The Trump administration has issued a new rule for airlines requiring an end to gender demarcations besides male or female.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol issued a new rule, citing an executive order signed by President Donald Trump the first day of his new term. The regulation demands carriers to update guidance for their Advance Passenger Information System, or APIS. Under Democratic President Joe Biden, airlines could note passenger gender with as male, female or other, but can no longer afford that recognition to genders outside the binary.
“Existing APIS regulatory language provides that ‘M’ or ‘F’ (M=Male; F=Female) sex markers are to be accepted in the transmission. However, CBP systems had previously accepted characters other than ‘M’ or ‘F’ without returning an error response or requiring resubmission,” the new rule states.
“Effective July 14, 2025, air carriers will have an informed compliance period of 90-days where values other than ‘M’ or ‘F’ in the sex field will not require resubmission. After the compliance period, APIS will begin returning a resubmit or ‘X response’ which indicates insufficient information requiring resubmission, when values other than ‘M’ or ‘F’ are submitted in the sex field.”
That means as of October 12, airlines will no longer be able to submit an alternative gender. The change also makes clear if airlines submit a male or female designation that is different than anything submitted on the original travel document, the carrier won’t face any type of penalties.
Airlines who face questions must call up CBP offices in Honolulu, Miami or New York, depending on the region.
Of note, the ACLU challenged Trump’s order in February, and a judge in June issued an injunction requiring the State Department to issue passports and other travel documents with alternative gender markers. The State Department is continuing to fight in court for the right to revoke or replace those documents and require male or female designations on every form.
But CBP is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and has authority over any international flights to and from the United States.
A CBP spokesperson acknowledged to The Guardian that the gender marker on any traveler’s documents “is not criteria for an applicant’s admission into the U.S.”
The Terminal Tower, “Cleveland’s Signature Skyscraper,” beamed purple for the second straight year in support of LGBTQ youth and against bullying.
Photo: Super Nina Photography
It is the first landmark in Ohio to participate in Spirit Day, and the skyline this year expanded the purple output, with the nearby Beaux Arts post office plaza also lighting its columns, reflections in the mirrored new headquarters of Sherwin Williams, and additional purple illuminating the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Photo: Super Nina Photography
The 98-year-old, 52-story, 708-foot-tall Terminal Tower is “Cleveland’s most potent symbol,” Cleveland Historical Society notes, connecting thousands of miles of rail lines and centering industrial innovation and civic pride. Lighting infrastructure by Vincent Lighting ensures that the Tower is lit in different colors each night to bring visibility and representation to hundreds of nonprofit organizations, causes, and Cleveland’s beloved sports teams every year.
Northeast Ohio’s LGBTQ community is celebrating additional recent milestones for equality with Ohio’s first county-wide passage of a bill to ban harmful conversion practices on LGBTQ youth, the passage of a Gender Freedom resolution by the Lakewood City Council that protects private health care data and deprioritizes police investigations into best practice health care, the first full-time city staff employee appointed liaison to the LGBTQ community, Carey Gibbons, and the passage this week of the CROWN Act, which bans discrimination based on hair texture and style.
Photo: Super Nina Photography
LGBTQ advocacy organizations around Northeast Ohio also participated in Spirit Day, including TransOhio and the LGBT Center, which is celebrating its 50th year.
“It is more important than ever that LGBTQ youth know they have a world of support out here for them. LGBTQ people are here to stay, our spirit is unstoppable, and we are overjoyed to again see this profound representation in the Great Lakes and greater Midwest,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis.
Alice Austen, far left, and other members of The Darned Club on Oct. 29, 1891.Courtesy Collection of Alice Austen House
Born into Victorian tradition in 1866, Alice Austen enjoyed a position in Staten Island society that gave her freedom to pursue what she dubbed “the larky life,” a whirlwind of fashionable gatherings and mischief that challenged social norms. But it was the gift of a wooden box camera from her uncle — and a chance meeting in the Catskills — that set the course for how Austen would be remembered beyond Gilded days: as one of America’s earliest and most adventurous women photographers and for her relationship with Gertrude Tate, which spanned more than half a century.
