The Log Cabin “Republicans” are Democrats in “Conservative” Drag

 

In a previous article, I “snatched the wig” (look it up) off the Log Cabin Republicans, exposing that they were not moving away from transgender advocacy out of some sense of righteousness or goodwill for the public – or the country.

They have reworked themselves, like a drag queen putting on a MAGA hat, to seem less crazy, more conservative, more in line with cultural currents that are rejecting the transgenderism cult just to protect their homosexual advocacy (Read, moral disintegration).

Their move against the T is not a principled reform, but CYA (cover your a--) of the highest order.

A drag queen wearing a MAGA hat is still a drag queen.

And drag queens, or any other form of family-destroying anarchy, is not conservative. In fact, there is nothing conservative about a movement claiming to promote homosexuality as a static identity deserving of the same rights and privileges as other identity groups.

The Log Cabin “Republicans” are democrats in “Conservative” drag, and we should stop pretending otherwise.

Despite all the evidence, the Log Cabin “Republicans” protest that they are a conservative movement, but that they want to provide a place for homosexual Republicans (?) to speak out for their brand of identity politics while fighting for other conservative priorities.

Putting aside their ongoing promotion of anti-natural law and natural-rights sexual deviancy, let’s confront and dismantle the lie that the Log Cabin “Republicans” are a conservative group in every other way.

To rebuff any rebuttals, let’s establish that they do claim to be conservative.

Hemminger writes in his “No More T” Op-ed:

Fifty years ago next year, Log Cabin Republicans was founded on a simple conviction: that gay Americans who believe in limited government, individual liberty, and equality deserve equal protection under the law and a voice inside the Republican Party. From the start, Log Cabin Republicans grounded its advocacy in constitutional principles — equal protection, limited government, and individual freedom.

Are the Log Cabin GOP really committed to limited government, individual liberty, and equal protection under the law?

That phrase “under the law” covers a lot of devilish subtleties. For the last ten years, the Democratic Party has attempted to pass the so-called “Equality Act” in Congress, which would further corrupt the Civil Rights Act corpus of legislation to include homosexual conduct and cross-dressing as civil rights. Log Cabin pundits are all in on the “Equality Act.”

Expansion of protected classes in Civil Rights jurisprudence ensures the growth of government overreach. While we should all resist invidious discrimination, the federal government’s crude “Civil Rights Acts” enforcement, including forced quotas and affirmative action, has frustrated liberty without combatting bigotry. Before his assassination, Charlie Kirk argued for repealing the Civil Rights Act. Free enterprise, freedom to choose, and capitalism (true limited government) provide the best protections for consumers. Conservatives have long understood this. However, the Log Cabin “Republicans” are all in favor of big government “non-discrimination” interventions. They have no problem with violating freedom of association as well as freedom of speech and freedom of commerce, i.e., pursuit (not guarantee) of happiness.

Other rights which conservatives care about include the right of children to be raised in natural families, as well as the committed protection of public order for their future. The Log Cabin “Republicans” not only support redefinition of marriage, but support homosexual couples taking children away from their natural parents. How is it “limited government” when homosexual activists (Republican as well as Democrat) use the state to punish churches, charities, and small businesses for not celebrating their homosexual activities as a matter of preference or conscience?

The Log Cabin “Republicans” support a nationwide ban on “conversion” therapy for minors. In other words, they traffic in the lies of the Left, propagandizing that reparative or restorative therapy harms individuals, including children. Father Richard Sullins of the Ruth Institute has expertly debunked these claims. Recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that states cannot prevent therapists from providing restorative therapy to children on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Not only do the Log Cabin statist oppose key principles protected by the United States Constitution, but they can’t even get with the times legally!

Here’s another problem: they claim to have ended their transgender advocacy, yet look at their goals within the Decriminalization section under the “Issues” tab of their website:

• International decriminalization of homosexuality.
• International decriminalization of gender identity/expression for trans people.
• Eradication of the death penalty as a means of punishment for LGB people.
• Sanctions against any country which, to any extent, criminalizes LGB people.
• Recognition, in the granting of requests for asylum, of the plight of LGB people who are persecuted and threatened with execution.

They still advocate for defending “Gender identity/expression for trans people.” I thought they were abandoning T advocacy?

