Connect with us

News

Trans wedding in Cuba highlights growing tolerance

Raul Castro’s daughter leads campaign against homophobia

Published

15 years ago

on

In a development considered unthinkable just a few years ago, a transgender woman and a man identifying himself as gay were married in a public wedding in Havana on Aug. 13, with family members, friends and newly emerging gay activists attending the ceremony.

“This is the first wedding between a transsexual woman and a gay man,” the 31-year-old groom, Ignacio Estrada, told the Associated Press. “We celebrate it at the top of our voices and affirm that this is a step forward for the gay community in Cuba,” the AP quoted Estrada as saying.

Although same-sex marriage remains illegal in Cuba, Estrada and his new wife, Wendy Iriepa, 37, told members of a large international media contingent covering the ceremony that their relationship and wedding symbolized some of the positive changes taking place in Cuba for the LGBT community.

But the two said their relationship and wedding also represented a protest of sorts against the government’s continuing crackdown against dissent and free speech. Estrada is a member of an independent gay rights organization that formed in defiance of a strict government rule barring political organizations that are not approved by the government. Fellow gay dissidents were among those attending his wedding, he told the media.

Iriepa told the Miami Herald that her relationship with Estrada prompted officials at Cuba’s National Sex Education Center in Havana, where she worked, to warn her about her association with a dissident. She later resigned from her job in protest over what she said were accusations of disloyalty to the government for her relationship with the man she chose to marry.

Iriepa has disclosed publicly that she had gender reassignment surgery in 2007 under a new government policy that now includes such procedures as part of Cuba’s universal health care system.

One of the leading advocates of the policy change, according to reports from government officials, was Mariela Castro, the daughter of Cuba’s current president, Raul Castro, and niece of Fidel Castro.

In yet another development considered remarkable by LGBT activists in the U.S. and Canada who are familiar with Cuba, Mariela Castro has emerged as a champion of LGBT equality in Cuba in her role as director of CENESEX. She has organized a Gay Pride parade and is coordinating a CENESEX-sponsored campaign to discourage prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people.

Yet some U.S. gay activists with ties to LGBT people in Cuba say the pro-LGBT policies promoted by Mariela Castro are taking place within a political system that prohibits freedom of expression and any criticism of the Communist Party-led government that runs Cuba.

While they see the changes that Mariela Castro has brought about as positive for LGBT people, these activists say LGBT people, like all other Cubans, remain under the control of a repressive government that denies its people freedoms taken for granted in other countries, including access to the Internet.

“Yes there is a trickling, if you will, of some freedoms here and there,” said Heriberto “Herb” Sosa, president of the Unity Coalition, a Miami-based LGBT Latino advocacy organization.

Sosa said his organization has developed a network of LGBT correspondents inside Cuba who communicate clandestinely with his group. He said some of them write articles for a Spanish language LGBT online magazine, Ambiente, which Sosa publishes.

“Unfortunately the regime really hasn’t changed much in the way they offer this relaxation,” he said. “It’s always if you play by the rules, if you’re part of the Communist Party, if you’re in favor of the government – those are the people that are getting a little bit more freedoms, including those within the LGBT community.”

According to Sosa, while Mariela Castro has promoted LGBT-friendly programs, “many dissidents are being thrown in jail or are being harassed and beaten – as recently as last week.”

Other LGBT activists more supportive of Cuba argue that Miami-based Cuban Americans, such as Sosa, have a longstanding bias against the Cuban government, in part, because their parents or grandparents lost financial assets when they fled Cuba for the U.S. in the 1960s following the Fidel Castro-led Cuban revolution of 1959.

The politically influential Cuban American community in South Florida has been credited with persuading Congress and at least eight U.S. presidents to continue the U.S. economic and trade boycott of Cuba, which critics say hurts the Cuban people more than the government.

Cuban American organizations argue that the U.S. trade boycott is needed to set the stage for the eventual replacement of the current Cuban regime with a new democratic government.

“This is not our personal feelings or opinions,” said Sosa. “This is based on what we know is happening inside the island from actual LGBT leaders and dissidents and writers from within the island and every single day send us factual information as to what is going on.”

The international human rights advocacy organization, Human Rights Watch, has called on the U.S. to end the trade embargo against Cuba. But the group has also been highly critical of Cuba’s human rights record, saying little has changed since Raul Castro replaced his brother Fidel as the country’s top leader.

