News
10 years later, Goodridge decision still seen as milestone
Advocates see path for nationwide marriage equality in another decade
Mary Bonauto litigated the case that brought marriage equality to Massachusetts 10 years ago. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Ten years have passed since marriage equality came to the first state in the nation following a historic decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, helping to usher in swift change in attitudes and law around gay and lesbian couples.
On Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down a 4-3 ruling in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, bringing marriage equality to the Bay State.
“The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry,” the decision states. “We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals.”
Despite efforts from then-Gov. Mitt Romney to limit the ruling to civil unions and enact a constitutional amendment to rescind the decision, supporters of the ruling won the day and marriage equality has remained the law of the land in Massachusetts.
Mary Bonauto, who litigated the Goodridge case on behalf of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and now serves as civil rights director there, said on the 10th anniversary of the decision the ruling “broke a historic barrier that we have never been able to overcome.”
“And it did so in the shared values of our constitution that we all believe in equality and we don’t have second-class citizens in this nation under the law,” Bonauto said.
The magnitude of the decision was bolstered, Bonauto said, six months later by the same-sex couples who went to the altar to marry.
“Now you had principle and you had reality working together, and all this freedom and equality from the court, and the you saw the joy in couples who finally were able to marry,” Bonauto said. “I think actually having couples marry was profound. It had to happen somewhere, somebody had to be first.”
Evan Wolfson, an early proponent of marriage equality and current president of Freedom to Marry, said having same-sex marriage legal someplace in the country was transformational for the movement.
“The breakthrough we were always working for in those early years was to make it real somewhere because we knew that once people had a chance to see with their own eyes families helped, and no one hurt, the opposition and resistance and fears would begin to subside, and we could build on that win to the rest of the wins still needed,” Wolfson said.
But the victory in Massachusetts, followed by then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to distribute marriage licenses to gay couples, was met by a significant roadblock in the 2004 election when 11 states adopted constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. President George W. Bush won re-election after making support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage a prominent part of his campaign.
Pointing to political analysis debunking the notion that the marriage issue drove voters to the polls to re-elect Bush, Bonauto expressed skepticism that the ruling led to the win for Republicans in the 2004 election.
“The way this all got started, I think, people were putting two-and-two together about moral values, and the 22 percent of voters had stated that their most important consideration was ‘moral values,’ and the 11 amendments,” Bonauto said. “In the exit polling and so on about what this moral values means, for a great many people it meant the Iraq war. So it wasn’t even clear that the moral values voters were Bush voters.”
Bonauto said when she filed the case in 2001, 36 states already had statutory bans on same-sex marriage in response to advancing efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii in the 1990s.
“From my perspective, it wasn’t really so much a backlash as a continued lashing,” Bonauto said. “People who had already taken steps to be very explicit about marriage bans, the only place they could go, continue to hone their political credentials, was to be even more draconian, and so that’s what happened by and large.”
Referencing a speech he delivered prior to Election Day of that year, Wolfson said the win in Massachusetts still trumped the losses at the ballot box in 2004 because it was still progress from the status quo.
“Even in 2004, I was on record before the election as saying that any year in which we endured some anti-gay attacks, but won marriage was a winning year because wins trump losses,” Wolfson said. “We would use the power of the win to overcome the temporary barriers erected in our losses, and that’s precisely what we are doing.”
It wasn’t until 2008 when other states would follow suit after courts in Connecticut and California ruled in favor of marriage equality, although the victory in California was (until recently) abrogated several months later by the passage of Proposition 8.
Now 16 states and D.C. are poised to have marriage equality on the books in the same year that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of these unions.
The ruling against DOMA at the Supreme Court was coupled by a decision from justices that restored marriage equality to California. In the months that followed, the New Jersey Supreme Court has instituted marriage equality in the Garden State and state legislatures in Illinois and Hawaii have extended marriage to gay couples. At any time, the New Mexico Supreme Court could hand down a ruling in favor of marriage equality as a result of pending litigation.
