Democratic senators strongly defend trans Americans and gender-affirming care during hearing

Democratic senators, such as Tim Kaine of Virginia, strongly defended trans Americans and gender-affirming care during a hearing on Wednesday

On Wednesday, the Senate held a public hearing on gender-affirming care for trans youth. With Republicans in control of the Senate, you can easily guess which rabbits were pulled out of which hats. 

From The Advocate:

A Senate hearing on gender-affirming care for minors on Wednesday became a fight over who gets to make decisions for transgender children, whether politicians should override doctors and parents, and whether the Trump administration’s escalating campaign against gender-affirming care is rooted in concern for children or hostility toward transgender people. 

 The hearing, convened by Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, came as the administration has intensified efforts to restrict care, including Justice Department subpoenas seeking records from providers that treat transgender minors.

 The committee listed three witnesses, including Dr. Kurt Miceli, chief medical officer of anti-trans and anti-diversity activist group Do No Harm; Chloe Cole, an anti-trans advocate who received gender-affirming care as a minor and who regretted that care; and Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights. 

 

Minter did an excellent job in defending gender-affirming care as a decision between families and their physicians instead of political leaders:

 Minter argued that care for transgender adolescents is governed by standards requiring evaluation, informed consent, and parental involvement. He repeatedly emphasized that parents are central participants in every stage of treatment. “Parents, not politicians, know their children best,” Minter testified. 

 ... Republican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana repeatedly pressed Minter about Pride flags in classrooms, whether teachers should discuss sexuality with children, and whether Pride symbols represent political statements. Minter declined to engage, instead returning to health care and parental decision-making. 

 He similarly dismissed suggestions that organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and Endocrine Society are driven by ideology rather than medicine. "It sounds like a conspiracy theory," Minter said. "They're asking people to believe that all of these longstanding professional organizations have somehow sold out." 

Democratic senators also came out unapologetically defending gender-affirming care. They, like Minter, said it was a decision between medical professionals and families. Others pointed out the hypocrisy of Republican focus this issue while ignoring other healthcare issues such as rising costs. Senator Tim Kaine of Viriginia created several memorable moments, such as when he respectfully acknowledged anti-trans activist Chloe Coles's testimony while still standing against a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth:

The hearing’s most striking exchange came from Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who delivered one of the strongest defenses of transgender young people. Kaine began by acknowledging Cole’s testimony. “Your story is tragic,” he told her. “It is a classic case, as you tell it, of medical malpractice.” He said allegations that doctors failed to adequately explain risks or pressured families deserved serious attention and could be addressed through malpractice lawsuits, professional standards, and medical oversight rather than a federal ban.

Also, when he said that the hearing was indicative of the ugly attacks against trans Americans:

Kaine pointed to recent political attacks involving transgender people, including efforts to falsely label Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico as transgender and campaign messaging portraying support for transgender rights as politically dangerous. He also criticized the administration’s efforts to remove transgender service members from the military. Kaine said that the reason Republicans are attacking transgender people is that it's easy to target a marginalized group. Kaine also drew a historical parallel, arguing that politicians have repeatedly sought to gain power by targeting vulnerable minority groups. 

Pointing to Virginia’s history, he said the state spent much of its post-Founding political history focused on "kicking around marginalized oppressed people" — particularly African Americans — and warned that transgender people are increasingly being cast in a similar role in modern politics. 

 "Who can we kick around? Who can we direct hate towards?" Kaine said, describing what he viewed as a recurring pattern in American political life. He argued that recent attacks on transgender people resembled earlier efforts to use marginalized groups as political scapegoats. "Attacking trans people is sort of like the new version of kicking around vulnerable communities for political gain," Kaine said.

But probably one of the most poignant moments was when he spoke to trans youth who may have been watching the hearing:

Sen. Kaine: If you’re a trans kid watching this hearing… there is some intentional effort to make you feel bad about yourself, but you have a lot of people who love you. You have a lot of people who support you. … You are a beautiful precious person. You are made and precious… pic.twitter.com/uWnzRcMcy6

— Protect Our Care (@ProtectOurCare) June 3, 2026

Hate group leader's attempt to gloat about Pride Month reveals his inability to stop it

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council

Today marks the beginning of Pride Month 2026 and Tony Perkins of the anti-LGBTQ hate group the Family Research is attempting to spin a narrative that Pride Month is faltering. 

 From Perkins by the way of JoeMyGod: 

Pride Month is off to a faltering start again this year as yet another red state ditches the month-long celebration of LGBT depravity in favor of family values. Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed a proclamation declaring June to be “Fidelity Month” in her state. Tennessee Governor Bill Lee (R) also rejected Pride Month, declaring June instead to be “Nuclear Family Month” in the Volunteer State. 

 Last year, The Washington Stand reported that corporate sponsorship for Pride Month events was scaling back dramatically in the wake of President Donald Trump’s return to the White House and the previous months of crippling boycotts targeting companies that made LGBT themes central to their marketing. The evaporating corporate sponsorship impacted public-facing Pride Month initiatives, with LGBT parades and events in major cities facing serious reductions. 

2026 is on track for much of the same. According to a report from NPR, corporate sponsorship for 2026 Pride Month events is declining even further, falling by an estimated 60% to 70% from years past. Organizers pointed to the Trump White House and its agenda targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and pro-transgenderism programs and the public backlash against LGBT events, marketing, and sponsorship as causes for the reduced corporate involvement in Pride Month this year.

Trump's return to office have made things a bit more difficult. Between his administration targeting our community and his supporters feeling empowered to target businesses who voice support for us, there is no question that corporate sponsorships are suffering for now.

No doubt Perkins and his supporters are clapping their hands in glee over this development, but as dire as it seems for us, corporate sponsorships were always a transactional relationship. As much as our community is grateful for these sponsorships, we've never been deceived that companies wanting to sponsor our Pride events came from a desire to market themselves to a demographic - in this case us.  And situations like this have a way of changing like ocean tides. Just as sure as potential corporate sponsors are wary of us now, that can always change in time. And it will.

