In 2020, Donald Trump won 27% of the queer vote. In 2024, he won only 12%.
According to NBC News, Kamala Harris’ “performance among LGBT voters was stronger than that of any Democratic candidate in the last five presidential elections.”
NBC didn’t hypothesize why, but one explanation seems obvious: With MAGA Republicans now controlling the presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court, seemingly nothing stands in the way of…well, whatever they want to do. And in the past, nearly all of that has been hostile to the queer community.
It’s difficult to predict what an unpredictable guy like Trump will do, but it might be dangerous not to. We posed some gut-wrenching questions to local LGBTQ+ organizers and allied leaders.
Here are their best guesses…
1. Will same-sex marriage be overturned?
After a decades-long fight and a 5-4 Supreme Court vote in 2015, marriage equality was suddenly legal in all 50 states. By 2021, the Census Bureau reported 1.2 million same-sex couples in the country. The following year, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act.
With such a razor-thin Supreme Court majority and Republicans now controlling both the House and Senate, will the United States go back in time?
“I don’t think that gay marriage will be overturned,” Maxx Fenning declares flatly. “That’s a deeply unpopular position.”
Fenning is executive director of PRISM, a Gen Z-led nonprofit organization focused on sexual education for LGBTQ+ youth throughout South Florida. Shaping his prediction isn’t just Republican opinion, but Democratic politics.
“They don’t have a supermajority,” he explains, pointing out that the Republican Party doesn’t have the numbers to completely undo marriage equality. “They would never be able to repeal the Respect for Marriage Act or get the filibuster, even if they wanted to.”
But not everyone is so sure.
FAU multimedia journalism assistant professor Ivy Ashe paints a different picture. She believes Republicans will repeal gay marriage — but not for a few years.
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling overturned Roe v. Wade, striking down the constitutional right to abortion in 2022, while Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015.
Ashe points out that the Dobbs decision opened the door to reversing many other privacy-based Supreme Court rulings, including Obergefell.
“What has happened since the Dobbs decision is that the Supreme Court gave lawyers a path to overturning the Obergefell decision,” Ashe said. “They explicitly say in the Dobbs decision that we should reconsider all the other privacy cases. And that’s one of them.”
So, what’s stopping a repeal from happening tomorrow?
“It’s going to depend on how the courts work, because you have to find a case. You have to have someone with standing to sue over gay marriage,” she says.
Standing, or the legal right to bring a case to court, can be tricky to establish.
Ashe adds that the Supreme Court is a “little loosey-goosey” with standing, pointing to the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, where a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
The Supreme Court’s decision in that case didn’t fully resolve the broader conflict between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, instead focusing on how the state handled the case. Critics argue that the grounds for the decision were weak, which makes Ashe think the Supreme Court might take a similarly cavalier approach when it comes to same-sex marriage.
When asked how likely it is that same-sex marriage could be overturned in the next four years, Ashe is cautious.
“I don’t know how long it’s going to take to get there. But I think it will probably be a similar thing to Dobbs, in that they’ll be like ‘This is for the state.’” She pauses before adding, “I don’t like saying that.”
Liam Beran, a student journalist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison focusing on LGBTQ+ issues, writes for The Nation that while the Respect for Marriage Act provides some protection, it could still be overturned if the Supreme Court decides to reverse Obergefell and that “states would not be required to issue marriage licenses contrary to state law.”
However, Fenning’s argument that overturning marriage equality is a politically risky move finds support in recent public opinion data.
Photo courtesy of Maxx Fenning.
A May 2024 Gallup poll found support for marriage equality at near-record highs, with 69% in favor.
But that number has eroded, slightly, in the past several years, down from a 71% high in 2022 and 2023. That erosion was more prominent with Republicans, though. Only 46% now favor same-sex marriage, down from a high of 55% in 2021 and 2022. This coincides with the barrage of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation that’s being pushed by conservatives around the country over the last several years.
Breaking it down by party lines, 83% of Democrats, 74% of Independents, and 46% of Republicans back same-sex marriage.
Deborah Ford, an FAU sociology visiting instructor, argues that marriage in general, including same-sex marriage, is beneficial for the country.
