Inauguration Day is still five weeks away and gay married couples are already watching for signs conservative lawmakers and the courts may attempt to turn back the clock.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 it was unconstitutional to prohibit same-sex marriage.

Marshall Martinez, executive director of the advocacy group Equality New Mexico, said it is concerning two justices have publicly suggested the 2015 court decision should be re-litigated but encouraging Congress passed the "Respect for Marriage Act" in 2022.

"What we know right now, even if Obergefell is overturned, as long as New Mexico maintains the legalization of same-sex marriages, the federal government will still recognize those New Mexicans' marriages," Martinez outlined.

In supporting the high court's decision to overturn abortion rights in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court also should revisit the same-sex marriage decision. Justice Samuel Alito has also criticized the landmark ruling. President-elect Donald Trump did not make marriage equality a campaign issue but has surrounded himself with anti-LGBTQ+ staff and appointees.

Martinez reported within the first two days after the Nov. 5 election, LGBTQ+ crisis lines in the U.S. experienced a 700% increase in calls from people concerned about what the outcome might mean for those who identify as gay. He stressed fear and anxiety are premature.

"We're not going to sugarcoat it forever but we have been saying, 'It's not time to panic,'" Martinez explained. "And what we mean by that is we don't know what's going to happen yet. We have some ideas of what they might want to do but we don't know and there's nothing helpful about sort of sitting around in despair and panic, trying to anticipate the worst-case scenario."

Martinez believes some conservative states will continue to criminalize the LGBTQ+ community through bans on gender-affirming care, while others worry newly appointed Trump officials will attempt to slash federal funding for HIV prevention and treatment.

A coalition of New Mexico groups is supporting a bill this session to require "Comprehensive Human Sexuality Education" for public school students.

New Mexico is among 40 states to require sex-education instruction but according to Planned Parenthood, there is no guarantee the instruction is high quality or covers topics young people need to stay healthy, including information about HIV.

Nathan Saavedra, program manager for Equality New Mexico, said Senate Bill 258 would require sex education curricula is medically accurate.

"Our hope mostly is to save lives," Saavedra emphasized. "We know that sex education does save lives and it improves the health of all youth. It decreases bullying and harassment. Sex education is harm reduction, from our perspective."

In addition to Equality New Mexico, the state's ACLU organization and the New Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs support the more comprehensive approach. By contrast, last fall the Florida Department of Education ordered local school districts teaching sex education to promote abstinence and exclude discussion of contraception.

Saavedra noted many students, including those who are LGBTQ+, do not know what they should be doing to protect themselves and would benefit from discussions covering sexual orientation and gender identity.

"We're trying to get the point across and the law in place so those students no longer have to feel less than, or know less than, their peers," Saavedra stressed.

New Mexico's current standards for sex education surpass many other states but access is often dependent on where a student lives. As written, the bill would provide resources to rural and smaller districts to launch comprehensive programs. The proposed legislation still would allow parents to exempt their children from the sex-ed portion of required health courses.

Montana lawmakers are considering three bills on gender. They are all versions of previous bills, which either failed or were struck down in court, but some new drafts have higher stakes.

Two bills would determine if or how transgender people can use certain bathrooms and changing rooms and participate in school sports. A third seeks to prohibit access to gender-affirming health care and to criminalize doctors and parents who, according to the bill, "knowingly procure or provide" such care.

Zuri Moreno, state legislative director for the advocacy group Forward Montana, said some lawmakers have described transgender people as "out of compliance."

"It's an overreach of our government to try to force people across our communities to comply with what they think is correct gender presentation," Moreno argued.

Proponents said the bills would "prevent harassment" and protect the "welfare of children." Moreno countered the proposition that lawmakers should have a say in families' private medical decisions or they understand athletes' needs more than teachers and coaches, is a dangerous one.

The bills parallel a January executive order from President Donald Trump defining "sex" and directs federal agencies to rescind materials discussing "gender ideology." Moreno pointed out organizers across Montana have been preparing for the state bills.

"The governor, in his State of the State, did direct the legislature to get these types of bills to his desk," Moreno noted. "But I think it's important for everyone to remember that our legislature doesn't work for the governor. They work for their constituents."

Legislators have referred all three bills to committee after hearings last week. Moreno stressed regardless of the fate of the bills, debates on them are harmful. Among LGBTQ+ youth, 90% said their well-being has been negatively affected by recent politics, according to a 2024 survey from The Trevor Project.

Opening arguments begin today in a lawsuit challenging North Dakota's ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth.

The case stems from a law change the state legislature approved in 2023, mirroring action in other conservative-led states.

With some exceptions, the ban brings criminal penalties against doctors if they provide care, like puberty blockers, to transgender people under the age of 18.

Brittany Stewart senior staff attorney with the legal non-profit Gender Justice, which represents the plaintiffs. She said these laws prevent families from seeking critical healthcare for their child.

"Young people who are dealing with gender dysphoria, which is a legitimate medical condition recognized by all the medical associations," said Stewart, "this is the care that helps alleviate symptoms, and those symptoms include extreme anxiety and depression."

Her organization reports families having to drive up to seven hours for doctor appointments.

Republicans behind the ban argue they're trying to protect children, noting young people aren't mature enough for these decisions.

But ban opponents say parents and doctors are heavily involved in discussing the lengthy process, and that gender-affirming surgery is rare for minors.

A separate legal challenge out of Tennessee is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. And Stewart noted that the courts have frowned on similar laws in a neighboring state.

"The Montana Supreme Court just upheld the injunction that is halting their gender-affirming care ban," said Stewart. "And they did find that the ban violated that individual right to personal autonomy."

Testimony in the North Dakota trial is expected to last a little more than a week. Since it's a bench trial with no jury, Stewart said it'll likely take several months for the judge to decide the outcome.

Meanwhile, an opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case is expected this summer.




get more stories like this via email