 Perkins is fooling his followers and probably himself. Even his attempt to claim that red state governors are trolling us with their proclamations is laughable.

These proclamations are from a worn-out false narrative which places LGBTQ people as the enemy of families.  LGBTQ people are not the enemy of families. Families include us. And while Lee, Huckabee-Sanders, and whoever else make a point to exclude us, their attempts are having the opposite effect. They remind people - whether they support us or not - that we do exist.  Our marriages exist. Our children exist. Our families exist. LGBTQ families and gay marriage are no longer on the outside of the American experience We have become a normal part of the American experience.

Proclamations born out of sour grapes will never change that. Nor do they stop Pride events from taking place in their respective states.

While Perkins can gloat about us losing corporate sponsors, he can't gloat about the disappearance of Pride Month because it still exists. He can gloat about how the Trump Administration is creating havoc for our Pride celebrations, he can't gloat that we are canceling our celebrations because they are still taking place. He can gloat about the trouble our community is presently having, but he can't gloat that we have returned to the closet because we are going nowhere but forward. And while Perkins can gloat about immature proclamations designed (unsuccessfully) to render our families as nonexistent, he can't get rid of our families because we aren't going anywhere. This is our country too.

Perkins wants people to think he's gloating, but he is actually settling for crumbs cobbled together as a pathetic semblance of victory.  He's cheering the small roadblocks to our Pride celebrations because he is powerless to stop them. He's cheering the sad insults levied against our families because he can't eliminate our visibility. It's the only power he has against us, and I bet it makes him bitter.

Eat your heart out, Tony. And Happy Pride. Your bitterness will always sustain us.

Signature irregularities keeping trans sports ban off of Maine ballot this year

No doubt certain people will appeal this ruling, but for now the attempt by Maine's Republican party to get its voters to the polls in November via an attack on trans people has failed.

From The Advocate:

Maine’s Secretary of State announced that a trans sports ban will not appear on the ballot this year after questions about signature gathering resulted in thousands of petitions being tossed out. “Citizen initiatives are direct democracy. Just as we take voting security seriously, we take petition integrity seriously,” said Secretary of State Shenna Bellows. 

 “Unfortunately, some out-of-state circulators failed to meet certain legal requirements for petitions, resulting in this initiative failing to qualify for the ballot after legal review. I am proud of the hard work and dedication of the Secretary of State staff who work so hard to safeguard our elections for the benefit of every Maine voter.” 

 Bellows’s staff raised alarms weeks ago about signatures that should be invalidated because gatherers didn’t follow the correct procedure. Ultimately, Bellows determined that 12,542 signatures were invalid. She accepted 67,150 signatures, but that left the effort 140 signatures shy of the required amount to put a ballot measure before voters. 

 Some signatures were rejected because circulators failed to witness registered voters signing petition forms, while others were signed by another person, according to the state. The decision can still be appealed within ten days. Conservative activists in the state had proposed a ballot measure that would bar transgender students from using locker rooms or school bathrooms aligned with their gender identity and would segregate sports based on gender assigned at birth.

Biologist and retired police officer win huge monetary settlements for ugly aftermath of Charlie Kirk comments

Charlie Kirk

When conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed last year, his followers and supporters promised to ruin the lives of those they felt made fun of his death. They were successful in getting many people fired. But as it turns out, their actions are creating positive monetary repercussions for those caught up in their witch hunt.

From The Hill:

Florida officials have reached a settlement in which they will pay $485,000 to a biologist who was fired from her state job over a social media post criticizing conservative influencer Charlie Kirk after his assassination. Brittney Brown lost her job at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) in September after reposting a message to her private Instagram account claiming Kirk did not care about children being shot in their classrooms.

The post read: “The whales are deeply saddened to hear about the shooting of Charlie Kirk, haha just kidding, they care exactly as much as Charlie Kirk cared about children being shot in their classrooms, which is to say not at all.” Brown’s repost circulated on social media after it was picked up by popular conservatives on social media, and she was fired from her job, according to a lawsuit she later filed.

 In a settlement agreement Brown signed on Thursday, Florida officials will pay Brown $485,000, including $235,000 to cover the loss of her job, $40,000 in back pay and $210,000 to cover her legal fees, USA Today reported. 

 According to The Huffington Post, one social media site in general may have had a lot to do with Brown's firing:

 Prior to her termination, Brown’s repost caught the attention of the popular right-wing social media page “Libs of TikTok,” which shared a screenshot of the repost alongside a screenshot of her LinkedIn profile on X. 

 “She allegedly posted this disgusting message mocking Charlie’s ass*ssination. Your tax dollars pay her salary. She should be fired ASAP,” the right-wing page wrote. 

Needless to say, many people have returned to that September 2025 post to mock Libs of TikTok by posting news of the recent settlement.

Brown's $485,000 settlement comes on the heels of another settlement, this time in favor of a retired police officer in Tennessee who will receive an $835,000 settlement after getting put in jail for 37 days after a Facebook post he wrote about Kirk's shooting.

Larry Bushart, a former officer from Tennessee who was arrested over a Facebook comment he posted about a pro-Kirk vigil in September 2025. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) announced the settlement in a news release on Wednesday, May 20. Bushart shared a meme under a post promoting the event in Perry County, Tennessee. The picture showed President Donald Trump with the quote, "We have to get over it," referencing Trump's response after a January 2024 school shooting in Perry, Iowa. 

 Authorities accused Bushart of making threats of mass violence, claiming the post could be interpreted as a threat against Perry County High School. Bushart spent 37 days in jail on a $2 million bond before prosecutors dropped the charges in late October 2025. Bushart later filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Perry County, Sheriff Nick Weems, and county investigator Jason Morrow, accusing them of violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. 

