According to a press release dated Jan. 30 and time-stamped 7:38 p.m., the city of Dallas has officially caved to the rainbow-hating homophobes in Texas government, and Oak Lawn’s privately-funded rainbow crosswalks — and any other nonstandard crosswalk designs in the city — will be removed within the next 90 days.
The press release says: “The City of Dallas has notified the Texas Department of Transportation that it will comply with TxDOT’s directive requiring removal or correction of non-compliant pavement markings.”
The TxDOT “request” (aka Greg Abbott’s homophobic demand in order to kowtow to Trump, just like he did with the mid-decade congressional redistricting and by turning over Texas voter rolls to the feds) covers 30 decorative crosswalks citywide, the press release said.
“In a letter signed by Dallas City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert, the city notified the director of the TxDOT Traffic Safety Division that it will comply with the order within 90 days,” the press release continues, quoting Tolbert as saying that “The city appreciates TxDOT’s partnership in sustaining safe multimodal transportation in Dallas. The city will work with affected communities on ways to recognize their neighborhoods.”
The press release concludes: “TxDOT rejected the city’s appeal of the directive to remove pavement markings stating the intersections identified did not meet current Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices requirements. TxDOT emphasized that all treatments must comply with the TMUTCD, the Secretary of Transportation’s Safe Road Initiative, and the governor’s directive issued Oct. 8, 2025, which prioritize uniformity and predictability in traffic control devices statewide.”
Considering that numerous studies and incidental data have proven that creative crosswalk designs actually enhance safety, the obvious truth is that Abbott and his minions don’t actually give a fat rat’s ass about safety; they just want to try and suppress the LGBTQ+ community and, at the same time, lick Trump’s boots.
Knowing our LGBTQ+/Oak Lawn community, however, we feel sure that while the homophobes may be winning this battle in the Rainbow War, the fight continues. We expect to see even more rainbows waving proudly across Oak Lawn soon.
Missouri’s Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors this week, along with a prohibition on Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care for anyone in the state.
As the Missouri Independent reports, the court’s unanimous decision upholds a 2024 circuit court ruling in a case challenging Senate Bill 49. The law, signed by Gov. Mike Parson (R) in 2023, bans minors from accessing any form of gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and surgeries. It also bans the state’s Medicaid program from covering gender-affirming care for people of all ages.
The challenge against the law was brought by Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Missouri on behalf of three families of transgender young people, medical providers, and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations, who argued that the law should be subject to heightened scrutiny, a more rigorous legal standard applied to cases involving the classification of individuals by specific characteristics like gender.
According to the Missouri Independent, the state Supreme Court rejected that argument, as had the lower court. While plaintiffs had argued that the law discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status, Judge Kelly Broniec wrote in the court’s decision that S.B. 49 “classifies only based on medical use and age.”
The court’s reasoning echoes that in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth does not discriminate on the basis of sex or transgender status.
As the Missouri Independent notes, Supreme Court precedent allows lawmakers broad discretion when it comes to issues “fraught with medical and scientific uncertainty.”
While for decades there has been broad scientific consensus — including among all major American medical associations — that gender-affirming care is safe, evidence-based, and often lifesaving for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, conservative organizations and some American media outlets have made massive strides in recent years in sowing doubt about that consensus.
In September, Lambda Legal attorney Nora Huppert argued that the lower court’s decision upholding S.B. 49 included “legal and factual errors.” But writing for the Missouri Supreme Court this week, Broniec nonetheless said that the state had “demonstrated the ongoing debate among medical and ethical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with the treatments at issue.”
The court also rejected arguments that the Medicaid ban violates Missouri’s constitution, with Broniec noting that adults in the state can still pay out-of-pocket to receive gender-affirming care.
Gillian Wilcox, director of litigation at the ACLU of Missouri, responded to the decision saying that it “not only allows the state to target transgender Missourians access to health care but also leaves everyone’s health care options at the whims of politicians, should certain care ever fall into the political arena.”
