Africa
South Africa venue refuses same-sex weddings, stops hosting all marriages
Couple filed complaint with country’s Human Rights Commission
There have been mixed reactions from South Africa’s LGBTQ community after a popular wedding venue east of Cape Town announced it will no longer host weddings.
The Beloftebos farm, which Coia and Andreis de Villiers own, is 90 miles east of Cape Town and hosts a number of events.
It first came under the spotlight in 2017 when Alexandra Thorne and her partner Alex Lu approached Coia de Villiers in the hope of hosting a wedding, but was told the venue does not host same-sex marriages. Another same-sex couple, Megan Watling and Sasha-Lee Heekes, in January 2020 had a similar experience and approached the South Africa Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) which brought the de Villiers before the Equality Court for discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
The closure of the wedding venue has since seen Ruth Maseko, convener of the Triangle Project, an LGBTQ rights group, labeling the move as a total divergence from the LGBTQ community.
“Firstly, religious convections in the Bible have been used to appeal many forms of oppression including oppression of women, slavery amongst others,” said Maseko. “The sadness is that religion is still a point of exclusion and intolerance instead of being loving, affirming and inclusive. The case of the Beloftebos; owners to no longer host weddings at all than to allow people who do not identify exactly as they do is very repugnant. I wonder at what point do we become humans to know and understand the one who created you is the one who created us, members of the LGBTQIA+ (community)?”
“In this country, we have a constitution and as LGBTQIA+ people, we are protected by the constitution in that people may not discriminate against us on the grounds of our sexual orientation,” lamented Ruth. “If a wedding venue is open to the public, you cannot say we are open to the public except for LGBTQIA+ people or we are open to the public except black people, it is not constitutional.”
Michael Swain, director of Freedom of Religion South Africa, however, said the de Villiers had cited that they fully respect and recognize the constitutional rights of the LGBTQ community.
“The issue for the de Villiers family has always been about their sincere and deeply held convictions on the sacrament of marriage,” said Swain. “It has never been about the sexual orientation of any person and they have at every opportunity made it crystal clear that they fully respect and recognize the constitutional rights of the LGBTQIA+ community.”
“They have therefore asked the SAHRC to accept, without having to agree with them, that their bona fide and intensely-held world view is that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman,” added Swain. “Further, that their views and beliefs regarding marriage are for considered and nuanced reasons which in turn are fundamental to their relationship with God. This relationship is central to how they live their lives and it guides all their activities, including their decisions to diversify the use of their farm.”
Swain said “the decision of the de Villiers family to no longer make the wedding venue on their property generally available to the public was not part of their proposal to the SAHRC to find a resolution to this matter.”
“Rather, it was the culmination of a process of prayer and consideration over a number of years. This decision was accelerated by the severe impact of the COVID-19 lockdown regulations that effectively shut down the wedding industry,” added Swain. “However, the Beloftebos farm will continue to be used for a variety of Christian ministry (sic) and other events. By way of example, and in line with their decision, they have recently hosted a conference covering the topic of Biblical engagement with secular society.”
Furthermore, Swain said the constitution is very clear on the issue of freedom.
“To date, there has been no legal precedent to force a wedding venue to host and celebrate a same sex marriage,” said Swain. “However, if someone can be forced to participate in and celebrate events that violate their conscience, religion and belief, then every supplier of goods and services in South Africa may be forced to perform work or to provide services that they fundamentally disagree with.”
“This case is therefore about freedom, freedom for all of us to live in an open and democratic society where people are free to live their lives as they choose, in mutual respect for the dignity and sincerely held beliefs of one another,” added Swain. “Our constitution does not require everyone to believe the same and it should not punish people for holding divergent beliefs and opinions.”
The de Villiers have since written this week to the SAHRC in an attempt to amicably resolve this matter, which has been ongoing for more than two years.
Daniel Itai is the Washington Blade’s Africa Correspondent.
Ghana
Ghanaian lawmakers approve anti-LGBTQ bill
Measure that would criminalize allyship awaits president’s signature
Ghanaian lawmakers on Friday approved a bill that would, among other things, criminalize LGBTQ allyship.