 . . . Bushart's attorneys said he lost his post-retirement medical transportation job while jailed, along with missing his anniversary and the birth of his grandchild.

Brown and Bushart are two of a large number of people filing lawsuits after getting fired for comments made after Kirk's death. And some, just like Brown and Bushart, are winning.

Earlier this year, Darren Michael, an associate professor of acting and directing at Austin Peay State University in Tennessee, received a $500,000 settlement and his job back after getting fired in September 2025 for sharing a Newsweek article which quoted Kirk about gun violence.

Kansas judge temporarily blocks state's gender-affirming care ban while dismantling testimony favoring ban

Sorry for missing this one

A judge granted a temporary injunction on Friday, blocking Kansas’s gender-affirming care ban and bringing “enormous relief” to trans youth and their families, according to ACLU attorney Harper Seldin. State District Judge Carl Folsom III granted the injunction after two mothers with trans teenagers sued so their kids could continue taking gender-affirming medications.

 “Specifically, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail based on the right to personal autonomy set out in Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and a parent’s fundamental right to make medical decisions for their children,” Folsom wrote in his ruling. Loe v. Kansas challenges S.B. 63, which bans all gender-affirming treatments for minors in the state, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Cisgender youth, however, are allowed to utilize those treatments for other reasons. 

Trans journalist Erin Reed covered Folsom's ruling in great detail on her substack. According to her, Folsom not only ruled against the state, but he also had some brutal words for the witnesses called upon to justify the ban. Reed said he "eviscerated" their testimony 

In his ruling, Judge Carl Folsom III worked through the testimony of the state's witnesses one by one, finding that its anti-transgender “experts”—routinely paraded by groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, SEGM, and Genspect—offered opinions built on "cherry-picked information, conjecture, and research taken out of context," and granting their testimony little to no weight.

 He then laid out 349 individual findings of fact, drawn from scientific evidence and the testimony of credible medical experts, documenting the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care. He ultimately found that the ban likely violates the Kansas Constitution—which guarantees broader protections than its federal counterpart. That distinction matters enormously: because the ruling rests on state constitutional grounds, it is largely insulated from the U.S. Supreme Court and its decision in Skrmetti, which closed the federal courthouse door to these challenges but left the state one wide open.

 

I suggest that folks go to Reed's substack to get a full reading of Folsom's smackdown, but here are some morsels involving certain "professional" anti-trans activists who a lot of us already know.

Chloe Cole

The judge also had pointed words for the state's roster of prominent anti-trans activists. Chloe Cole, the country’s most prominent anti-trans detransitioner, testified about receiving care as a minor in California—but Folsom noted that Cole "admittedly did not receive care in Kansas," and that the plaintiffs' expert Dr. Angela Turpin testified the care Cole described "would not have occurred in Kansas" and would have been inconsistent with the clinical guidelines Kansas providers actually follow. Her testimony was given "less weight." 

 Jamie Reed

 And then there was Jamie Reed, the self-styled "whistleblower" who built a national profile on lurid, largely unsubstantiated accusations against a St. Louis gender clinic and who has gone on Fox News to describe being transgender as a delusion. Reed also did not testify and could not be cross-examined. Folsom gave her affidavit "little weight,” and had scathing remarks towards her lack of expertise: 

 “The Court gives thus Jamie Reed’s affidavit little weight, given that she is not a medical provider or mental-health professional. In addition, her affidavit primarily addresses her experiences with a clinic operating outside of Kansas—thus, it does not rebut or refute the credible, uncontroverted testimony about clinical practice within the state of Kansas,” read the order. 

Folsom also dismantled two very popular anti-trans talking points. One is the claim that European countries have stopped gender-affirming care for trans youth. The other involves the Cass Review, a controversial report which has been used in the United Kingdom to undermine gender-affirming care for trans youth: 

 Folsom reserved some of his sharpest fact-finding for the Cass Review and claims over European care. The state's experts pointed to systematic reviews from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway as “proof” the science had turned. Folsom found otherwise. "None of these systematic reviews recommend categorically banning gender-affirming medical care for adolescents," he wrote, and "the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway have not categorically prohibited gender-affirming medical care for minors"—as Kansas had. 

 On the Cass Review specifically, Folsom found that its authors "changed their methodology from the methodology they said they would use in their preregistration, which is a deviation from standard academic publishing practices designed to minimize bias," and "used idiosyncratic standards in scoring and thus excluded studies that had made important contributions to the field."

 Far from recommending a ban, the court found, the Cass Report "reaches conclusions that are similar to those in the Endocrine Society Guideline and WPATH Standards of Care" and "concludes that there are young people who absolutely benefit from gender-affirming care." 

On Germany, the state had the facts backwards: Folsom found that "Germany's recent guideline endorses the provision of gender-affirming medical care"—a reference to the 2025 guidelines from 26 medical organizations across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the largest European medical consensus on transgender youth care ever produced. 

The part about the Cass Review is sure to piss certain people off. And I am here for it. But as I said before, go to Reed's substack to get the full story, including what may happen after this ruling.

Bigoted pastor James Robison dies. LGBTQ people outlasts another one.

The late religious right pastor James Robison is the latest anti-LGBTQ figure our community has outlasted.

My LGBTQ brothers and sisters, we've outlasted another one.

From USA Today:

Televangelist James Robison, the founder of Life Outreach International, died Sunday, May 17. He was 82. Fort Worth, Texas-based Life Outreach International confirmed Robison's death in a statement posted on X. “James devoted his life to sharing the Gospel and bringing hope, help, and healing to those in need around the world," according to the statement from Life Outreach International's board of directors.

From The Christian Post (by way of JoeMyGod):

Robison was the host of “LIFE Today,” a long-running Christian television program. He helped build LIFE Outreach International into a ministry known for feeding programs, clean-water initiatives, disaster relief and outreach to vulnerable communities worldwide.

