter was not selected to participate. Now, five years later, justice is being served for Atteu.

Atteu was hospitalized for two days following the assault, suffering from a concussion, a broken shoulder, bruises, and various other injuries. His assailant, Jesus Rodolfo Zepeda, was arrested, but due to COVID-19-related jail protocols, he was released shortly afterward.

The attack occurred backstage at Saint John’s Cathedral in Los Angeles during a fashion show organized by the couple to support Make-A-Wish. The event was even documented on their reality TV show, “Gown and Out in Beverly Hills.” Zepeda’s nine-year-old daughter had been excluded from the show by Atteu.

This week, Zepeda received a five-year prison sentence for the assault, with additional probationary terms and strict supervision. Any minor violations during probation could lead to immediate imprisonment. Furthermore, a 10-year protection order has been issued for Atteu and his husband, Patrik Simpson.

Atteu and Simpson feel that the justice system initially failed to recognize the attack as a hate crime, despite the repeated homophobic slurs used by Zepeda during the assault. However, the system eventually acknowledged it as such.

“Atteu expressed his dissatisfaction, stating in an interview with The Advocate, ‘I don’t feel justice was served. We couldn’t reach a resolution, and although I understand the constraints of the law, it didn’t offer me protection or assistance.'”

Atteu emphasized the significance of the courts acknowledging it as a hate crime. He stated, “It was crucial for us to highlight this and ensure that it was officially recognized as a hate crime, which it was.”

The recognition of the assault as a hate crime by the courts held significance for the couple beyond legal implications. It served as a stance in solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community, which frequently faces challenges when navigating the criminal justice system.

Atteu and Simpson aim to leverage their experience to support other LGBTQ+ individuals facing similar challenges, advocating for streamlined processes that spare them the lengthy legal battles they endured.

“I hope to advocate for others and provide insights into the process, guiding them on the necessary documentation and where to seek the support they require,” Atteu expressed.

Conservative attorneys general have accused President Joe Biden of jeopardizing the safety of cisgender girls by implementing policies aimed at creating safer environments for transgender children in schools.

Additional states have joined in lawsuits against the Biden administration regarding its updated Title IX regulations, which require protections against discrimination for LGBTQ+ students. The total number of states involved in legal action against the administration now stands at 14.

Recently, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia teamed up to file a joint lawsuit against the administration. They were joined by the Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, Speech First, and the Independent Women’s Law Center. Concurrently, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced a separate challenge to the new regulations.

Currently, Tennessee is spearheading a legal challenge against the new regulations, with support from Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia joining in the lawsuit. Additionally, attorneys general from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Idaho have filed a separate lawsuit against the Biden administration’s rules.

The recent regulations interpret Title IX, a statute prohibiting sex-based discrimination in educational settings, as extending legal protections against anti-LGBTQ+ school policies. The rationale behind this interpretation is that discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity inherently involves considering sex, echoing a legal argument employed by the Supreme Court in its 2020 Bostock v. Clayton Co. decision regarding workplace discrimination.

These regulations mean that any educational institution receiving federal funds cannot discriminate against LGBTQ+ students. This may impact states and school districts with policies that involve outing LGBTQ+ students to their parents or prohibiting trans students from using bathrooms aligning with their gender. Additionally, these rules could provide students encountering discrimination with avenues for legal recourse in federal courts.

During a press conference, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti (R) cited the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as he outlined his stance on discriminating against trans youth.

“The law, Title IX, has protected women for 50 years,” Skrmetti stated, as reported by The Tennessean. “It is a law… built around the idea of men and women, sex binary. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, enduring differences between the sexes necessitate things like separate bathrooms, separate locker rooms, separate living facilities, separate sports teams. This is something that our law has recognized for decades.”

The rules, however, do not propose the elimination of single-gender spaces. Instead, they mandate schools to include all individuals identifying as boys in boys’ spaces and all individuals identifying as girls in girls’ spaces.

Skrmetti argued that under the rules, “a boy can enter a girl’s locker room at a school, and if a girl expresses discomfort with his presence, she may face investigation and potential penalties for violating civil rights. The new rules are entirely inconsistent with the text of Title IX, and their adoption violates the United States Constitution.”

