By Ann Rostow—
Going Postal
I recently took a test on The Washington Post website titled: “Are you falling for these common procrastination traps? Take our quiz.” And here’s the good news: I aced it, with seven out of seven correct answers. I subsequently did a crossword puzzle on my phone, cleaned the kitchen, and removed old stuff from the refrigerator, including a leftover ear of corn that I ate even though I couldn’t remember its original time period. Delicious!
Honestly, I’m not in the mood to write my column at this moment, and there was no quiz question that directly addressed this kind of dilemma. Everything else in the house is calling to me. My half-read novel, a small pile of back newspapers, odd chores that don’t have to be done immediately but weigh on my mind, a jigsaw puzzle—oh, and unopened mail. I used to just throw out mail that seemed unimportant until a few years back when I reluctantly opened an envelope from our mortgage company and found a check for about a thousand dollars. I have never not opened a piece of mail since that time, and although I’ve never again received such an unexpected windfall, I feel it’s good practice. What would have happened, I’ve sometimes wondered, had I tossed the letter with the check into the trash? Would the mortgage company have adjusted our escrow account, or would it just have been lost? It is a haunting idea.
Lay Off Lindsey
I’ve written about Lindsey Graham’s presumed sexual orientation a few times, always with disparaging words, but I find myself annoyed by the recent documentary that featured three guys who said Graham hired them for sex in hotels or whatever.
The man’s dead, for God’s sake. His sexuality was an open secret. And there’s a whiff of homophobia in the notion that a posthumous outing reveals a shameful perversion. The whole point of outing a politician is to highlight hypocrisy in someone who presumably voted against GLBT rights from the safety of the closet. Graham fit that bill to some extent, but I don’t remember him using super anti-gay rhetoric. He came from the South in an age when some gay men felt they had no option but to fake it, so I’m now giving Graham a break. Did I mention that he’s dead? He can’t even respond.
I’m also not a fan of the documentary’s promotors, the “Young Turks.” I remember the Young Turks founder, Cenk Uygur, from a TV show where he was an obnoxious talking head whom I disliked. I’m generally suspicious of liberals who don’t seem to actually care about the average American, who have no pragmatic policy recommendations, and who seem propelled into the arena by ego alone. Also, why call themselves the “Young Turks?” From the little I know, these were radicals who came to power after the turn of the 19th century, allied with Germany in World War I, took dictatorial control, and helped kill tens of thousands of Armenians.
Here We Go Again
Let’s get serious now. This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in yet another case that challenges Colorado’s ban on sexual orientation discrimination. How many of these have we seen from the Rocky Mountain state? Those include the Masterpiece Cakeshop business, the Christian website developer, the conversion therapist—not to mention any cases that I assume challenged Colorado’s civil rights statute on other grounds.
I’ve written many times about how discrimination against GLBT people seems to be given a pass when exhibited by so-called Christians. This time around, St. Mary’s Catholic Parrish stars as a religious school operator that wants to participate in a tax-payer financed program that provides free school to all Colorado four-year-olds. Unlike the situation in Maine a few years back, where the state required rural parents receiving state tuition funds to enroll the kids in a secular school environment, Colorado allows the tots to go to religious schools, provided the schools abide by the state civil rights law and do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and other factors.
In the Maine case back in 2022, the state was offering tuition vouchers for private schools to parents who lived too far away from a free public school. As I just said, the vouchers were only good for secular schools so as not to erode the wall between church and state, although schools that operated under a religious umbrella but did not proselytize were considered okay. I went to an “Episcopal” school in Texas called St. Stephen’s, but I’m guessing it would have been allowed by the Maine authorities because it did not hammer away at our souls. (I got kicked out of the National Cathedral School for Girls when I was 13 for skipping services and smoking weed in the Cathedral’s basement ladies’ room, but, in hindsight, I believe this disciplinary action was not inappropriate.)
As I was saying, the Supreme Court ruled that Maine’s restriction violated the rights of the presumably evangelical parents who insisted on using state funds for particularly churchy schools. Now, the justices are considering whether or not similar schools can simply ignore a law against gay bias and still qualify for tax-payer money.
What do you think they’ll say? I know. Me too.
One interesting aspect of this case is that, under High Court precedent, you cannot claim that your faith exempts you from a law of general applicability. I’m sure you remember the peyote smoking guys from Oregon who tried to get unemployment benefits after they were fired for drug use, by claiming the peyote was used in a Native American religious ceremony. Antonin Scalia wrote that 6–3 opinion (Employment Division v Smith) for his conservative colleagues in 1990, and yet the tables have since turned, with conservatives bemoaning the precedent and liberals trying to enforce it.
The logic of this decision would seem to cut in favor of Colorado, since the civil rights law does not target religion and applies in all contexts. Indeed, if memory serves, the religious actors here asked the High Court to overturn Employment Decision v Smith in their request but the Court deliberately refused to accept that aspect of the petition and it remains to be seen how the justices will finesse the implications of the 36-year-old decision.