On LCR’s arrogant, woke liberal leanings are further proof of their big-government, read Democratic sensibilities. They want to pressure other countries to normalize homosexuality. Who do they think they are? The United Nations (another abortive liberal hegemon). What right do they have to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries, whose citizens want to protect the integrity of the family and the well-being of their children? Senegal, Ghana, Kazakhstan, etc. have the sovereign right to oppose homosexuality and cross-dressing in their domains. They have witnessed the moral collapse in the West following the permission and promotion of the LGBT agenda, and they want none of it in their countries.

For the record, how do the Log Cabin globalists intend to enforce LGBT decriminalization? By government force, naturally; hence, big government. So much for Live and Let Live!

In addition to pushing anti-conservative protections for LGBT behaviors in other countries, they expect the United States to take in every person who claims persecution for LGBT status. Should we welcome such “refugees” into our country? This is an open-borders agenda, one which will exacerbate the size and scope of the American bureaucracy while doing nothing to help American citizens.

If these platform planks aren’t enough to prove the true liberal leanings of this fake Republican enterprise, consider their current leadership. They just appointed former Congresswoman and Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer as their national secretary. DeRemer voted like a liberal Republican during her one-term tenure, even though her election ensured, for the first time in decades, that the Oregon Congressional delegation had two Republicans. She supported the PRO Act, which would have made it more difficult to leave a union, effectively negating state right-to-work laws.

As Secretary of Labor, Chavez-DeRemer faced criticism because of her anti-worker freedom record. Towards the end of her tenure, she faced civil rights complaints (how about that?!). Then she was forced out over misconduct with staff.

Another Log Cabin Leader, RINO former state senator Richard Tisei, co-sponsored the Massachusetts “Bathroom Bill” of 2016, which not only allowed confused men into women’s spaces, but also authorized massive legal sanctions against anyone who resisted these obscene, invasive policies. This is Big Government at its worst.

Log Cabin Republicans are a big-government liberal organization, or “trans-Republicans” at best. It’s all the more reason they should be disbanded entirely, or at least stop calling themselves “Republicans.” Better yet, they should just “sashay away.”

The Log Cabin Republicans Lie Regarding the T

 

The Log Cabin “Republicans,” the so-called “gay conservative” faction within the GOP, have announced that they will no longer rally or vouch for the T, i.e., they are closing up shop on their transgenderism advocacy.

We should all celebrate, right?

As some may say, the drag queen, er, the devil is in the details.

Their former Communications Director and current President, Ross Hemminger, published a full statement on Townhall.com outlining this new policy. As an interesting side note, Hemminger provides PR and Media Relations at the American Pharmacists Association (APhA). Big Pharma loves LGBT, since that population requires so much medication and medical care as a consequence of the destructive behaviors rampant among homosexual and transgender populations.

Here’s the main portion of Hemminger’s statement:

In 2015, the Log Cabin Republicans Board of Directors voted to add the “T” under the umbrella of our mission — out of a belief that all adults should be allowed to pursue their own happiness, free of government interference, as long as it did not impede on the inalienable rights of others.

At the time, we did not believe that we would find ourselves where we are today. The transgender movement has ceased focusing on adults at all — nearly all of their efforts and those of their aligned special interest groups focus on minors …

That is why, after significant discussion with our membership, our Board of Directors voted to refine Log Cabin Republicans’ national advocacy focus to concentrate specifically on issues of sexual orientation and conservative values — in other words, we are an LGB advocacy organization, as our founders envisioned and as our moral center calls us to be.

There is so much to confront and expose here.

Since when has the pursuit of transgenderism resulted in “happiness”? Study after study have affirmed that transgender populations suffer disproportionately from mental health as well as varied physical problems. Since when does advocacy for such mental illness constitute a pursuit of anything, besides hospital stays and medical bills?

Furthermore, we have witnessed for the last ten years that, indeed, transgenderism violates the rights of others. What women look forward to sharing their sports rosters, locker rooms, or bathroom with a biological male cosplaying as female? How many women have been harmed sparring with these confused, creepy men masquerading as women?!

Clearly, the unalienable rights of women have been harmed, and for quite some time.

Look at the scores of detransitioners calling out the abusive medicalization of children struggling with identity dysphoria or growing up in at-risk environments, who actually needed counseling, not the mutilation of their chests and genitals. The rising awareness and outrage with the transgender cult is unmistakable. Yet only now do the Log Cabin Republicans choose to take a stand?