Under a new bill introduced Wednesday, the Idaho Legislature would ban local policies in more than a dozen cities that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The bill, written by the Idaho Family Policy Center, a conservative Christian group, and sponsored by Nampa Republican state Rep. Bruce Skaug, would block local governments in Idaho from having more strict antidiscrimination policies than established in state law.
Skaug argued that the varying local rules hinder economic growth.
“In addition to threatening our religious freedoms, all of these conflicting local antidiscrimination ordinances create a tangled web of red tape that varies from city to city, county to county,” Skaug told lawmakers. “In the business sector, it burdens the entrepreneurs and the employers.”
Since 2011, 13 Idaho cities and towns have passed nondiscrimination ordinances including Sandpoint, Boise, Idaho Falls, Moscow, Lewiston, Meridian, Ketchum, Hailey, Bellevue, Driggs, Victor, Pocatello and Coeur d’Alene. In 2020, Ada County, home to Boise, passed its own, KTVB reported.
Chelsea Gaona-Lincoln, executive director of Add the Words Idaho, a group that has pushed for LGBTQ+ antidiscrimination protections, called the bill embarrassing.
“There are real issues Idaho needs addressed,” she said in a statement. “Lawmakers should move on and find something meaningful and responsible to do with the time and taxpayers’ money. Let queer and trans people live in peace.”
Idaho Family Policy Center, which wrote the bill, echoed Skaug’s arguments
The Idaho House Local Government Committee voted to introduce Skaug’s bill Wednesday, teeing it up for a full committee hearing with public testimony. All 14 Republicans on the committee supported introducing it, and the committee’s two Democrats opposed it.
Rep. Steve Berch, a Boise Democrat, called the bill “an overreach of legislative power or state power over the cities and communities.”
Skaug told the committee that the bill would ban more than just local antidiscrimination policies for LGBTQ+ protections, saying it would also prevent housing-related measures that deal with income and familial status. In an interview after the committee hearing, Skaug couldn’t immediately share which localities have those other nondiscrimination measures.
In preparing the bill, Skaug told the Idaho Capital Sun that he worked with the Idaho Family Policy Center and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group.
In a statement, Idaho Family Policy Center President Blaine Conzatti said local antidiscrimination ordinances “are frequently weaponized against small business owners — especially wedding vendors or those offering creative design services.”
“No small business owner should ever be forced to choose between violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or leaving the marketplace altogether,” he said. “… Government officials have forced bakers, photographers, florists, graphic designers, and wedding venue operators to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies and pride festivals.”
Planned Parenthood critiques bill as stripping local control
Rep. Marco Erickson, an Idaho Falls Republican, made the motion to introduce the bill in committee.
In 2013, the Idaho Falls City Council first passed an ordinance barring LGBTQ+ discrimination in housing and employment, becoming the seventh Idaho town with such protections at the time, Boise State Public Radio reported. In 2020, the Idaho Falls City Council expanded the discrimination protections to public accommodations, the Post Register reported.
In a statement, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates’ Idaho State Director Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman critiqued the bill as stripping local control.
“In places across Idaho, locally elected officials are ready and willing to stop discrimination, and this bill blocks them from doing exactly that, what voters elected them to do,” Tolman said. “That isn’t small government. It’s a uniform denial of basic protections that tells LGBTQ+ Idahoans and other marginalized residents that their safety and dignity don’t matter.”
Two bills in Florida advanced out of committee last week that would give the state attorney general more power to investigate and press felony charges against health care professionals who provide gender-affirming care in the state, including against therapists who discuss gender issues with minor patients and pharmacists who fill prescriptions that may be used as gender-affirming care.
Last week, the Criminal Justice Subcommittee passed H.B. 743 in a 12-5 vote, Florida Politics reports. The bill would allow state Attorney General James Uthmeier to sue health care practitioners for up to $100,000 per violation for providing gender-affirming care to minors. Mainstream medical organizations support gender-affirming care for trans kids because it has been shown to be life-saving and safe.
