Is the supreme court trying to take away gay rights
In Marsha P. Johnson's final interview before her death in 1992, the activist later recognized as an icon of the movement that preceded LGBTQ rights in the Together States explained why she, a gender nonconforming woman, championed a cause that often excluded her.
"I've been walking for lgbtq+ rights all these years," Johnson said, referencing early Event marches in a conversation that appears in a 2012 documentary about her life. "Because you never completely contain your rights, one person, until you all have your rights."
Since then, social and political wins over time grew to encompass everyone represented by the acronym LGBTQ, which stands for female homosexual, gay, bisexual, gender nonconforming and queer. But that's become less true in recent years, as lawmakers in Tennessee, Texas and a number of other states repeatedly pushed legislation to restrict access to gender-affirming nurture, bathrooms and sports teams for trans person people.
Anti-trans sentiment was central to President Trump's 2024 campaign, LGBTQ advocates declare, and it followed him into office. Many of his directives this phrase have closely mirrored Project 2025, a conservative policy agenda that explicitly prioritizes eroding LGBTQ rights.
A Background On Trump Evening One Executive Orders Impacting The LGBTQ+ Community
by Brandon Wolf •
Overview
On his first day in office as the 47th president of the United States, President Trump signed a slew of executive orders (EOs) that impact the LGBTQ+ community, as successfully as many others. It is important to note that executive actions do NOT have the authority to override the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or established legal precedent. Many of these directives do just that or are regarding matters over which the president does not acquire control. Given that, many of these orders will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement, and efforts to do so will be challenged through litigation.
Currently, much is unknown about whether or how the administration or other actors will comply with these directives, and in most instances rules will need to be promulgated or significant administrative guidance will need to be issued in order for implementation to occur. These are processes that get time and require detailed additional plans to be developed.
Newly Issued Executive Orders
A number of executive behavior yesterday will impact the LGBTQ+ comm
The decision in Skrmetti v. U.S. is not the end of the road. We can, and must, show up for trans youth in the courts and in our communities.
The conclusion in Skrmetti v. U.S. is not the finish of the road. We can, and must, display up for trans youth in the courts and in our communities.
Last week, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating puff to trans youth, their families and the communities that support them. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Skrmetti v. U.S. that SB1— Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors —does not illegally discriminate against individuals on the basis of sex or transgender status. This allows Tennessee, and any other states that may pick to follow its discriminatory lead, to ban medically-necessary health care for minors.
As one of the Tennessee parents challenging this exclude put it, “the Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday will make it even harder for our daughter to get lifesaving health care. It will impair the lawsuit’s unnamed families and those that reach after us, with younger kids just starting to understand and express themselves.”
This is a blow for trans youth who simply want to grow up healthy, supported, and seen. It 
A decade after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, marriage equality endures risky terrain
Milestones — especially in decades — usually call for celebration. The 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, is diverse. There’s a sense of unease as state and federal lawmakers, as adequately as several judges, get steps that could transport the issue back to the Supreme Court, which could undermine or overturn existing and future homosexual marriages and weaken additional anti-discrimination protections.
In its nearly quarter century of being, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Statute has been on the front lines of LGBTQ rights. Its amicus little in the Obergefell case was instrumental, with Justice Anthony Kennedy citing facts from the institute on the number of homosexual couples raising children as a deciding factor in the landmark decision.
“There were claims that allowing homosexual couples to marry would somehow devalue or diminish marriage for everyone, including different-sex couples,” said Brad Sears, a distinguished senior scholar of law and policy at the Williams Institute. &
Some Republican lawmakers multiply calls against queer marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 decree on same-sex marriage equality.
Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota acquire followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution passed the declare House with a vote of 52-40 and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s Residence Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Day –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.
In Montana and Michigan, the bills own yet to meet legislative scrutiny.
Resolutions contain no legal leadership and are not binding law, but instead allow legislative bodies to convey their collective opinions.
The resolutions in four other states ech
Background On Trump Evening One Executive Orders Impacting The LGBTQ+ Community
by Brandon Wolf •
Overview
On his first day in office as the 47th president of the United States, President Trump signed a slew of executive orders (EOs) that impact the LGBTQ+ community, as successfully as many others. It is important to note that executive actions do NOT have the authority to override the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or established legal precedent. Many of these directives do just that or are regarding matters over which the president does not acquire control. Given that, many of these orders will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement, and efforts to do so will be challenged through litigation.
Currently, much is unknown about whether or how the administration or other actors will comply with these directives, and in most instances rules will need to be promulgated or significant administrative guidance will need to be issued in order for implementation to occur. These are processes that get time and require detailed additional plans to be developed.
Newly Issued Executive Orders
A number of executive behavior yesterday will impact the LGBTQ+ comm
The decision in Skrmetti v. U.S. is not the end of the road. We can, and must, show up for trans youth in the courts and in our communities.
The conclusion in Skrmetti v. U.S. is not the finish of the road. We can, and must, display up for trans youth in the courts and in our communities.
Last week, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating puff to trans youth, their families and the communities that support them. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Skrmetti v. U.S. that SB1— Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors —does not illegally discriminate against individuals on the basis of sex or transgender status. This allows Tennessee, and any other states that may pick to follow its discriminatory lead, to ban medically-necessary health care for minors.
As one of the Tennessee parents challenging this exclude put it, “the Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday will make it even harder for our daughter to get lifesaving health care. It will impair the lawsuit’s unnamed families and those that reach after us, with younger kids just starting to understand and express themselves.”
This is a blow for trans youth who simply want to grow up healthy, supported, and seen. It
A decade after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, marriage equality endures risky terrain
Milestones — especially in decades — usually call for celebration. The 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, is diverse. There’s a sense of unease as state and federal lawmakers, as adequately as several judges, get steps that could transport the issue back to the Supreme Court, which could undermine or overturn existing and future homosexual marriages and weaken additional anti-discrimination protections.
In its nearly quarter century of being, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Statute has been on the front lines of LGBTQ rights. Its amicus little in the Obergefell case was instrumental, with Justice Anthony Kennedy citing facts from the institute on the number of homosexual couples raising children as a deciding factor in the landmark decision.
“There were claims that allowing homosexual couples to marry would somehow devalue or diminish marriage for everyone, including different-sex couples,” said Brad Sears, a distinguished senior scholar of law and policy at the Williams Institute. &
Some Republican lawmakers multiply calls against queer marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 decree on same-sex marriage equality.
Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota acquire followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution passed the declare House with a vote of 52-40 and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s Residence Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Day –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.
In Montana and Michigan, the bills own yet to meet legislative scrutiny.
Resolutions contain no legal leadership and are not binding law, but instead allow legislative bodies to convey their collective opinions.
The resolutions in four other states ech