Worlds Behind Words 3: Marriage Equality, Trans Rights, and the Psychology of Activism

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/31

William Dempsey, LICSW, is a Boston-based clinical social worker and LGBTQ+ mental-health advocate. He founded Heads Held High Counselling, a virtual, gender-affirming group practice serving Massachusetts and Illinois, where he and his team support clients navigating anxiety, depression, trauma, ADHD, and gender dysphoria. Clinically, Dempsey integrates EMDR, CBT, IFS, and expressive modalities, with a focus on accessible, equity-minded care. Beyond the clinic, he serves on the board of Drag Story Hour, helping expand inclusive literacy programming and resisting censorship pressures. His public scholarship and media appearances foreground compassionate, evidence-based practice and the lived realities of queer communities across North America.

In this wide-ranging discussion, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dempsey examine the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the United States amid renewed challenges to marriage equality and trans visibility. They explore Kim Davis’s latest Supreme Court petition, Joe Rogan’s controversial comments comparing Marjorie Taylor Greene and Hillary Clinton, and the lasting legacy of HIV/AIDS advocate Paul Kawata. Dempsey offers insights into fear, resilience, and mental health among queer youth and immigrants considering relocation. The conversation connects law, social behaviour, and the human need for dignity, showing how identity politics shape emotional and civic life today.

Interview conducted on October 23, 2025, in the morning Pacific Time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Our sources are quite diverse today. We will see if we can get through all of them. This is for World’s Fine Words. The first item for today is from The Advocate by Christopher Wiggins. The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will privately consider—at a November 7 conference—whether to hear a challenge related to marriage equality. The challenge is being brought by Kim Davis, a former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk known for defying a 2015 federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; she served about six days in jail for contempt. 

She is someone who does not believe in equality under the law regarding marital status between heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals. Davis was jailed a decade ago and claimed God’s authority in refusing to issue licenses to a gay couple. Obergefell v. Hodges is the 2015 decision that established a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage. A 2024 Gallup poll found that 69% of U.S. adults support legal same-sex marriage, close to a record high of 71%. That margin does not change much over short periods, and the vast majority of Americans support it. 

Eighty-three percent of Democrats support it. Seventy-four percent of Independents support it. Forty-six percent of Republicans support it. Democrats and Independents—the vast majority—support it, while just under a simple majority of Republicans do. Kim Davis is again citing God’s authority, as she did in her original 2015 challenge. She is likely taking a similar worldview in this new challenge. What is the psychology of someone who does not believe in a principle of universalism and ethics? And what are the impacts on people who love someone, or want to be with someone for economic convenience, yet cannot achieve equality under U.S. federal law?

William Dempsey: It definitely causes depression and anxiety. There is understandable distress among individuals who lack equal access. What people opposed to marriage equality often fail to understand is that it is not simply about marriage itself. A fair portion of the queer community is not necessarily fighting for the concept of marriage in the traditional sense, but rather for what marriage grants access to. 

For example, if your partner has health problems, is hospitalized, and needs a healthcare proxy, you cannot even be in the same room with them if you are not their partner. Or, as you mentioned, there are tax benefits. Certain privileges come with being legally married that unmarried couples cannot access. That understandably causes significant anxiety and depression among those who are excluded. It is also notable that people who claim to defend the sanctity of marriage—such as Kim Davis, who has been married four times to three husbands—are not exactly strong representatives of that sanctity.

Jacobsen: The following item is based on a very prominent podcaster at this point, a sort of comedian on the side now—Joe Rogan, a comedian in the United States—who would probably come off more as an independent than any other political alignment. But he has claimed, apparently according to Sophie Perry in Pink News, that Marjorie Taylor Greene, a prominent Republican conspiracy theorist, is more pro-LBGTQ+ than Hillary Clinton. Let us see if I can find it here. His interview was with the founder of Oculus VR and the defence technology company Anduril Industries, Palmer Luckey, who said that the GOP representative was more supportive in comparison. 

Luckey stated, “Hillary back in 2008 was against gay marriage, and she was out there saying marriage is between a man and a woman.” Not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Rogan responded, “I’ve never thought about it, though—that might be a tell. Marjorie Taylor Greene would be far, far left of a Hillary Clinton running today.” Marjorie Taylor Greene has stated on social media, “Your identity is not your sexual preference or what you like to do in the bedroom. Most Americans disagree with the invasion of trans biological men in girls’ or women’s sports. 

Don’t forget, Dem borders have daughters too, and do not want biological men beating their girls.” Democratic Representative Marie Newman, who has a transgender daughter, hung a trans pride flag outside her office in response to Greene’s anti-trans comments in February 2021 on X (formerly Twitter). Greene then put up her own sign that read, “There are TWO genders: MALE and FEMALE. Trust the science!” There is an image of this in the article. There is more, but what morality play is being portrayed here? Obviously, there is a narrative, but can you explain a bit about the psychology behind what is going on?

Dempsey: If we are talking about this from the lens of parenting, it represents the continuation of bullying behaviours. Children are very observant of what their parents do, especially if their parents are in the public eye. This kind of behaviour disseminates into what children imitate. With access to the internet, we are seeing increasing rates of online bullying because it translates from those modelled behaviours. Parents must remember they are teaching their children not only directly but indirectly through how they conduct themselves. Many politicians—and as we are discussing, comedians as well—should be more cognizant of that influence.

Jacobsen: Next, on GLAAD’s website, there is a good note for the week. It has not been a theatrical week; I had trouble finding dramatic news. But this one stands out positively. It is titled “Honouring Paul Kawata: A Legacy of Courage, Community, and Change,” by Tamia Ballard, a Community of Colour Junior Associate. Paul Kawata served for 36 years and is one of the longest-serving, most influential voices in the fight to end HIV. He retired as Executive Director of the National Minority AIDS Council (NMAC) on October 7, following the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS in Washington, D.C. 