 He had spoken publicly throughout his career about being born under difficult circumstances and raised in hardship. Robison had a life-altering encounter with Jesus at age 14 and was called to be an evangelist at 18. According to his website, more than 20 million people have heard him preach throughout his career in ministry. He is survived by his wife, Betty Robison; son Randy; and daughter Rhonda. A daughter, Robin, predeceased him, according to Bunni Pounds, president of Christians Engaged, in a tribute posted to Facebook.

Robison was also a raging homophobe who weaponized Christianity as an excuse to dehumanize LGBTQ people:

 

 

Now some folks are going to condemn what I say and accuse me of being "intolerant" of Robison's opinion and so-called "deeply held religious beliefs."

I personally don't give a damn. Robison had a right to his opinion, but I also have a right to mine. And my opinion is that Robison was a monster who tore at LGBTQ lives while trying to sell us the lie that God hates us for being LGBTQ.

But by no means should anyone think that this post is me gloating over Robison's death. Far from it. This post (just like the ones I wrote after the passing of Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Sheldon, James Dobson, and Anita Bryant) is meant to be a reminder to my LGBTQ family that we are still here in spite of all the ugliness, lies and hate thrown at us. 

We're still here, still standing, and still thriving.

Ouch! Federal judge issues brutal ruling against Trump Administration in case involving gender-affirming care for trans youth

A Trump-appointed judge just handed his administration a bruising loss in its war against the trans community. What's bruising about it are her comments. She didn't just rule against the Trump Administration, she also accused its Department of Justice of misleading the court.

From The Advocate: 

 A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump issued a blistering opinion Wednesday night, accusing the Trump administration’s Justice Department of "appalling" behavior, including misleading courts, manipulating the judicial system, and targeting transgender youth through what she concluded was an unlawful effort to obtain deeply sensitive medical records.

 In a 24-page ruling, Rhode Island U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy quashed a federal subpoena seeking years of records connected to gender-affirming care for minors at Brown Health’s Rhode Island Hospital. She also barred the Department of Justice from obtaining, retaining, or disseminating identifying patient information tied to the subpoena. “The discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling,” McElroy wrote. 

 From the opening paragraphs, McElroy identified the case as a breakdown in trust between the judiciary and the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency. “The United States Department of Justice (‘DOJ’) possesses immense prosecutorial authority and discretion,” she wrote. “As citizens, we trust that federal prosecutors, when wielding this awesome power against a state, a company, or certainly against vulnerable children, will play fair and be honest with its counterparts and the judiciary.” “DOJ has proven unworthy of this trust at every point in this case,” she continued. 

 . . . The Justice Department claimed the records were necessary for an investigation into possible violations of federal drug laws related to the off-label prescribing of puberty blockers and hormone therapy. But McElroy dismantled that legal theory in extraordinary detail, noting that federal courts, including the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, have long recognized that physicians may legally prescribe FDA-approved drugs for off-label uses. “The off-label prescribing conduct at the core of the DOJ’s theory is not illegal under the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act],” McElroy wrote. She concluded the subpoena “lacks a congressionally authorized purpose” and was issued “for an improper purpose in bad faith.”  

 . . . According to the ruling, Rhode Island Hospital had spent months negotiating with federal prosecutors over the subpoena’s scope and possible compliance. Yet while those discussions were still ongoing, DOJ attorneys quietly filed an enforcement action in the Northern District of Texas before Judge Reed O’Connor, a conservative jurist who has become a favored venue for Republican legal challenges. McElroy concluded the government intentionally concealed that move from the hospital.

Today, according to Chris Geidner, the Trump Administration has appealed the ruling. He also said that this is the latest in a string of losses for the Trump Administration when it comes to subpoenas targeting gender-affirming care for trans youth, so it will be trying a new tactic.

NEW: After a string of losses in its anti-trans project, DOJ turns to grand jury subpoenas in Texas.

At least 7 judges have blocked invasive administrative subpoenas targeting gender-affirming care for minors, so DOJ appears to be trying a new tactic. https://t.co/Ck81DrwkYo

— Chris “Law Dork” Geidner (@chrisgeidner) May 13, 2026

Hobby Lobby funding campaign of lies and junk science to eliminate same-sex marriage

Hobby Lobby (first pic) is funding the efforts of Katy Faust (second pic) and her 'Greater Than Campaign' to eliminate marriage for gay couples. Faust and her group have been using lies, junk science, and social media to falsely claim that gay marriage puts children in danger.

Two bits of information have become public about Katy Faust and her "Greater Than Campaign." Faust's "Greater Than Campaign" is a coalition of 47 religious right and conservative groups whose goal is to get the Supreme Court to overturn the Obergefell decision which legalized gay marriage in 2015

From The Seattle Times by way of LGBTQNation comes the revelation of who is funding the campaign:

 . . . the Seattle Times has revealed that a key organization behind the Greater Than campaign is being funded by the conservative Christian business Hobby Lobby, the same business that got the Supreme Court to rule in 2014 that for-profit corporations don’t have to pay for employees’ health care that covers contraception if that contraception goes against the corporation’s religious beliefs. 

 Katy Faust is the founder and president of Them Before Us, an organization devoted to ending marriage rights for same-sex couples in the U.S. Faust’s mother is a lesbian who came out after marrying Faust’s father, and her parents divorced when she was 10. She converted to Christianity a few years later, when she was in high school. Faust insists that she didn’t devote her life to attacking LGBTQ+ rights out of some kind of resentment towards her mother, although she now says she no longer considers her mother a parent.

 . . . Them Before Us was founded in 2018, and its IRS reports show that it received less than $50,000 in revenue for its first few years of operation before Roe was overturned. In 2022, though, it received $200,000. In 2024, that became nearly $1 million, and Faust collected a salary of $135,000. Them Before Us’s 2024 filings show a $300,000 donation from The Servant Foundation, a Christian organization funded by Hobby Lobby’s founder, David Green, and his family. It’s the same organization behind those “He Gets Us” ads about Jesus that ran during the 2024 and 2025 Super Bowls.

