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.”
Peruvian LGBT rights activist Antonio Capurro holds a sign that reads “And where are our rights? We are also citizens.” (Photo courtesy of Antonio Capurro)
District of Columbia
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
Health center set to celebrate 40th anniversary of legal services program
Whitman-Walker Health, the D.C.-based community healthcare center that specializes in HIV/AIDS and LGBTQ-related health services, announced it will present its annual Dale Edwin Sanders Award for Pro Bono Excellence to the international law firm McDermott Will & Schulte at a May 6 ceremony.
“This year’s award is especially significant as it coincides with the 40th anniversary of Whitman-Walker Health’s Legal Services Program, marking it as the nation’s longest running medical-legal partnership,” a statement released by Whitman-Walker says.
“As a national leader in public health, Whitman-Walker celebrates our partnership with McDermott to strengthen the health center and to enable Whitman-Walker to reach more medical and legal clients,” the statement adds.
“McDermott’s firm-wide commitment to Whitman-Walker’s medical-legal partnership demonstrates a shared vision to serve those most in need,” Amy Nelson, Whitman-Walker’s director of Legal Services, says in the statement. “Our work protects individuals and families who face discrimination and hostility as they navigate increasingly complex administrative systems,” Nelson said.
“Pro bono legal services – like that of McDermott Will & Schulte – find solutions for people who have no place else to turn in the face of financial and health threats,” she added.
“Our partnership with Whitman-Walker Health is a treasured commitment to serving our neighbors and communities,” Steven Schnelle, one of the law firm’s partners said in the statement. “We are deeply moved by Whitman-Walker’s unwavering dedication to inclusion, respect, and equitable access to health care and social services,” he said.
The statement notes that the award for Pro Bono Excellence honors the legacy of the late gay attorney Dale Edwin Sanders. It says Sanders’s pro bono legal work for Whitman-Walker clients “shaped HIV/AIDS law for more than four decades by securing key victories on behalf of individuals whose employment and patient rights were violated.”
It says the Whitman-Walker Legal Services program began during the early years of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s at a time when people with AIDS faced widespread discrimination and often needed legal assistance. According to the statement, the program evolved over the years and expanded to advocate for transgender people and immigrants.
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
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.
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
La X vuelve al tribunal
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
-
Politics5 days agoTrump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
-
2026 Midterm Elections4 days ago
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days ago
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
-
Eswatini4 days ago
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
