Uncloseted Media published this article on July 16.

By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | On Sunday, the office of Lindsey Graham reported that the Republican senator and Trump ally from South Carolina died “from a brief and sudden illness.” The office said that the preliminary cause of death was a rupture of his aorta due to a hardening of his arteries.

Since then, many folks in the LGBTQ community, including a large number of Uncloseted followers, have — for better or worse — celebrated the senator’s death. When we posted the news on our Instagram page on Sunday, our followers commented:

• “Maybe he rest in hell”—this one got 194 likes.
• “She made sure to wait until Pride was over.”
• “And just like that the world is a better place.”

These responses are fueled by allegations that the senator lived as a closeted gay man while supporting policies that would roll back LGBTQ rights. In 2006, he voted in support of a constitutional amendment that would have restricted marriage to only being between one man and one woman. After gay marriage became legal across the U.S. in 2015, he said “I am a proud defender of traditional marriage.” And in 2022, he told CNN he would oppose the Respect for Marriage Act and later reiterated that states should decide the issue of marriage.

Outside the Washington rumor mill, there wasn’t much evidence that Graham could be gay until 2020, when adult video performer Sean Harding wrote on Twitter that “There is a homophobic republican senator who is no better than Trump who keeps passing legislation that is damaging to the lgbt and minority communities. Every sex worker I know has been hired by this man. Wondering if enough of us spoke out if that could get him out of office?”

Harding followed up with another post, writing “If you’d be willing to stand with me against LG please let me know,” and, “So far I have two individuals who would be willing to go public and support my claims. Anyone else?”

A few days later, another anonymous sex worker came forward and made similar allegations.

But after that, there was silence, with some believing these sex workers were slapped with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). And while at least one lawyer took to Twitter saying that he’d “be more than happy to read the NDAs and look for loopholes. For free!” nobody else came forward.

That is until earlier this week, when author Jesse James Rose posted to her Instagram that Graham had paid her for sex work prior to her gender transition. Rose wrote that “Most of you know him as the homophobic senator from South Carolina but to me he will always be the man who paid a twinky pre-transition college student a fat stack of cash to do unspeakable things to him in a hotel room while he wore red lingerie.”

This dynamic has created a complicated question for LGBTQ people: Is it appropriate to posthumously celebrate the death of a man who railed against our community and used his position of power to make our lives less equitable and less safe? Is it even more fair to criticize him if he was living a secret queer life?

Or should we go high and give his track record on LGBTQ issues a positive spin now that he’s no longer with us?

In a time where social media feels like a breeding ground for angertainment, I’ll admit that the immediacy of the response to his death at first felt intense.

At the same time, I knew I didn’t want to send thoughts or prayers to a man who tried to rip my rights away.

If the alleged NDAs that Graham handed his sex workers were legitimate, they likely evaporated after his death. So now really may be the first time people can speak their truth and offer an accurate window into the absurd hypocrisy between Graham’s public and private life.

For that, I think it’s fair game to speak candidly about the story he may have worked hard to muzzle while he was here.

The U.S. military will begin testing and treating service members with hormone therapy despite banning similar medical care for transgender service members.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that troops ages 30 and older will be subject to annual testosterone screenings, while younger service members will have the option to voluntarily opt in. Some troops may then be recommended for hormone therapy, he explained in a video posted to social media.

“Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters age 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment,” Hegseth said in a video posted to X, captioned “The High-T Department of War.”

This push to test testosterone levels, as the hormone is commonly referred to as “T,” runs counter to current medical guidelines. Physicians are generally advised to discuss testosterone therapy only with men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.

Testosterone is a vital sex hormone that all humans naturally produce. It helps regulate muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. In men, it is primarily produced in the testicles, while in women it is produced in the ovaries and adrenal glands.

Natural testosterone levels in men decline with age and have long been associated with issues such as erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes, and weight gain. However, experts continue to debate whether these conditions should routinely be treated with testosterone therapy.

Hegseth’s announcement aligns with other actions taken by the Trump-Vance administration — including efforts by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — to make testosterone therapy more accessible for men, particularly those assigned male at birth.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration proposed easing prescribing restrictions on testosterone gels, pills, patches, and injections following a December advisory panel that recommended reducing regulatory hurdles to expand access to testosterone therapy.