Though her father abandoned her mother when she was an infant, Austen enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle with extended family in their home called Clear Comfort, overlooking the coastline of the New York City borough of Staten Island. She perfected imagery of her natural surroundings, social doings and “the sporting society set” in a darkroom fashioned from a closet. Her photos serve as a portal to the Gilded Age, with images of the annual regatta, boathouse bathers, charity balls and lawn tennis, a sport newly open to women who were too restricted by corsets to actually run for the ball.
A self-portrait of Alice Austen on the front porch of Clear Comfort in 1892.Courtesy Collection of Alice Austen House
When cycling took off, so did Austen, similarly constrained by long skirts that could catch in the spokes; even so, with heavy camera equipment mounted on her bicycle, she ferried to Manhattan, where she famously documented turn-of-the-century urban life, enshrining the likes of street sweepers, rag pickers, egg sellers and messengers to gelatin print — producing her 1896 “Street Types of New York” portfolio.
As adept at arranging portraiture as igniting flash powder over a night bloom of flowering cactus, Austen also delighted in making gender-bending exposures of female friends. Nicknamed “The Darned Club,” they posed in undergarments with cigarettes, men’s suits with fake mustaches and together in bed in Victorian nighties.
“She was in a period where she and her friends were really embracing this concept of the ‘New Woman,’” said Victoria Munro, executive director of the Alice Austen House, the original Austen residence, which also serves as a museum and exhibition space.
“She created clubs with these new activities that women were able to do, unchaperoned by men — and they were safe spaces for her and her circle of women friends who were, many of them lesbian, able to be together and have fun and really celebrate,” Munro said. “There was also a certain amount of freedom in the 1880s and 1890s, because women weren’t yet considered to even have a sexuality … so they weren’t even suspected of this kind of perceived bad behavior.”
The Darned Club members Alice Austen, Julia Martin and Julia Bredt dressed up on Oct. 15, 1891Courtesy Collection of Alice Austen House
Austen enjoyed the affections of multiple women with “decided longings in that direction,” including the amorous athlete Daisy Elliott. Elliott’s letters left little doubt about Austen’s sapphic leanings. “There is a good deal more between the lines than in them,” Elliott wrote Austen. “Read as much as you care to, and you will not be mistaken … ”
It was a romance doomed to fail, however: That same year, 1897, Austen met Tate.
Despite existing in “a very repressive, heteronormative culture,” as Munro described it, the two summered in Europe, attended the Metropolitan Opera and maintained exclusive memberships, including to the Staten Island Garden Club, which Austen founded. Tate moved in with Austen in 1917.
Bonnie Yochelson, author of “Too Good to Get Married: The Life and Photographs of Miss Alice Austen,” speculates that their social conservatism and staying close to high society in their activities were protective.
“Alice’s friends knew her for decades, and they loved her. Tate was delightful and very capable. They were accepted as a couple,” Yochelson said.
Alice Austen and Gertrude Tate in a rowboat in Scotland in 1903.Courtesy Collection of Alice Austen House
But when the 1929 stock market crash caught Austen in the crosshairs, her financial standing plummeted. Though the surrounding waterfront became industrialized, she refused to sell Clear Comfort, and she took out a mortgage not for daily expenses, but to holiday with Tate. Austen sold family heirlooms, and Tate taught dance. Foreclosure was inevitable, though they stayed on as caretakers — opening a tea room with a view of passing ships, until the frailties of age made the enterprise unsustainable.
In 1945, Austen and Tate, then in their 70s, were evicted for good.
Remarkably, the women managed to stay on the exclusive Social Register for years.
“There’s no question that they had friends, and some of their friends did abandon them as they fell on hard times,” Yochelson said. “But many people were very loyal to them … and they continued to pay their membership at a time when they were sufficiently poor that they couldn’t necessarily pay their electric bill.”
