Check out this slideshow put together and posted to MSN.
While some places still make same-sex marriage complicated (or even illegal), others celebrate it fully, offering welcoming venues and stunning locations for your big day. If you’re looking for somewhere unique, safe, and unforgettable to say “I do,” these destinations offer the perfect mix of charm, romance, and friendliness toward the queer community.
The cities mentioned in the slideshow are:
Amsterdam Netherlands
Queenstown New Zealand
Toronto Canada
Cape Town South Africa
Reykjavik Iceland
Barcelona Spain
Valleta Malta
Sydney Australia
Mexico City Mexico
Copenhagen Denmark
Each town on the slide deck has a short excerpt about why the author included them. Be sure to read it.
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear a case regarding whether state bans on “conversion therapy” trying to change minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity are legal—a case that could carry billions of dollars in repercussions, as a 2022 study found conversion therapy carries an economic burden of approximately $9 billion annually for patients and their families.
Key Facts
The Supreme Court took up Chiles v. Salazar, a case challenging Colorado’s ban on LGBTQ “conversion therapy” for minors, which asks the justices to more broadly decide whether laws that “[censor] certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed” are constitutional.
LGBTQ “conversion therapy,” as it’s commonly known, refers to any practices—including both emotional efforts, like talk therapy, or physical efforts, like electroconvulsive therapy—that aim to influence a patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity, which are typically framed as efforts to “cure” homosexuality or being transgender.
Repeated studies have shown such efforts are ineffective at changing people’s sexual orientation or gender identity and carry a variety of harmful effects—such as elevated risks for suicide, drug abuse and mental health issues—which has led to bans on conversion therapy for minors being enacted in more than 20 states.
Conversion therapy and its negative effects also have an economic impact, as a 2022 study published in JAMA Pediatrics found conversion therapy and its “associated harms” result in an economic burden of approximately $9.23 billion per year.
Conversion therapy alone costs approximately $650 million for participants annually in the U.S., with individuals who undergo it paying an extra $97,985 for treatment as compared with people who don’t undergo any counseling, according to the study, which was based on data from LGBTQ youth ages 13-24.
There are also significant costs associated with knock-on effects from conversion therapy and the study estimates each conversion therapy patient pays an extra $83,366 on average to treat the “downstream consequences” associated with the procedure, which combined raise the total economic burden of conversion therapy to $9.2 billion.
What To Watch For
The Supreme Court will hear the case on conversion therapy at some point during its next term, which begins in October, so any ruling in the case is likely more than a year away.
What Did The Study Conclude?
The study, which was conducted by pro-LGBTQ rights organization The Trevor Project and research group Cytel, concluded there is a “high economic burden and high societal costs” that come along with conversion therapy, which the study refers to as sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts (SOGICE). Researchers analyzed the difference in costs between patients who underwent conversion therapy, LGBTQ youth who received no therapy and those who received therapy that affirmed their sexual orientation or gender identity. The study found conversion therapy carried the highest economic burden: In addition to the $650 million per year in total attributed to the therapy itself, there are also total annual costs of $190 million related to anxiety or “severe psychological distress” among those that underwent conversion therapy, $1.36 billion related to depression, $2.42 billion from suicide attempts, $1.17 billion from fatal suicides, $1.26 billion from alcohol use disorder and $2.18 billion from substance abuse. The likelihood of those negative outcomes was largely markedly higher among those who underwent conversion therapy as compared with other LGBTQ populations—except alcohol use disorder, where those without any therapy registered the highest number by one percentage point (42.26% among those with no intervention versus 41.26% among conversion therapy patients). As a result, the total costs incurred by conversion therapy patients were higher than the $4.85 billion in total annual costs among those who hadn’t received any treatment, and $3.04 billion among those who received affirmative therapy.
Contra
Researchers noted there were some limitations with the study’s methodology that may affect its results, such as being based on studies in which patients self-reported their experiences. That means it might not be fully representative of all LGBTQ patients, as many people may be unwilling to discuss their experiences. It also assumes the risks are the same across the LGBTQ population and for various types of conversion therapy, which may not be the case. Researchers argued they took a “conservative approach” with their findings, however, and noted the $9 billion figure is likely an underestimate of the total economic impact. The study only looked at adverse impacts from conversion therapy for three years after the treatment, for instance—though such effects could likely extend for much longer—and did not examine some other potential impacts, like post-traumatic stress disorder or medical consequences from various medications or electroconvulsive therapy.