Currently, FDA labeling specifies that these medications are approved only for men with hypogonadism, a medical condition that causes abnormally low testosterone levels.

The announcement came as a shock to many LGBTQ advocates because Hegseth and the Defense Department have cited the use of hormone therapy by trans service members as justification for their dismissal under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.“

The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation proceeds. As a result, many trans service members have had their gender-affirming medical care halted, even as similar hormone therapy is now being expanded for cisgender service members. Under the executive order, the military currently disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings for trans personnel.

SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans, and their allies, issued a statement to the Washington Blade following Hegseth’s announcement.

“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”

The legal fight over trans military service remains ongoing.

On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so, while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.

The Blade reached out to the Pentagon to ask why cisgender service members could receive hormone therapy while trans service members could not, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

India’s Supreme Court is expected to issue a closely watched constitutional ruling that could shape the future of LGBTQ rights litigation. 

The decision will determine whether courts can continue to rely on the doctrine of constitutional morality, a principle that has underpinned several landmark rights decisions. During hearings in April, the Indian government urged the Supreme Court to reject the doctrine, arguing that it has no basis in the Constitution and should not guide judicial decision-making.

For years, the Supreme Court has relied on the constitutional morality doctrine to treat the Constitution as a living document: one whose enduring promises of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity must be applied to the realities of a changing society rather than remain frozen in the era in which it was written.

The Indian government in April asked the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutional reasoning behind two landmark judgments: one that struck down the country’s adultery law and another that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations, arguing that both relied on a subjective invocation of constitutional morality and should no longer be treated as good law.

Arguing before a 9-judge bench considering constitutional questions referred from the Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala temple case, which allowed women of menstruating age to enter one of Hinduism’s holiest shrines after a centuries-old ban, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, India’s second-highest law officer, argued that “constitutional morality” has no textual basis in the Constitution and is instead a judicially evolved concept that is vague and indeterminate.

Mehta said the government did not oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 497 of the Indian penal code, which criminalized adultery, if it was based on Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Instead, he argued that the court should not have relied on what he described as the “vague and subjective” doctrine of constitutional morality to reach its conclusion.

Mehta told the Supreme Court that its 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ruling that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations wrongly equated “morality” with majoritarian or mob morality while relying on constitutional morality as the basis for its reasoning.

To support his argument against relying on constitutional morality, Mehta quoted extensively from then-Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas. 

Scalia argued that courts should not import foreign legal trends or allow evolving social values to drive constitutional interpretation, contending that judges must remain neutral arbiters rather than participants in broader cultural debates.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Navtej Singh Johar and Joseph Shine, Mehta questioned whether the judgments reflected the constitutional vision of India’s founding generation. 

“If these judgments, Navtej Johar, Joseph Shine, etc., were to be read by Dr. Ambedkar or Kanhaiyalal Munshi or Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, I do not know whether they would be surprised, shocked or they would say that this is what we wanted. I believe, they did not want this to happen,” he told the bench.

“A new trend starts, which is Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi,” Mehta said. “This is the judgment of Delhi High Court which was ultimately affirmed in Navtej Johar, sodomy … ‘In our scheme of things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view.’ In case of a country governed by democratic principles, the view which is always majoritarian will prevail. When it is question of testing a law, it is always the majority which passes the law. How can you define morality based on this?”

The Naz Foundation case marked the beginning of a landmark constitutional challenge to Section 377 of the Indian penal code, a colonial-era provision that criminalized consensual same-sex relations between adults as “against the order of nature.” The public interest litigation, filed in 2001 by the Naz Foundation, an NGO working on HIV/AIDS and sexual health, argued that the law violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 

In 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled in the organization’s favor, holding that Section 377 violated the rights to equality under Article 14, protection against discrimination under Article 15, and life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling was short-lived. 

In 2013, the Supreme Court, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation overturned the decision, recriminalizing homosexuality under Section 377. 

The court held that the law affected only a “minuscule fraction” of the population and said it was for Parliament — not the judiciary — to decide whether the provision should remain on the statute books. Five years later, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench in Navtej Singh Johar, unanimously overruled its 2013 judgment, holding that Section 377 was unconstitutional. The decision marked the culmination of the Naz Foundation’s long legal challenge to the colonial-era provision.