S.B. 1010 would make it a felony for doctors, school counselors, or psychologists to advise minors on gender-affirming care or “aid or abet” another health care professional in helping minors get gender-affirming care. The bill gained near-unanimous support from the state senate’s Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs, according to the Florida Phoenix.
If that version of the bill passes, medical professionals could get a $100,000 fine per violation and up to five years in prison.
“We have to uphold the principles and standards that made this country great, biblical, constitutional law, and order at all costs. And sometimes that stings,” state Rep. Taylor Yarkowsky said at last week’s hearing.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Lauren Melo (R), stressed that pharmacists would be punished under her bill, something she says is necessary because, she claimed, health care professionals are “committing fraud” by prescribing gender-affirming care medications but recording the purpose of the medications as something other than gender-affirming care.
“What we’re seeing is there’s coding that’s actually being used that is becoming the problem, and hundreds of thousands of dollars is spent per child for them to transition and codes are being misrepresented where they are saying that it’s an indoctrination disorder instead of saying it’s a gender identity disorder,” she said.
Democrats stressed that the bill could have unintentional side effects. State Rep. Kelly Skidmore (D) said that the bill is not about gender-affirming care but is being pushed by state Attorney General Uthmeier to expand his power.
“It is about giving one individual and maybe his successors authority that they don’t deserve and they cannot manage,” she said, referring to Uthmeier’s involvement in the Hope Florida scandal, where state Republicans are accused of laundering money and committing fraud. “They’ve proven that they cannot be trusted. This is a terrible bill.”
State Rep. Mike Gottlieb (D) said that doctors might be scared from prescribing hormonal medications to people with severe menstrual symptoms lest a pharmacist misinterpret the reason for the prescription.
“You’re going to see doctors not wanting to prescribe those kinds of medications because they’re now subject to a $100,000 penalty,” he said. “We’re really not considering what we’re doing and some of the collateral harms that it’s having.”
Behavioral health care professional Savannah Thompson told WUSF that the bill would make it more difficult for doctors to even talk to trans patients.
“This could increase the feelings of fear from my clients who are under 18, but it also can increase the likelihood that these professionals won’t be able to talk with their clients, honestly and openly, to give them the care and the support that they deserve and need,” she said.
The U.S. agency that enforces laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on Thursday rescinded legal guidance that had strengthened protections against unlawful harassment for LGBTQ workers and women who have abortions.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted 2-1 to repeal the 2024 guidance, which had incorporated major court rulings and laws passed in the roughly 25 years since the agency last updated its guidance.
The five-member EEOC can make rules and issue guidance explaining how federal laws that protect workers from discrimination based on characteristics such as race, sex, religion and disability should be applied. A separate arm of the agency, led by the general counsel, vets discrimination complaints filed by workers and can broker settlements and bring lawsuits against employers accused of violating those laws.
EEOC guidance is not legally binding, but lays out a blueprint for how the commission will enforce anti-discrimination laws and is often cited by judges deciding novel legal issues.
Since President Donald Trump took office last year, his appointees at the EEOC have stopped pursuing most cases involving transgender workers and have launched probes into workplace diversity policies and alleged antisemitism on college campuses.
The repeal of the 2024 guidance was expected and comes less than three months after the U.S. Senate confirmed Trump nominee Brittany Panuccio to the commission, restoring a quorum of three members and giving Republicans a 2-1 majority.
The commission in the 2024 guidance had adopted a broad view of the type of conduct that amounts to unlawful workplace harassment, saying it included discriminating against employees because they have abortions or use contraception and refusing to use transgender workers’ preferred names and pronouns.
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, a Trump appointee, ahead of Thursday’s vote said the EEOC had overstepped its authority by issuing guidance that imposed new obligations on employers rather than interpreting existing law.