Reuters reported MPs approved the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, in a voice vote after parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee backed it.
MPs in 2024 approved a similar bill, but it faced legal challenges and then-President Nana Akufo-Addo didn’t sign it. Lawmakers last year reintroduced the measure after President John Dramani Mahama took office.
The bill awaits his signature.
Rightify Ghana, a Ghanaian LGBTQ advocacy group, in a series of social media posts notes MPs passed the bill days before the 4th African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty will take place in Accra, the country’s capital.
Kenya
Kenyan High Court issues landmark transgender rights ruling
Government ordered to allow trans people to amend ID documents
Kenya’s High Court has ruled the country’s government cannot refuse requests to amend gender markers on birth certificates and other ID documents.
Audrey Mbugua, a prominent transgender activist, and two other people in 2020 sued Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, the Registrar of Births and Deaths, the National Registration Bureau, and Immigration Services Director General Evelyn Cheluget after they did not receive amended birth certificates.
The Washington Blade previously reported the three plaintiffs argued documents that do not correspond with their gender identity “has denied them opportunities and rights.” Oduor, for her part, in response to the plaintiffs’ claims argued “a person’s gender is based on fact — not feelings — and the plaintiffs at birth were registered and named based on their gender status.”
High Court Justice Bahati Mwamuye ruled on May 20.
“The silence and delay cannot defeat rights,” ruled the court, according to the Daily Nation, a Kenyan newspaper. “Constitutional rights cannot be delayed over administrative convenience.”
The court in 2014 ordered the Kenya National Examinations Council to change Mbugua’s name on her academic diplomas and to remove the male gender marker from them.
Kenya’s intersex rights law took effect in 2022. The government in February 2025 announced intersex people can receive birth certificates with an “I” gender marker.
The Daily Nation notes Mwamuye ordered the Registrar of Deaths and Births and other government agencies to “begin receiving and considering applications for gender-marker changes within” 60 days.
“Access to legal identity documentation is not just a human rights issue; it is a foundational pillar of socio-economic inclusion,” said the Initiative for Equality and Non-Discrimination, a Kenyan advocacy group, in response to the ruling. Without accurate IDs or passports, individuals face severe barriers to employment, financial systems, global business travel, and participation in governance and democratic processes.”
“This ruling marks a critical step forward in reducing administrative discrimination and fostering an inclusive environment where every Kenyan citizen’s legal identity aligns with their dignity,” added INEND.
Outright International, a New York-based global LGBTQ and intersex advocacy group, in a statement described Mwamuye’s ruling as “a meaningful shift towards aligning Kenya’s legal framework with constitutional guarantees of equality, privacy, and human dignity. Outright International also applauded Mbugua and other activists who fought for this change.
“Today, we celebrate a milestone — one achieved through resilience, solidarity, and an unwavering belief in justice,” said the group. “Outright International stands with transgender and intersex Kenyans in honoring this victory and reaffirming our commitment to advancing rights, recognition, and equality for all.”
Ghana
Intersex lives, constitutional freedom, and the dangerous future of Ghana’s Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill
Lawmakers continue to consider draconian measure
There is a dangerous silence surrounding intersex lives in Ghana — a silence shaped by fear, misinformation, cultural misunderstanding, and institutional neglect. Today, amid discussions around the possible passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, that silence risks becoming law, reinforcing exclusion and deepening the marginalization of already invisible lives.
Much of the national debate surrounding the bill has focused on LGBTQ+ identities. Yet buried within it are implications for intersex persons that many Ghanaians do not fully understand because intersex realities remain largely invisible.
Intersex persons are born with natural variations in chromosomes, hormones, reproductive anatomy, and/or genital characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female bodies. Intersex is not a sexual orientation or gender identity. It is a biological reality. Ghana’s Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has clearly acknowledged this distinction.
Despite this distinction, the bill mistakenly collapses intersex realities into a legal framework linked to LGBTQ+ criminalization.