Big Number
13%. That’s the share of LGBTQ youth who have either been subjected to or threatened with conversion therapy, according to a 2024 survey conducted by The Trevor Project among more than 50,000 Americans ages 13-24. That includes 5% who have been subjected to the therapy and 8% who were threatened with it. The 5% share is down from 10% who said in 2020 they were subjected to the therapy, though that number could rise again should the Supreme Court outlaw state bans.
Key Background
The Supreme Court case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado who said in a court filing “she believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.” Chiles objects to Colorado restricting her from counseling clients to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, claiming it violates her First Amendment rights and classifying state bans on conversion therapy as “silenc[ing] counselors’ ability to express views their clients seek on a topic of ‘fierce public debate.’” Chiles asked the Supreme Court to take up the case after a federal appeals court upheld Colorado’s policy restricting conversion therapy, ruling that it was regulating counselors’ professional conduct, rather than chilling First Amendment-protected speech. The case is the latest in a string of major cases related to LGBTQ rights the 6-3 conservative-leaning court has decided in recent years—such as cases over businesses being allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples or discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity—and the court is deliberating on a case this term over gender-affirming care for minors.
The Trevor Project, a nonprofit that provides crisis support for LGBTQ young people, surveyed almost 1,000 young LGBTQ Floridians about their mental health, and 48% felt the community they live in was accepting of their gender identity or sexual orientation.
But more than two-thirds, or 69%, say they or their family members have considered moving out of Florida because of LGBTQ-related politics and laws. It wasn’t clear where they considered moving.
“Florida might be free, but Florida is not welcoming,” said Sen. Shevrin Jones, D-Miami Gardens.
Since 2022, the Republican-led Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis have pushed multiple anti-LGBTQ laws in what they call the “Free State of Florida,” including banning “gender ideology” from K-12 schools, criminalizing trans people for using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity and restricting health care for trans people.
Florida’s Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of LGBTQ+ conservatives and allies within the Republican Party, did not respond to the USA TODAY Network-Florida’s request for comment in time for publication.
The Trevor Project also reported the following data about Florida’s LGBTQ youth. In the past year:
37% contemplated suicide
11% attempted suicide
67% reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety
54% reported experiencing symptoms of depression
24% were physically threatened or harmed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity
63% experiences discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity
Jones said the passage of the Parental Rights in Education Act, called “Don’t Say Gay” by critics, and the “Stop WOKE Act” created a hostile environment for minorities in Florida. “Don’t Say Gay” prohibits the teaching of classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation, and the “Stop WOKE Act” restricts how race is discussed in schools, colleges and workplaces.
The legislation also prohibits any teaching that could make students feel they bear personal responsibility for historic wrongs because of their race, color, sex or national origin.
DeSantis inveighed against ‘oppressive ideologies’
“We believe an important component of freedom in the state of Florida is the freedom from having oppressive ideologies imposed upon you without your consent,” DeSantis said when he signed the bill in 2022. “Whether it be in the classroom or in the workplace. And we decided to do something about it.”
On Tuesday in DeSantis’ State of the State speech, he made fun of Canada’s travel boycott of the U.S. and of Canadians who say they are canceling their vacations over President Trump’s tariffs and policies.
“We continue to set tourism records; 2024 saw more than 142 million visitors come to the state of Florida. This includes 3.3 million visitors from Canada,” DeSantis said. “That’s not much of a boycott in my book.”
The City of Richmond has issued a joint statement standing in solidarity with a number of LGBTQ+ organizations. The statement, posted to the City’s official Instagram on Tuesday, is in response to a political climate that has challenged the protections of members of these communities.
This safe haven has since been disrupted by measures targeting the LGBTQ+ community, prompting the city to amplify their voices.
“They [the city] actually reached out to us and said, ‘How can we help?’” said James Millner, Pride Director of Diversity Richmond — the organization featured in the shared Instagram post. “We invited them to participate in the work that we’re doing to send a strong message to the community that Richmond is a welcoming and inclusive space for LGBTQ people, and it will remain so regardless of what is happening at other levels.”
While the statement does not name any specific legislation, it acknowledges that a coalition of LGBTQ+ organizations is working alongside the City of Richmond to advocate against “harmful policies.”
Recently, sweeping legislation has targeted LGBTQ+ protections — from an executive order banning transgender people from serving in the military to the suspension of certain gender affirming care.
“It’s no secret that the LGBTQ community is under attack,” said Millner.
The statement sets expectations for policymakers and highlights organizations that are taking action. Millner says the city’s bold stance and support are a step in the right direction.