And according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Faust is attempting to reshape the argument of gay marriage by pushing a false notion that it is derived from a selfish desire of gays which puts the rights of children in danger:

The Greater Than campaign implies that LGBTQ+ people have created a situation in which they are legally treated “greater than” children. On its campaign website, Them Before Us states: “If you are tired of seeing children ignored, victimized, and treated as ‘less than’, it is time to join us in taking a stand.”

 The campaign is a new way to inject the dangerous myth that LGBTQ+ people are harmful to children back into the public consciousness, after opponents of marriage equality lost the public policy fight in 2015 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision. In a video posted to the Them Before Us Substack, Faust says, “Whatever you want to do in your private life — fine. Don’t touch the kids. 

SPLC said that Faust calls it a "marketing strategy" in which she is enlisting the help of far-right media influencers:

“If we have learned anything from the demise of Roe, it is not enough to overturn bad Supreme Court decisions,” Faust said. “We have to change public opinion.”  To that end, Faust indicated that she was using hard-right influencers to help shape the narrative. 

“I have these amazing conservative spokesmen, influencers who are on board with me." . . . "They’ve been in working group meetings, Steve Deace and Delano Squires and Jack Posobiec and Heidi St. John, among a variety of others. And what are we going to do? […] We are going to train America to help them understand the direct connection between gay marriage and child victimization, and natural marriage and child protection.”

SPLC also pointed out how Faust and her group are trying to resurrect already refuted and disproven studies against not only gay marriage but also gay couples raising children:

In December 2025, Them Before Us published a blog post claiming the social scientific consensus that there is no statistically significant difference in health or emotional outcomes between children raised by lesbian and gay and straight parents “wasn’t built on science at all.” 

The group claimed that dozens of studies of lesbian and gay families suffered from “researcher bias” and their authors were engaging in “little more than advocacy with footnotes.” The accusation was ironic, since these practices are a well-documented hallmark of far-right pseudoscientific propaganda. 

The group claimed that studies of lesbian and gay parents and their children before Obergefell were too flawed to have any meaning. However, the group picked out three studies published before the case that supported its claims and represented the “gold standard” of scientific methodology.

 The three reports were the discredited 2012 “New Family Structures Study” authored by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus; a 2015 study authored by anti-LGBTQ+ hate group Ruth Institute researcher Paul Sullins; and a 2013 study by Canadian economist Douglas Allen, who testified in court in 2014 that “without repentance,” LGBTQ+ people would go to hell.

 Selective amplification of social science that fits the anti-LGBTQ+ ideology while discounting or denying contradictory evidence has been a common strategy of anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups for decades. The SPLC has previously reported how anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups use pseudoscience, including studies with faulty or questionable methodologies, to promote public policies and litigation that restrict LGBTQ+ people’s freedoms, access to healthcare and protections from discrimination.

 . . . Contrary to hate groups’ claims, a robust body of scientifically sound literature “consistently shows that LGBQ adults are just as capable and efficient at parenting children as their cisgender heterosexual counterparts” and that “children of sexual minority parents, though exposed to unique experiences, perform and develop at similar rates as children with heterosexual parents,” according to the American Psychological Association.

Anti-LGBTQ group Moms for Liberty facing growing unpopularity, election losses, & disillusioned members

A volatile sex scandal involving one of its founders in 2023 (as seen here by one of the mocking responses on social member) as well as member disillusionment is one of the many reasons anti-LGBTQ group Moms for Liberty is having major problems even as its remaining national leaders seek constant White House interaction.

According to LGBTQNation, the anti-LGBTQ group Moms for Liberty may have Donald Trump's ear, but that doesn't mean that it's retaining power. Several scandals, leaders chasing White House status, complaints of "toxic extremism, and member disillusionment are combining to spell trouble for the organization.

 . . while the group made national headlines by shouting about “pornography” and “Marxist indoctrination” at poorly attended school board meetings, winning seats in low-turnout school board elections, and sharing a stage with wannabe Republican presidential nominees, Joe Saunders, the executive director of Equality Florida Action PAC, noticed a few suspicious things about M4L early on, he told LGBTQ Nation.

 For one, fewer M4L-endorsed candidates won their school board races in 2023 than in 2022. Secondly, he noted that a majority of M4L candidates in Florida didn’t actually have kids currently enrolled in the state’s public schools. Third, while the group bills itself as a “grassroots organization of moms,” a significant portion of its 2022 funding came from two national anti-LGBTQ+ nonprofits: the Heritage Foundation (the authors of the very anti-LGBTQ+ Project 2025) and the George Jenkins Foundation (which is solely funded by Publix supermarket chain heiress Julie Fancelli). 

 . . . “It was always our sense that [M4L’s founders] were politicians in search of attention, that they were looking for a stage to stand on… for momentum, clicks, and more power,” Saunders said, noting that the group emerged “overnight” with a “really sophisticated” and well-branded website, signage, and T-shirts. However, he called all of this a “short-term,” “PR focus[ed]” “manufactured momentum,” adding, “The only reason they haven’t been more successful is because their own incompetence or scandal or corruption has gotten in the way.” 

 He may be right. By 2023, the group had gained a reputation for shouting at, intimidating, and threatening education officials, community advocates, and opposing groups – even baselessly leveling charges of child abuse and pedophilia against its opponents. In June 2023, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) certified M4L as an “extremist group. That same month, an M4L chapter in Indiana made national headlines for quoting Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in its inaugural newsletter. Christian Ziegler told the organization that it never should have apologized for the quote because “apologizing makes you weak.”