M.V. Lee Badgett, research director at the Williams Institute, estimated about 100,000 gay couples have married since the Goodridge decision 10 years ago, but the effect of having marriage equality in Massachusetts and other places goes far beyond numbers.
“It will take a while for researchers to analyze and publish more detailed findings on the effects of the ability to marry and of actual marriage,” Badgett said. “One early study showed that same-sex couples in Massachusetts feel more social inclusion, and one sample of gay men showed lower health care costs and health care utilization. In California we’ve seen that psychological health is better for same-sex couples who marry or had domestic partnerships.”
Wolfson said the growth of marriage equality in the country is noteworthy in many respects, including in terms of percentages.
“As we celebrate the end of this big year, we now have 38 percent of the American people living in a freedom to marry state, up from zero a decade ago,” Wolfson said. “Gay people can share in the freedom to marry in 18 countries, in five continents, up from zero virtually a decade ago. That, by any standard, is enormous progress and real momentum, but we have to finish the job.”
Reflecting back on the decision 10 years ago, Bonauto said she hoped at the time this much change would happen a decade later, but confessed “there were times that I certainly wasn’t sure.”
“I had always hoped that the arc for us would be what it was in some ways for interracial marriage, where courts rebuff and rebuff and rebuff, and then in 1948 the California Supreme Court struck down the interracial marriage ban,” Bonauto said. “More states repealed those after the California ruling, so that 19 years later when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, Virginia was only one of 16 states that had such bans.”
During a news conference held on the same day as the 10th anniversary of the Goodridge decision, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also noted progress made in the past decade in response to a more general question on LGBT rights.
“I think that anybody who looks at LGBT rights and the road travelled in this country just in the past decade would rightly be pleased by the significant progress that’s been made, even as we acknowledge that more work needs to be done, more progress need to be done,” Carney said.
Carney later told the Blade via email he wasn’t making a direct reference to the Goodridge decision, but his comments were meant “just as a broad reference to the progress made over the last decade.”
And hopes continue for a brighter future as advocates anticipate one of the pending federal lawsuits in 20 states across the country will make its way to the Supreme Court, delivering a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide in less than 10 years. Following the Supreme Court rulings in June, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said marriage equality will reach the entire nation within five years.
Bonauto said she hopes the Supreme Court will settle the marriage issue once and for all, but isn’t completely sure which way the justices would rule and emphasized hard work is necessary for a favorable outcome.
“I think we have to work with the same intensity that we have up to this point and hopefully the Supreme Court will settle the issue, and then if for some reason it does not, which I think would be extremely unfortunate, I just think we have to continue doing what we’ve been doing state by state,” she said.
Freedom to Marry has prepared a “Roadmap to Victory” in anticipation of a Supreme Court decision that entails winning more states and building support for same-sex marriage in nationwide polls. Eyes will be on Oregon in 2014 to see whether it will reverse a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage at the ballot.
Wolfson said he “absolutely” believes that supporters of same-sex marriage will be able to finish the job.
“The good news for us is the same winning strategy that brought us to this point of momentum is the strategy that is going to bring it all home,” Wolfson said.
Ecuador
Caso Karlina: Una sentencia histórica contra las terapias de «conversión»
Karlina Quiroz, una mujer trans de Chone, fue internada contra su voluntad
La última vez que Karlina Quiroz, una mujer trans de 57 años, salió sola a la calle en Chone, terminó encerrada contra su voluntad en un centro de rehabilitación donde intentaron “corregir” su identidad de género mediante humillaciones, amenazas y agresiones.
Han pasado cinco años desde ese episodio, ocurrido en 2021; y el 11 de septiembre de 2026 Karlina por fin obtuvo justicia.
La Fiscalía informó, el 14 de septiembre, que el Tribunal de Garantías Penales de Chone sentenció a seis personas por actos de odio contra Karlina, al ser víctima de violencia basada en su identidad de género.
