National
‘Day of Rage’ protests held over India sodomy ruling
Advocates gathered in Delhi, Mumbai, D.C., London

LGBT rights advocates in Bangalore, India, on Dec. 15, 2013, protest the Indian Supreme Court ruling that recriminalized homosexuality. (Photo courtesy of Neha Nambiar)
Thousands of LGBT rights advocates in India and around the world on Sunday took part in “Day of Rage” protests against last week’s India Supreme Court ruling that recriminalized homosexuality.
Activists and their supporters gathered in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkota and other Indian cities to express their outrage over the Dec. 11 decision. Protests also took place outside the Indian embassy on Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., in Northwest D.C. and in New York, London, Toronto and other cities.
“I was especially overwhelmed to see parents of individuals from the community standing up for their kids,” Neha Nambier told the Washington Blade after she took part in a protest against the decision in Bangalore in the southern Indian state of Karnataka.
Omkar, an engineer from Bangalore who did not provide his last name to the Blade, took part in the same protest.
“This verdict encroaches upon my freedom of living life, and it threatens to snatch my dignity,” he said. “Not just mine, but of everyone else too. Therefore, I feel, I must protest against this verdict and voice my concern.”
Mahesh Natarajan, a gay man who has lived with his partner for nearly a decade, also took part in the Bangalore protest.
“I felt betrayed, let down, outraged,” he told the Blade as he discussed the decision. :For me, it is the supreme court abdicating its responsibility and by throwing us back in the hands of the possibly homophobic majority.”
Nearly three dozen people took part in a candlelight vigil outside the Indian embassy near Dupont Circle on Dec. 13.
Members of KhushDC, a group for LGBT South Asians who live in the Washington metropolitan area, placed a rainbow flag in the hand of the Mahatma Gandhi statue near the intersections of 21st and Q Streets, N.W., and Massachusetts Avenue. An unidentified official with the Indian embassy asked the protesters to remove the flag from the monument before the vigil began.
Nearly two dozen people gathered outside the Indian embassy two days earlier to protest the ruling.
“We are together because we want to show the strength of our community and people have been upset by the incredibly intolerant decision of the Supreme Court of India,” said KhushDC President Sapna Pandya during the Dec. 13 vigil.
Vanlal Hruaia of Cheverly, Md., who is from the Northeastern Indian state of Mizoram between Bangladesh and Myanmar, held a sign written in Hindi script during the candlelight vigil that read “I have loved, not committed a crime.”
He described the 2009 Delhi High Court ruling that struck down the country’s colonial-era sodomy law as a “great baby step in moving forward and being open-minded.” Hruaia added he feels the Indian Supreme Court decision that reinstated it is a “Stonewall moment” for LGBT Indians.
“Gays have been marginalized like crazy since British rule came to India,” he said, noting Hinduism recognizes what he described as a third gender. “It’s only when the British came that they marginalized the third-gender people that they’ve been living on the edge of society. And we’ve somehow failed to move beyond that.”
India is now among the 41 U.K. commonwealth countries in which homosexuality remains criminalized.
Sonia Gandhi, president of the Indian National Congress, which is one of the country’s two main political parties, on Dec. 12 criticized the Indian Supreme Court’s ruling.
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay in a Dec. 11 statement described the decision as a “significant step backwards.” She also urged the Indian government to review the ruling.
U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki last week declined to say how the White House would pressure New Delhi to repeal the country’s colonial-era sodomy law in response to questions from the Blade and other media outlets.
Indian Law Minister Kapil Sibal said his government will consider ways to overturn the decision. It remains highly unlikely lawmakers will decriminalize homosexuality before next year’s elections because members of the socially conservative Bharatiya Janata Party, which observers have labeled as Hindu nationalist, and their political allies will likely block any such proposal.
“The judges seem to have decided that they were speaking for a ‘real India’ that finds all this distasteful or worse and against that view all the legal skill on our side was of no use,” Vikram Doctor of the Times of India newspaper told the Blade. “If anything it confirmed their feelings that this was all elite urban outrage.”
LGBT rights advocates are planning to ask the Indian Supreme Court to reconsider their decision. They are also scheduled to meet in New Delhi on Dec. 22.
“I don’t think this is going to be as easy to change as people are hoping,” said Doctor. “All the support we are seeing now is wonderful and heart-warming, but it remains to be seen how much difference it will make over time and when we are up against this ‘real India’ attitude which is quite widespread.”
Tushar Malik, a Human Rights Campaign fellow from New Delhi, told the Blade during the Dec. 13 vigil outside the Indian embassy in D.C. that a lot of “dissatisfaction with this decision” remains in India.
“It’s a shame to our democracy,” he said.
Harjant Gill, a D.C. anthropologist from Chandigarh in Northern India, said the outrage over the Indian Supreme Court’s decision he has seen on social media networks demonstrates his countrymen increasingly support LGBT rights. He told the Blade after he attended the D.C. vigil on Dec. 13 that most people with whom he has spoken in India since the judges announced their ruling described it as “incredibly stupid.”
“They don’t understand this is moving the country in the wrong direction,” said Gill. “A lot of people see gay rights as a human rights issue and the fact that the India Supreme Court did this says something about their commitment to human rights and that in fact they’re maybe not committed to human rights.”
“Queer Indians have always been a fractured lot across race, caste, religion, economic status, language, gender, sexuality, colour and everything else, and find it hard to come together,” added Natarajan. “This judgment has already brought us together to a larger degree than anything else so far. Every liberal Indian is coming out and speaking out. We got to build on this and make this our stonewall moment. There isn’t any other choice.”
Omkar had a similar message for the court.
“We are simply asking [it to] let consenting adults decide how they express feelings of mutual love and affection,” he told the Blade.
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.
Florida
Fla. House passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill
Measure could open door to overturning local LGBTQ rights protections
The Florida House of Representatives on March 10 voted 77-37 to approve an “Anti-Diversity in Local Government” bill that opponents have called an extreme and sweeping measure that, among other things, could overturn local LGBTQ rights protections.
The House vote came six days after the Florida Senate voted 25-11 to pass the same bill, opening the way to send it to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who supports the bill and has said he would sign it into law.
Equality Florida, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization that opposed the legislation, issued a statement saying the bill “would ban, repeal, and defund any local government programming, policy, or activity that provides ‘preferential treatment or special benefits’ or is designed or implemented with respect to race, color, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
The statement added that the bill would also threaten city and county officials with removal from office “for activities vaguely labeled as DEI,” with only limited exceptions.
“Written in broad and ambiguous language, the bill is the most extreme of its kind in the country, creating confusion and fear for local governments that recognize LGBTQ residents and other communities that contribute to strength and vibrancy of Florida cities,” the group said in a separate statement released on March 10.
The Miami Herald reports that state Sen. Clay Yarborough (R-Jacksonville), the lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said he added language to the bill that would allow the city of Orlando to continue to support the Pulse nightclub memorial, a site honoring 49 mostly LGBTQ people killed in the 2016 mass shooting at the LGBTQ nightclub.
But the Equality Florida statement expresses concern that the bill can be used to target LGBTQ programs and protections.
“Debate over the bill made expressly clear that LGBTQ people were a central target of the legislation,” the group’s statement says. “The public record, the bill sponsors’ own statements, and hours of legislative debate revealed the animus driving the effort to pressure local governments into pulling back from recognizing or resourcing programs targeting LGBTQ residents and other historically marginalized communities,” the statement says.
But the statement also notes that following outspoken requests by local officials, sponsors of the bill agreed to several amendments “ensuring local governments can continue to permit Pride festivals, even while navigating new restrictions on supporting or promoting them.”
The statement adds, “Florida’s LGBTQ community knows all too well how to fight back against unjust laws. Just as we did, following the passage of Florida’s notorious ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ law, we will fight every step of the way to limit the impact of this legislation, including in the courts.”
The White House
Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
Measure described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
President Donald Trump said he will refuse to sign any legislation into law unless Congress passes the “SAVE Act,” pressuring lawmakers to move forward with the controversial voting bill.
In posts on Truth Social and other social media platforms, the 47th president emphasized the importance of Republican lawmakers pushing the legislation through while also using the opportunity to denounce gender-affirming care.
“I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION — GO FOR THE GOLD,” Trump posted. “MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY — ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!!”
The proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. Trump has also called for the legislation to include a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent.
“This is a huge priority for the president. He added on some priorities to the SAVE America Act in recent days, namely, no transgender transition surgeries for minors. We are not gonna tolerate the mutilation of young children in this country. No men in women’s sports,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “The president putting all of these priorities together speaks to how common sense they are.”
The comments mark the first time the White House has publicly confirmed that Trump is pushing to attach anti-trans policies to the SAVE Act.
The bill would also require the removal of undocumented immigrants from existing voter rolls and allow election officials who fail to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement to be sued.
It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Current safeguards include requirements such as providing a Social Security number when registering to vote, cross-checking voter rolls with federal data and, in some states, requiring identification at the polls.
Trump began pushing for the legislation during his State of the Union address last month, where he singled out Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) by name while criticizing the lack of movement on the bill.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has denounced the legislation as “Jim Crow 2.0” and said it has little chance of advancing through the Senate, calling it “dead on arrival.”
In remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer said “the SAVE Act includes such extreme voter registration requirements that, if enacted, could disenfranchise 21 million American citizens.”
Trump has repeatedly used political messaging around trans youth and gender-affirming care as part of broader cultural and policy debates during his presidency — most recently during his State of the Union address, where he cited the case of Sage Blair, a Virginia teenager whose school allegedly encouraged her to transition without her parents’ consent.
LGBTQ advocates — including those familiar with Blair’s story — say the situation was far more complex than described and argue that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions could place trans people, particularly youth, at greater risk.
-
Health4 days agoToo afraid to leave home: ICE’s toll on Latino HIV care
-
Movies5 days agoIntense doc offers transcendent treatment of queer fetish pioneer
-
Colombia4 days agoClaudia López wins primary in Colombian presidential race
-
The White House3 days agoTrump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