Although the bill contains only limited references to intersex persons, under certain medical exceptions, these references do not amount to recognition or protection. Instead, they frame intersex bodies as abnormalities requiring regulation, correction, and institutional management. This approach is inconsistent not only with Ghana’s constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, privacy, and liberty, but also with emerging African and international human rights standards. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Intersex Persons in Africa – ACHPR/Res.552 (LXXIV) 2023 affirms protections relating to bodily integrity, dignity, freedom from discrimination, and against harmful medical practices. Additionally, the United Nations has repeatedly condemned medically unnecessary and non-consensual interventions on intersex children. Rather than affirming the humanity and autonomy of intersex persons, the bill risks legitimizing systems of surveillance, coercion, violence, and institutional erasure.
This is not protection.
It is managed erasure.
A child born intersex in Ghana already enters a society shaped by secrecy and stigma. Families are often pressured to hide intersex children or seek “correction” to make their bodies conform to social expectations.
The bill risks intensifying this pressure.
Clause 17 creates space for “approved service providers” to support interventions relating to intersex persons, yet offers little protection around informed consent, bodily autonomy, confidentiality, or coercive treatment. Under the language of “correction” or “support,” harmful interventions may become normalized.
The intersex community has documented painful lived experiences of intersex Ghanaians that reveal the devastating consequences of stigma and invisibility.
One heartbreaking case involved intersex twins born in Ghana’s Eastern Region in 1993, who were repeatedly forced to move from village to village because of rejection and ridicule. After losing their father, their main source of protection and support, they became even more vulnerable and reportedly experienced severe emotional distress, including suicidal thoughts linked to years of stigma and exclusion. This is what invisibility looks like in practice.
Another painful example is the story of Ativor Holali, whose lived experience exposed the cruel realities intersex persons face in sports and public life. Ativor Holali endured invasive scrutiny, public humiliation, and social suspicion because her body did not conform to rigid expectations of femininity. Rather than being protected as a Ghanaian athlete deserving dignity and privacy, she became the subject of speculation, gossip, and institutional discomfort.
Her experience reflects a broader social crisis: when society insists that every body must fit a narrow binary definition, intersex people are forced to defend their humanity in spaces where dignity should already be guaranteed.
Intersex Persons Society Of Ghana (IPSOG)’s Ŋusẽdodo research further revealed that approximately 70 percent of intersex respondents reported depression, anxiety, trauma, or severe emotional distress linked to medical mistreatment, family rejection, bullying, and social exclusion.
The bill risks transforming these existing prejudices into institutional policy. Several provisions risk deepening surveillance, restricting advocacy, weakening confidentiality, and discouraging public education around intersex realities. Intersex-led organizations providing healthcare guidance, legal referrals, psychosocial support, and community services may face serious challenges.
This places IPSOG and other intersex-led organizations in Ghana at serious risk.
For many intersex Ghanaians, these spaces are not political luxuries.
They are survival mechanisms.
Governments derive legitimacy by protecting the natural rights of all persons, including dignity, liberty, bodily autonomy, and freedom from arbitrary interference. The bill raises concerns because it risks weakening these protections for intersex persons through surveillance, coercive interventions, and restrictions on advocacy.
Ghana’s Constitution declares that “the dignity of all persons shall be inviolable.” Articles 15, 17, 18, and 21 specifically protect dignity, equality, privacy, expression, and freedom of association. These protections should apply equally to intersex persons.
Intersex persons are not threats to Ghanaian culture.
Intersex children are not moral dangers.
Intersex bodies are not political weapons.
They are human beings deserving dignity, healthcare, safety, and constitutional protection.
The true measure of a democracy is how it protects those most vulnerable to exclusion. At this moment, Ghana faces a choice: deepen fear and silence, or uphold dignity, bodily autonomy, and constitutional freedom for intersex persons.
History will remember the choice we make.
Fafali Delight Akortsu is the founder and president of the Intersex Persons Society of Ghana (IPSOG).
-
2026 Midterm Elections3 days agoBree Fram’s congressional campaign ends but her fight continues
-
Celebrity News3 days agoPeppermint made her mark on ‘Drag Race.’ Now, her advocacy is front and center
-
Opinions3 days agoWhy this Black Pride, I ranked Janeese Lewis George #1 for D.C. mayor
-
a&e features3 days agoFrom Media Matters to massive queer ragers: the rise of Tara Dikhof