Then Hemminger claims that his gay “conservative” group never anticipated all the gender-bending madness that would ensue. Really? He could have looked at Massachusetts, when the Commonwealth’s Supreme Court forced same-sex “marriage” on the entire state in 2003, by complete judicial fiat—with enabling from Governor Mitt Romney. In a matter of months, transgender rights and advocacy exploded across the Commonwealth.

In fact, within days of that abortive ruling, a more transformative, fundamentally damaging change took place: marriage licenses changed their text from “Husband and Wife” to “Partner A and Partner B.”

That is the essence of transgenderism: erasing the inescapable, irreducible, inalienable differences of male and female. Homosexuality at its core treats men as if they can be women, since they are forced into receptive sexual activities. Women attempt to play dominant, read masculine, sexual roles with other women. The seeds of transgenderism were already rooted in homosexual advocacy and normalization, so the Log Cabin “Republicans” have no standing to play dumb or be shocked by such negative developments.

Notice also that the Log Cabin inverts have no problem with transgenderism for adults. Yet they should. We all should. No one should aid and abet mental illness, and no one should be forced to go along with such a monstrous, destabilizing lie.

I also had to laugh at the specific phrase, “[W]e are an LGB advocacy organization, as our founders envisioned and as our moral center calls us to be.” There is no moral center that justifies or promotes homosexuality. Such conduct is inherently destructive, such that even the Catholic Church catechism recognizes such behaviors as disordered. Hemminger’s use of the phrase “our founders envisioned” is a perverse twisting of the true Founding Fathers of our nation: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and so on. These men would never have countenanced, let alone tolerated, sodomy or cross-dressing.

Here’s the biggest fraud. They claim that they are backing away from the T because of “the children. True to their subversive agenda, this LGB(T) advocacy organization attempts to pose (or rat her sashay?) as a bunch of leave-us-alone do-gooders who want what’s best for the kids.

The real reason for this pivot is more selfish and insidious. Heminger adds:

However, the new era of gender identity politics is not the movement we supported and fought for. Gay men and women are losing public support across the country, and support for gay marriage and other once-widely accepted rights is eroding. Why? Because many voters today weren’t alive or cognizant of the politics of gay marriage winding its way through the courts and gaining ground in public opinion. Their view of the gay community is based on today’s radical transgender activists with their unnecessary and discomfiting focus on America’s youth.

 

They don’t care about the kids. They care about themselves and the so-called privileges they have acquired through judicial fiat and media/cultural/political jamming. Notice the replete falsehoods, like “gay men and women,” as though sexual conduct is an innate identity—never mind that millions of people around the world have left homosexuality and transgenderism to lead normal, happy, even thriving lives.

Notice also that they blame the transgender madness for the increasing opposition to same-sex “marriage” and so-called gay rights. The truth is that the public is recognizing that all the problems pro-family activists warned would happen, have happened. Children are being trafficked like commodities to gay couples via surrogacy. Creepy teachers and other professional groomers are pushing LGBT propaganda on children in the public schools, often without the parents’ knowledge or permission. Who can ignore the numerous churches, charities, and small businesses unduly harmed by vexatious litigation if they refuse to “bake the cake”?

The Log Cabin Republicans are trying to take cover from the growing onslaught against the LGBT agenda by taking a wobbly stance against transgenderism. Already, the pro-LGBT Left has assailed this group for their “capitulation,” but rather mock the homosexual Republicans for caving to the reform spirit in the country, saying not the transgenderism madness.

Yet the Right should speak up as well and reject their cultural Marxist agenda. The Log Cabin “Republicans” are advocating for all sorts of harm to our constitutional republic and the American body politic. They may change course or reduce their speed, but they still pursue an anti-family agenda which harms children, undermines families, and hurts society as a whole.

If the Log Cabin Republicans want to do good for the country, they would disband entirely.

Statement of Arthur Schaper's Departure from MassResistance

Hey, everyone!

Many supporters and fellow activists have reached out to me over the last three weeks about MassResistance’s ongoing efforts. Local and international activists have been in touch with me about projects as well.

Today, it is time for me to make the announcement official:

July 31, 2026, was my last day working for MassResistance.

I stayed in touch with the organization day by day for the next few weeks to assist the main office with transition efforts.

My work with the international pro-family group that makes the difference has come to a close.

Their mission has not ceased. My mission has changed.