Entre los seis sentenciados están sus dos hermanos, que —según la denuncia de Karlina— ordenaron su encierro a este centro.
El caso de Karlina refleja el odio y la violencia hacia personas trans en Ecuador y vuelve a poner bajo la lupa la existencia de centros conocidos como clínicas de “deshomosexualización” o espacios de “terapias de conversión”.
De acuerdo con la denuncia presentada por Karlina, en julio de 2021 fue interceptada por varios hombres y trasladada contra su voluntad a un centro para el tratamiento de adicciones ubicado en Chone, Manabí, en la vía a Pedernales. Allí permaneció retenida y sometida a tratos degradantes, violencia psicológica y agresiones físicas.
Según su testimonio, durante el encierro recibió insultos relacionados con su identidad de género y amenazas orientadas a “modificarla”.
Karlina denunció, además, que esta no habría sido la primera vez. Según su relato, en 2019 permaneció aproximadamente tres meses internada de manera forzada en otro centro de rehabilitación, también ubicado en la vía a Pedernales, en Chone. Durante ese período habría sido sometida a dinámicas similares de aislamiento, control y presiones dirigidas a modificar su identidad y expresión de género.
Según información de la Fiscalía, en septiembre de 2021, como parte de las diligencias investigativas, se allanó el centro clandestino en Chone. Allí se recabaron indicios relacionados con el internamiento forzoso de Karlina durante tres meses.
Con esos y otros elementos de convicción obtenidos durante la investigación, la Fiscalía inició un proceso penal contra las seis personas, quienes fueron luego llamadas a juicio.
El proceso, explicó Karlina, incluyó los dos casos: el de 2019 y 2021. “El crimen se investigó desde que comenzó la primera gota de sangre”, señaló Karlina, en alusión a la violencia física que sufrió en su primer encierro.
De los seis sentenciados, tres fueron condenados como autores directos a cuatro años de pena privativa de libertad. Se trata de los dos hermanos de Karlina y un sobrino, por ordenar su encierro al centro de adicciones.
Los otros tres recibieron una pena de dos años, como cómplices.
De acuerdo con Karlina, uno de ellos es el director del primer centro al que fue ingresada contra su voluntad en 2019 por tres meses, y los otros dos son quienes la interceptaron la segunda ocasión, en julio de 2021, para llevarla al centro. Ella los señala como “capturadores” de las personas que son recluidas en los centros.
“Cuando recibí la noticia (el viernes 11 de septiembre durante la audiencia de juzgamiento) no podía creerlo. Las piernas me temblaron y las lágrimas se me salieron. Estoy tranquila y satisfecha”, señaló Karlina en una llamada telefónica.
Para Pedro Gutiérrez, abogado especialista en derechos humanos, la sentencia es importante no solo por reconocer un delito de odio, sino también por las características de los hechos: el ingreso (por orden de sus hermanos) a un centro de “deshomosexualización” en el que se cometen actos de tortura y violencia física.
Durante la audiencia, constó el testimonio de Karlina. La Fiscalía también presentó el informe de reconocimiento del lugar de los hechos, la inspección ocular técnica, el levantamiento de evidencias y los testimonios de personas que confirmaron que los actos de violencia por perjuicio hacia su identidad de género fueron ejecutados de manera reiterada por los ahora sentenciados.
El caso volvió a poner la atención sobre las llamadas terapias de conversión en Ecuador, prácticas ampliamente cuestionadas por organismos internacionales de derechos humanos y señaladas como formas de tortura o violencia psicológica. Aunque el Estado ecuatoriano ha realizado operativos y clausuras de algunos centros en los últimos años, organizaciones sociales sostienen que estos espacios continúan funcionando de manera clandestina o bajo otras denominaciones.
La legislación ecuatoriana penaliza los actos de tortura con la intención de modificar la orientación sexual o identidad de género, pero no existe una sanción contra los centros que ofrecen las denominadas terapias de conversión.