 However, by December 2023 – the same month that M4L was identified as one of the three main groups behind 86% of the nation’s book bans – the Zieglers found themselves embroiled in an embarrassing sex scandal after the woman they regularly had threesomes with accused Christian Ziegler of sexual assault. He was later cleared of the charge, but within a month, the conservative Leadership Institute quietly removed Brideget Ziegler as the director of its School Board Leadership Program, and the Sarasota School Board voted unanimously for her to resign (though she refused to do so). 

 That year, only 50 of the 139 M4L-endorsed school board candidates won their races. The following January, the state Republican Party voted out Christian Ziegler as its chair. 

 And that's simply a prelude. You can read the entire article here.

Anti-LGBTQ coalition planning to target gay couples and their children via legislation

Katy Faust

LGBTQ Americans and our loved ones should consider the following to be a warning:

We're ok with the Kim Davis case being passed over by the SCOTUS. The legislation coming will center the true victims of Obergefell, children, and ask the scotus to rule on reality.https://t.co/f7yEVbw1o7 pic.twitter.com/C7Scp3CZu3

— Greater Than Campaign (@MakeKidsGreater) May 1, 2026

For those who need further explanation, the Greater Than Campaign is a coalition of 47 anti-LGBTQ groups led by long-time anti-LGBTQ activist Katy Faust. The goal of this coalition is to overturn Obergefell, the SCOTUS case which legalized gay marriage.  

By this tweet, the group is announcing that it will be targeting our families - our married couples and children - via legislation.

 As for now, all this is pure speculation.  But here are two things we should keep in mind.

1. While I haven't found its name amongst the groups in the coalition, don't be surprised if powerhouse law firm and SPLC- designated hate group, the Alliance Defending Freedom is involved.  ADF was behind the overturning of Roe V Wade. It has also taken our community to court - including SCOTUS - and won on several occasions. ADF also had a hand in writing and pushing anti-LGBTQ bills which have been passed by state legislators across the nation, including a multitude of anti-trans bills. If there is legislation written targeting our families, it can most likely come from ADF.

2. If this legislation becomes reality, it probably doesn't matter what it will encompass more than the fact that it's an attempt to get the subject of gay marriage back to SCOTUS in hopes of overturning Obergefell. Based upon the link in the above tweet, a piece posted last year by Faust, the argument in favor of overturning Obergefell claiming that children suffered from the ruling to legalize gay marriage because it supposedly "robs them of the right to be raised by a mother and a father."

We intend to challenge Obergefell not on the grounds of adult discomfort but on the grounds of child injustice. The story of Kim Davis highlights individual courage, but the story that will overturn Obergefell must highlight widespread harm. The measurable, irrefutable harm inflicted on children when the law denies their primal right to both parents. When the court finally reconsiders Obergefell, it must do so for the sake of those children. And when it does, the verdict will not just correct a legal error, it will restore moral sanity. 

 It's an absolutely stupid argument which has no basis on reality. But it's an argument which goes along with how Faust and her group have been recently targeting gay fathers. They've reposted pictures of gay fathers with children received via surrogacy while implying that they are "buying" infants for selfish desires. Their aim is to dehumanize these families while erasing other same-sex families brought together by foster care, adoption, and legal guardianships.

You don't respect women if you pretend they don't matter to their children. #GreaterThan https://t.co/lcI28Woltg

— Greater Than Campaign (@MakeKidsGreater) April 30, 2026

Note: there is no way to promote gay relationships without demolishing the rights of children to be known and loved by their own mother and father.

Support gay marriage

OR

The needs of children.

You can't do both. https://t.co/1lHtlDWsD7

— Katy Faust (@Katy_Faust) April 30, 2026

Skin-to-skin matters because the child recognizes mom's smell, voice, and wants to nurse. Ever heard of the "Breast crawl" that is automatic to newborns?

The child isn't looking for random shirtless body-builders, one of whom is not possibly related. https://t.co/vpc8qZ3nB8

— Greater Than Campaign (@MakeKidsGreater) April 29, 2026

It's an ugly game Faust and her minions play, as evidence by the replies these tweets receive from their supporters. I won't post them, but I think you can guess what they say. 

 Gay men are not "buying" children and being raised by a married same-sex couple isn't a liability. It's a proven asset.

The Greater Than Campaign is nothing more the same old band of zealots and bigots attempting to squeeze their old and rancid lies and hate into new shells.  If you ask me, the whole lot of them need to find new employment because we've seen and heard their bullshit before. All they do is distract and from genuine problems facing American families such as poverty and job insecurity. They want America to think that banning gays from marrying is the simple solution to our complex problems. They want America to react with revulsion by demonizing gay couples for simply wanting to and being able to have families and raising children.

For a coalition claiming to help families, the Greater Than Campaign is more concerned with casting illusions more than dealing with reality. But our families aren't illusions. They are real.

And that's something all of the lies and hate thrown at us can't ever take away.

Related post:

Anti-Marriage-Equality Leader Reveals More Details About New Campaign’s Strategy and Tactics

'Pro family' advocate to the LGBTQ community - We are going to eliminate your marriages

Anti-LGBTQ activist Katy Faust wants to eliminate our legal right to marry.

Just in case you need a reminder, long-time anti-LGBTQ activist Katy Faust and her band of bullshitters want to take away our right to marry. 

While they've formed a new group for this goal, the Greater Than Campaign, they are still using the same tired talking points which initially caused them to lose the fight i.e. that gay couples are taking away the "rights of a child to have a mother and father."  And they are pushing these talking points very aggressively, particularly on social media.

They deliberately ignore the fact that LGBTQ people have been raising children before Obergefell legalized gay marriage and that studies show that children raised by gay couples actually thrive as much as children raised by heterosexual couples. They are also trying to create a narrative that surrogacy is a way for gay male couples to "buy" children to be used as accessories or sexual partners (yes, they go there).  In doing so, they seek to dehumanize gay fathers as well as erase our families brought together by foster care and adoption.

What can we do? 