I am more committed than ever to standing for truth, and I believe—no, I know!—that MassResistance is the only pro-family organization that has maintained a steadfast commitment to telling the whole truth about the LGBT agenda, unafraid to confront cowardly conservatives as well as lame liberals and poisonous progressives intent on accommodating or imposing the LGBT agenda on others.

I have a growing interest in intellectual activism, not just organizing for wins in legislatures or government entities. There is a need to confront the lies and promote the truth in more ways, and I have enjoyed writing and commenting on these issues at great length.

It’s my hope that I can continue along those lines to fight the good fight and stand for truth.

MassResistance still needs your help and your activism!

Please let President Brian Camenker know if you want to stay in the fight!

From this point forward, if there are any MassResistance-related questions or ideas, please send them to Brian directly or visit the website.

Email him at brian@massresistance.org

Website: www.massresistance.org

Thank you for all your support and ongoing commitment to stand for truth and fight the lies of the LGBT agenda.

Sincerely,

Arthur Schaper

MassResistance Special Reports: How Texas Banned GSAs Statewide

 

MassResistance Special 10-part Report:

Why LGBT “GSA Clubs” must be banned from all public schools.

Part 9: How Texas banned GSAs statewide

Texas GSA ban is part of a bold, comprehensive parents’ rights law enacted in 2025

Radical pro-LGBT groups got a temporary court injunction in three school districts

But other schools across state have closed down their GSAs

July 31, 2026

 Outside the Texas State Capitol in 2021. For years MassResistance pressured Texas legislators to move forward on parents' rights. They kept stalling. It finally came to fruition last year.

Texas is boldly leading the way and doing the right thing.

In Part 8 we described the legal threats used by the LGBT movement to keep GSA clubs (“Gay Straight Alliance” or “Genders and Sexualities Alliance”) from being blocked in schools. In particular, they invoke the federal Equal Access Act (which we debunked in Part 7).

As a result, state legislatures, local governments, and school districts have been afraid to prohibit GSAs.

But the Texas legislature has now passed a law that outright bans GSAs. And the state is aggressively fighting the LGBT movement’s court challenge in three school districts. (Texas has over 1,200 school districts.)

Texas passes a bold bill

On June 20, 2025, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed bill SB 12 into law. It is a comprehensive bill that enacts a bold list of parents’ rights mandates, as well as new reporting requirements, certifications, and directives for all Texas schools.

When it went into effect on September 1, 2025, it gave the Left nightmares.

The major parts of SB 12 include:

• Ban on all GSAs. The law specifically says: “A school district or open-enrollment charter school may not authorize or sponsor a student club based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”
• Requires written permission to join any student club. A school district must require the written consent of a parent or guardian before a student may participate in a student club at the district or school. (Note: We are not sure why this extra bureauracy is necessary now. Requiring permission for all clubs was a tactic by some schools to avoid the legal threat of banning GSAs, but just makes it harder to join them.)
• No LGBT discussion or indoctrination in classes or elsewhere. Prohibits school districts, charter schools, staff, or third parties from providing instruction, guidance, activities, or programming regarding sexual orientation or gender identity across all grades pre-K through 12th. (This is as important as the GSA ban!)
• No DEI in the schools. Schools are prohibited from having any school-wide diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives or activities. School districts are barred from assigning DEI duties to employees or allowing employees, contractors, or volunteers to engage in DEI duties.
• No “social transitioning” of students. School employees are prohibited from aiding or encouraging a student's "social transitioning" (such as using a name or pronouns that differ from the student's legal name or biological sex) without express written parental consent.
• Parental notification of changes to students’ health or “well-being.” Parents must be notified of any changes to mental, emotional, or physical health of their children, and if they are being monitored regarding that. It also prohibits policies that encourage students to keep health information hidden from parents. (Example: Children in an emotional crisis are easily persuaded by school counselors that they are “gay” or “trans.”)
• Strict opt-in for psychological, medical, and health services. Clarifies that explicit, affirmative written consent (which cannot be bundled with other generic signature forms) is required for psychological/psychiatric exams or treatments, biometric data collection, non-routine healthcare/medications, or human sexuality instruction.
• Written consent for surveys and screening. Requires written parental consent prior to administering any well-being questionnaire, survey, check-in, or health screening form.
• Pro-parent school board meeting changes. Local school boards must hold their meetings outside of normal work hours, move the public comments segment to the beginning of the meeting, and have an online comments portal.
• Parental access to child’s school library records: Expands parental record access rights to include tracking all library materials checked out by their child.
• Mandatory posting of course syllabi: Requires districts to post an instructional plan or syllabus for every class on the district website at the start of each semester, and mandates that teachers provide copies to administrators and parents before the semester begins.