A group of friends with tennis racquets on Aug. 5, 1886.Courtesy Collection of Alice Austen House
Austen sold her last remaining possessions to a junk dealer for $600. A preservationist at heart, she gave thousands of plates, negatives and personal treasures to an acquaintance, Loring McMillen, director of the Staten Island Historical Society (now Historic Richmond Town), who declared the women “not broken in spirit but broken in health and finance.”
Austen and Tate lived together in a small apartment until Austen’s arthritis proved too debilitating. When they were forced to separate, Tate moved to her sister’s home in Queens, New York, and Austen to a home for the aged — and eventually, at age 84, a literal poor farm. Ever devoted, Tate visited Austen regularly at the Staten Island Farm Colony.
But the 7,500 photos and negatives Austen entrusted to the Historical Society would prove a saving grace, and they would ensure her place as an eminent documentarian of a changing landscape in the immigration era.
Alice Austen, seated, and Gertrude Tate in 1944.Courtesy Collection of Alice Austen House
In 1950, a Life magazine editor came upon Austen’s photos of 19th century American life — and learned she was alive. Life ran a story the following year, and Austen got a fee that allowed her to take up residence with a private caregiver.
Weeks after publication, the Staten Island Historical Society hosted “Alice Austen Day.” Overwhelmed and delighted to see the first public showing of her work at age 85, Austen attended with Tate and 300 guests. “I’d be taking these pictures myself if I were 100 years younger,” Austen quipped.
In June, because of Austen’s worsening condition and a bureaucratic glitch, plans were being set in motion to move her to Welfare Island, then a location of public institutions for the aged and infirm. She would not make the journey. On June 9, 1952, Tate was preparing to make the trip from Queens to visit when the phone rang: Austen had been wheeled to the nursing home porch and simply passed away, quietly bathed in morning sunlight.
Austen was buried at Staten Island’s Moravian Cemetery. Tate died 10 years later, at 91. Her family denied her wish to be buried with Austen.
The Alice Austen House Museum today.Courtesy Collection of Alice Austen House
The couple could not have foreseen that across the decades and into a new millennium, future strangers would be moved to advocate for recognition of their devotion: from a 1994 Lesbian Avengers protest against institutional resistance to naming the pair as more than “friends” to Munro’s mission to ensure Tate’s name is discoverable in archival metadata, given a name beyond “unknown woman.”
Their story is housed within the clapboard and stone of their historic residence, now the Alice Austen House and a nationally designated site of LGBTQ history. Today, a visitor enters to find Tate’s portrait in her rightful place in family tree documentation on the wall.
“It is imperative that we center her queerness and her identity and that we celebrate this beautiful, beautiful love story,” Munro said. “People have now come back and visited the Alice Austen House and wept because they’re so happy to see this visibility.”
The U.S. Supreme Court made a decision earlier this summer that has a significant impact on classrooms nationwide. In their 6-3 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the majority completely missed the point as to why LGBTQ-inclusive education matters. By giving parents the option to pull their kids out of lessons that include LGBTQ+ characters or content, the Court prioritized personal religious objections over creating schools where students can learn without feeling invisible.
Justice Alito‘s majority opinion is especially troubling. He treats LGBTQ-inclusive education as if it were some optional “add-on” that schools can easily work around. As a former teacher, I can confidently say that is not how education works, especially when it comes to curriculum and lesson planning. And while Justice Thomas calls LGBTQ-inclusive education “ideological conformity,” he fails to see that most LGBTQ+ adults today grew up in a school system that forced us to conform to a cisgender and straight worldview. Ironically, I’d consider the Court’s narrow view of public education to be ideologically driven.
Let’s be clear about what LGBTQ-inclusive education is and isn’t. When teachers include books like Uncle Bobby’s Wedding in their curriculum, they are not trying to convert anyone’s child or attack anyone’s faith. They are trying to show students that families come in all colors, shapes, and sizes, reflecting our diverse society.
LGBTQ+ people are also part of every community. We have always been a part of human history, and we deserve to be represented in our nation’s schools. The goal is not to change what students believe at home; it is to teach them how to be respectful in a democratic and diverse world. Luckily, in her dissent, Justice Sotomayor got it right when she said that LGBTQ-inclusive education is “designed to foster mutual civility and respect.”