“We are incredibly fortunate that we have a city government that recognizes us, sees the LGBTQ community, celebrates the LGBTQ community — that, in this particular environment, is an anomaly right now,” Millner said.
The statement did not mention any specific action, but Millner said there is a lot of work being done behind the scenes and that this is just the first step of their efforts.
The post ends with a call to action, encouraging people to stay engaged by advocating for LGBTQ+ protections and donating or volunteering with local LGBTQ+ organizations.
Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a GOP-led bill that would ban transgender athletes from women’s and girls’ sports at federally funded schools and educational institutions.
The bill’s failure to advance highlights the limits of Republicans’ narrow margins in Congress, despite control of both chambers. The party still needs support from Democrats in the Senate for most legislation to clear a 60-vote threshold. The party line vote was 51-45.
The Senate vote comes as GOP-led states across the country continue to put forward anti-trans measures, including bills intended to keep transgender students from playing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity.
Republicans put attacks over transgender issues front and center in competitive races during the last election cycle, including at the top of the ticket in the presidential race. In the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s White House win, some Democrats have said their party must do more to address potential voter concerns.
The bill seeks to amend federal law to require that “sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth,” for the purpose of determining compliance with Title IX in athletics, according to the legislative text.
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive funding from the federal government, and applies to schools and other educational institutions.
Republicans have argued that transgender women hold a physical advantage over cisgender women in sports and thus their participation could consequentially limit opportunities for others.
Democrats have said that policies to restrict transgender athletes’ participation in team sports adds to the discrimination that trans people face, particularly trans youth. And they argue that Republicans are seeking to undermine the rights of LGBTQ students by advancing the bill.
Senate Republicans have 53 seats. Typically, that would mean that at least seven Democrats would need to vote with Republicans to hit the 60-vote threshold to advance a bill subject to a filibuster.
The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents on Friday passed a resolution banning all drag performances from taking place on its 11 university campuses.
This means that Draggieland, a beloved annual event scheduled for March 27 at the Rudder Theatre on the College Station campus, will have to find a new venue. Students have also held drag shows at Texas A&M University Corpus Christi and East Texas A&M University.
The move potentially sets up another First Amendment fight between students and university administrators.
The resolution says the board recognizes the need for universities to foster a sense of community and belonging among students but adds that drag shows are “inconsistent with [the system’s] mission and core values, including the value of respect for others.”
The resolution also says drag shows are “likely to create or contribute to a hostile environment for women,” contrary to university and federal anti discrimination policies.
“These events often involve unwelcome and objectively offensive conduct based on sex for many members of the respective communities of the universities, particularly when they involve the mockery or objectification of women,” the resolution says.
The resolution says having on-campus drag shows may be seen as promoting gender ideology and that both President Donald J. Trump and Gov. Greg Abbott have said federal and state funds may not be used for that purpose. It directs the system’s chancellor and the president of each institution to implement the policy, including canceling any upcoming drag shows.
The vote was unanimous. Regent Mike Hernandez III was absent.
The Queer Empowerment Council, a student group that hosts Draggieland and other LGBTQ+ events at Texas A&M University, said in a statement Friday evening that it was “profoundly disheartened” by the decision.
“The power of drag as a medium of art is undeniable, serving as a platform for self-discovery, inclusivity, and celebration of diversity. QEC firmly believes that the Board of Regents’ decision undermines these values, which are vital to fostering a supportive and inclusive environment for all students,” the council said.
It is exploring whether it can hold Draggieland on the same or a different date at a different venue.
“We are committed to ensuring that our voices are heard, and that Draggieland will go on, no matter the obstacles we face,” the group said.
In 2023, West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler canceled an on-campus drag show, similarly arguing such performances degrade women.
The students said his comments were off base and sued him for violating their First Amendment rights as well as a state law that prohibits universities from barring student organizations from using their facilities on the basis of the political, religious, philosophical, ideological or academic viewpoints the organizations express. The court has allowed Wendler’s cancellation to stand while it makes a decision.
“They are imposing a restraint on an entire category of protected speech under the First Amendment and in no public college campus should that ever occur per our Constitution,” said JT Morris, senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, of the regent’s decision Friday. Morris is representing the students in the West Texas A&M case.
Civil rights groups also condemned the resolution. Ash Hall, policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights at the ACLU of Texas, said the West Texas A&M lawsuit plus one her organization spearheaded and ultimately blocked a statewide ban on drag shows “makes this kind of absurd.”