Complying with GSA ban

To avoid state compliance penalties or loss of funding, school districts across Texas quickly got to work to follow the law.

Regarding the GSA prohibition, school boards and administrators across Texas moved to formally disband, derecognize, or deny facilities to GSAs, Pride clubs, and similar student organizations.

In many communities, former GSA student leaders shifted their meetings off-campus to local community centers, libraries, or online platforms to maintain support networks outside of the school’s jurisdiction. But that means the clubs are now less influential or effective than when they were official groups inside the schools.

In addition, districts across Texas created a new administrative infrastructure, requiring all students to submit signed parental consent forms before joining any extracurricular club (chess club, robotics, debate, etc.).

LGBT legal groups file a lawsuit and get an injunction for 3 school districts

A few days before the law took effect, a coalition of radical groups filed a federal lawsuit, GSA Network v. Mormath, in the U.S. District Court. The plaintiffs included: GSA Network, Transgender Law Center, ACLU of Texas, Texas American Federation of Teachers, and some individual students and teachers.

 Pushing the agenda. ACLU Texas staff at LGBTQ Pride event. Note their signs: "Pride is still protest." [Photo by aclutx.org]

The plaintiffs’ legal standing allows the lawsuit to apply to only three school districts: Houston ISD, Katy ISD, and Plano ISD.

The lawsuit challenges four parts of SB 12:

1. The GSA Ban (Section 27 / Sec. 33.0815(b))
2. The Inclusivity/DEI Ban (Section 3)
3. The Social Transition Ban (Section 7)
4. The “LGBTQ+” Curriculum Ban (Section 24)

(Interestingly, the lawsuit challenges the GSA ban, but it does not challenge the requirement for written parental permission for a student to join any authorized school club. That’s likely something they don’t think they can win.)

What is the basis for their legal challenge? In GSA Network v. Mormath, they use the same basic hackneyed legal arguments that we’ve seen them use everywhere for these kinds of cases.

• The Federal Equal Access Act of 1984: They claim that the law prohibits schools from “discriminating based on content of speech.” But as we’ve outlined, that law does not apply in this situation.
• First Amendment (Free Speech): They claim the state is singling out topics of sexual orientation and gender identity for “targeted suppression.” But in fact, schools and teachers do not have a “free speech” right to present anything imaginable to minor children. (If they want that, they should teach at a college instead.)
• Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process): They argue that restrictions are so vague that it’s impossible for educators to know what conduct or conversations are prohibited. That is all absurd.

In a normal courtroom (i.e., with an unbiased judge) with aggressive and knowledgeable lawyers defending the case, this would be a very difficult lawsuit to win.

The plaintiffs asked for an immediate injunction for the three districts against implementing the challenged sections of SB 12 (including the GSA club ban) while the lawsuit is litigated.

In an upsetting development, the three named school districts declined to defend against the lawsuit. Instead, they filed brief responses taking "no position," which the court treated as a procedural waiver under party-presentation principles. This is not surprising. Those districts likely have leftist school boards and public attorneys who don’t oppose the LGBT agenda in their schools.

Thus, since the injunction request was unopposed, on February 20, 2026, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Eskridge (a Trump appointee) granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The injunction is limited to those three districts; it is not statewide.

Texas Attorney General stepping in to defend the case and appeal the injunction

In April, 2026, the Texas Attorney General filed a formal motion to intervene to represent the State of Texas's sovereign interest in defending Senate Bill 12 in the lawsuit. The motion was approved. The AG’s office is now actively leading the defense of the law on the merits as the case proceeds through discovery toward trial. The litigation could potentially continue for years.

The Texas AG has also filed appeal of the preliminary injunction before the U.S. Court of Appeals. Specifically, The AG petitioned the appeals court for an expedited stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal, arguing that the State of Texas suffers an irreparable constitutional injury whenever a state statute is enjoined by a federal court, regardless of whether local school districts declined to defend it. At this point, the appeals court has not issued a ruling or granted a stay on the preliminary injunction.

All other Texas school districts are required to follow the entire law

Texas is now the only state where GSAs are legally banned from all public schools and charter schools. And to our knowledge, the state intends to be aggressive about enforcing that – with financial and other penalties for districts in violation.