I could not agree more.
But here’s what the Court’s majority really got wrong: they ignored the anti-bullying efforts that motivate many LGBTQ+ inclusive education programs in the first place. According to the latest National School Climate Survey from GLSEN, 68% of American students reported feeling unsafe in school due to their SOGIE (sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression) characteristics.
That is two out of three LGBTQ+ youth.
These aren’t just statistics. These are real children trying to learn while dealing with a school environment that tells them, whether implicitly or explicitly, that their identities or families are somehow wrong or shameful.
When schools include diverse families in their lessons, they are not pushing an agenda. They are teaching kids that being different does not mean bad. They are giving LGBTQ+ students a chance to see themselves reflected in their education and helping other students see and understand those who are different from them.
Research shows inclusive education works. Studies have found that an LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum can improve the social and emotional well-being of LGBTQ+ youth. When kids learn about different types of families early on, they are more likely to treat their classmates with kindness instead of cruelty. In other words, when implemented correctly, LGBTQ-inclusive education can be an essential anti-bullying and student well-being strategy.
For instance, as a result of my doctoral research, I have learned that some schools around the world are starting to address LGBTQ+ bullying head-on, and, not surprisingly, it’s through curriculum and instruction. In Scotland, LGBTQ-inclusive education became required in 2021 across both primary and secondary, and most major subject areas. When I interviewed government staff about their experience implementing the new policy, I learned that they even worked with religious groups to inform the effort. Faith communities could agree that inclusion was important for reducing homophobic bullying, even if they had some religious concerns. Scottish students now learn how homophobic language hurts people and develop the social-emotional skills needed for creating safer schools. It’s not ideological instruction; it’s teaching kids critical peer relationship skills.
Similar to the Scottish experience, the U.S. Supreme Court could have left the door open for education authorities to find a balance that respects both religiousfamilies and vulnerable LGBTQ+ kids. Real inclusion programs do not ask anyone to abandon their faith. They ask people to treat others with respect and dignity, a lesson I believe everyone should support in class. Kids can learn that some families have two moms without being told their family is wrong. They can remember that using “gay” as an insult hurts people without abandoning their religious beliefs. Getting to know your neighbor does not go against faith.
Unfortunately for the U.S., the impact of the Court’s decision may be severe and widespread, especially in ideologically conservative states. Instead of dealing with complicated opt-out policies, I fear many school districts will probably remove LGBTQ+ inclusive materials entirely. Unfortunately, it can be easier to bow to political pressures than to fight, especially when faced with potential lawsuits or a loss of school funding. This means LGBTQ+ kids lose representation, and all students miss out on critical lessons in diversity and inclusion.
The Court’s decision also has broader implications beyond the LGBTQ+ community. By way of a new precedent, the case approves a heckler’s veto, allowing parents to claim a religious objection to any educational content they may not align with at home. This is because the majority opinion wasn’t apparent on how opting out of inclusive education would work in practice, or what would even qualify as a personal religious objection. We might start seeing opt-out forms for instruction on topics like human evolution, women’s rights, or civil rights history. Thanks to the Court, there is no line in the sand.
Still, we must persevere as a community. We have no other option. LGBTQ+ kids deserve to see themselves in their education, and all students deserve to learn how to treat each other with respect. As education scholar Rudine S. Bishop puts it, children need both “mirrors and windows” in what they know: ways to see themselves reflected in their books and ways to see others who are different, too.
When we remove students from lessons about diverse communities, we fail everyone. But the call for truly inclusive education is not going anywhere. Our kids—all of our kids—deserve better.
Darek M. Ciszek is a PhD Candidate in Education at UCLA with a research focus on curriculum, learning, and social development.
An Ohio pastor who said that being LGBTQ+ is a “health risk” and that he became “sick” from reading gay romance has been charged with child rape.