“To do this now, while that’s already happening, is a waste of time and resources and makes it seem like the Board of Regents is more focused on culture wars than educating their students,” they said.
Sofia Sepulveda, field director for Equality Texas, noted that not all drag is performed by men.
“Women performers also delight in a chance to poke fun at stereotypes that have held women back for generations,” she said.
She also criticized the gender disparities among the flagship’s faculty.
“If A&M is worried about creating a hostile environment for women, then why don’t they hire more women?” Sepulveda said. “Right now, only 40% of the faculty at Texas A&M are women, 60% are men. That’s a serious issue.”
Draggieland organizers have said the event is an important outlet for the LGBTQ+ community at a time when it has come under attack from conservative policymakers in Texas and across the nation.
Students raised funds to keep the show going when the university stopped sponsoring it in 2022. In the years since, they’ve seen LGBTQ+ representation and resources on campus diminish.
Last year, Texas A&M University cut an LGBTQ+ studies minor and stopped offering gender-affirming care at the Beutel Student Health Center. In a statement Friday afternoon, the university said it had begun coordinating with the division of student affairs to notify student organizations about the board’s decision.
Regents were also expected to discuss Friday who should be the system’s next leader after Chancellor John Sharp retires this year. Regents met in Houston earlier this week to interview candidates. They did not make a decision on a finalist Friday.
The number of Americans identifying as LGBTQ+ continued to rise, according to the latest Gallup poll.
In 2024, 9.3% of U.S. adults identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than heterosexual.
That’s an increase of more than one point since a 2023 survey, double the number from 2020, and up from 3.5% when Gallup first asked about sexual identity in 2012.
14,000 respondents in a phone survey were asked, “Which of the following do you consider yourself to be? You can select as many as apply. Straight or heterosexual; Lesbian; Gay; Bisexual; Transgender.”
Overall, 85.7% say they are straight, 5.2% are bisexual, 2.0% are gay, 1.4% are lesbian, and 1.3% are transgender. Just under 1% mention another LGBTQ+ identity, such as pansexual, asexual, or queer. Five percent of respondents declined to answer the question.
The survey found LGBTQ+ identification is increasing as younger generations of Americans enter adulthood. Younger people are much more likely than older generations to say they are something other than heterosexual.
Both Gen Z and millennials came of age with the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights, marriage equality, and greater representation in the culture.
More than one in five Gen Z adults — those born between 1997 and 2006, who were between the ages of 18 and 27 in 2024 — identify as LGBTQ+. Each older generation of adults, from millennials to the Silent Generation, has successively lower rates of identification, down to 1.8% among the oldest Americans, those born before 1946.
The largest increase was among younger people identifying as bisexual. 59% of LGBTQ+ Gen Z Americans (ages 18-27) called themselves bisexual, along with more than half (52%) of LGBTQ+ millennials (ages 28-43).
Among the nearly 900 LGBTQ+ individuals Gallup interviewed last year, more than half, 56%, said they were bisexual. Twenty-one percent said they were gay, 15% lesbian, 14% transgender, and 6% something else. These figures total more than 100% because the survey allows respondents to report multiple LGBTQ+ identities.
The overall estimate of 9.3% of U.S. adults who identify as LGBTQ+ counts each respondent only once, even if they have multiple identities.
The survey broke down LGBTQ+ identification associated with sex, politics, and geography, as well.
Democrats (14%) and independents (11%) are far more likely than Republicans (3%) to identify as LGBTQ+.
21% of liberals, compared with 8% of moderates and 3% of conservatives, say they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
LGBTQ+ identification is higher among people living in cities (11%) and suburbs (10%) than in rural areas (7%).
College graduates (9%) and nongraduates (10%) are about equally likely to identify as LGBTQ+, while 10% of women versus 6% of men say they are LGBTQ+. That gender gap is most pronounced in younger generations.
31% of Gen Z women versus 12% of Gen Z men identify as LGBTQ+, with most of those younger women saying they are bisexual.
Making the decision to leave the United States can be a daunting decision for anyone who has never lived abroad before. You might wish to spend some time in another country for an extended period of time– more than your usual one to two week vacation. There are several countries, many of which who are friendly to LGBTQ+ rights, who allow for various types of visas that can extend your stay, before you decide to make a permanent move.
GetGoldenVisa.com just published a nice guide for choosing the right country to move to and how to move out of the US. The website focuses mostly on the Golden Visa, which allows investors to enter countries. There are other visa options such as student visas, and the digital nomad visa.
The Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature on Tuesday overrode the Democratic governor’s veto of a bill that bans gender-transition treatments for minors, fulfilling a longtime goal of conservative lawmakers and joining about half of the country’s states in enacting bans or sharp limits on those procedures.
The Kansas bill had broad Republican support, but its status had been uncertain because of the opposition of Gov. Laura Kelly, who said it was “disappointing that the Legislature continues to push for government interference in Kansans’ private medical decisions.” Ms. Kelly vetoed similar bills in each of the last two years, and lawmakers had previously failed to override her.
This time, Republicans in both chambers mustered the two-thirds margin necessary to override her and celebrated the decision as following President Trump’s lead on the issue. Kansas had been among the only states where Republicans hold significant legislative power without such a law.
“Today, a supermajority of the Kansas Senate declared that Kansas is no longer a sanctuary state” for those procedures, Senator Ty Masterson, the chamber’s president, said in a statement.
Republican supporters of the measure, which bans hormone treatments, puberty blockers and transition surgeries for transgender patients younger than 18, described it as guarding young people from life-altering choices that they could later regret. Under the new law, doctors who provide those treatments to minors could lose their licenses and be sued by patients or their parents.
The shift in Kansas comes as President Trump and his administration crack down on gender transitions for minors nationally, seeking to end funding for hospitals that provide those treatments. The Trump administration has also moved to ban trans women and girls from competing in women’s sports, to bar trans people from serving openly in the military, to house trans women who are federal prisoners with men, and to no longer reflect the gender identities of trans people on passports.
Democrats and L.G.B.T.Q. advocates called the Kansas legislation an invasion of privacy that would have devastating health consequences. In her veto message, Ms. Kelly said “infringing on parental rights is not appropriate, nor is it a Kansas value,” and warned that enacting the measure could have economic consequences.
“This legislation will also drive families, businesses, and health care workers out of our state, stifling our economy and exacerbating our workforce shortage issue,” the governor wrote.
The new law comes as part of a broader push by Republicans in Kansas, a state that Mr. Trump carried last year by 16 percentage points, to place limits on transgender people. Kansas stopped changing birth certificates to reflect gender identity in 2023 after lawmakers overrode another veto by Ms. Kelly and passed a law defining male and female as a person’s sex at birth.
But as Republicans across the country have moved in recent years to restrict transition treatments for minors, Kansas had remained an outlier on the Great Plains. Bans or severe limits are already in place in three of its four bordering states — Colorado is the exception — and across much of the rest of the Midwest.
Bans elsewhere have been challenged in state and federal courts with a range of preliminary outcomes. Many expect the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately decide whether there is a national right to access such treatments.
Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly has vetoed Senate Bill 63, which would have restricted gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
“Right now, the legislature should be focused on ways to help Kansans cope with rising prices,” Kelly said in a statement emailed late Tuesday. “That is the most important issue for Kansans. That is where my focus is.”
The bill would bar health care providers from administering gender-affirming medical care – including puberty suppressants and hormone therapies – for someone under the age of 18, only for the purposes of gender transitioning. The ban would also apply to gender-affirming surgeries.
“Infringing on parental rights is not appropriate, nor is it a Kansas value,” said Kelly in her veto message. “As I’ve said before, it is not the job of politicians to stand between a parent and a child who needs medical care of any kind. This legislation will also drive families, businesses, and health care workers out of our state, stifling our economy and exacerbating our workforce shortage issue.”
This is the third time Kelly has vetoed similar transgender youth care bills, but the bill may now have the support to pass.
The bill passed the state legislature with flying colors – passing the House 83-35 and the Senate 32-8.
In 2023, the attempt to override a past trans care ban veto lost in the House 82-43.
State Republicans quickly denounced Kelly’s veto.
“The governor’s devotion to extreme left-wing ideology knows no bounds, vetoing a bipartisan bill that prevents the mutilation of minors,” said State Sen. Ty Masterson in an online statement. “The Senate stands firmly on the side of protecting Kansas children and will swiftly override her veto before the ink from her pen is dry.”
Top national medical associations such as the American Medical Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and American Academy of Pediatrics and more than 20 others argue that gender-affirming care is safe, effective, beneficial, and medically necessary for transgender populations.
Kelly joins governors past and present in Ohio and Arkansas in vetoing bills that targeted gender-affirming youth care. However, both of their vetoes were overridden.
Across the country, trans youth care restrictions have faced legal hurdles in their enforcement.
The battle and debate has most recently made its way to the national stage, with the Supreme Court considering U.S. v. Skrmetti, which will decide if Tennessee’s law banning some gender-affirming care for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.