Final thoughts

Texas has proven that bold, sane action is possible. Now the rest of the country should follow. Truly, it’s not too difficult; the LGBT movement’s legal threats are paper tigers.

Until only very recently in our country’s history, the idea of a club for children in public schools that promotes and normalizes homosexuality (or transgenderism, BDSM, etc.) would have been considered unspeakable. The fact that now a state law must be passed to get them out of schools is a terrible reflection of today’s society.

We hope our GSA report series helps laws like Texas’s SB 12 to get passed in more states. It’s time for good people to stand strong!

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

MassResistance Takes on GSA's Part 8: Outside Groups Professional Organizations Pushing GSAs

 

MassResistance Special 10-part Report:

Why LGBT “GSA Clubs” must be banned from all public schools.

Part 8: How outside legal groups and “legitimate” professional organizations promote and defend GSAs in schools

They also intimidate parents and conservative school committee officials who disagree

July 27, 2026

 School officials and parents get propaganda from all sides on how they "must" allow destructive GSAs in their schools. But in fact they don't have to — and shouldn't.

National LGBT organizations are not the only ones behind GSA clubs (“Gay Straight Alliance” or “Genders and Sexualities Alliance”) found in thousands of schools across America. National professional organizations and legal groups also prop up that corrupt project.

In Part 2 of our GSA report, we described how these clubs get into K-12 schools. We noted that GSAs are not like other school clubs such as a chess club, a science club, etc. Their goals include normalizing homosexuality, transgenderism, and similar perverted behaviors in the school and the surrounding community.

GSAs are not organic; kids would not naturally think of starting one. They are professionally organized by activist adults and brought into the schools through sophisticated organizing and propaganda techniques.

To counter any pushback from school officials or community members, these national LGBT groups have developed forceful (though completely dishonest) talking points to intimidate and silence opponents to GSAs. And should objections to a GSA in a school system continue, the LGBT movement has more ammunition.

“Legitimate” professional organizations

Numerous professional associations (representing teachers and schools administrators, mental health professionals, physicians, counselor associations, etc.) also support the LGBT movement’s effort to push and keep GSAs in schools. The major organizations include:

American Psychological Association (APA)
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
National Education Association (NEA)
American Academy of Pediatrics
National Association of School Psychologists
American Association of School Administrators
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American School Counselor Association
American School Health Association
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
School Social Work Association of America

Unfortunately, too many school administrators – even many “conservative” ones – blindly follow the misguided advice these associations put out.

The American Psychological Association (APA) published a resource, Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth, meant to convince school principals and administrators across the country to support LGBT “diversity” policies in schools.

 A shocking pantheon of formerly trustworthy professional organizations have sold out to the LGBT movement.

In addition to the booklet’s overall strong advocacy of the normalization and support of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender “identities,” it includes statements from several of the organizations from their specific professional perspectives.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has posted this troubling statement endorsing GSAs in schools:

Several practices can improve the health, safety, and school connectedness for LGBTQ+ youth by addressing stigma and bias. Among them are conducting professional development with school staff, allowing LGBTQ+ students equal access to student-led clubs, and creating inclusive school and district policies. … Students in schools nationwide have created and led clubs where students with LGBTQ+ identities and their allies can socialize, provide support, and work together to create safe and supportive school environments. …

The APA also collaborated with the Los Angeles Children’s Hospital to recommend “establishing and sustaining GSAs” in the Los Angeles Schools.  The CDC helped fund that “Safe and Supportive Environments” initiative through its DASH funds (Division of Adolescent and School Health). The premise was “HIV prevention.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics (a noteworthy member of the above-mentioned “Just the Facts” coalition) also published a separate policy statement. Titled “Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents,” it discusses “safe schools,” cites data from GLSEN, and notes the value of GSAs.

The National Education Association (NEA) collaborated with the ACLU, Gender Spectrum, Human Rights Campaign, and National Center for Lesbian Rights to publish “Schools in Transition: A Guide for Supporting Transgender Students in K-12 Schools.” It pushes the “safe spaces” that GSAs impose on schools:

Creating school environments that respect and affirm gender diversity will empower all students rather than limit them. GLSEN’s study on the impact of Gay-Straight Alliances, for example, suggests that such organizations create school environments where all students are less likely to hear homophobic slurs.

The “Schools in Transition” report also suggests how to handle “unsupportive parents.”

 The NEA has teamed up with the worst possible groups on these issues.