In an earlier Supreme Court challenge of similar ilk, Justice Barrett declined to overrule Smith, implying that chaos could follow such a vote. That was the lawsuit where Catholic Charities in Philadelphia wanted to participate in the state’s foster program and be allowed at the same time to discriminate against same-sex couples in violation of city law. The Court twisted itself into knots to find a way to rule in favor of Catholic Charities nonetheless.
In truth, this Court believes that generic laws like the ones in Colorado and Philadelphia themselves violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom because conservative Christians, like those in the Court majority, have arbitrarily decided that secular anti-gay prejudice is a key element of their sacred identities.
Reprieve For Transgender Prisoners
I actually have a good report out of the Supreme Court (cue: Elated Trombone). On October 21, 2026, the Court refused to overturn a block on Trump’s plan to “taper off” hormone treatments for federal prisoners. The barbaric plan was originally put on hold by Judge Royce Lamberth, a name that might ring a bell for loyal readers, since he has ruled repeatedly for trans prisoners in this case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia earlier upheld Lamberth’s decision, at which point the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. In a one-sentence comment, the Court maintained the hold although Justices Alito and Thomas said they would have reversed it.
I just had to delete a little side rant about Alito and Thomas that did not advance our column’s agenda of informative news reporting.
We’re still waiting for another ruling from the shadow docket, as it’s called. In a case out of Washington state, the parents of a cis female high school wrestler have asked the Court to issue an injunction against a state rule that allows high school students to play sports consistent with their gender identity. Advanced by our friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-transgender side has lost two attempts to put the state’s non-discrimination rules on hold, and they are now asking the justices for an injunction pending appeal that will stop the trans-friendly policy while they appeal the denial of the preliminary injunction at the Ninth Circuit—or something like that. The Court gave the state until October 13 to brief its position and we’ve heard nothing more since then as of this writing.
If the Supremes agree to stop Washington from continuing to welcome trans girls on the field (and the mat), they will effectively take transgender athletes out of play after years of competing with girls’ teams without incident—long before the original suit is argued or decided. Note that the girl behind the wrestling case says she was sexually assaulted during her match against a trans girl late last year, although the referees saw nothing amiss and she herself didn’t know her adversary was transgender until after the match. Still, it’s a gross accusation, and, if proven, someone should throw the book at the transgender girl.
Meanwhile, Washington is one of four states asking voters to decide whether or not transgender girls can play organized sports, or even disorganized sports. Arizona, Nebraska and Colorado also propose similar measures, while Missouri asks the voters to outlaw all transition treatments for minors, including hormone therapy.
Fearing Fear
As of this writing, the full results of the midterms have not been finalized. I confess that I have some kind of voter PTSD after our losses in 2016 and 2024. I also thought Beto had a chance in 2018, and, of course, that was not to be. Now we face “toss up” races in states that we absolutely must win. I’m afraid to anticipate victory and almost afraid to hope.
I’m also afraid that Democrats will win control of the House and Senate and do nothing but hold hearings that will allow Republicans to play the victims. All our candidates are telling everyone they will lower prices, but it’s hard to see how they plan to take action. Medicaid cuts in the Big Beautiful Bill take effect soon, so, even if we manage to mitigate these, we won’t be lowering health care prices but instead could just keep them from rising further. We don’t have control over the war in Iran or the navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, so we can’t lower fuel prices. What can we do, and how can we avoid being accused of failing to keep our campaign promises when 2028 rolls around?
I’m also worried, like everyone, about post-election shenanigans that could undermine our success. Who the hell knows what these bozos will come up with? This effort to cast doubt on the double Dan Sullivan ballot is yet another extra-legal filing by the Justice Department since the Alaska Supreme Court has already approved the status quo and the Senator was clearly listed as the incumbent Republican nominee. That said, it doesn’t help to learn from The New York Times that Peltola’s team scurried around the state earlier this year to scrounge up everyone named “Dan Sullivan” and find one of them who agreed to run for Senate. Really, guys? I don’t expect that level of underhandedness from our team.
Finally, of all the despicable election tactics, including the Ohio advertisement, I put the fake transgender fliers at the top of my list. Sent to over a million Texas households as early voting was about to begin in mid-October, the fliers seem designed to give young Texans tips on how to transition and who can help. The “Texas Trans & LGBTQ+ Student Resource Guide” pretended to be from the Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT), a legitimate group that had no involvement with the provocative mailing and is now deluged with hate texts. An investigation is underway and unofficial reports suggest a Trump donor may have been one of those behind the mailing.
Make it all end soon.
arostow@aol.com
GLBT Fortnight in Review
Published on November 5, 2026
Recent Comments