Connect with us

News

Marriage efforts in Latin America advance amid resistance

A Colombian judge annulled a gay couple’s marriage on October 2.

Published

on

Caludia Zea, Elizabeth Castillo, Gachetá, Colombia, gay news, Washington Blade

Caludia Zea, Elizabeth Castillo, Gachetá, Colombia, gay news, Washington Blade

Caludia Zea and Elizabeth Castillo married in Gachetá, Colombia, on September 25. (Photo by Paola Zuluaga)

Colombia has become the latest Latin American country in which same-sex couples have been able to marry.

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.”

Antonio Capurro, Peru, LGBT rights, gay news, Washington Blade

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)

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

State Department

Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records

April 20 memo outlined anti-transgender rule

Published

on

(Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

Democracy Forward on Tuesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records on the State Department’s new bathroom policy.

A memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms” that the State Department issued on April 20 notes employees can no longer use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal, a conservative news website that first reported on the memo. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”

President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”

Democracy Forward’s FOIA request that the Washington Blade exclusively obtained on Tuesday is specifically seeking a copy of the memo that details the State Department’s new bathroom policy. Democracy Forward has also requested “all” memo-specific communications between the State Department’s Bureau of Global Public Affairs and the Daily Signal from April 1-21.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill

Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.

Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.

The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is House Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.

The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.

It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”

LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission to use a child’s preferred gender identity, as it raises issues of at-home safety — especially if the home is not LGBTQ-affirming — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.

A follow-up bill, HB 2617, proposed by Owens, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, prevents the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition from President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168, making that an enshrined definition in law of sex rather than just by executive order. There is also a bill making its way through the senate with the same text— Senate Bill 2251.

Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.

David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.

“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”

This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.

The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.

Continue Reading

Botswana

Botswana repeals colonial-era sodomy law

Country’s High Court struck down statute in 2019

Published

on

The first Palapye Pride took place in Palapye, Botswana, on Nov. 1, 2025. The country has repealed the provision of its colonial-era penal code that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations. (Photo courtesy of the AGANG Community Network)

Botswana’s government has repealed a provision of its colonial-era penal code that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations.

The country’s High Court in 2019 struck down the provision. The Batswana government in 2022 said it would abide by the ruling after country’s Court of Appeals upheld it.

The government on March 26 announced the repeal of the penal code’s “unnatural offenses” section that specifically referenced any person who “has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature” and “permits any other person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature.”

Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana, a Batswana advocacy group known by the acronym LEGABIBO, challenged the criminalization law with the support of the Southern Africa Litigation Center. LEGABIBO in a statement it posted to its Facebook on April 25 welcomed the repeal.

“For many, these provisions were not just words on paper — they were lived realities,” said LEGABIBO. “They affected access to healthcare, safety, employment, and the freedom to love and exist openly.”

“LEGABIBO believes that the deletion of these sections is a necessary and long-overdue step toward restoring dignity and aligning our legal framework with constitutional values of equality and human rights,” it added. “It is a clear message that LGBTIQ+ persons are not criminals, and that their lives and relationships deserve protection, not punishment.”

LEGABIBO further stressed that “while this does not erase the harm of the past, it creates space for healing, inclusion, and continued progress toward full equality.”

Continue Reading

Popular