News
Huckabee urges conservatives to oppose Calif. trans law
Values Voter Summit features anti-LGBT attacks

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee opposes the California trans student law (Photo by David Ball; courtesy Wikimedia Commons).
A strong anti-LGBT sentiment pervaded the first night of an annual conference for conservatives in D.C. as Republican commentator Mike Huckabee railed against a pro-transgender student law in California to fire up his audience.
The former Arkansas governor urged attendees to oppose the School Success & Opportunity Act, which enables transgender students in California to participate in programs and athletics consistent with their gender identity, during his speech at the Values Voter Summit.
“So, Jerry Brown, the governor of California, this week signed a bill — by the same legislature that passed a bill that said if six-year-olds, who are biologically boys think that they are really girls, that they should be able to go to the girls restroom,” Huckabee said. “And if they’re 16 and they really — maybe you’re biologically all male but they identify as female, they should be able to go to the locker room with, shower with, and play on the sports teams of the girls. And, to those of us who believe that there is a difference between male and female, we would say ‘We have been told you’re on your own.'”
Huckabee continued to jab at the law by envisioning a scenario in which a transgender student would shower with boys on a sports term.
“And by the way, it is a good thing that that didn’t come up when I was in high school ’cause I’m pretty sure that every boy in my high school would have suddenly felt like that he was just a little more comfortable showering with the girls no matter how uncomfortable the girls might have been with it,” Huckabee said.
Huckabee concluded his tirade against the law by saying, “Is that not the craziest think you’ve ever heard?”
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, criticized Huckabee’s remarks.
“The School Success & Opportunity Act is simply about making all school programs accessible for all students,” Keisling said. “That’s all and Mr. Huckabee should be extremely supportive of that. This is about boys being in boy space and girls being in girl space, and everybody being able to participate.”
Keisling also said Huckabee was adding a sexual element to a law in a way that was inappropriate.
“Though Huckabee claims that he and all the teenage boys he grew up with were perverts, it is still inappropriate that he should be sexualizing six year olds this way in his comments,” Keisling said.
The California transgender student law has been targeted for repeal as anti-trans forces, in particular the groups Privacy for All Students, gather signatures to place the measure on the ballot for a referendum. Last week, the California State Republican Party endorsed an effort to reverse the law at its convention in Anaheim.
But trans people weren’t the only part of the LGBT community that Huckabee targeted during his speech. Huckabee also went after gay people by railing against what he said were the consequences for opponents of same-sex marriage in the growing number of states that have legalized same-sex marriage.
“For those of us who still believe that the biblical standard of marriage is the standard of marriage because it’s the only one that has lasted over the test of time, do you realize that for those of us for whom this is not a governmental issue and it’s not a political issue, it is a moral issue, it is a biblical issue, it’s a cultural issue, it’s a sociological issue, it’s a family issue, we’ve been pretty much told, ‘You’re on your own.'”
Huckabee brought up an incident in which a photographer was sued under a New Mexico anti-discrimination law for refusing to take a photo of a same-sex wedding ceremony and another incident in which he said a baker in Washington State was in trouble for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding.
“The government told them, you better make the cake, or go out of business,” Huckabee said. “They said, ‘You’re on your own.”
Also on stage speaking out against marriage equality was former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, now president of the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation, who said the nation must resist the legalization of gay nuptials.”
“Marriage is the most foundational, cultural and economic institution in our society,” DeMint said. “Marriages between a man and a woman are by far the best environment to raise children and create responsible citizens.”
Perhaps foreseeing a day when the marriage issue would return to the Supreme Court, DeMint said, “States have regulated marriage to protect it, but there is nothing in our federal Constitution that gives Congress, the president or the Supreme Court the right to redefine or regulate marriage.”
These speakers took the stage after remarks against same-sex marriage by Ben Carson and anti-gay remarks from political commentator Sandy Rios. Also among the earlier speakers was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who, after being interrupted several times during his speech by protesters, later won the Values Voter Summit’s presidential straw poll by 42 percent.
Friday evening at the Values Voter Summit culminated with a panel on opposition to same-sex marriage, moderated by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, titled The Future of Marriage. The 1964 song “Chapel of Love” by the Dixie Cups played as the panel began.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, invoked the notion that opposition to same-sex marriage is similar to the civil rights movement of the 1960s as he defended those who would seek to defend “the truth that mothers and fathers are different and that children deserve the opportunity to have both.”
