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.”
The White House
White House targets gender-affirming care funding, states fight back
Attorneys general from Md. and elsewhere are fighting directives
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced last week that federal funding could no longer be used to pay for gender-affirming care through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
The rule prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from covering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and rare instances of surgery for enrollees under the age of 18 in the Medicaid program and under the age of 19 in CHIP. It does not prohibit coverage of counseling or psychotherapy as part of gender-affirming care.
The decision to restrict what healthcare is covered by federal dollars is part of a longer, more aggressive stance the Trump-Vance administration is taking toward LGBTQ healthcare.
Since taking the White House back for his second term, Trump has signed three executive orders that directly target transgender Americans. They include Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” that requires the federal government to recognize only a person’s sex at birth, not their gender identity; Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which attempts to remove transgender service members from the military and prevent them from enrolling; and an executive order that helped spur this change by restricting gender-affirming care.
The administration’s choice to villainize gender-affirming care, despite it being considered a best medical practice recommended by nearly every major medical group for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Psychological Association, comes as KFF, a source for health policy research and polling data, estimates about 130,000 young trans people with Medicaid or CHIP coverage could be impacted by the policy.
“Today, we are ending federal taxpayer funding for sex-rejecting procedures on children,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said last week when announcing the change. “These interventions carry serious risks and can cause irreversible harm. The federal government will no longer use Medicaid and CHIP dollars to fund procedures that fail to meet the evidentiary standard our children deserve.”
“Children deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits,” said CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz. “By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish.”
The administration’s push is having a chilling effect on state healthcare legislation — more states now prohibit gender-affirming care than ever before. States with gender-affirming care restrictions jumped from four in 2023 to 27 states today.
The funding change has been met with fierce pushback from LGBTQ advocates, health experts, and government officials across the country before the rule goes into effect.
Some of the first actions against this policy began in July 2025.
Twenty-one states have attempted to restrict this effort in some fashion from going through as the White House intends. They include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on behalf of his state.
The coalition of attorneys general filed lawsuits challenging nine separate provisions of the final rule, arguing that they would make it harder for consumers to get coverage through the ACA, increase costs for states, and weaken key ACA protections.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 15 struck down a key provision of a Trump-Vance administration final rule that would have excluded coverage of certain types of gender-affirming care as essential health benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Essential health benefits are subject to the ACA’s financial protections, including limits on out-of-pocket costs.
“Everyone deserves access to health coverage,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The Trump administration tried to exclude gender-affirming care from qualifying as an essential health benefit. We fought back, and the court’s ruling means this care can — and in many states must — qualify for the ACA’s financial protections, ensuring transgender people have an equal opportunity to benefit from the ACA.”
“The Trump administration tried to make essential care unaffordable for transgender Marylanders by stripping it out of the ACA’s cost protections,” said Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. “We fought to keep that care covered, and we won. My Office will always defend Marylanders’ right to the care they need.”
The final rule at issue — the “Marketplace Integrity and Affordability” rule — was proposed by the Trump-Vance administration in March 2025, purportedly to “curb ACA enrollment fraud” and reduce federal spending on subsidies that help consumers afford ACA coverage. Among other changes, the rule would have removed certain types of gender-affirming care from the ACA’s 10 essential health benefit categories.
“This president would rather target young people than lower costs or expand access to health care. It is reprehensible that our federal government is intent on hurting and isolating the adolescents it is supposed to protect. I will use every tool at my disposal to fight this proposal and protect transgender Americans and their families,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in December after the policy was announced.
In addition to state government resistance to the change, multiple LGBTQ advocates have committed to protecting the right to healthcare for LGBTQ children.
Rocky Mountain Equality CEO Mardi Moore affirmed those in Colorado would continue to help people most at risk if the change goes through.
“First, to the families impacted by this news: you will not be cut off immediately. The rule takes effect Oct. 13, 2026, and providers can continue to bill Medicaid and CHIP for youth already receiving gender-affirming care for up to six months after that. Rocky Mountain Equality is here, and we can help you understand your options to continue your child’s care.