Legal groups

There are also well-funded legal groups providing guidance and legal support to the adults and students engaged in GSAs. They employ (largely unsupportable) legal arguments to prevent or quash challenges to the GSAs. These invariably include a heavy reliance on threats to invoke the Equal Access Act. (Unfortunately, local school attorneys are often intimidated by these threats. In Part 7 we exposed the Equal Access Act as basically toothless.)

These radical legal groups include:

Lambda Legal
GLAD Law
ACLU
National Center for LGBTQ Rights (formerly National Center for Lesbian Rights)
Harvard Law School LGBTQI Advocacy Clinic
Transgender Law Center
Southern Poverty Law Center
U.S. Department of Education (Office for Civil Rights)

 Lambda Legal, like the ACLU, focuses its resources on suing conservative schools over GSAs. But their legal grounding is thinner than people realize.

GLAD Law (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders), based in Massachusetts, brags about the legal help it has given, forcing schools to allow GSAs. GLAD cites the Equal Access Act as the basis:

 This was passed out at "Youth Pride" events.

The ACLU uses the Equal Access Act to bully schools across the country to allow GSAs. It claims victories in protecting GSAs, largely through reference to that 1984 law. It has posted a template letter for use to instill fear of a lawsuit in a school administrator who opposes a GSA. It summarizes their defense for GSAs:

First page of ACLU’s 4-page threat letter to school superintendents:
“Allow the GSA or we’ll see you in court.”

ACLU and GLISTEN (formerly GLSEN) jointly authored this pamphlet (below): “Know Your Rights: A Guide for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students.” It summarizes their arguments on students’ free speech at school and what counts as “disruption” of educational time. It encourages students to file complaints if their “rights” to form a GSA are violated.

 This ACLU pamphlet cites a laundry list of federal laws and even the US Constitution to threaten schools into normalizing students' sexual perversions. But it's basically all scare tactics.

GLISTEN/GLSEN also supplies these additional resources for arguing for the legality of GSAs.

The U.S. Department of Education still posts this Biden-era 2023 document that advocated for GSA legality, citing court cases of losing efforts to shut down GSAs while ignoring much of the actual wording of the Equal Access Act.

 The US Department of Education still has this on its website - likely because its bureaucrats still believe in it.

Final thoughts

It’s shocking how many major “trustworthy” institutions have cowered before the poisonous LGBT radical agenda and are pushing it on vulnerable schoolchildren.

To an unsophisticated school administrator, school board member, or school attorney who objects to having a GSA at school, it seems the facts and the law are overwhelmingly stacked against him.

But if you drill down and do the research, you will find that the claim that GSAs are legally untouchable is a well-crafted illusion. The “facts” are either distortions or completely phony, and the legal arguments are easily dismantled. It just takes some courage, principles, and perseverance.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

LAUSD: Morally and Financially Bankrupt

 

Los Angeles Unified School District is having a hard time paying the bills, teaching the kids, and thus keeping its doors open.

Clearly, the administrators, bureaucrats, and the elected Board of Trustees don’t handle addition and subtraction all that well. The district is failing basic math, and not just for the students.

According to ABC News Los Angeles, LAUSD is on the brink of bankruptcy:

The Los Angeles Unified School District could run out of money within about a year and is showing severe signs of financial distress, according to county education authorities.

 

The nation's second-largest school district, which serves more than half a million students, faces possible insolvency, prompting the Los Angeles County Office of Education to take action.

 

The district's last student population estimate listed 497,105 enrollees. That’s LESS than half a million. Even ABC News is having number troubles.

 

 

What happened, and what could happen if the district doesn’t get its act together?

 

Officials cited massive union contracts estimated to cost more than $1 billion annually, along with declining enrollment and reduced state funding, as factors contributing to a growing deficit and the possibility of state oversight.

 

"Worst case scenario is the state takes over, and this goes under receivership under the state, and that takes a long time to get out of, and it is really hard to maintain any control over curriculum, over class size," Bacall said.

 

I am shocked---SHOCKED— (not!) that the school district is going belly up, and the parents are taking their students out.

The warning signs had been blaring for years.

The usual suspects cannot be ignored, and are easy to catalogue:

·         Plummeting Enrollment

·         Rising Inflation

·         Excessive Pensions and Salary Costs

·         Administrative bloat with Diminished Transparency and Oversight.