Lance Toma, Chair of NMAC’s Board of Directors and CEO of the San Francisco Community Health Center, said, “Paul’s legacy is written in NMAC’s DNA—our unapologetic centring of communities of colour, our coalition building across political lines, and our unwavering commitment to inclusion and equity—all of that comes from him.” That is a very positive story in the news. What is the importance of honouring those who have dedicated their lives to community service, particularly in leadership roles, which are not easy positions to hold? And what does it mean to a community when they see someone who consistently does good over a long period of time?

Dempsey: Someone like Paul was pivotal during a time in society when, and some people may disagree, even the government was turning a blind eye to those impacted by a very significant disease. There was a great deal of stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS, particularly the misconception that it only affected the gay community—which, of course, we now know is not true. HIV/AIDS does not discriminate by sexual orientation, but that was the prevailing belief in the 1980s. For someone like Paul to stand up and continue advocating, to push for clinical understanding and equality, was absolutely pivotal. 

His work instilled hope in marginalized communities, including the queer community, even today, where we still see, in different ways, governments turning their backs on those same communities. Honouring people like Paul reminds marginalized and suffering individuals that there is another side to the struggle—that the work invested today can lead to future celebration. It helps rally voices to continue when discouragement is easy, especially now that the fight centers more around trans rights and trans healthcare. It shows there is still hope—that things can improve. On a more personal note, it is also about gratitude. It is essential to recognize and appreciate those who dedicate their time to their communities. Honouring people like Paul acknowledges that progress has been made through their efforts and that gratitude reinforces the value of such work.

Jacobsen: Time has reported on a decline in the desirability for LGBTQ+ immigrants to come to America, while some trans Americans are, quote, “fleeing.” I do not think it is necessarily widespread enough to trigger a mass flight. Still, there is undoubtedly an increase in people wanting to leave or searching for information—“Can we go to Canada?”—and that interest has definitely gone up. The article tells the story of Lizette Trujillo, who keeps her U.S. passport and a bottle of Mexican hot sauce in her purse—she is ready to go. 

It reminds me of travelling by Amtrak through the southern states—perhaps New Mexico or Arizona—where a woman on the train sold burritos from a small stand for three dollars—the best burritos on Amtrak. So when someone says they keep hot sauce in their purse, I think of that: being ready to go, burrito in hand, on to the next stop. Anyway, this piece from Time is not investigative; it is more of a feature-length narrative, which fits the topic well. When people come to you in the context of social work, what is the perspective you hear from them on that spectrum—wanting to leave, planning to go, or actually fleeing? How do they experience and interpret that process?

Dempsey: From my experience and from what my team has seen, most people in the community are leaning toward exploring the idea of leaving rather than having definitive plans. There is a strong sense of needing to be ready in case something happens. One major challenge that many people are not thinking about is that, because of the executive order issued in January, the U.S. now only recognizes “male” or “female” as sex markers on federal identification documents such as passports. That creates significant barriers to international travel. 

So, while some people are trying to leave the country because of new legislation or executive actions, those same policies are also limiting their ability to do so. I am curious to see how that balance shifts as more people realize that waiting until “things get worse” might not be an option—they may need to leave sooner if that is their plan, simply because they could lose the ability to travel later. The issue is not only about the countries people hope to move to, but also the restrictions of the country they are currently in. It is not as simple as packing up and leaving. While some countries have asylum options, there are many complex factors to consider. When I talk with people about what their plan might look like, it often unravels—many are speaking from fear rather than from a sense of logistical readiness. 

The practical side of what the article calls “fleeing” has not caught up to the emotional state of fight, flight, or freeze. And that is what we are seeing: heightened stress responses. When we regulate our nervous systems, it is not that our opinions change, but our perspective broadens. It is understandable that when there is a perceived threat, people respond with fight, flight, or freeze—and right now, many are in flight mode. As an aside, it is interesting to reflect on how, in the 1960s through the 1980s, many queer movements were led by trans and gender-diverse people. Seeing members of that same community now feeling the need to “flee” is striking. I could say much more about that, but I am aware of our time.

Jacobsen: One crucial issue that is not discussed enough is the implications of categorical definitions. By reducing identity to “male” and “female,” we impose an overly simplistic model of human biology and psychology. For those who do not fit into those two categories, it becomes a problem similar to what animal rights advocates have faced since Descartes: the division between “animal” and “person.” Persons are seen as having identities and therefore rights, while animals are excluded. Later, that evolved into terms like “non-human animals” to remind us of our shared evolutionary context.

When laws restrict identity to only two categories, the implicit message is that anyone who does not fit into those categories is not fully recognized as a “person.” It is a profoundly unsettling implication—beyond a human rights issue, it cuts into the very concept of personhood. It is a kind of existential erasure hidden inside bureaucratic language. U.S. News & World Report and other outlets have noted a worsening decline in mental health among LGBTQ+ people generally, especially youth.

Dempsey: This trend parallels what we are seeing across youth in general, though it is statistically more severe for LGBTQ+ youth—as is true in many other areas compared to their straight peers. Youth mental health overall is declining rapidly, mainly due to internet access and online culture. There is much fear-mongering online, especially among teens, which fosters what I would call a “the world is ending” or “Chicken Little” complex. 

I am not saying things are fine—far from it, especially for the queer community—but perspective matters. If we look back decade by decade, century by century, the queer community has endured and adapted through enormous challenges. The difference now is that everyone has access to global information, and that connectivity makes it easier to share and amplify fear—fueling collective anxiety—rather than channelling that energy into collective action.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Will.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.