Silas Shelton, the 48-year-old pastor of Blanchester Community Church, has been arrested on four felony charges, including rape, sexual battery, unlawful sexual contact with a minor, and gross sexual imposition, the Wilmington Police Department announced last week. He is accused of having inappropriate sexual contact with a girl in the fall of 2019, when she was 14 or 15 and a member of his congregation, until as recently as a few months ago.
Shelton spoke in front of the Little Miami Local School District board of education in August, 2023 about the graphic novel Heartstopper by Alice Oseman, which features LGBTQ+ characters and romance. He condemned the book’s inclusion in a book fair at his 12-year-old daughter’s school, saying “it isn’t a religion matter … It’s a health risk. It’s mental health.”
“I don’t think kids should ever question their sexuality. I don’t think kids should ever explore their sexuality. I don’t think any of that stuff ever ought to be in our school,” Shelton said. “But [my daughter] come home asking me why certain books were in that book fair, which were pertaining to books of gay. One of them was Heartstopper, which is where a gay boy pressures a straight kid into kissing him.”
“I don’t understand why we have this kind of stuff in our libraries, in our book fairs. … I’ll tell you, I got sick reading that stuff today,” he continued.
Shelton has pleaded not guilty as the investigation remains ongoing. He is currently being held on a $2 million bond in a Clinton County jail.
Anyone with information related to the case is asked to contact police at 937-382-3833.
If you or someone you know has experienced sexual violence, theNational Sexual Assault Hotline is available 24/7 with free and confidential services. More resources are availablehere. If you or someone you know has experienced trafficking, or if you suspect someone is a victim of trafficking, theNational Human Trafficking Hotline is also available at 1-888-373-7888, toll-free and 24/7. For cases involving minors, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is available 24/7 at 1-800-843-5678.
Last month, Hong Kong’s opposition-free Legislative Council overwhelmingly voted down a government-sponsored bill that would have partially recognized same-sex unions in the Chinese territory.
The bill, which would have granted limited rights to same-sex couples, was a response to a 2023 order by Hong Kong’s top court that gave the government until Oct. 27, 2025, to establish an alternative framework for legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, such as registered civil partnerships or civil unions.
Marriage equality remains a work in progress in Asia, with only three jurisdictions — Taiwan, Nepal and Thailand — having fully legalized same-sex marriage. A 2023 survey of Hong Kong residents by the Chinese University of Hong Kong found that same-sex marriage was supported by about 60% of respondents.
Though the Hong Kong legislation fell far short of fully recognizing same-sex marriage, equality campaigners said it still would have been a step forward for the international financial hub, whose global image has suffered greatly after mass anti-government protests, severe pandemic restrictions and a crackdown on dissent.
However, 71 out of 86 lawmakers opposed the bill, with some blasting it as an attack on marriage and traditional Chinese values.
The veto marked the legislature’s first big split with the government since Beijing’s “patriots-only” electoral reform in 2021, which aimed to ensure “consistent” and “strong” legislative support for the executive after the 2019 protests. The changes have essentially shut out the pro-democracy lawmakers who traditionally challenged the government.
The Hong Kong government said it was “disappointed” by the veto but that it would respect the legislature’s decision and turn to administrative means to protect the rights of gay couples. The details of its next steps are not immediately clear.
‘No enthusiasm’
Hong Kong, a city of 7.5 million people, had been making some progress on LGBTQ rights through a string of court victories.
In 2023, Hong Kong’s top court ruled that transgender people could change their gender on their official identity cards without undergoing full sex reassignment surgery. In July, a Hong Kong court ruled that transgender people have the right to use public toilets in line with their affirmed genders.
And last month, a Hong Kong judge ruled in favor of a lesbian couple who wanted to include both mothers’ names on their son’s birth certificate.
But there have also been setbacks as the space for activism in Hong Kong has diminished. Pink Dot, the city’s largest LGBTQ event, said last month that it was holding its 2025 edition online after losing its usual venue with no explanation.
The case that prompted the same-sex marriage legislation was brought in 2018 by Jimmy Sham, a leading local gay rights activist who took the government to the Court of Final Appeal to have his overseas same-sex marriage recognized.