“It boosts the economy, provides tax and social security benefits, employer health benefits, property survivorship rights, among other things,” Ford said. “Taking the rights away seems anti-productive.”
California, Colorado, and Hawaii have passed ballot measures to further safeguard marriage equality for LGBTQ+ couples. These measures affirm the states’ commitment to protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, even as national debates on the issue continue.
In contrast, Florida still has a 2008 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the books. While unenforceable under current federal protections, it serves as a stark reminder of how old laws (like those that resurfaced after Roe v. Wade was overturned) could have serious consequences if the legal landscape changes.
2. Will gay adoption be banned nationwide?
The Respect for Marriage Act also legalized gay adoption, although federal court rulings basically made it legal in all 50 states by 2017.
This summer, UCLA researchers concluded, “24% of married same-sex couples have adopted a child compared to 3% of married different-sex couples.”
Rand Hoch is the president and founder of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council. He is an attorney as well as Florida’s first openly LGBTQ+ judge.
The thing about protections from federal court rulings, he argues, is that “anything that’s done in the courts can be undone by the courts,” leaving gay adoption susceptible to the same risks as gay marriage.
Alison Gash, associate professor of political science at the University of Oregon, writes for the Washington Post that “without Obergefell’s protections, gay and lesbian parents living in anti-gay states will no longer have the law on their side when they face uncertainty and hostility as they try to manage their family lives. Even with RFMA, state marriage bans will give schools, hospitals and other institutions the authority to again obstruct and subvert gay- and lesbian-headed families.”
Equality Florida Public Policy Director Jon Harris Maurer argues that rather than an explicit nationwide ban on gay adoption, the focus may shift towards more subtle forms of restriction, such as expanding religious liberties that allow organizations to discriminate under the guise of religious freedom.
“There hasn’t been extensive discussion about an adoption ban nationwide, we have seen attempts to broaden religious exemptions so that adoption and placement entities that are religiously affiliated would not have to serve or work with LGBTQ families,” he said.
3. Will anti-trans legislation go national?
With no national legal protection right now, everyone predicts tough times ahead for trans Americans.
“Trans people are where gay and lesbian people were 30 years ago,” said queer studies historian and FAU emeritus professor Fred Fejes.
Cameron Christopher Driggers calls it “absolutely a real possibility.” The founder and executive director of Youth Action Fund, a Gen Z-led nonprofit that connects progressive organizers with resources, says the first anti-trans laws will be about “protecting girls’ sports, which is just a means to, you know, discriminate against trans athletes.”
He expects a Republican Congress to pass that bill.
“I imagine the new president would sign that legislation,” he said.
Driggers also doesn’t expect a full-throated opposition from Democrats.
“The opposition party is caving on this issue already,” Driggers says. “They’re throwing trans people under the bus under the guise of becoming more electable. So we might not even be able to count on the opposition to fight for the rights of trans people.”
Lotus Seeley is an FAU sociology professor who focuses on gender, work, and organizations. She predicts that rather than Republicans pushing for a sweeping national shift, LGBTQ+ rights will continue to be determined on a state-by-state basis, with federal protections becoming increasingly fragile.
“I don’t know if it’ll go national,” Seeley says. “But I do think they will probably strip any or prevent any kind of federal protections, strike down anything that would be federal. So you’ll get more of the way we have now, sort of state by state fracture. They’ve shown themselves willing to topple things.”
Seeley is warning of a possible future where LGBTQ+ rights could vary dramatically from state to state, much like the current abortion rights landscape following the Dobbs decision. This lack of federal protections, she explains, is tied to the absence of constitutional safeguards.
“They will probably try,” Seeley continues. “And the big thing is there’s no constitutional protections, there’s no federal protections, because there’s no Equal Rights Amendment.”
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was introduced in 1923 to ensure equal legal rights regardless of sex. It passed Congress in 1972 but was never ratified by enough states to become law. Without it, activists have pushed for measures like introducing the Equality Act in 1974 to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, though its chances of passing under a conservative Congress are slim.
Rand Hoch from PBCHRC echoes Seeley’s concerns about the lack of federal protections and the far right’s growing influence.