But critics of the move said it could discourage employers from preventing harassment and leave workers without recourse when they face it.
“This action is likely to increase the amount of harassment that occurs in workplaces across the country,” a dozen former EEOC and U.S. Department of Labor officials said in a joint statement before the vote. Most of the officials were appointed by Democratic presidents.
The 2024 guidance covered an array of topics, including a landmark 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County that said workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of unlawful sex discrimination. The commission had said that while Bostock involved a gay worker’s termination and not harassment claims, the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the decision extended to cases alleging harassment of LGBTQ workers.
A federal judge in Texas last year had blocked that portion of the guidance, saying that finding was novel and was beyond the scope of the EEOC’s powers in issuing guidance. Two other judges separately barred the agency from enforcing the guidance against religious organizations that sued.
For Julia Hewitt, the removal of LGBTQ+ services from the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline and potential funding freezes and cuts are a personal and professional issue.
As a suicide prevention leader with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, a lived experience adviser with Vibrant Emotional Health, which oversees the crisis line in Texas, and a parent of an LGBTQ child raised in Texas, Hewitt, who as a child witnessed her mother struggle with suicidal ideation, has spent decades putting her energy into providing reliable crisis services for everyone who needs them.
But now, she’s watching the foundation she and others created crumble.
“It was a punch to the gut because if you work or volunteer in this space, you know the families who are impacted by this; it can be hard to reconcile when you know how much good this does,” Hewitt said. “When access narrows for those at highest risk, the system becomes less protective overall.”
The 988 Lifeline was created through bipartisan legislation signed into law by President Donald Trump during his first term. This nationwide network of locally based crisis centers offers one-on-one support for mental health, suicide, and substance use-related problems for anyone 24/7.
When someone called 988 in the past, they would hear a greeting message, followed by a menu of choices offering access to specially trained counselors for veterans, Spanish speakers, and LGBTQ+ youth, or sometimes a local crisis counselor.
But last summer, the Trump administration announced in a press release that it will no longer silo LGBTQ+ youth services, which had been the “Press 3 option” for 988 callers, to focus on serving “all help seekers,” saying that these specific LGBTQ+ services had become too expensive.
The Trump administration and theSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the federal agency that provides the majority of the funding for the 988 Lifeline, said the specialized LGBTQ subnetwork’s initial pilot budget of $33 million had been exceeded and unifying services for all callers was a better option.
After the change, only veterans and Spanish speakers still received a tailored option through the 988 call line.
The call line had received nearly 1.3 million contacts nationally from LGBTQ+ people since its launch in 2022 — leaving a void that Texas crisis care centers, already operating at a $7 million funding deficit, are expected to fill.
In Texas, calls made to the line have increased over the years. In December 2025, the Texas 988 system received 25,511. A year prior, that figure was 18,916 and in December 2023, it was 14,961. It’s not clear from publicly available data how many calls are rerouted to LGBTQ+ subnetworks.
Texas Health and Human Services officials said the agency doesn’t have data on how many calls are rerouted to a subnetwork.
Veterans and LGBTQ+ youth have a higher risk of suicide compared to the general population, and canceling specialized services for only one group has mental health experts questioning the administration’s true intent.
“The program was created with overwhelming bipartisan support because, despite our political differences, we should all agree that every young person’s life is worth saving,” Jaymes Black, CEO of the Trevor Project, an organization that helped create option 3, said in a statement. “I am heartbroken that this administration has decided to say, loudly and clearly, that they believe some young people’s lives are not worth saving.”
This comes at a time when some federal funding for the hotline is set to expire, and budget freezes and cuts are wreaking havoc on the network of local crisis centers that the entire 988 infrastructure depends on.
“Currently, Texas’s 988 system faces a convergence of challenges,” said Christine Busse, a peer policy fellow for the Texas branch of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, a nonprofit mental health organization that provides education and peer-to-peer support. “Without additional investment, meeting current demand — let alone absorbing the additional contacts previously handled by specialized services — will remain difficult.”