En 2020, la Asamblea aprobó el Código Orgánico de Salud y una de sus disposiciones fue prohibir expresamente este tipo de terapias, pero fue vetado totalmente por el expresidente Lenín Moreno en medio de una campaña de sectores antiderechos.
La sentencia también dispuso, como reparación integral a favor de Karlina, tratamiento psicológico e indemnizaciones por daños materiales e inmateriales.
Gutiérrez considera que la reparación para Karlina es limitada, pues -por ejemplo- no hay llamados de atención al Ministerio de Salud o disculpas públicas a la víctima.
“Mi nombre es Ariel Karlina Zambrano, soy una mujer trans de Chone, Manabí. Desde niña supe que quería ser mujer, quería ser bonita, libre. Pero mi familia nunca lo aceptó. Mis hermanos y mi padre, profundamente machistas, me maltrataban constantemente”, contó Karlina en un testimonio en 2025 que recogió el Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (CDH).
Para activistas y defensores de derechos humanos, el caso de Karlina evidencia además un patrón de violencia que suele permanecer oculto dentro de círculos familiares, religiosos y comunitarios. En muchos casos, explican, los internamientos forzados son promovidos bajo la idea de “corregir” orientaciones sexuales o identidades de género consideradas inaceptables.
Karlina intentó vivir en Chone, creyendo que con la denuncia y las medidas cautelares estaba a salvo, pero su hermano le pagaba a personas para que la acosaran, según su relato. Por ello, tuvo que esconderse por meses.
Las personas trans en Ecuador enfrentan altos niveles de discriminación, violencia y exclusión social, especialmente fuera de las grandes ciudades. Según la Encuesta Nacional sobre las Condiciones de Vida de la Población LGBTI+ del INEC, el 53,5 por ciento de las personas LGBTQ mayores de 18 años en el país ha sufrido algún tipo de discriminación o violencia a lo largo de su vida, siendo el entorno familiar uno de los principales espacios de agresión.
En materia de violencia letal, organizaciones como Asociación Silueta X y el Observatorio Runa Sipiy documentaron 30 asesinatos de personas LGBTQ y transfemicidios en Ecuador durante 2025. De esos casos, alrededor del 70 por ciento corresponden a mujeres trans, lo que las posiciona como el grupo más expuesto a crímenes de odio y violencia extrema.
Diversas organizaciones de derechos humanos han advertido además sobre la persistencia de centros de “deshomosexualización” o internamientos forzosos, prácticas denunciadas desde hace más de una década en Ecuador pese a prohibiciones estatales y operativos de control insuficientes.
El caso de Karlina pone a prueba algo más grande que una sentencia individual: si Ecuador está dispuesto o no a reconocer que estas prácticas siguen existiendo y que la violencia contra personas LGBTQ continúa ocurriendo, muchas veces con la complicidad o el silencio de sus propios entornos familiares.
“Con mi caso, debe quedar un precedente. Debemos luchar contra el odio que podemos encontrarlo dentro de nuestras propias familias. Por nuestra libertad y derechos, debemos luchar”, indicó Karlina.
Netherlands
Dutch prime minister visits Stonewall Inn
Rob Jetten is the Netherlands’ first openly gay prime minister
Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten on Monday visited the Stonewall Inn in New York.
“The Stonewall Inn is not just a gay bar in New York, but the place where in 1969 riots took place as a reaction to years of discrimination and police violence,” wrote Jetten on X. “This is seen as the starting point of the global LGBTIQ+ emancipation and activism. Nowadays, the bar is a national monument, dedicated to the LGBTIQ+ rights movement.”
“For me, it is impressive and moving to be here tonight. And also fitting, because the defense of human rights is an important part of our foreign policy,” he added. “The Netherlands stands alongside the Stonewall Inn community when it comes to everyone’s right to live openly, safely, and with pride, no matter who you are or who you love.”