·         Lawsuit payouts

The biggest killer, obviously, is the plummeting enrollment. Los Angeles Unified kids aren’t learning, that’s for sure. According to US News and World Report, math proficiency scores have been plummeting across all grades. Reading scores show some progress from elementary to high school, but less than half of LAUSD high schoolers are proficient.

In the real world, companies without customers close down. In perverse contrast, government institutions get their money, whether they serve or not.

And LAUSD is not serving the public interest.

On top of that, LAUSD schools are not even safe. The students routinely run into abuse and harm from their peers—and sometimes their teachers! The rising rates of violence are frequently on the news. The feds could pull their funding because of the rising number of predator teachers who get transferred instead of incarcerated!

Getting a bad education from LAUSD was expected, but the student population was still relatively high.

Twenty years ago, I was a French teacher in South Gate, in a new school built on the site of an old General Motors plant. New school, lots of students (almost 3,000!), and there still weren’t enough classrooms. I had 45 students in one class! I could barely move around the room, and some students feared for their safety if there was a fire. When I threatened to call the fire marshal, the union rep leaned on the assistant principal, who moved three students out and dumped them in a P.E. class—those poor teachers had to deal with 70 students per period!

 

See how only three students were removed. Not much help there! Notice the bureaucratic hustle to get something done, too.

 

Fast forward to now, and LAUSD high schools, on average, manage around 1,000 students. Some of the schools should have been closed by now!

 

What changed the student population, then, if the bad education wasn’t enough? The dam broke with the COVID outbreak, which ended parental non-involvement. COVID-19 may have shut down the schools, but the whole ordeal opened the eyes of parents throughout the state. They saw the left-wing garbage their children were forced to learn. They saw the bad curriculum, the lack of attention to detail, integrity, and success. Los Angeles parents had had enough, and they voted with their feet, sometimes moving their kids to local districts (Downey, Torrance, Wiseburn Unified in the LAX-area are some notable examples), or they just left the state entirely.

 

COVID was a tipping point for another reason. Five years ago, I joined LAUSD teachers and parents protesting the outrageous health mandates from the district to “protect the kids.” Political affiliation or ideological leanings didn’t matter to all concerned attendees. Employees, students, and parents across the district protested in front of 333 South Beaudry, demanding that the district rescind its onerous vaccine mandates and mask rules and keep the schools open!

During the main rally after our march around the district office, teachers complained about the increased burden of contending with discipline issues and health demands. Then one of the students addressed the crowd, and her comments worked out to something like this: She lamented all the woke nonsense being shoved down her throat. She was tired of hearing all the race nonsense. She was tired of learning about the LGBT agenda and sitting through all the sexual diversity displays. Her summation was crystal clear about LAUSD, that they were not teaching anything, and then they make them wear these stupid masks, too!

Despite the rallying cry of parents and teachers, the district kept cracking down on the holdout teachers, staff, and students who had refused the jab. Facing the dim prospect of never entering the classroom again if they refused the dubious poke, students left.

The district didn’t care. They were looking for absolute obedience from the rank and file. If you didn’t step up, you got the boot.

And the teachers union—ULTA (United Teachers of Los Angeles)—didn’t care.

Five years later, their wicked, progressive partisanship could not be clearer. They don’t focus on education. They focus on leftist politics and progressive activism. In 2025, I was stunned by the large number of UTLA teachers protesting at Elon Musk’s Tesla headquarters in Hawthorne, CA. Didn’t they have more important things to do, like grading papers, preparing lessons, and contacting parents?

Their most pressing concern was stopping federal cuts to public education and the Department of Education. What they refuse to talk about—and this returns to the bureaucracy issue—is that public education could accomplish great things for students and parents with half the overhead, more accountability, lots of school choice, and efficient hiring and firing practices.

UTLA shouts “DOA!” at all of these reforms.

And the parents say, “CU Later.”

And now LAUSD announces that they’re broke.

Frankly, this is a fitting end for one of the largest school districts in the country. This kind of disruption, the cold equations of supply and demand, will do more to clean out the left-wing corruption that has marred states like California and New York while also limiting (and perhaps one day) shutting down the inordinate power of the National Education Foundation and the attending teachers unions across the country attached like tentacles to this destructive interest group.

LAUSD has been morally bankrupt for a long time, much of it from a corrosive teachers' union, inept and cowardly politicians, and misplaced priorities. Now their fiscal bankruptcy has come, and not a moment too soon.