The removal of option 3
For many LGBTQ+ youth, the hotline was a safe space to be themselves, where they could be transferred to specialists within the LGBTQ+ Youth Subnetwork who usually had the lived experience to relate to them and help them talk through problems like drug and alcohol abuse, bullying, relationship troubles and suicidal thoughts.
Busse said the hotline handled up to 70,000 contacts per month nationwide, and her organization is troubled by its sudden removal because those young people are more than four times as likely to attempt suicide as their peers.
Specialized services are still offered by the Trevor Project and other organizations, but advocates say including them in 988 made it easy for people in crisis to get help by remembering just three numbers.
Now that options have been removed, LGBTQ+ youth are left with 988 dispatchers who are trained to handle a crisis, but might not have the lived experience or training needed to make someone feel safe during an emergency.
“While all callers can still reach trained counselors through 988, the loss of Option 3 eliminates a service designed to address the specific needs of a higher-risk population,” Busse said.
Some states like California have decided to address this issue by having experts from the Trevor Project train their operators. However, Texas lawmakers have not committed any additional resources to this effort.
“LGBTQ+ young people need more resources to end suicide, not fewer,” said Mark Henson, vice president of advocacy and government affairs at The Trevor Project.
Hewitt said she is confident that local operators will receive the specialized LGBTQ+ training to provide the needed care, but the issue is why they need to do it at all.
“There was an entire network that was created just for this, and that is the difference,” she said. “But this means additional training, and that equates to time, experience, people, and hours.”
Busse said another advantage of option 3 was that it routed calls from LGBTQ youth out of the 988 system to other organizations, and its cancellation means a heavier workload for everyone in the system.
The month-to-month data on the crisis hotline shows a steady increase in calls to Texas crisis centers that were already overburdened before the removal of the LGBTQ+ subnetworks.
“Texas’s 988 system was already strained before the removal of Option 3,” Busse said. “Without additional investment, meeting current demand — let alone absorbing the additional contacts previously handled by specialized services — will remain difficult.”
The cost of saving a life
The Texas 988 system currently receives $19 million in funding from two federal grants: the Mental Health Block Grant and the 988 State and Territory Improvement Award. The latter is set to expire in September, and it’s unclear whether Congress will extend it or whether the Trump administration will establish new funding streams.
This comes at a time when local crisis care centers, where many of the 988 call centers operate out of or partner with for their resources, are seeing investment in their services disappear and reappear at the whims of the federal government.
In a span of 24 hours earlier this month, the Trump administration announced wide-ranging budget cuts that many in health care warned would cripple mental health and crisis services across the nation. Amid a national outcry, the administration reversed its decision before the end of the day.
“People got letters, and everyone was panicking, and then it got reversed,” Hewitt said. “A great outcome, but this terminal uncertainty is creating a really poor experience for not only the client but also the person answering the calls.”
The 988 system wasn’t meant to be supported by the federal government forever, and Texas lawmakers like state Sen. José Menéndez have attempted to create a safety net for it.
Last year, lawmakers established the 988 Trust Fund through House Bill 5342 and required a study on sustainable funding mechanisms, including a potential state telecommunications fee, due by December. However, no state dollars have been appropriated to the trust.
Menéndez, who authored the bill that created the trust fund, said the idea of using a telecommunications fee, similar to the fee that supports 911, was quickly shot down at the Capitol.
“I’m concerned that if we don’t have any state funds, 988 is going to have to get reliant on philanthropy, fundraising, and other methods, and we have already started reaching out about how people can make contributions because this year some funds run out,” he said.
As federal funds continue to dwindle and the state shows little interest in propping up the service, the future of 988 in Texas might depend on donations from Texans.