Stay visible and vocal. Don't be ashamed of our families and don't let anyone scare or disrespect us. Faust and her minions may have money, talking points, and some social media ecosystems on their side, but they don't have the most important qualities in this battle.

Truth and love. 

Faust's attempt to disrupt our families have nothing to do with either of these qualities. It's simply naked and unapologetic homophobia.  Disrupting our marriages and our families is a smokescreen generated by ignorance, prejudice and a very ugly strain of Christian Nationalism. If Faust and her group cared about families, they would tackle issues which are actual problems for families such poverty, job insecurity, and healthcare.

My words below are very apt for this moment - Bring it on, bitches. The concepts of "marriage" and "family" do not belong to you. You don't get to call it "your ball that you're going to take away."

You didn't learn anything from your last spanking on this issue, so I guess a repeat is definitely in order. 

Bring it on, bitches. https://t.co/46B5BsJFNI

— Holy Bullies (@holybullies) April 30, 2026

Sorry Family Research Council. SPLC may be indicted for now, but you're still a hate group (and I have the 'receipts' to prove it.)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is in the news because a grand jury indicted it last week on federal charges. What it looks like to a lot of people is a witch hunt against a prominent organization with a long history of fighting the Klan, Neo-Nazis, the anti-LGBTQ industry, and others who push bigotry.

To hear the Trump Administration - and its ecosystem on Twitter, etc - SPLC was actually funding the racism it claimed to be fighting. But the SPLC and others are pushing back on this claim. 

The Nation called the case "bogus" and a "dog whistle to white nationalists."  Senator Chuck Schumer accused the Trump Administration of turning the Department of Justice into a "Department of Vengeance." Others have pointed out the specious nature of the charges and called the case "absurd." SPLC has publicly accused acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche of lying and has brought "receipts," so to speak.

But for the purpose of this blog post, I want to focus on certain organizations - particularly one organization - which are no doubt looking forward to how much they can drag SPLC before this drama is over.

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated certain religious right organizations (such as The Family Research Council, the American Family Association) as hate groups. Other groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and Moms for Liberty were added in later years. This was due to how these groups spread slander against LGBTQ people via junk science, cherry-picked science, and out-and-out lies with the goal of eliminating LGBTQ equality, health and safety. SPLC pointed out that while these groups claimed to oppose the LGBTQ community based on Christian principles, their tactics were anything but Christian.

Fast forward to 2026 and these groups hold a lot of power within the Trump Administration. My personal opinion is that some of them played a part in pushing for these indictments. And that they will exploit said indictments to have some "payback" against SPLC and reframe the arguments lodged against them.

To be honest, I am looking forward it to. While I completely support SPLC, I am looking forward to reminding the new generation of folks just how dishonest these so-called Christian groups are.

In 2011, I published a column pointing past incidents in which the Family Research Council and its director, Tony Perkins, used distorted work and lies to cast LGBTQ people as disease-ridden, oversexed, unhappy pedophiles out to destroy American society and cause general mayhem.

Below are the incidents, plus a general update:

August 15, 2011 - GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) issues a cease-and-desist letter against the Family Research Council demanding that the organization remove video falsely accusing GLSEN of distributing an explicit safe-sex guide to children. FRC subsequently changed the video, tacitly admitting that it was pushing a falsehood against GLSEN.

June 13, 2011 - Two years after claiming to remove "studies" from its website because they contained "outdated material," FRC sneaks the studies back on its website. One of the studies includes citations to the work of Paul Cameron, a highly discredited researcher who once accused gays of stuffing gerbils up their rectums. 

February 28, 2011 - In order to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), FRC distorts research in order to compare gay men to pedophiles.

February 16, 2011 - FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg makes the claim that same-sex households are inferior to two-parent heterosexual households by using studies which have nothing to do with same-sex households. Sprigg, by the way, has earlier voiced opinions that gays should be exported out of the United States:

 

September 15,2010 - Perkins and the right-wing LifeSiteNews mischaracterize a study to make a claim that domestic violence happens at a high level in lgbt relationships.

August 13, 2010 -  Sprigg claims that openly gay Obama appointee David Hansell will cut funds from states that don't allow gay adoption. Sprigg claims that "private sources" told him so. Strangely enough, original article where Sprigg made this claim, the right-wing CNSNews.com  was pulled.

July 29, 2010 - The Family Research Council distorts the words of AIDS researcher Ronald Stall to make the case against the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act.) 

July 6, 2010 - Sprigg pushes a pamphlet, The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality, which not only repeats discredited anti-lgbt accuracies but exposes a bit of trickery on Sprigg's part. He cites only part of pro-lgbt information which talks about diseases and negative behaviors but omits the information which talks about how homophobia plays a part in these diseases and negative behaviors. 

May 10, 2010 -  The Family Research Council distorts the words of President Obama's director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management John Berry.

April 16, 2010 - Tony Perkins makes a false accusation that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected by using a Netherlands study which doesn't even prove his point.

January 7, 2010 - The Family Research Council exploits the presidential appointment of transgender woman Amanda Simpson to call ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) a "Crossdresser Protection Bill."

November 23, 2009 - The Family Research Council was caught distorting Congresswoman Diana DeGette's words to make her seem like she was espousing religious bigotry.

October 27, 2009 - In an attack on lgbt seniors, the Family Research Council echoes the phony belief of Paul Cameron that lgbts don't live long enough to become elderly.

October 01, 2009 - In Congressional testimony, Perkins practices the "sin of omission" in his testimony against ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act).

May 20, 2009 - The Family Research Council pushes a fraudulent study, Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples. It's a bad study specifically because it uses outdated work and compares married United States couples to unmarried gay couples in casual relationships from other parts of the world.

UPDATE - In the years between 2011 and now, FRC continued to denigrate LGBTQ people, such as Perkins said that LGBTQ people are the "pawns of the enemy" (which can easily be construed as "the devil"):

 

Compared gay rights advocates to Nazis by making Holocaust references about "re-education camps" and "box cars," and

Implied that trans children (not adults, but children) are predators:

As a matter of fact, FRC dove headfirst in anti-trans hysteria even before Trump's second term:

2022: 

Vermont station working to correct story of bullied trans teen. Family Research Council isn't happy about that. 