“Whether federal action will strike down these rights, it could happen,” Hoch said. “The far right is clearly trying to do this, trying to say these are special rights, as opposed to equal rights. But nobody should be denied an opportunity to get a mortgage or buy a house or have a job or be able to apply for a job due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Hoch emphasizes that the fight for LGBTQ+ civil rights legislation has been ongoing for decades.
“We’ve been trying to get these laws passed, 1974 was the first time we tried to get sexual orientation into the civil rights laws on the federal level,” Hoch said, referring to the Equality Act. “Here it is, 50 years later, we still don’t have that because you need both houses of Congress and a president to approve, and that’s clearly not going to happen.”
Looking ahead, Hoch is blunt in his prediction for LGBTQ+ legal protections.
“I see no chance whatsoever of an LGBTQ-inclusive Civil Rights Act becoming law in four or five years, it’s not going to happen.”
4. Will state laws protecting against LGBTQ+ discrimination be overturned?
Hoch said that Florida doesn’t have any specific gay rights laws, but rather interprets existing law through the Supreme Court to include the queer community.
The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) is an independent, nonprofit think tank that tracks more than 50 LGBTQ+-related laws across the U.S. Each state is scored on laws that affect LGBTQ+ people’s rights and daily lives, including areas like nondiscrimination, health care, parental recognition, and criminal justice.
There are fifteen states and D.C. that scored a high overall policy tally, while six states fall into the medium category. Three states and two territories are rated as fair, 11 states and three territories have low tallies, and Florida is in the lowest ranking at holding a negative policy tally, along with 14 other states.
MAP clarifies that these scores only reflect existing laws and policies, not bills under consideration or the implementation of laws. They also don’t account for social climate or advocacy efforts, meaning states’ scores could change quickly, either improving or declining based on future actions.
“So I think we do have a significant problem,” Hoch said. “In certain states, it’s going to be fine. New York is not going to overturn these things. California is not going to overturn these things. Florida has yet to get these laws.”
Dean Trantalis, Fort Lauderdale’s first out gay mayor who was recently re-elected, says that in spite of current fears, it’s important to reflect on the progress that has been made.
“Social change is never easy, evolving through society’s norms takes time, takes education, takes assimilation,” Trantalis said.
He reflects on when the Broward County Board of County Commissioners voted in 1995 to amend the Broward County Human Rights Act, adding sexual orientation as a protected category.
Trantalis was an instrumental figure in that fight. The opposition, though, tried to get the issue on the ballot to overturn what the county had done.
“We spoke with some really, really liberal Democratic campaign consultants, and said, ‘Would you help us try to defeat this signature drive and push back the effort to overturn the law?’ And one particular person who shall remain nameless said, ‘I wouldn’t touch this with a 10-foot pole,’” Trantalis said. “A liberal democrat, that’s what it was in the ‘90s! So now we have a totally different landscape. We’ve gotten so far with so many of our rights, and they have become more mainstream.”
The Board would later go on to add gender identity or expression in 2008.
5. Will Congress remove sexual orientation or gender identity from the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender workers from employment discrimination, in a landmark decision on June 15, 2020. The 6-3 ruling confirmed that LGBTQ+ individuals are covered under the “sex” provision of the law.
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in the majority opinion.
Gorsuch was President-elect Donald Trump’s first appointee to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch faced criticism from other conservatives for this ruling. White House correspondent Michael D. Shear reported for The New York Times that conservative group Judicial Crisis Network said he had departed from the legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat he has occupied since 2017.
“And I would say when it comes to employment protections, we have clear protections that have been recognized by the US Supreme Court as existing in federal law,” Maurer said. “The US Supreme Court can reverse itself on those decisions, and we’ve seen them do that in abortion recently. But changing federal civil rights law would require a very high threshold, given the Senate filibuster rules.”
This is exactly what both Hoch and Seeley warn about — without the ERA or Equality Act in place, LGBTQ+ rights remain subject to the whims of judicial interpretation rather than being firmly protected by law.
6. Will Florida lawmakers be encouraged to go even further in their anti-LGBTQ+ legislation?
With conservative momentum building nationwide, it’s possible that state lawmakers will push the boundaries of what they can legislate on LGBTQ+ issues, emboldened by a potential lack of federal resistance.