Anish Gawande, the first openly gay person to serve as a national spokesperson for a major political party in India, the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar), told the Washington Blade that the doctrine of constitutional morality, which he said underpinned not only Navtej Singh Johar but also forms one of the foundational principles of India’s constitutional jurisprudence, is “an incredibly important concept.”

“It provides a moral backbone to the document in a way that prevents any amendments to the Constitution from being out into place that would violate the very ethos upon which the Constitution was framed,” Gawande said. “Constitutional morality is an incredibly important antidote to societal morality. It’s been what has allowed us to clamp down on things like dowry. It’s been something that has allowed us to bar even regressive religious practices that might go against human dignity. It’s also been an incredibly important framework that has allowed for the advancement of LGBTQ rights in opposition to arguments made by practitioners and leaders of various religious denominations about the societal immorality of queerness.” 

“The most critical part of constitutional morality, which is a doctrine that has been put in place by the courts, is that it is a very effective bulwark against majoritarianism and the unilateral diktat of the executive over the judiciary and, in some ways, also the legislature,” he added.

Gawande said those factors make constitutional morality “an incredibly important concept” in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. 

If the Supreme Court were ultimately to narrow or reject the doctrine, he said, judgments that have relied on constitutional morality, including the landmark Navtej Singh Johar ruling could come under renewed scrutiny. He added, however, that he did not believe the Supreme Court would take that step because it would run contrary to its own institutional interests.

Gawande said the government has advanced several reasons for challenging the doctrine of constitutional morality. One of them, he said, is that the solicitor general has opposed the doctrine in cases involving religious issues, arguing that courts should not rely on it in constitutional adjudication. 

“The downward repercussions of this, however, could extend to LGBTQ rights and to the rights of all sorts of persecuted minorities in the future,” he said.

“The second thing is that, in principle, the section 377 judgment, of course, rests upon constitutional morality, but it is also resting upon so many other fundamental rights, including the right to privacy that Puttuswamy upheld before the Navtej Singh Johar verdict,” Gawande added. “In Navtej, the right to privacy was also cited as an incredibly important condition upon which the decriminalization of ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ could be permitted. In many ways, the fact that Section 377 does not exist on the statute books at all in the present updated penal codes, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, provides some respite. The entry of Section 377, at least immediately after a reading down of constitutional morality, is not imminent yet. However, it opens the door for a new Section 377 to be introduced and the judicial mechanism available to counter that new section 377, if it were to be introduced, to be reduced significantly.”

Ankit Bhupatani, an LGBTQ activist, said he does not believe the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of constitutional morality would lead to the recriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations. 

He argued the 2018 Navtej Singh Johar decision rests on multiple constitutional principles beyond constitutional morality, but warned that weakening the doctrine could make it more difficult to secure future LGBTQ rights through the courts.

“If we have to take an informed guess on why the government does not like the concept of constitutional morality, it is because it wants a narrower field of judicial review and an elected legislature restored as the primary author of social policy,” Bhupatani said. “But we have already seen parliament’s ability to make laws related to LGBT rights, and it does not give optimism.” 

“The only practical way forward for LGBT rights in India is the judiciary,” he added. “But if the government’s argument is accepted by the Supreme Court, it means the next gay Indian who walks into a court for marriage, for adoption, for inheritance, or for a job they were fired from, finds it more difficult to secure these rights from the only institution from which we could hope for a positive outcome.”

Bhupatani said the decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations would probably survive because the Navtej Singh Johar judgment also rests on the constitutional principles of privacy and equality. However, he warned that weakening the doctrine of constitutional morality could stall broader progress for LGBTQ rights. 

“The community keeps the floor and loses the staircase,” he said. “Nobody is criminalized, but nobody moves up.”

“The clever thing about this is that it lets the government have it both ways. To its so-called base, who think that making the law, especially on social issues, is the work of elected parliamentarians and not judges,” said Bhupatani. “It signals that the 2018 verdict was a judicial overreach that ought never to have happened. To everyone else, truthfully, that it never asked to recriminalize anyone. Both messages, one filing.”

Bhupatani said the implications of the government’s position extend beyond LGBTQ rights, arguing that asking the Supreme Court to treat the reasoning in Navtej Singh Johar as “not good law” raises broader questions about India’s commitment to constitutional rights. He said such a move could also affect how India’s constitutional democracy is perceived internationally.