“That uncertainty is precisely why legislative action is imperative,” Busse said. “The infrastructure exists; what is needed now is the commitment to fund it. Without dedicated funding mechanisms, such as a telecommunications fee, Texans risk facing a mental health crisis without the community support network that took years to build.”
For mental health support for LGBTQ youth, call the Trevor Project’s 24/7 toll-free support line at 866-488-7386. For trans peer support, call the Trans Lifeline at 877-565-8860. You can also reach a trained crisis counselor through the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988.
Iowa’s public K-12 schools would be barred from teaching students about topics related to gender identity and sexual orientation at all grade levels under a bill expanding what critics have dubbed the state’s “Don’t Say Gay” law.
It would subject all of Iowa’s K-12 students to a law Gov. Kim Reynolds signed in 2023 that bans instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation through sixth grade. The wide-ranging education legislation also ordered schools to remove books that depict sex acts.
A Senate subcommittee voted 2-1 Wednesday, Jan. 21, to advance Senate Study Bill 2003, which would extend the prohibition on LGBTQ-related teaching through high school.
“I think just as not all parents want others to teach their children about sex education because it involves family religious beliefs about sexuality, so not all parents want others to teach children about sexual orientation and gender identity because it too involves family religious beliefs about sexuality and sexual ethics,” Sen. Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville, said.
She and Sen. Jesse Green, R-Boone, who introduced the bill, voted to advance it.
Iowa’s 2023 law, Senate File 496, is being challenged as unconstitutional in a federal lawsuit. A federal judge initially granted an injunction blocking parts of the law, including the ban on teaching about gender orientation and sexual identity, while the lawsuit is decided.
But the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his decision, allowing the law to take effect. Attorneys argued the law’s constitutionality in federal court last week.
Sen. Molly Donahue, D-Marion, voted against moving the bill forward, calling it a “distraction” from other issues facing the state.
“Iowans are definitely tired of this type of legislation, and we’re seeing that with the voting records, not just in Iowa but across the United States,” Donahue said. “We should be focused on prioritizing public schools, funding affordability for our people in this state and making sure that we’re balancing a budget in this state that is currently over $1 billion in deficit. We are focusing on the wrong things when we bring bills like this.”
Iowa is one of several Republican-led states, including Florida, with similar prohibitions on classroom teaching about gender identity and sexual orientation.
The bill says that Iowa’s public school districts and charter schools cannot provide “any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion or instruction relating to gender theory or sexual orientation” to K-12 students.
Similar legislation has not advanced in past years, including in 2025 after a House proposal stalled once it passed out of subcommittee.
Opponents of the bill say ‘LGBTQ people exist’ regardless of classroom instruction
Opponents outnumbered supporters of the bill at the hearing Wednesday at the Capitol, as LGBTQ Iowans and LGBTQ rights groups shared opposition with lawmakers, while religious and conservative groups spoke in favor of the measure.
Kaylara Hoadley, of Mason City, cried as she showed lawmakers a photograph of her 15-year-old nonbinary child, saying the bill does not keep students safe.
As a caseworker for families in crisis, Hoadley said she supports youth who are homeless or facing other crises whose only safe space is their school.
“When the law silences teachers, counselors and staff, vulnerable youth suffer and suicide rates increase. … When does a child’s suicide matter to you?” she asked the Republican senators as her voice wavered.
Melissa Peterson, representing the Iowa State Education Association, said questions remain as to whether the current law is discriminatory toward LGBTQ students as it remains tied up in court and urged lawmakers to oppose expanding the law.
“We want to get back to basics and provide a safe learning environment for every single one of our students as closely to as free from discrimination as possible,” Peterson said.
Damian Thompson, external affairs director for Iowa Safe Schools, said the bill would amplify the existing law’s constitutional problems by applying it to older students who have well-established constitutional rights.
“High school students can vote soon, they can serve in the military and they’re expected to understand complex and social and health issues as they enter adulthood,” Thompson said. “Federal courts have been consistently clear that students do not shed their First Amendment rights when they enter a public school.”