“On the other side of the debate is an attempt to deconstruct the very nature of reality, the very nature of what it means to be a human being, to be created male and female,” Brown said.
Brown attributed the lack of success of marriage equality legislation in Illinois that supporters kept from coming to a floor vote this summer, to a coalition of lawmakers that included black lawmakers who oppose same-sex marriage.
Jennifer Marshall, director of domestic studies for The Heritage Foundation, said a wave of “young recruits” has entered the anti-gay marriage movement following the Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act.
“We will continue to give the unique status in law to the union between a man and a woman, the only union that can produce children as a monogamous, exclusive permanent relationship,” Marshall said. “We uphold this ideal in the interest of children, in the interest of coming together and in the interest of America’s future.”
Representing the young recruits in opposition to same-sex marriage was Ryan Anderson, a fellow in religion and free society at The Heritage Foundation, who said he’s gone to speak on college campuses on why “marriage matters.”
“Whenever a child is born, a mother will be close by, that’s a fact of biology,” Anderson said. “The question for culture and the question for law is will a father be close by, and if so, for how long?”
The marriage panel was originally scheduled for the Values Voter Summit earlier in the day, but was postponed until the evening. Darin Miller, a Family Research Council spokesperson, told the Blade it was postponed to accommodate lawmakers’ schedules so they could make it on time for votes on Capitol Hill.
Evan Wolfson, president of the LGBT group Freedom to Marry, responded to the remarks against same-sex marriage at the Values Voter Summit by saying they’re acting contrary to basic values.
“If they can’t value basic American values such as liberty and justice for all, and if they can’t value personal values such as the Golden Rule and loving your neighbor, and if they can’t value veracity, you’d think they’d at least value their own self-image enough to stop the rest of us from trying to come up with polite synonyms for ‘out-of-touchiness,'” Wolfson said.
Federal Government
Gay Venezuelan man ‘forcibly disappeared’ to El Salvador files claim against White House
Andry Hernández Romero had asked for asylum in US
A gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who the U.S. “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador has filed a claim against the federal government.
Immigrant Defenders Law Center, who represents Andry Hernández Romero, on Friday announced their client and five other Venezuelans who the Trump-Vance administration “forcibly removed” to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, filed “administrative claims” under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The White House on Feb. 20, 2025, designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump less than a month later invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The White House then “forcibly removed” Hernández, who had been pursuing his asylum case in the U.S., and more than 250 other Venezuelans to El Salvador.
Immigrant Defenders Law Center disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.
Hernández was held at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT, until his release on July 18, 2025. Hernández, who is back in Venezuela, claims he suffered physical and sexual abuse while at CECOT.
“As a Venezuelan citizen with no criminal record anywhere in the world, I would like to tell not only the government of the United States but governments everywhere that no human being is illegal,” said Hernández in the Immigrant Defenders Law Center press release. “The practice of judging whole communities for the wrongdoing of a single individual must end. Governments should use their power to help every person in the nation become more aware and informed, to strengthen our cultures and build a stronger generation with principles and values — one that multiplies the positive instead of destroying unfulfilled dreams and opportunities.”
Immigrant Defenders Law Center filed claims on behalf of Hernández and the five other Venezuelans less than three months after American forces seized then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their home in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital.
Maduro and Flores have pleaded not guilty to federal drug charges. Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s vice president, is Venezuela’s acting president.
‘Due process and accountability cannot be optional’
Immigrant Defenders Law Center on Friday also made the following demands:
- The Trump administration must officially release the names of all people the United States sent to CECOT to ensure that everyone has been or will be released.
- The federal government must clear the names of the 252 men wrongfully labeled as criminal gang members of Tren de Aragua.
- DHS (Department of Homeland Security) must end the practice of outsourcing torture through third‑country removals, restore humanitarian parole, and rebuild a functioning, humane asylum system.
- DHS must reinstate Temporary Protected Status for all individuals who cannot safely return to their home countries, halt mass deportations and unlawful raids and arrests, and guarantee due process for everyone navigating the immigration system.
- Congress must pass the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, which would repeal the Alien Enemies Act.
“In all my years as an immigration attorney, I have never seen a client simply vanish in the middle of their case with no explanation,” said Immigration Defenders Legal Fund Legal Services Director Melissa Shepard. “In court, the government couldn’t even explain where he was — he had been disappeared.”
“When the government detains and transfers people in secrecy, without transparency or access to the courts, it tears at the basic protections a democracy is supposed to guarantee,” added Shepard. “What this experience makes painfully clear is that due process and accountability cannot be optional. They are the only safeguards standing between people and the kind of lawlessness our clients suffered. We must end third country transfers, restore the asylum system, and humanitarian parole, and reinstate temporary protective status so this nightmare never happens again.”
The White House
Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
Recent policy actions from the White House limit transgender rights in sports, immigration visas, and overarching federal policy.
In a proclamation issued by the Trump White House Thursday night, the president said he would, among other things, “restore public safety” and continue “upholding the rule of law,” while promoting policies that restrict the rights of transgender people.
“We are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written, and ensuring colleges preserve — and, where possible, expand — scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes,” the proclamation reads. “At the same time, we are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
The statement comes amid a broader series of actions by the Trump administration targeting transgender people across multiple federal policy areas, including education, health care, and immigration. A nearly complete list of policies the current administration has put forward can be found on KFF.org.
One day before the proclamation was issued, the U.S. State Department announced changes to visa regulations that could impact transgender and gender-nonconforming people seeking entry into the United States.
The policy, published March 11 and scheduled to take effect April 10, introduces changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, commonly known as the “DV Program.” The rule is framed by the department as an effort to strengthen oversight and prevent fraud within the visa lottery system, which allocates a limited number of immigrant visas annually to applicants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.
However, the updated language also standardizes the use of the term “sex” in federal regulations in place of “gender,” a change that LGBTQ advocates say could create additional barriers for transgender and gender-diverse applicants.
The policy states: “The Department of State (‘Department’) is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (‘DV Program’) to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word ‘shall’ to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term ‘sex’ in lieu of ‘gender’; and replace the term ‘age’ in the DV Program regulations with the phrase ‘date of birth’ to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.”
Advocates say the shift toward using “sex” rather than “gender” in federal immigration rules reflects a broader push by the administration to roll back recognition of transgender identities in federal policy.
According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, an estimated 15,000 to 50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants currently live in the United States, with many entering the country to seek refuge from persecution and hostile governments in their home countries.
Ecuador
Adolescentes trans en Ecuador podrán cambiar datos en su cédula, pero con condicionamientos
Pueden modificar el campo de género en su documento de identidad con requisitos
Por VICTOR H. CARREÑO | En una sentencia del 5 de febrero de 2026, la Corte Constitucional declaró inconstitucional el requisito legal de mayoría de edad para modificar el campo de sexo o género en la cédula de identidad y fija lineamientos para que adolescentes trans puedan cambiar estos datos.
El máximo organismo de control e interpretación constitucional incorpora dos requerimientos: que la persona adolescente se presente al procedimiento administrativo con sus padres y que informes psicosociales acrediten un grado de madurez.
El fallo resuelve una consulta de constitucionalidad de una unidad judicial que lleva una acción de protección contra el Registro Civil presentada por la familia de un adolescente trans que solicitó, en junio de 2023, modificar el campo de género en la cédula.
La institución se negó porque la Ley Orgánica de Gestión de la Identidad y Datos Civiles establece que la rectificación de sexo o género es un procedimiento para personas mayores de 18 años.
El adolescente, cuya identidad se protege en la sentencia, cuenta con el apoyo de sus padres en su transición, que inició en 2020. En una audiencia, su madre expuso que si bien en el ámbito familiar y en el sistema educativo se respeta la identidad de su hijo, fuera de estos hay situaciones, como en consultas médicas en el Seguro Social, en que debe presentar la cédula de él y quienes la reciben preguntan si es el documento equivocado.
En el desarrollo de la sentencia, la Corte expone por qué el requisito de tener mayoría de edad para acceder a la modificación de datos en la cédula es inconstitucional.
Entre varios motivos, explica que restringe los derechos al libre desarrollo de la personalidad e identidad, que la edad no puede exigirse como “criterio determinante y único” para determinar la madurez de un adolescente, y que la medida puede generar impactos negativos en el bienestar psicológico y emocional.
Por ello, indica que existen mecanismos alternativos como la evaluación individualizada, el acompañamiento técnico y la consideración del contexto familiar.
En ese sentido, la Corte dispone al Registro Civil que debe proceder al cambio de los datos de adolescentes trans cuando acudan acompañades de sus representantes legales y con el respaldo de informes psicosociales.
Estos informes, agrega la sentencia, deben ser de profesionales acreditados o de órganos técnicos públicos competentes que sean considerados por el Registro Civil.
El fallo tiene efectos para este caso y otros similares. A diferencia de otras sentencias, la Corte no ordena una reforma a la legislación.
La organización Silueta X, que difundió el caso en un comunicado el 11 de marzo, calificó el fallo como histórico y explicó que este crea jurisprudencia de cumplimiento obligatorio.
🏳️⚧️🌈Un chico trans de 15 años le dijo al Estado ecuatoriano “yo sé quién soy”. Y la Corte Constitucional le dio la razón. 🏛️✊
Este fallo es nuestro. Es tuyo.
🔗 Lee la comunicado completa en nuestra bio.#DerechosTransEcuador #SiluetaX #CorteConstitucional #AdolescentesTrans pic.twitter.com/aXE4FU9VeS
— Asociación SILUETA 'X' (@SiluetaX) March 11, 2026
Sin embargo, otras organizaciones cuestionan los requisitos. Fundación Pakta indica que si bien la sentencia derriba la barrera etaria de la mayoría de edad, la inclusión de informes psicosociales contradice la tendencia global y regional hacia la despatologización.
Pakta menciona, por ejemplo, la Opinión Consultiva 24/17 de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, instrumento que reconoce la identidad autopercebida de las personas y los derechos patrimoniales de parejas del mismo sexo.
El documento, recuerda Pakta en un comunicado, establece que para el reconocimiento de la identidad de género no se debe exigir certificados médicos ni psicológicos. Además, que la Organización Mundial de la Salud reconoció que la identidad trans no es una patología psiquiátrica.
Mientras que la activista Nua Fuentes, de Proyecto Transgénero, considera que los requisitos impuestos por la Corte pueden ser problemáticos. Menciona que frente al desconocimiento y prejuicios, profesionales de salud patologizan la identidad trans.
La Sentencia 4-24-CN/26 sobre la inconstitucionalidad de negar a adolescentes trans cambio de su sexo o género en la cédula es un acto que entreabre la puerta para los derechos, pero también sostiene algunas barreras y es problemático para adolescentes trans #Ecuador
Abro hilo🧵 pic.twitter.com/aKBUlmnU1A— Nua Elizabeth Fuentes Aguirre (@NuaEliz) March 11, 2026
Además, señala que puede haber casos de que la familia y psicólogos expresen rechazo a la identidad trans y limiten los derechos de adolescentes trans. O también menciona casos de abandono de niñes y adolescentes trans y pregunta cómo reconocer su identidad si no cumplen con el requisito de acudir sin representantes legales.
Los condicionamientos para el cambio del campo de sexo o género en la cédula para adolescentes trans marcan también una diferencia con el procedimiento en personas trans de más de 18 años, pues estas —desde las reformas vigentes en 2024— no deben presentar requisitos. Solo su declaración expresa de ser una persona trans que desea que los datos de su cédula estén conformes a su identidad de género.
La madurez de niñeces y adolescencias ha sido un tema abordado en convenciones o instrumentos internacionales. La Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño de la ONU del 2009 es contundente al reconocerles como seres autónomos y capaces de formar sus propias opiniones a través de la experiencia, el entorno, las expectativas sociales y culturales.
Esta convención es mencionada en una sentencia de la Corte Constitucional en que reconoció la identidad de infancias y adolescencias trans en el sistema educativo.
En las Observaciones Generales del Comité de los Derechos del Niño, documentos de interpretación para los alcances de la mencionada Convención, se explica que la madurez es “la capacidad de comprender y evaluar las consecuencias de un asunto determinado”, lo cual debe considerarse en relación con su capacidad individual, contextos, entornos, experiencias de vida y familiar, desarrollo psicológico y no únicamente con su edad biológica.
Además, que la edad cronológica no determina la evolución de las capacidades de las niñeces y adolescencias porque estas crecen a lo largo del tiempo.