“Cuba’s laws empower the state to criminalize virtually all forms of dissent, and grant officials extraordinary authority to penalize people who try to exercise their basic rights,” the group said in a June 1, 2011, statement.

The European-based human rights group Amnesty International issued a statement in March saying that, in response to international pressure, Cuba released about 50 political prisoners who had been jailed since 2003. However, Amnesty International said the government was detaining a new crop of political dissidents.

“Hundreds of pro-democracy activists have suffered harassment, intimidation and arbitrary arrest in recent weeks as the Cuban government employs new tactics to stamp out dissent,” the statement says.

The Obama administration has relaxed some restrictions that, in the past, have barred most U.S. citizens from traveling to Cuba and prevented Americans, including Cuban Americans, from sending money to assist Cuban relatives.

But the administration earlier this year joined members of Congress in condemning the Cuban government for sentencing an American citizen, Alan Gross, to 15 years in prison for bringing satellite and other communications equipment into Cuba under a U.S. government sponsored program to promote democracy.

Gross said he brought in the equipment to assist the island’s small Jewish community obtain access to the Internet. Cuban authorities accused Gross of engaging in espionage activities on behalf of the U.S. government.

With that as a backdrop, the U.S. State Department surprised some political observers in June when it included an LGBT-related project in an official request for proposals from independent contractors to promote democracy in Cuba.

The request for proposals was issued by the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

The bureau “seeks proposals to strengthen grassroots organizations to create the conditions that allow meaningful and unhindered participation by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community in all aspects of Cuban society,” a State Department document announcing the RFP says.

One of the goals of the project, the RFP says, is “strengthening the capacity of grassroots LGBT organizations to register in Cuba as recognized non-governmental organizations.”

The document says the State Department has designated approximately $300,000 to fund the project.

State Department spokesperson Evan Owen said that as of late last week a contractor had not been selected to carry out the project.

Gay Episcopalian activist Charles Briody of D.C., who recently visited Cuba as part of a group called Pastors for Peace, said he’s troubled that the Obama administration hasn’t pushed harder to end the U.S. economic boycott of Cuba.

Briody said he has experienced firsthand Cuba’s evolving attitudes on LGBT equality when family members of his Cuban boyfriend helped organize a commitment ceremony for the couple in his boyfriend’s hometown outside Havana.

“It was really wonderful,” he said. “Everybody was there, including the kids. It was recognition of our relationship for what it is.”

Briody, however, declined to disclose his partner Samuel’s last name, saying he was worried about possible consequences for Samuel from the U.S. government, not the Cuban government.

“I hope to bring him to Washington so we can get married,” he said, adding that he’s worried that U.S. immigration or visa restrictions could prevent Samuel from entering the country. Briody said that upon his retirement as a schoolteacher in Maryland in the near future he hopes to live part of each year in Cuba with Samuel.

He said that during his recent visit to Cuba, he attended a briefing that a CENESEX official held for about 100 members of the Pastors for Peace contingent. According to Briody, the official said the Cuban National Assembly was considering a proposed law that would ban workplace discrimination in Cuba based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

“My first thought was, wow, Cuba might beat the United States in passing a national law protecting LGBT people from employment discrimination,” he said.

Repeated attempts to reach a Cuban government spokesperson for comment through the Cuban Interest Section office in Washington or through the Cuban Mission at the United Nations in New York were unsuccessful. The phones at both offices were not answered.

A staff member with the Swiss Embassy in Washington, which facilitates the Cuban interest section, said she receives frequent reports by callers who can’t reach anyone at the interest section.

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

United Kingdom

Queen Camilla meets with JK Rowling

Edinburgh meeting took place on last day of Pride month

Published

3 days ago

on

July 2, 2026

By

(Photo via The Royal Family/X)

Queen Camilla on Tuesday met with JK Rowling.

The Royal Family on X said the meeting took place at Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh. The post included a picture of Camilla and Rowling together.

“With a shared passion for books and a deep commitment to children reading for pleasure, The queen and author JK Rowling have met at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh,” it reads. “Her Majesty and Ms. Rowling discussed the importance of ensuring that young people have access to books and the vital part reading plays in opening doors for future generations.”

Rowling over the last decade has emerged as a vocal opponent of transgender rights. Her meeting with Camilla took place on the last day of Pride month.