Bethany Snyder, of Urbandale, who has a trans partner and is a lesbian mother to a freshman at Valley High School, said silence isolates children and does not protect them.
“My partner and I grew up in that silence,” Snyder said. “We didn’t see ourselves reflected in school. We learned very early what shame sounds like in the absence of words. High school should prepare students for the real world and the real world. LGBTQ people exist as parents, coworkers, legislators, historical figures and leaders and families like mine and families like hers.”
Her daughter Evelynn Snyder-Maul said she has never received instruction on gender identity in school beyond sharing that she has a trans father and queer mother.
“If I’m telling someone about my family, could I get reported?” Snyder-Maul said. “However, that is the least of my concerns. Lawmakers who want to pass this bill are snowflakes. You think that love is inappropriate and you think that it is forcing kids to believe they like the same gender. If your kid is gay, whether they are taught that gay exists or not, they are still going to be gay.”
Supporters say schools should teach ‘fundamentals,’ not discuss LGBTQ topics
Danny Carroll, a senior policy adviser with The Family Leader and a former state lawmaker, said the bill would “remove unnecessary distraction” from Iowa classrooms.
“I think Iowans have grown a little bit weary of the distraction — and sometimes very loud and profane distraction — that gender theory has brought on, and I think they’re inclined to think perhaps we should return our schools to some of the fundamentals of learning and put this aside,” Carroll said. “I can see no way that this would interfere with teaching goodwill, friendship, respect for each other.”
Patty Alexander, a retired educator from Indianola, said discussing sexual identity is not an educator’s job.
“We do not believe in labeling students or grouping them by sexual preferences,” Alexander said. “We are here to meet their learning needs. We are not mental health counselors, and forcing us to group and label students only divides and causes rifts. Forcing us to discuss sexuality furthers the mistrust of educators between parents and their children.”
Jeff Pitts, representing the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, said the group supports expanding the existing law through high school.
“Our schools are not the place to promote political ideology,” Pitts said.
The Virginia Senate voted this past Friday in favor of repealing an amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Senate Joint Resolution 3, introduced by state Sen. Adam Ebbin (D), passed the chamber in a 26-13 vote and would ban the state “from denying the issuance of a marriage license to two adult persons seeking a lawful marriage on the basis of the sex, gender, or race of such persons.” It also requires Virginia to “recognize any lawful marriage between two adult persons and to treat such marriages equally under the law, regardless of the sex, gender, or race of such persons.”
A proposed Constitutional amendment must be voted on by two successive state legislatures before heading to the ballot, where voters ultimately decide its fate. Both chambers voted in favor of the resolution in 2025, and the House of Delegates already approved it again earlier this month. As such, the resolution will go to voters during the November 2026 elections.
Virginia’s 2006 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage has been unenforceable since the 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized marriage equality nationwide. In 2024, amid increasing threats that the Court may reexamine the decision, then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) (who is generally anti-LGBTQ+) signed a bill codifying same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth.
The law now ensures same-sex marriage remains legal in Virginia regardless of any change in federal protections, but those championing the constitutional amendment say it’s still not enough.
“It’s time for the Virginia constitution to accurately reflect the law of the land. Full stop,” Ebbin said in a statement. “20 years ago, the Virginia Bill of Rights was unnecessarily stained in an overreaction. It’s past time to fix that and see that loving Virginia couples are not mistreated or discriminated against. I am confident that the voters will ratify this marriage equality amendment in November.”
“It’s about time Virginia gets this done,” added state Rep. Mark Sickles (D), who introduced the resolution in the House of Delegates. “All Virginia couples deserve the freedom to marry without fear that their rights could be rolled back. By advancing this amendment, we’re ensuring that the freedom to marry is protected by the people. It’s up to the voters now and I’m confident they’ll do the right thing in November.”