In a press release, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) asserted that the rules will “ultimately prohibit schools from distinguishing between males and females in athletic and educational opportunities,” placing women at an unfair disadvantage and compelling boys and girls to share facilities like bathrooms, locker rooms, dormitories, and even overnight accommodations during school trips.

He also stated that it is designed to “federally coerce schools into indoctrinating students in gender identity theories popular among progressive parents but that ignore science.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) asserted on X that President Joe Biden is “abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”

“We will not comply,” DeSantis continued, “and we will resist Biden’s harmful agenda.”

Fifty-three conservative parent organizations, led by Parents Defending Education (PDE), signed a letter asserting that trans inclusivity “poses a serious threat to the safety and opportunities of women and girls and infringes on students’ First Amendment rights” by mandating the use of correct pronouns for trans and nonbinary students, even against their wishes.

The letter also accused the Biden administration of catering to “a small yet vocal group of extreme activists.”

The new rules, slated to take effect on August 1, will nullify numerous anti-transgender policies established during the tenure of former President Donald Trump. Throughout his administration, Trump opposed the legal interpretation that laws prohibiting discrimination “based on sex” also prohibit anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, especially in educational settings. In 2017, then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos issued guidance asserting that Title IX did not safeguard LGBTQ+ students, shortly after she and Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded guidance from the Obama administration that stated otherwise.

The Biden administration had pledged to introduce the newly revealed rules by January, but the Department of Education cited a delay in their release, attributing it to an unprecedented volume of over 240,000 comments submitted during the 30-day public response period for the new rules.

While conservative backlash has ensued, LGBTQ+ organizations have celebrated the announcement, although they also assert that more measures are necessary.

The National Women’s Law Center issued a statement that both celebrated and criticized the newly unveiled rules, acknowledging, “As we celebrate this milestone, we recognize that this regulation does not go far enough in making the law’s protections clear for all student-athletes.” Joining in the statement were 22 other organizations, including LGBTQ+ advocacy groups like GLSEN, the Human Rights Campaign, PFLAG National, and the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Representative Mark Takano (D-CA), who is openly gay, expressed, “The Education Department and Biden Administration showed real courage today, delivering on a long-held promise to ensure that the federal government does more to protect all Americans—especially LGBTQ Americans—from discrimination. This groundbreaking rule is a major victory, but we still have much to do. We need to enshrine and expand its protections by passing the Equality Act because for too many Americans, their rights and protections depend on the zip code they live in.”

He purportedly aimed his firearm at a homosexual couple, uttering, “I’m going to kill you fking fgots.”

Larry Walraven, a 75-year-old Las Vegas man, allegedly pointed a gun at his gay male neighbors and said, “I hope you f**gots die.” He then allegedly said, “I’m going to kill you f**king f**gots,” and fired the weapon four times — none of the shots hit the men.

Following the purported incident, one of the men dialed 911 to report the alleged assault. Upon police interrogation, Walraven claimed he had no knowledge of the events and asserted that he had spent the entire night tending to his mother within his residence, as per KLAS-TV.

Authorities determined that the weapon in question was a BB gun, which statistically accounts for an average of four fatalities annually. Subsequently, Walraven was apprehended by law enforcement and charged with assault with a deadly weapon, with an added hate crime enhancement. This offense carries a potential sentence of six years in prison and fines reaching $5,000. The hate crime enhancement could further extend the imprisonment period by up to 20 years. Given Walraven’s previous parole status as a repeat offender, a judge ruled to detain him in police custody without bail.

While it’s uncertain what Walraven’s sexual orientation is, heterosexual individuals tend to possess firearms at home more frequently than gay and bisexual individuals, as indicated by research from the Williams Institute. While 19% of LGB adults report having a firearm in their residence, the figure rises to 35% among heterosexual individuals.

Guns are used in nearly 60% of bias-motivated homicides against LGBTQ+ people, according to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects. LGBTQ+ people are more than twice as likely to be victims of gun violence than their cisgender and straight peers, according to the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. LGBTQ+ people also experience person-based violence at higher rates than victims of religiously or racially motivated crimes, according to the Williams Institute.

