News
Marriage efforts in Latin America advance amid resistance
A Colombian judge annulled a gay couple’s marriage on October 2.

Caludia Zea and Elizabeth Castillo married in Gachetá, Colombia, on September 25. (Photo by Paola Zuluaga)
A civil judge in Bogotá, the Colombian capital, on September 20 married Julio Albeiro Cantor Borbón and William Alberto Castro Franco. Elizabeth Castillo and Claudia Zea tied the knot five days later in a ceremony in Gachetá in the province of Cundinamarca that Judge Julio González officiated.
Another Bogotá judge on October 4 married Adriana Elizabeth González and Sandra Marcela Rojas.
Colombia’s Constitutional Court in 2011 ruled gays and lesbians could seek legal recognition of their relationships within two years if lawmakers in the South American country did not extend to them the same benefits heterosexuals receive through marriage.
The Colombian Senate in April overwhelmingly rejected a bill that would have extended marriage rights to gays and lesbians. And the Constitutional Court’s June 20 deadline passed amid lingering confusion as to whether same-sex couples could actually marry in the country.
Many notaries have said they will allow gays and lesbians to enter into a “solemn contact” as opposed to a civil marriage.
A Bogotá judge in July solemnized Carlos Hernando Rivera Ramírez and Gonzalo Ruiz Giraldo’s relationship. Marcela Sánchez, executive director of Colombia Diversa, an LGBT advocacy group, and other activists maintain the two men and other same-sex couples whose relationships have been formally recognized are legally married.
“I am not doing any type of favor; it is not important that I may be sympathetic to the LGBTI movement or that I am from a liberal political group,” Julio González told the Colombian newspaper El Espectador after he married Castillo and Zea. “These things cannot dictate whether a judge acts according to the law and the Constitution.”
A Bogotá judge on October 2 annulled Cantor and Castro’s marriage after a group opposed to nuptials for gays and lesbians challenged it in court. The organization has said it plans to file suit against Julio González and other judges who have officiated same-sex marriages.
Out Bogotá City Councilwoman Angélica Lozano on September 30 also filed a complaint against Inspector General Alejandro Ordoñez, who vehemently opposes nuptials for gays and lesbians, for ordering notaries to report any same-sex couple who seeks a marriage licenses to his office.
“I am legally denouncing the inspector general for abuse of power, arbitrary acts and injustices against homosexuals,” Lozano tweeted after she filed her complaint.
Mexican, Chilean advocates push for marriage
Argentina and Uruguay are among the 14 countries in which gays and lesbians can legally marry.
Brazil’s National Council of Justice in May ruled registrars in the South American country cannot deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. São Paulo and other Brazilian states had already extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, but the country’s lawmakers have yet to pass a nationwide gay nuptials bill.
The Mexican Supreme Court in February unveiled its decision that found a law in the state of Oaxaca that bans same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
Same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in Mexico City since 2010, and the Mexican Supreme Court has ruled that states must recognize these unions.
A gay couple in Mérida on the Yucatán Peninsula exchanged vows in August after a federal judge said they could tie the knot. Judges in the states of Chihuahua and México in recent months have also ruled in favor of same-sex couples seeking marriage rights.
Gays and lesbians in Jalisco, in which the resort city of Puerto Vallarta is located, and other Mexican states have also begun to petition local authorities to allow them to marry.
Chilean LGBT rights advocates continue to pressure President Sebastián Piñera to allow gays and lesbians to tie the knot after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in July gave the country’s government a two month deadline to respond to a same-sex marriage lawsuit the group Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation (Movilh) filed in 2012.
Movilh said in an October 3 press release that two members of Piñera’s cabinet with whom it met assured them the government has already begun the “process of internal consultations” to respond to its lawsuit.
More than 40 Chilean lawmakers on October 8 urged Piñera to make a bill that would allow gays and lesbians to enter into civil unions a priority before he leaves office early next year.
Former President Michelle Bachelet, who is the frontrunner to succeed Piñera in the country’s presidential elections that will take place on November 17, earlier this year publicly backed marriage rights for same-sex couples.
“More than two million people live together in Chile and they find a lack of this law socially and judicially indefensible,” the letter to Piñera reads. “They remind you that your presidential platform clearly referenced these topics.”
Civil unions bill introduced in Perú
Peruvian Congressman Carlos Bruce last month introduced a bill that would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. It would extend economic benefits to them, but not adoption rights.
Victor Cortez and his boyfriend, Antonio Capurro, formed the group Plural Perú to help build support for the civil unions measure and expanded LGBT rights in the country. The two activists told the Washington Blade during an interview from the Peruvian capital of Lima on Tuesday the bill faces an uphill battle before lawmakers consider it in March.
A recent poll found 65 percent of Peruvians oppose any efforts to allow same-sex couples to enter into a civil union. Lima Archbishop Juan Luis Cipriani and Evangelicals are among those who frequently speak out against gays and lesbians and any proposal to legally recognize their relationships.
Cortez told the Blade he feels machismo and conservative attitudes within Peruvian society will continue to hamper efforts to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.
“These types of unions go against these values,” he said. “For them this is very unacceptable.”
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Sri Lanka
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
Prominent religious leaders criticized campaign
The Sri Lankan government has withdrawn its support for an initiative that encourages LGBTQ tourists to visit the country.
The Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority last September partnered with Equal Ground, an LGBTQ rights group, on the initiative.
The Daily Mirror, a Sri Lankan newspaper, reported Sri Lanka Development Authority Chair Buddhika Hewawasam in a letter to Equal Ground Executive Director Rosanna Flamer-Caldera said his agency recognizes “the potential of this project to diversify our tourism markets and position Sri Lanka as a safe, inclusive, and welcoming destination for all travelers.”
Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, the archbishop of Colombo, along other prominent Christian and Buddhist leaders criticized the initiative. Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe on Feb. 10 indicated the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority had rescinded its support for the campaign.
Flamer-Caldera on April 10 acknowledged the criticism over the initiative but added “the fact that the letter has been rescinded doesn’t make any difference.”
“We’re still doing work with the tourism industry who have basically opened up to us and are willing participants in the project,” said Flamer-Caldera. “They realize the potential of the boost to our tourism industry as well as boosting our economy.”
Sections 365 and 365A of Sri Lanka’s colonial-era penal code criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual relations.
The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in 2022 ruled the criminalization law violated Flamer-Caldera’s rights. The Sri Lankan Supreme Court in 2023 said a bill that would decriminalize homosexuality is constitutional.
Transgender people in Sri Lanka since 2016 have been able to request a Gender Recognition Certificate that allows them to legally change their name and gender on ID cards. Flamer-Caldera noted to the Blade that LGBTQ rights opponents have challenged the Gender Recognition Certificate in the Supreme Court.
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
-
Politics5 days agoTrump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
-
Opinions5 days agoROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
-
Movies5 days agoA Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
-
2026 Midterm Elections4 days agoHRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts

