News
Macedonian lawmakers approve same-sex marriage ban
Constitutional amendment described as ‘discriminatory and undemocratic’
Bekim Asani, chair of LGBT United Macedonia, a Macedonian LGBT advocacy group, is among the advocates that oppose efforts to amend the country’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. (Photo courtesy of Bekim Asani)
Amendment XXXIII passed in the former Yugoslav republic’s assembly by a 72-4 margin less than a year after Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski’s government introduced the proposal.
“Marriage shall be a life union solely of one woman and one man,” reads the proposed amendment.
Macedonian law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Amendment XXXIII states the country “requires a clear and precise constitutional definition of marriage as a union solely of one woman and one man.”
“Marriage exclusively defined as the union between one woman and one man is an integral part of human history, a constant and centuries-long tradition in this region,” reads the proposed amendment. “Marriage is one of the fundamental pillars of society. Thus, marriage constitutionally defined exclusively as a union between one woman and one man shall contribute to marriage as an institution being further acknowledged and promoted in our society.”
The LGBT Support Center, an advocacy group based in Skopje, the Macedonian capital, is among the organizations in the former Yugoslav republic to criticize the proposed amendment.
“These constitutional changes are not only completely unnecessary and redundant, but discriminatory and undemocratic to their very core,” said the LGBT Support Center in a statement. “The only real effect would be enhancing the negative social stigma on LGBTI people, further marginalizing this already deeply marginalized community and unnecessarily increasing the burden of everyday life of LGBT people in Macedonia.”
Chris Paliare, president of the Macedonian Canadian Lawyers’ Association, in a letter he wrote to Gruevski last October also argued the proposed amendment is unnecessary.
“Constitutionalizing these provisions has no rational legal justification and can only be justified, if at all, for some political gain, something that should never be part of a government program when human rights issues are at stake,” said Paliare.
Macedonia’s LGBT rights record lags far beyond those of most other European countries.
The former Yugoslav republic decriminalized homosexuality in 1996, but the country’s anti-discrimination laws currently do not include sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. Same-sex couples in Macedonia also lack legal protections.
Anti-LGBT discrimination and violence remain commonplace in the country.
The LGBT Support Center in Skopje has experienced at least six attacks since 2013. Two members of the LGBT Association of Macedonia were injured last October when a group of masked men attacked a coffee shop in the country’s capital where they had gathered to celebrate the group’s second anniversary.
Bekim Asani, chair of LGBT United Tetovo Macedonia in the city of Tetovo, told the Washington Blade before lawmakers approved the marriage amendment that he faces discrimination and threats on a daily basis.
“I can’t be who I am,” he said. “It is the same for every other openly LGBT person (in Macedonia.)”
Tanya Domi, an adjunct professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University who is currently writing a book on the LGBT rights movements in several Balkan countries, told the Blade that many Macedonian advocates have been attacked and “forced to seek emergency health care.” She noted many of them have also been evicted from their homes.
“It is a deeply hostile environment for LGBT persons,” said Domi.
Asani told the Blade he feels the proposed amendment will only worsen the situation for LGBT Macedonians.
“Macedonia is democratic country it should be free but when it comes to LGBT in reality it is not like that,” he said. “With the constitutional changes, a bad situation for LGBT people will get even worse.”
Same-sex marriage is legal in Portugal, Spain, France, England, Wales, Scotland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Irish voters in May are scheduled to vote on a referendum that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Finnish lawmakers in November approved a measure that would allow gays and lesbians to tie the knot in the Scandinavian country. Parliamentarians in Estonia and Malta within the last year have extended civil unions to same-sex couples.
Slovak lawmakers in June 2014 overwhelmingly approved an amendment to their country’s constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Croatia, Hungary and Latvia also define marriage as between a man and a woman in their respective countries’ constitutions.
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