Gay rights activist Jimmy Sham in front of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong in August.Chan Long Hei / AP
The 2023 court ruling in his favor came while Sham, 38, one of 47 pro-democracy figures arrested in 2021 under a Beijing-imposed national security law, was on trial on subversion charges. Sham, who like most of the defendants pleaded guilty, was released from prison in May after serving more than four years.
To comply with the landmark ruling, the Hong Kong government proposed a mechanism in July by which gay couples could visit their partners in the hospital, access their medical records and make decisions about organ donation and funeral arrangements. It did not address parental or adoption rights.
The protections also would have applied only to same-sex couples who had registered their partnerships outside Hong Kong, a provision that advocacy groups criticized as discriminatory.
Yet the proposal met with strong objections from lawmakers, who cited a “lack of social consensus” in Hong Kong on the “highly controversial” subject of same-sex partnership.
They argued that the bill, even though it did not legalize gay marriage, would still lead to a “collapse of traditional family ethics and values” if passed.
LGBTQ couples at a mass wedding in Hong Kong in 2024, which a U.S. pastor performed online.Peter Parks / AFP via Getty Images file
“Why stir up trouble and break tradition for a small group, throwing the whole society into turmoil?” said lawmaker Junius Ho, a vocal opponent of LGBTQ rights.
Sham said that although the veto was a “great pity,” he hoped authorities would relaunch the legislative process.
“The question is whether those in power have the courage and wisdom to resolve differences and seek consensus,” he wrote in a Facebook post.
Hong Kong officials said the government had made its “best effort” to secure support from the legislature, basing the proposal on what they deemed “societal common ground.”
However, John Burns, an emeritus professor at the University of Hong Kong who specializes in the city’s politics and governance, said he saw “no enthusiasm” from the government to create an alternative framework for recognizing same-sex partnerships.
After being forced into action by the court, Burns said, the Hong Kong government “waited until virtually the last possible moment” before proposing a “minimalist bill.”
“They had many opportunities to fix this, and they sat on their hands and looked at the sky,” he added.
What’s next
The Chinese central government and pro-Beijing lawmakers, who have denied any erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, said the veto would not create a constitutional crisis but rather showcased the checks and balances of Hong Kong’s governance.
But legal experts said the government still has to find a way to comply with the court order.
“The legislature rushed through this decision,” said Azan Marwah, a Hong Kong barrister specializing in public law and family litigation.
He said lawmakers should have proposed and debated amendments to the bill if they had concerns.
“But instead of doing that, they simply abdicated their responsibility,” Marwah said. “Now, what will the court do? To be really frank with you, I don’t know.”
The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, which proposed the failed legislation, did not respond to a request for comment.
The lack of legal protections for same-sex couples may lead to a “big loss” of local or foreign talent in Hong Kong, as many multinational companies value diversity and equality, said Marie Pang, deputy secretary-general of the centrist political party Third Side.
“It would directly undermine Hong Kong’s competitiveness as an international city, especially when other regions in Asia already have relevant systems in place,” Pang said.
Amid the uncertainty, many people in Hong Kong’s LGBTQ community are continuing to look forward.
The campaign for equality and inclusion is more than legal victories, said Louis Ng, a law student and gay rights advocate.
“Real change requires open communication and engagement with all sides. Only then may we persuade the strong opponents,” Ng said. “It all takes time and effort.”
The owner of an LGBTQ+ bar and grill in Alabama that was forced to close down after officials denied its liquor and entertainment licenses has filed a lawsuit against the town for discrimination.
Thomas Fuller, who owned Crossroads Bar and Grill, asserts that the Town of Rockford “effectively singled [him] out because of his sexual orientation, deprived him of equal protection under the law, and forced him to close his business,” according to the lawsuit filed in September in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Northern Division.
After obtaining a business and an ABC Board liquor license in 2023, Fuller was scheduled to meet with the town council in July to request a local liquor license. This is “the same letter of approval that was issued to other businesses in Rockford,” the suit claims.