Family Research Council spins three distorted stories to claim that schools are 'making' kids transgender behind backs of parents 

Family Research Council brags about undermining transgender healthcare and rights to create a 'post-trans world'

A little advice from me to you, FRC.  If I were you, I wouldn't attempt to exploit SPLC's trouble to reframe your history of dishonesty. 

"You don't want that smoke."

Conservative social media influencer resurrects decade-old debunked study to bash gay parenting

Michael Knowles

Earlier this week, failed actor and successful conservative social media influencer (which really isn't a stretch from failed actor) Michael Knowles thought he was cooking with the following tweet about gay parenting:

His goal was to prove that gay parenting was not good for children. What he ended up proving was how folks on his side of the spectrum rely on junk science to craft false conclusions.

One source who Knowles refers to as Sullins is Catholic University priest and professor Paul Sullins. He has written papers attacking gay parenting. The flaws in these papers have been pointed out on many occasions. 

In 2016, Nathaniel Frank of The Slate had this to say about his methods:

 . . . Sullins’ most recent study was published in an Egyptian-based open access journal that requires authors to pay for publication, creating a conflict of interest since publishers who ought to perform quality control have a financial incentive to accept papers, regardless of quality. The journal’s publisher has been criticized for a lax peer-review process that isn’t even overseen by a real editor.

. . . In (Sullins; study), he claims “adults raised by same-sex parents were at over twice the risk of depression” developing later in life as those raised by different-sex couples. He calls it the “first study to examine children raised by same-sex parents into early adulthood” and claims it “contribute[s] new information for understanding of the effects of same-sex parenting through the life-course transition into early adulthood.” Except, as with the other studies making similar claims, it does no such thing. Sullins found 20 cases of what he calls “adolescents with same-sex parents.” 

Yet we know nothing about how long these subjects lived with a same-sex couple, much less whether they were “raised” by one. In fact, we know from other research (and common sense, mixed with a dose of history) that the majority of individuals with a gay parent were born into families that were not headed by same-sex parents, but by either single parents or a different-sex couple. Sullins thus has no grounds on which to define his subjects as having been “raised” by “same-sex parents,” which would be essential for his entire anti-LGBTQ claim to make any sense.

The other source Knowles mentioned is a doozy:

Children of LGBT parents fare worse on 77/80 social outcome measures (Regnerus, 2012).

Knowles's citation comes from the 2012 study, New Family Structures Study by University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus. The study made the claim that children in same-sex households suffer immensely.  When published, it naturally caused a firestorm. It came out during what could be seen as the last stages of the gay marriage fights. At the time, the argument was steadily making its way through the courts and those who opposed gay marriage were losing case after case.

That last fact is a very important part to the story.  The Regnerus study was bought and paid for by the opponents of gay marriage in an attempt to gain some momentum.

According to a February 22, 2014 article in The New York Times:

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas . . . 

. . . . Among those at the Heritage meetings was Luis E. Tellez, president of the Witherspoon Institute, a religious-conservative research center in Princeton, N.J. His organization seized the baton, signing up Dr. Regnerus, who was known as a skilled quantitative researcher, mainly on adolescent sexuality and religion, and as a Roman Catholic and opponent of same-sex marriage. The institute gave Dr. Regnerus $695,000; the Bradley Foundation, a grant-making organization that supports conservative causes, gave him $90,000, according to his résumé.

When organizations which oppose gay marriage give a professor - who opposes gay marriage himself - over a half a million dollars to create a study about gay parenting, how do you think said study will turn out? The question of bias was raised loudly and extensively by supporters of gay marriage and journalists. 

And the flaws found in the study itself didn't help matters.  The media watchdog site Media Matters for America pointed out five major flaws in Regnerus study including the fact that Regnerus himself admitted that the study did not prove that same-sex parenting caused a negative outcome for children.

How Regnerus defined gay parent was also a major subject of contention.

John Corvino in a June 11, 2012 article in The New Republic:

Question: What do the following all have in common? 

A heterosexually married female prostitute who on rare occasion services women 

A long-term gay couple who adopt special-needs children 

A never-married straight male prison inmate who sometimes seeks sexual release with other male inmates 

A woman who comes out of the closet, divorces her husband, and has a same-sex relationship at age 55, after her children are grown 

Ted Haggard, the disgraced evangelical pastor who was caught having drug fueled-trysts with a male prostitute over a period of several years 

A lesbian who conceives via donor insemination and raises several children with her long-term female partner 

Give up? The answer—assuming that they all have biological or adopted adult children between the ages of 18 and 39—is that they would all be counted as “Lesbian Mothers” or “Gay Fathers” in Mark Regnerus’s new study, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” (NFSS).

From CBS News on June 12, 2012:

"Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences cannot be determined from Regnerus' descriptive analysis," said Cynthia Osborne, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin. 

"Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures, and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage or living with a single parent. Or it is quite possible that the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining 'normal relationships'."

The goal of Regnerus's study - as you can easily guess - failed miserably. We won the right to marry, and everyone lived happily ever after.

Not quite. As seen by Knowles resurrecting Regnerus's work, those on his side of the spectrum are counting on short memories and immense engagement to win their argument, in spite of the lies they spin

But I am glad that anti-LGBTQ activists like Knowles are reaching back into the past. A lot of folks don't remember how common it was for the anti-LGBTQ industry to push flawed studies by discredited researchers against LGBTQ people.  And I have 20 years of "receipts to prove it. For example, one person they loved to cite was a discredited researcher named Paul Cameron who once claimed that gays stuff gerbils up their rectums. But more about him later. I have a feeling that grifters like Knowles will bring his name up for me.