Continue Reading

Delaware

Delaware approves amendment protecting same-sex marriage

Measure must pass second vote in next year’s session

Published

4 days ago

on

July 1, 2026

By

Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall introduced the amendment bill earlier this week. (Washington Blade file photo by Daniel Truitt)

The Delaware General Assembly passed Senate Substitute 2 for Senate Bill 100 on the last day of the legislative session on Tuesday after being rescinded last week. 

Senate Substitute 2 for Senate Bill 100 (SB-100) passed with 28 ‘yes’ votes, meeting the two-thirds threshold required for the bill to pass. Tuesday was the last day of the 153rd General Assembly. 

The amendment would enshrine the right to same-sex and interracial marriage in the Delaware Constitution. 

SB-100 was rescinded last week after it did not receive enough votes to pass. Democrats were short by three votes, with two Democratic members missing from the vote.

Rep. Josue Ortega (D-03) voted ‘no’ on SB-100 and Rep. Medinah Anton-Wilson (D-27) did not vote. However, both members voted ‘yes’ for Senate Substitute 2 for SB-100 on Tuesday. 

Prime sponsor of SB 100, Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall (D-14), made the technical decision to change her vote last week from a ‘yes’ to a ‘no’ at the last minute to keep the bill alive. 

Additionally, Republican Assemblyman Michael Smith (R-22) joined the Democrats with a ‘yes’ vote after voting ‘no’ on SB-100 last week. 

In order for SB 100 to be enshrined into the state Constitution, it must be passed by two consecutive General Assemblies. Thus, the amendment will not be officially added to the Constitution unless it passes in the 154th General Assembly next year. 

Rep. Snyder-Hall introduced the measure earlier this week. 

“Just one week ago, we failed to pass this legislation. We failed the people of Delaware. But today, on the final day of the legislative session, the 153rd General Assembly affirmed that every Delawarean has the fundamental right to marry the person they love, regardless of race or gender,” said Snyder-Hall.

“Thank you to my colleagues for recognizing that the right to marry is a right worthy of protection and for voting yes on this important constitutional amendment.” 

Continue Reading

National

ACLU says trans athletes ruling is narrower than many believe

‘Narrow decision focused on the unique context of sports’

Published

4 days ago

on

July 1, 2026

By

Pro Equal Protection protesters outside of the Supreme Court in early 2026. (Washington Blade Photo by Michael Key)

The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to uphold state laws barring transgender girls from competing on girls’ school sports teams represents a setback for transgender rights, but attorneys who argued the case say the ruling is considerably narrower than many initial reactions suggested.

Shortly after the decision was released, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union — which represented the plaintiffs in the case — held a press call to explain what they described as the limited scope of the Court’s opinion. While the ruling allows states to exclude transgender girls from girls’ school sports teams, they said it stops well short of creating a nationwide ban or dismantling broader legal protections for transgender people.

Joshua Block, senior counsel with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, said the majority intentionally confined its analysis to school athletics.

“[The majority] issued a narrow decision focused specifically on the unique context of sports. It didn’t issue a broader decision saying that Title IX in general didn’t protect transgender students. It didn’t say that other states couldn’t make a different policy choice and allow transgender girls to participate with cisgender girls, and it didn’t issue a sweeping ruling saying that under the Constitution it’s perfectly fine to discriminate based on transgender status.”

Block said one of the opinion’s most significant takeaways is that it leaves decisions about transgender participation in school sports largely in the hands of states.

“It leaves the rest of the legal rights of transgender people where the court found them.”

He stressed that the ruling authorizes states to adopt restrictions but does not require them to do so.

“It’s very important to emphasize that this isn’t a national mandate to ban trans athletes everywhere. It’s a fight that’s going to continue state by state, school by school … it really says that a state may discriminate, not that they must discriminate. States, schools, and athletic associations should be taking every step to ensure that athletic opportunities exist for transgender girls.”

Beyond athletics, Block said the opinion’s most important legal consequence may lie in its treatment of the Equal Protection Clause.

“What the court said is that even applying that heightened standard, we’re going to establish what’s effectively a new rule of the Equal Protection Clause, saying that you can’t bring this sort of as-applied challenge to a law that is valid for most people.”

Even so, he argued that the Court repeatedly framed transgender participation in sports as a policy issue for state governments rather than a constitutional mandate.