At the meeting, council members questioned Fuller about “the type of business he ran, his hours of operation, and alcohol-to-food sales ratios— requirements that were not imposed on similarly situated heterosexual-owned businesses.” His request was then pushed to the next month’s meeting.
In the meantime, Fuller scheduled a drag show at the bar, and posted advertisements for it. Rockford’s Town Council then issued him a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that a drag show was “in violation of any license Crossroads obtained” and forcing him to cancel the show. At the August meeting, the council denied his liquor license.
“Crossroads was the only business in Rockford that was denied a liquor license. The Town Council questioned Plaintiff’s character and morals during the meeting,” the lawsuit states. “However, other businesses, owned and operated by heterosexual individuals, were permitted to host live performances without objection from Rockford’s Town Council. Specifically, other businesses in Rockford had live entertainment such as live music and karaoke without being issued any such cease-and-desist letter.”
When Fuller reapplied for an entertainment license “so that he could offer entertainment at Crossroads and sell alcohol,” he was denied again by the city council in September, which also “revoked the transfer of the ABC Board Alcohol License.” Because of the denials, the suit claims that Fuller was “unable to play music, show sporting events on televisions, or offer any other entertainment at Crossroads. This was fatal to his business.”
“Plaintiff reasonably believes that Rockford’s denial of the licenses was motivated by animus toward Plaintiff’s sexual orientation,” the filing continues. “Rockford had historically granted identical approvals to businesses owned and operated by heterosexual individuals without delay or objection … Only after Plaintiff, an openly homosexual man, sought to open Crossroads did the Rockford’s Town Council begin to impose heightened scrutiny and new licensing requirements.”
“The only meaningful difference between Plaintiff and those establishments was Plaintiff’s identity as a homosexual man and his willingness to host LGBTQ-friendly entertainment,” it adds.
Fuller is seeking a trial by jury to determine damages. The Town of Rockford has been issued a court summons as of October 15, which it has 21 days to respond to.
Major changes are underway in Houston’s Montrose neighborhood, where crews began removing the city’s rainbow crosswalks early Monday morning. The colorful crossings, long considered a symbol of Pride and unity, are being stripped away following a directive from Governor Greg Abbott. By sunrise, two of the four rainbow crosswalks at Westheimer and Taft had already been removed. The removal comes after days of tension, protests, and frustration within the community.
The decision follows Abbott’s call to remove what he described as “political ideologies” from roadways — guidance that traces back to a federal directive from the Trump administration earlier this year. Several protesters were arrested early Monday after standing in the roadway to block crews from removing the paint. Many residents and advocates also spent the night chalking nearby sidewalks and leaving Pride flags and flowers — a show of defiance and love they say will continue even after the paint is gone.
This month, the European Commission released its LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy 2026–2030, a renewed and ambitious step in the European Union’s commitment to equality, inclusion, and human rights. Building on the 2020–2025 framework, it reaffirms the goal of making “a Union of Equality” a lived reality, while confronting the surge in anti-LGBTIQ rhetoric and violence across Europe and beyond.
The strategy aims to strengthen the EU’s legal and policy framework against discrimination, calling for the full implementation of the Equal Treatment Directive and stronger safeguards against hate speech, hate crimes, and “conversion practices.” It also reinforces commitments to inclusive education, equitable health care, and recognition of diverse families across member states.
The strategy comes at another critical juncture: Within the EU, crackdowns on LGBTIQ+ rights in countries including Hungary,Slovakia, and Bulgaria highlight the EU’s mixed record and the need for more concerted action by the commission to hold member states accountable. These trends mirror a global backlash marked by the spread of anti-LGBTIQ+ and anti-gender narratives, the criminalization of same-sex relations, and the targeting of transgender people. The new EU strategy seeks to anchor LGBTIQ+ equality as essential to democratic resilience, linking internal coherence with external credibility.
Nonetheless, challenges persist. Implementation will depend heavily on member states’ political will, and enforcement mechanisms remain limited. Moreover, while external funding is vital, ensuring that it reaches grassroots actors in repressive contexts will require greater flexibility and direct-access mechanisms.
Overall, the LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy 2026–2030 is a reaffirmation of the EU’s aspiration to be a global human rights leader. It sends a clear message: protecting LGBTIQ+ rights is central to democracy, social justice, and the EU’s identity at home and abroad. The EU and its member states should honor the ambitions articulated in the strategy in political and financial decisions both domestically and internationally.
A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, has ordered the Pentagon to restore nearly 600 books and reinstate lessons on race, gender, and identity in schoolsserving military families, ruling that the Trump administration’s restrictions on classroom content likely violated students’ First Amendment rights.
In a 44-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles concluded that the Department of Defense Education Activity removed books and altered curricula in ways that suppressed certain viewpoints and deprived students of access to ideas about race and gender. She found that the department’s actions caused real harm and were likely motivated by viewpoint discrimination. The ruling requires the Pentagon to immediately return the banned books and halt further removals while the case continues.
The case, E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity, was brought by 12 students from military families at DoDEA schools in Virginia, Kentucky, Italy, and Japan. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, and the ACLU of Kentucky, challenged the agency’s enforcement of three Trump executive orders issued in January that directed federal institutions to remove references to “gender ideology” and “divisive equity concepts.”
Giles wrote that public school libraries are “loci of intellectual freedom,” quoting the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Board of Education v. Pico to emphasize that students must be free to “inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.” She found that DoDEA’s process for removing books was opaque and inconsistent, noting that officials failed to provide clear records of which titles had been withdrawn or why. The judge also criticized the department for refusing to disclose information about the censorship campaign, writing that it was unconstitutional to limit access to information and then fault the plaintiffs for not having proof of the government’s actions.
The ruling rejected the Pentagon’s claim that the removals constituted “government speech,” a legal doctrine that shields official communications from First Amendment scrutiny. Giles said that viewing school libraries as expressions of government ideology conflicts with the long-standing purpose of those institutions as spaces for academic freedom and voluntary inquiry. She warned that expanding the government speech doctrine to cover book removals in public schools would pose “dangerous” risks to intellectual freedom.
DoDEA operates 161 accredited schools across 11 countries, seven U.S. states, Guam, and Puerto Rico, educating roughly 67,000 children of active-duty service members and civilian Defense Department employees. The system, among the most diverse and high-performing in the nation, consistently ranks near the top of U.S. public school systems in reading and math proficiency.
As The Advocate previously reported, DoDEA began pulling materials shortly after Trump’s executive orders took effect, instructing school administrators to “quarantine” any books or lessons that could be seen as promoting “gender ideology” or “discriminatory equity ideology.” The removals included books and curricula addressing slavery, women’s rights, Native American history, LGBTQ+ identities, and sexual health education, along with sections of the Advanced Placement Psychology course.
The ACLU said Monday’s ruling restores constitutional protections that had been stripped away from students in military-run schools. “This is an important victory for students in DoDEA schools and anyone who values full libraries and vibrant classrooms,” Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a press release. “The censorship taking place in DoDEA schools as a result of these executive orders was astonishing in its scope and scale, and we couldn’t be more pleased that the court has vindicated the First Amendment rights of the students this has impacted.”
Corey Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU of Kentucky, said, “Removing books from school libraries just because this administration doesn’t like the content is censorship, plain and simple. The materials removed are clearly age-appropriate and are only offensive to those who are afraid of a free-thinking population.”
Matt Callahan, senior supervising attorney at the ACLU of Virginia, said the ruling affirms that “government can’t scrub references to race and gender from public school libraries and classrooms just because the Trump administration doesn’t like certain viewpoints on those topics.”
While the injunction applies only to the five schools attended by the plaintiffs — Crossroads Elementary in Quantico, Virginia; Barsanti Elementary in Fort Campbell, Kentucky; Aviano Middle-High in Italy; and Stollars Elementary and Edgren Middle High in Japan — the decision could have far-reaching implications for schools on military bases worldwide.
Giles wrote that students in federally operated schools are entitled to the same constitutional protections as those in civilian public schools. She ordered Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and DoDEA Director Beth Schiavino-Narvaez to comply immediately.