The incidence of hate crimes targeting sexual orientation in Nevada has varied over the past three years, as per data from the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2020, there were 14 reported hate crimes against LGB individuals. This figure increased to 30 in 2021 but decreased to 18 in 2022.

The GOP couldn’t get its act together before a key legislative deadline.

Two bills deemed transphobic in the Mississippi legislature failed to advance after Republican legislators couldn’t reconcile their differences before a Monday cutoff, as per the Associated Press. One bill aimed to mandate that transgender individuals use facilities in public establishments corresponding to the gender assigned on their birth certificates. The other sought to affirm the binary notion of sex, stipulating that sex is determined solely at birth and consists of either male or female genders.

The Republican factions in the state House and Senate had previously approved distinct iterations of both bills. However, they failed to reach a consensus on a unified version of each bill to present to Gov. Tate Reeves (R). Reeves had previously endorsed laws prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in competitive sports teams corresponding to their gender identities and banning transgender minors from accessing gender-affirming healthcare.

State Rep. Joey Hood (R) argued that the bills, now defunct, were crucial “to ensure boys utilize boys’ bathrooms and girls utilize girls’ bathrooms.” The proposed bathroom legislation would have empowered individuals to file lawsuits against transgender individuals using bathrooms or changing areas aligned with their gender identity. However, the bill included exemptions for children under 12, emergency medical personnel, custodial staff, janitors, and individuals requiring assistance, as per the AP. Stay engaged with your community.

State Representative Zakiya Summers (D), who is Black, drew parallels between the bathroom bill and discriminatory legislation from the Jim Crow era, which imposed restrictions on which bathrooms Black people were permitted to use.

Summers remarked, “It brought to mind the struggles my ancestors faced when they were barred from using certain bathrooms and wouldn’t even consider dipping a toe in a pool.”

The second bill, now defunct, titled the “Mississippi Women’s Bill of Rights,” aimed to define gendered terms such as “woman,” “man,” “mother,” “father,” “female,” “male,” and “sex” based on the sex assigned by doctors at birth. This legislation would have hindered transgender individuals from altering the gender designation on their official government documents.

In March, when Reeves signed the prohibition on gender-affirming care into law, he was accompanied at the signing event by anti-trans filmmaker and Daily Wire columnist Matt Walsh, along with activists from Alliance Defending Freedom and Madison County Moms for Liberty, two organizations known for their opposition to LGBTQ+ rights.

A statement from The Spectrum Center, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group in Hattiesburg, characterized Reeves’s approval of the bill as “an act of violence,” asserting that he and the legislators advocating for it are deliberately disregarding the specific requirements of transgender youth, obstructing their access to medical treatment, and conveying a stigmatizing and exclusionary message.

Professional medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others, have unequivocally supported gender-affirming care, deeming it safe, effective, and vital for the overall health of transgender individuals. Research indicates that gender-affirming care significantly enhances the mental well-being of transgender youth.

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

They assert that the recently implemented Title IX regulations, which prohibit harassment and discrimination, infringe upon the rights of parents.

Four Southern states, in collaboration with four conservative organizations, have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration regarding a recent regulation prohibiting discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community in education.

Earlier this month, the Department of Education (DOE) introduced new Title IX regulations aimed at addressing the needs of LGBTQ+ students. These regulations interpret Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education, as providing legal protection against anti-LGBTQ+ school policies.

The argument posits that discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity inherently involves considering sex, a legal reasoning previously employed by the Supreme Court in its 2020 Bostock v. Clayton Co. decision regarding workplace discrimination.

The new regulation stipulates that any educational institution receiving federal funding must refrain from discriminating against LGBTQ+ students. This could impact states and school districts with policies that either disclose LGBTQ+ students’ identities to parents or restrict transgender students’ access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity. Additionally, the regulations could offer students facing discrimination a legal recourse through federal courts.

Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia are contesting the Biden administration’s authority to enact this rule, arguing that it exceeds the original scope of Title IX, as reported by CBS News. These states are joined in the lawsuit by the Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, Speech First, and the Independent Women’s Law Center.

Nicole Neily, president of Parents Defending Education, criticized the rule, stating, “The role of Cabinet agencies is to interpret laws as written by Congress – not to redefine the meaning of words to suit a fringe group of activists.” She further argued that the rule undermines parents’ rights and freedom of speech.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody emphasized the need to protect biological females and claimed that the rule deviates significantly from the original intent of Title IX.

The lawsuit alleges that the rule clashes with state laws governing various aspects of education, including harassment, bathroom policies, sports participation, and parental rights.

Notably, the new rules do not address transgender student-athletes and their eligibility for sports teams. The Department of Education is reportedly planning to issue a separate rule specifically addressing this matter.

In a separate lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenged the new rule, arguing that Biden misinterpreted Title IX. Paxton claimed that the Supreme Court’s Bostock ruling, which interpreted Title VII, differs from Title IX’s language and scope.

Governor Greg Abbott of Texas directed the Texas Education Agency to disregard the new Title IX rules, echoing similar actions taken by other states such as Louisiana, Florida, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. Paxton asserted that the Biden administration’s actions endanger women’s legal protections and vowed to oppose what he described as “extremist, destructive policies.”

This blog originally appeared at THE HILL.

Texas Attorney General files lawsuit against Biden administration regarding Title IX regulations broadening protections for transgender students.

On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) initiated legal action against the Biden administration, challenging the newly established federal nondiscrimination safeguards for transgender students. This lawsuit targets alterations made to Title IX by the Education Department, which, after more than a year of postponements, recently solidified comprehensive amendments. Scheduled for implementation on August 1, these revisions encompass protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, provoking discontent among certain conservative circles.

Paxton, in a press release announcing the lawsuit, vehemently opposed what he termed Joe Biden’s arbitrary alteration of Title IX, alleging it compromises legal safeguards for women in favor of an extreme fixation on gender ideology. He characterized this endeavor as patently unlawful, undemocratic, and detached from reality.

Notably, the Education Department refrained from immediate comment on the matter.

The lawsuit was filed in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas, where U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is likely to preside. Kacsmaryk, the sole federal judge in the division, has publicly voiced opposition to laws safeguarding LGBTQ individuals, including the Equality Act, which endeavors to designate sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

Before his appointment to the federal bench in 2019 by former President Trump, Kacsmaryk submitted a brief in support of the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia in 2016. This brief contested a lawsuit filed by Gavin Grimm, a transgender student who was denied access to the boys’ restroom at his school, alleging discrimination under Title IX.

In his brief, Kacsmaryk advocated against interpreting “sex” in Title IX to include gender identity.

In the lawsuit filed on Monday, Paxton criticized the Biden administration’s new Title IX regulations as ambiguous and excessively broad, contending they misconstrue the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. He asserted that these regulations wrongly conflate discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity with sex discrimination.

The Biden administration frequently cites the landmark 2020 Supreme Court ruling as a basis for fortifying federal protections for transgender individuals. A recent rule finalized by the Health Department that enhances the Affordable Care Act’s ban on sex discrimination similarly relies on this precedent.

Paxton, alongside America First Legal, raised concerns in the lawsuit about the adverse impacts of the final Title IX rule, arguing that expanding the definition of sex discrimination to encompass gender identity will detrimentally affect women and girls. Moreover, Republican-led states, including Louisiana, have vowed to challenge the administration’s new Title IX rules, asserting they will penalize individuals who decline to use a transgender person’s preferred name or pronouns.

Louisiana, joined by Montana, Idaho, and Mississippi, filed a lawsuit on Monday, contending that the new regulations significantly weaken Title IX. It’s worth noting that all federally funded schools must adhere to these final regulations to receive government funding.

Additionally, the Biden administration has yet to finalize a separate rule regarding athletics eligibility. A proposal disclosed by the Education Department last April seeks to prevent schools from implementing policies that outrightly bar transgender student-athletes from participating in sports teams aligned with their gender identity.