Virginia’s resolution comes after a new trend last year in which several Republican-led states introduced resolutions calling for the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. Two justices on the Supreme Court have openly stated that they want to overturn Obergefell, which has stirred fears in the LGBTQ+ community as the court has moved increasingly to the right.
In a victory for LGBTQ+ people, the Supreme Court opted in November not to hear an appeal from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis asking the court to reconsider its marriage equality decision.
Even if the Supreme Court had taken the case, Chris Geidner, the gay publisher and author of Law Dork, told LGBTQ Nation last year that he didn’t think a case like Davis’ would provide sufficient legal reasoning to overturn same-sex marriage entirely.
Rather, he said that a successful religious freedom or free speech challenge to Obergefell would do other “bad things,” like hollow out civil protections or public accommodations for same-sex couples, essentially inconveniencing or endangering them, but not outright denying them the right to a marriage license.
Mauritania criminalizes same-sex sexual activity under its Penal Code, which provides a maximum possible sentence of death by stoning for men. However, in 2021, the government confirmed its de facto moratorium on the death penalty.
There have been reports of people being arrested and detained for these charges in recent years, as well as LGBTIQ people being harassed.
LGBTIQ visibility is fairly low in Mauritania, which contributes to social stigma. Due to the fear of discrimination and rejection, many LGBTIQ people remain private about their identities.
The country became a refuge for Senegalese LGBTIQ people after 2008, when homosexuality became the subject of recurrent public controversies in Senegal. Some Senegalese LGBTIQ people have been granted refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) but face serious legal dangers, health risks, and social rejection, making it difficult for them to get the help and protection they need.
[Mauritania’s anti-homosexuality law] specifically applies to Muslim men, though it is not clear if it applies equally to non-Muslim men.
There is some evidence of the law being enforced in recent years, with LGBT people being occasionally subject to arrest. A high-profile incident in 2020 saw ten people arrested and detained on same-sex activity charges, with eight of them being prosecuted and sentenced. There have been limited reports of discrimination and violence being committed against LGBT people in recent years, and the lack of reporting is attributed to social stigma.
In January, ten people were arrested and detained after video footage emerged on social media of what was alleged to be a same-sex wedding. [In the capital,] Nouakchott Police Commissioner, Mohamed Ould Nejib, subsequently acknowledged in a television interview that the event had not been a same-sex wedding but was simply a birthday celebration. He indicated that the men had been arrested for “imitating women”. According to the police report, the eight men “confessed that they are homosexuals” during police interrogations, at which they had no legal representation, but these confessions were subsequently refuted during the trial.
Eight of those arrested were subsequently convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for ‘indecency’ and ‘inciting debauchery’ under Articles 264 and 306 of the Penal Code respectively. One woman received a one-year suspended sentence for participating in ‘inciting debauchery’ by being present at the event. The restaurant owner was acquitted.
The U.S. Department of State evaluated LGBT rights in Mauritania in 2022: The US Department of State found that LGBT persons are reportedly harassed and subjected to violence from the National Police, the General Group for Road Safety, neighbours, and family members. No laws protect LGBT persons from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics. LGBT identity is rarely publicly identified or discussed, which observers attributed to the severity of the stigma and the legal penalties attached to it.
Texas judges can decline to perform same-sex weddings because of their “sincerely held religious belief” and not be in violation of the rules on judicial impartiality, according to the Texas Supreme Court.
A lawsuit is being brought by Judge Brian Keith Umphress in Jack County, Texas, against the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In November 2019, the commission issued a “public warning” to Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace who recused herself from officiating at same-sex weddings, according to coverage by Legal Newsline.
Umphress later sued the commission’s members, citing that a judge’s refusal to officiate only same-sex unions could result in sanctions by the commission and violate his federal constitutional rights.
He is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to restrain the commission from punishing judges for not performing same-sex marriage ceremonies, for either religious or secular reasons.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.