De Stonewall Inn is niet zomaar een gay bar in New York, maar de plaats waar in 1969 rellen plaatsvonden als reactie op jarenlange discriminatie en geweld van de politie. Dit wordt gezien als startpunt van de wereldwijde lhbtiq+-emancipatie en activisme. Tegenwoordig is de bar… pic.twitter.com/hJmFYjF91Z
— Rob Jetten (@MinPres) September 23, 2026
Jetten in February became the Netherlands’s first openly gay prime minister.
He opened last month’s World Pride Human Rights Conference in Amsterdam. Jetten also participated in a panel with former Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, former San Marino Captain Regent Paolo Rondelli, and other current and former heads of government who are gay or lesbian.
Jetten is scheduled to speak to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday.
District of Columbia
Capital Pride chair resigns from board after just 10 months
Anna Jinkerson ‘taking step back to move forward’
Anna Jinkerson, who has served as chair of D.C.’s Capital Pride Alliance Board of Directors for the past 10 months and has served on the board for the past four years, confirmed she is resigning from the board effective Sept. 30.
Capital Pride Alliance serves as the lead organizer of D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events.
“I am taking a step back to move forward and plan to stay engaged in the community,” Jinkerson told the Washington Blade in a statement. “Serving as a volunteer leader during a period of transition following World Pride was both an honor and a challenge,” she said.
“Throughout my tenure, I focused on strengthening accountability, improving communications, supporting staff and volunteers, and helping position the organization for long-term success,” she told the Blade in her statement. “Meaningful organizational progress requires collaboration, dedication, and a shared commitment to serving the community, and I am proud of the work accomplished during this period.”
In February of this year, during Jinkerson’s tenure on the board, Capital Pride announced it had expanded the size of its board from 12 to 25 members.
Around that same time one of the existing board members, transgender activist Taylor Lianne Chandler, announced in a letter to fellow board members that the Blade obtained from an anonymous sender that she was resigning from the board. Among her reasons for resigning, she said in the letter, was the board’s failure to address “sexual misconduct” within the Capital Pride organization.
In the letter, which she confirmed for the Blade was authentic, Chandler said she and other board members raised “credible concerns” of alleged sexual misconduct within the Capital Pride organization and the board chose not to adequately respond to those concerns.
Chandler told the Blade a Capital Pride investigation identified an individual implicated in a “pattern” of sexual harassment related behavior, but said she was bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement that applied to all board members and she could not provide further details.
When the Blade contacted Capital Pride for comment on Chandler’s allegations, Jinkerson responded with a statement saying Capital Pride was addressing her concerns.
“When concerns are brought to CPA, we act quickly and appropriately to address them,” Jinkerson said. “As we continue to grow our organization, we’re proactively strengthening the policies and procedures that shape our systems, our infrastructure, and the support we provide to our team and partners,” she said.
In her statement to the Blade this week commenting on her planned resignation from the Capital Pride board, Jinkerson appeared to refer to the concern raised by Chandler.
“I am proud to have advocated for sexual harassment training, supported staff and volunteers when concerns were raised, engaged community leaders in important conversations, and helped advance practices that strengthen safety, transparency, and accountability,” she said.
“As I step away from board service, I do so with gratitude for the opportunity to serve and with confidence in the organization’s future,” she added. “I am taking a step back to move forward, and I look forward to remaining actively engaged in our community and continuing to support efforts that advance equality, belonging, and pride for all.”
Caso Karlina: Una sentencia histórica contra las terapias de «conversión»
Washington Blade responds to concerns over White House pool duties
Young people should know history of the fight for human rights
Dutch prime minister visits Stonewall Inn
Clavicular charged in alleged rape of teenage influencer
Over 2,000 turn out for Hands Around the Kennedy Center protest
PHOTOS: Wanda Alston Foundation Fall Reception
PHOTOS: Walk and 5K to End HIV
What LGBTQ veterans are building after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