“This is discrimination dressed up as rule-making. Government healthcare policy should expand what people can access, not strip away care that families and doctors have already determined is medically necessary,” Moore added. “We’ve seen this pattern before with other kinds of essential care, and it rarely stops with just one restriction. Any effort to ban or limit care opens the door for more restrictions on more kinds of care.”
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ lobbying group in the U.S., issued multiple statements following the announcement, and has filed a similar lawsuit against the federal government for prohibiting gender-affirming care to federal employees using federal health plans.
HRC President Kelley Robinson said taking a hard stance against what the administration is presenting as a win for the American people that will ultimately restrict healthcare options for thousands of Americans.
“Every young person is entitled to the health care that they, their parents, and their medical providers agree that they need, without politicians interfering with these important and highly personal decisions. And yet, rather than working to make healthcare more affordable and accessible, the Trump administration continues to obsess over the healthcare needs of trans youth, this time by cutting off health insurance coverage for those who rely on Medicaid and CHIP to access that care,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration is terrorizing trans youth and their families with these kinds of actions, and it has to stop.”
Virginia
Winsome Earle-Sears ‘Life and Marriage Tour’ to include Northern Va. stops
Voters to consider marriage equality, reproductive rights referenda in November
Former Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears has announced her campaign against efforts to enshrine marriage equality and reproductive rights in the state constitution will make several stops in Northern Virginia.
Her “Life and Marriage Tour” will include stops in Manassas, Winchester, and Harrisonburg. Earle-Sears said the “Life and Marriage Tour” will also travel to Virginia Beach, Lynchburg, Roanoke, Charlottesville, and other cities across Virginia “throughout September and October.”
The announcement did not include specific dates.
“Virginia, you’ve been asking where the Life and Marriage Tour is headed — here’s a look at our current tour locations,” she said on X on Tuesday. “We’ll be traveling across the commonwealth throughout September and October, and we’re still building the journey.”
Current Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, last November defeated Earle-Sears, a Republican, in the race to succeed Republican Glenn Youngkin.
Voters in 2006 approved the Marshall-Newman Amendment, which defined marriage in Virginia as between a man and a woman.
Same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in Virginia since 2014. Youngkin a decade later signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.
Two successive legislatures must approve a proposed constitutional amendment before it can go to the ballot.
Spanberger signed bills that finalized the marriage equality and reproductive rights referenda’s language.
The referenda will take place on Nov. 3.
Russia
Russian LGBTQ rights group to shut down
Russian LGBT Network in April declared ‘extremist’ organization
A Russian LGBTQ advocacy group on Monday announced it will shut down after a court declared it an “extremist” organization.
A St. Petersburg court in April in response to a Russian Justice Ministry lawsuit made the declaration against the Russian LGBT Network.
“For many years, Russian LGBT Network brought together initiatives and activists and supported queer people across the country,” said the advocacy group on its Facebook page. ” However, its ‘extremist’ status has made the previous public format of its work impossible: any connection to the organization may create additional risks for the people we seek to support and protect.”
The Russian LGBT Network formed in 2006.
The group on its Facebook page said it “made this decision” to close “after a thorough assessment of the risks.”
“Continuing our public activities could have put at risk those who took part in the organization’s work, supported it, or received assistance,” said the Russian LGBT Network. “We cannot control the repressive environment, but we can do everything possible to avoid creating additional risks for people. People’s safety comes first.”
The Kremlin over the last decade has faced global criticism over its crackdown on LGBTQ rights.
The Russian Supreme Court in 2023 ruled the “international LGBT movement” is an extremist organization and banned it.
Russia in January designated ILGA World, a global LGBTQ and intersex rights group, as an “undesirable” organization. ILGA World in response to the designation noted Russians who are found guilty of engaging with “undesirable” groups face up to six years in prison.
Human Rights Watch in May noted the Russian LGBT Network is one of nine LGBTQ groups that Russia this year has banned after authorities deemed them “extremist.”
“Russian LGBT Network may close; but dignity, solidarity, and people’s right to be themselves cannot be destroyed,” said the Russian LGBT Network in its statement. “Take care of yourselves.”