FAU journalism professor Aaron Veenstra, whose research explores how political and social identities shape the way individuals seek out and interpret news and information, said most politicians do actually try to accomplish what they run on.
“We don’t know specifically what they will do or try to do, but that despite popular belief, politicians try to do the things they say they will do,” Veenstra said. “Whether they will prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ stuff is really the big question – there will not be any bulwark against it in the administration or in the courts.”
He’s worried that the federal government will simply turn a blind eye to civil rights.
“Local action, especially in states like Florida, may be the bigger thing, because enforcement of existing federal civil rights protections may just not happen,” he said.
Project 2025 is a policy plan drafted by the Heritage Foundation, outlining goals for a future Republican presidency. Though Trump has distanced himself from it during his campaign, several contributors to the plan served in his previous administration and have been appointed to his current one.
The Heritage Foundation’s president Kevin Roberts has emphasized that the conservative movement is aligned in its goals to “secure our wide-open border, restore the rule of law, put parents back in charge of their children’s education, restore America to its proper place as a leader in manufacturing, put families and children first, and dismantle the deep state,” according to The New York Times.
“We have to assume that the incoming administration will enact the policies stated in Project 2025 and voiced throughout the campaign. It would be irresponsible to assume otherwise. We can be sure that the consequences of the next four years will impact all of us for the next 60,” said FAU English instructor Jake Henson.
Equality Florida’s Jon Harris Maurer agrees that national politics will likely influence Florida politicians, but that Equality Florida will be playing defense.
“I expect that we will see more attacks on the LGBTQ community in the Florida legislature,” he said. “There were a number of attacks on Democratic candidates during the campaign season based on LGBTQ issues, but we have successfully fought back before, and we’re going to keep up that fight.”
7. Will attacks on gender-affirming care worsen?
As the Republican Party takes hold, there are concerns looming on how much of Project 2025 will be implemented. The document authors state that they aim to “rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left” and specifically call out trans people as well as other marginalized populations.
“I think that is another very specific part of Project 2025, is to deprive health care access and go through the state, the health care agencies in a very sinister fashion, like wield all levers of power to deprive that right and access to trans people,” Driggers said. “They may even go as far as weaponizing the public health agencies to categorize gender dysphoria or other health care options pursued by trans people and queer people in general as unsafe, and thus move them from access, not only to minors, but even for adults.”
Maurer says that as horrifying as Project 2025 is, he believes that everyday Americans will push back if it moves on from the theoretical.
“It’s important to remember that the Republicans ran away from Project 2025, and downplayed the most egregious aspects of their agenda,” he said. “They know that these unpopular issues will be met with resistance when they move from propaganda and scare tactics into actual implementation. So we will have a lot of defense to play, and we know that we can change hearts and minds when we continue to show up.”
8. Will LGBTQ+ youth be further marginalized in schools?
Florida has made national headlines on how LGBTQ+ youth are affected educationally — Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in 2022 and another bill defunding DEI initiatives throughout the state university system in 2023. Can we go even further downhill?
“I mean, we’ve lost so many trans teachers and professors in Florida in the last couple of years,” Hoch said. “We’re losing teachers right and left, but LGBTQ+ teachers are leaving, so it’s affecting role models for kids, positive role models for kids out there, as well as the kids themselves and the parents who want to provide this care for their kids. So I see this as getting worse.”
PRISM’s Maxx Fenning says that “absolutely, absolutely” LGBTQ+ young people are going to be further marginalized in schools. He noted there are a few different reasons for this, one of which is the increase in hateful rhetoric directed towards the LGBTQ+ community, as well as bigoted laws, bills introduced, and likely less support for queer students from the Trump Administration versus the Biden Administration through the Department of Education.
“I think the other concern is that we have seen a really, really terrifying rightward shift among young white men. We’re seeing a drastically widening gender gap in the electorate, among young voters in particular. That is quite scary,” he said. “That Republicans have and conservatives have found their way to market themselves towards young men through these podcasts, through Andrew Tate and Ben Shapiro and all of these various other right wing talking heads to perhaps even radicalize a lot of young men. Especially young white men, young Latino men.”