“Over and over and over again it talks about how states may exclude transgender girls, not that they must, and over and over and over again it says that this is a policy question that should be decided by the people in their different communities and their representatives.”

Block also rejected the idea that the ruling endorses the Trump administration’s broader efforts to restrict transgender rights.

“I have no doubt that the Trump administration will try to declare victory and say that this decision supports the lawless policies they’re pursuing, but I think anyone reading the decision can see otherwise.”

The White House nonetheless celebrated the decision, calling it a victory that would “protect women and girls.”

“The Court’s decision is a landmark victory for common sense, biological reality, and for the millions of women and girls who deserve a level playing field. By upholding laws protecting female athletic competition, the Court confirmed that states may preserve the fairness, safety, and equal opportunities that Title IX was enacted to guarantee.”

Medical researchers and LGBTQ advocates dispute the administration’s characterization of the evidence. A 2021 study published in the Journal of Sports Medicine found no scientific evidence for supporting these laws that categorically ban transgender women from participating in women’s sports.

Critics have also argued that enforcement of such laws could create new risks for athletes. Researchers have warned that sex-verification requirements may expose students to invasive examinations and discrimination.

A 2016 USA Today investigation found that at least 368 young gymnasts reported experiencing sexual abuse over a 20-year period. More than 100 coaches and gymnastics officials were accused of abuse, yet USA Gymnastics failed to track predatory coaches, allowing many to continue working with children. LGBTQ advocates argue that requiring athletes to undergo genital inspections or other forms of sex verification could place young athletes at even greater risk.

Advocacy organizations said the decision, while limited legally, will have significant real-world consequences for transgender youth.

Chris Mosier, a transgender athlete and board member of Point of Pride, said the ruling extends beyond sports.

“The Supreme Court’s decision today isn’t driven by fairness or dignity in sports. It’s an attack on our community’s right to live freely and authentically in every part of our lives. Young people, regardless of whether they’re cis or trans, deserve the joy of sports: to build friendships, to move their bodies and have fun on the field. To every trans athlete out there: you have a community standing behind you. No politician or law can take away your joy or power. We will get through this as our community has always done: together.”

Brian K. Bond, CEO of PFLAG National, emphasized that states remain free to adopt inclusive policies despite the Court’s decision.

“The Court rules best when it listens to the needs of marginalized people: trans people belong, on and off the field. While we celebrate the Court’s decision to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment and affirm that every person born in the United States is a citizen, the Court today added an asterisk to allow discrimination against transgender student athletes. Our country has been here before, and frankly, you would think this Court would have learned.”

“For PFLAG families, today’s decision in BPJ means that transgender athletes can continue to be affirmed for who they are in places where the law allows – and invigorates our LGBTQ+ and allied community to expand those protections. The parents, families, allies and LGBTQ+ people of PFLAG will continue to advocate for our trans loved ones to have the freedom to be themselves, everywhere. Trans people belong, and deserve to have access to the benefits of sport like everyone else.”

Allen Morris, policy director at the National LGBTQ Task Force, called the decision “devastating” but noted that it does not establish a nationwide sports ban.

“Today’s decision is devastating and the impact to clear. While this is not a nationwide ban on transgender participation in sports, the Court has given states a legal pathway to attempt to discriminate against trans individuals from full participation in school sports and all aspects of life.”

“This ruling is not just about sports: it’s about valuing and protecting the safety, security and constitutional rights of transgender people. By allowing states to draw a categorical line based on “biological sex,” the majority has chosen deference to exclusion and political beliefs over transgender students’ lived realities. There is already a dangerous rise in state-based violence growing across the country, and we’re overcoming this issue at each turn.”

Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, CEO of GLSEN, said the decision sends a broader message about transgender students’ place in schools.

“We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of this decision. This ruling represents another significant setback for transgender youth across the country, limiting their ability to fully engage in school life. Exclusion from these spaces shapes not only athletic access, but the broader message about who should be valued and included in our schools and societal ecosystem.”

“School sports are much more than competition. They are about belonging, forming a community, and the opportunity to grow and thrive alongside peers. Preventing youth from taking part in everyday activities undermines these fundamental values. We continue to see efforts to regulate discrimination under the guise of fairness, despite the lack of evidence that inclusive policies harm women’s sports. Access to these experiences is critical to students’ well-being and development.”

Continue Reading

Popular