He’s worried about the long term consequences.
“I think that is going to translate into a much tougher environment for LGBTQ+ young people in schools,” he said. “And so I think in multiple ways, we are going to see things get tougher for queer kids.”
The failure of Amendment 3, which aimed to legalize marijuana, was a major disappointment for many voters. Equally devastating was the defeat of Amendment 4, which sought to codify abortion access rights in the state constitution.
Youth Action Fund’s Cameron Driggers says there is some good news when it comes to education. Amendment 1 was a failed proposal to make school board elections partisan.
“Driggers explained that the measure would have further politicized education by requiring school board members to declare a party affiliation, potentially skewing boards toward Republican dominance in Florida.
“So that’s a big win,” he said. “That means that many school boards in our state will continue to be not as extreme and partisan as they already were and that protects queer youth, who are often the targets of these very radicalized school boards.”
9. Will Pride events and LGBTQ+ organizations face more legal restrictions?
Hoch argues that the first amendment will protect the rights of Pride events and LGBTQ+ organizations.
“We have the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and our community needs Pride events now more than ever, because we need to reassure people who are staying in Florida that even though it looks bleak now, we can do a lot to identify with others in our community and celebrate our diversity,” Hoch said.
He says that the government can make it harder in more subtle ways, such as making it harder for a Pride event to get a liquor license.
Fenning doesn’t expect the Trump administration or national Republicans to go out of their way to target Pride and LGBTQ+ organizations, but he’s not holding his breath for any warm embraces either.
“I do think that perhaps the Trump administration is going to be less friendly than the Biden administration towards LGBT organizations, right? That I know I, for one, am surely not going to get an invitation to the White House again anytime soon,” he said with a laugh.
10. What can we do?
Journalism professor Aaron Veenstra emphasized the importance of having essential legal documents, like passports, birth certificates, and naturalization papers. This is especially true for individuals who may face scrutiny, such as immigrants or those with legal name changes.
He also advises organizations to keep sensitive communication secure by adopting encrypted communication channels — “Signal is good here, face to face is better.”
“For both individuals and organizations, do not comply in advance, and look to the history of the Reagan era on building networks of solidarity and support with other targeted communities,” Veenstra said.
David Richardson, Florida’s 1st LGBTQ+ State Legislator who just lost a race for Miami-Dade County Tax Collector, believes what he calls “Trump Effect” has been surprising these past years. He said that there was a big red wave that washed over the country that the queer community needs to stand strong in spite of.
“We can remain engaged and vigilant, call him out when necessary and begin rebuilding our efforts,” said Richardson.
Driggers urges that now is the time to learn how to organize and take action.
“At this point, we need to build power locally and build power within our communities until the point that we can leverage that power electorally,” he said. “That means organizing your workplace. Unionizing your workplace. Organizing your apartment complex or former tenants union.”
Most importantly, do something.
“If you have the means, donate to organizations that are doing good work. But the most pressing task is to just get involved. Join an organization,” he said. “Find a political home where you can contribute to collective power.”
Building on this call to action, Fenning is confident that attempts to pass harmful legislation will be met with resistance — if people step up.
“To be clear, if people do not show up to do something about it, if we do not see a forceful and meaningful response to the hate and bigotry that will inevitably attempt to pass through our legislative chambers, [the president] will sign into the law.”
He encourages signing up to volunteer with PRISM and other LGBTQ+ organizations. Other organizations that were represented in this story are Youth Action Fund, Equality Florida, and the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council.
English instructor Jake Henson offered some advice as to what we shouldn’t do.
““We cannot allow ourselves or those we love to become cynical. Cynicism will not only undo our good work — but will accelerate harms that will impact our most vulnerable first and worst,” he said. “We cannot stop at simply educating ourselves. We cannot stop at donations or at signing petitions. We cannot stop when we disagree.”
He urged: stay engaged, not jaded.
The work has always been to radically transform the world so that prosperity isn’t just for the few at the top or those with the right privileges,” he said. “This turn makes that work harder — but the work doesn’t change.”
Sign up to receive the OutFAU newsletter here
