Opinions
Flood of anti-homosexuality bills in Africa threatens us all
Ugandan lawmakers on Tuesday approved revised Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Castration. Banishment. Execution.
This is the fate that a slew of new bills and their proponents in Africa seek for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people: Not only to criminalize adult same-sex sexual intimacy, but to eradicate sexual and gender diversity–including by executing queer people. 32 countries in Africa already criminalize consensual same-sex conduct. The new wave of laws goes much further, enforcing public silence around LGBTQ people’s existence, enlisting citizens as spies, and making every human rights proponent a potential criminal.
LGBTQ Africans are a fact of life. No law will make them disappear. But by promoting laws that posit queer people’s very existence as a problem to be eliminated, and constructing an unseen enemy that could be hiding around any corner, politicians convince the public to accept shockingly repressive legislation.
The ideology underpinning such laws is nothing short of genocidal. Under international law, genocide is the attempt to destroy a group of people, in whole or in part, including by “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.” The strict legal definition of genocide only applies to “national, ethnical, racial or religious” groups, but no other term as clearly captures the depravity of legislation that seeks to eliminate people because of their sexuality or gender.
Genocidal ideology underlies Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2023, passed by Parliament on March 21. It attracted international condemnation as possibly the worst anti-LGBTQ law anywhere in the world, imposing the death penalty for some forms of consensual same-sex conduct. That bears repeating: 387 members of Parliament in Uganda voted to subject gay people to the firing squad for consensual sex. They voted for the death penalty yet again after President Yoweri Museveni returned the bill to Parliament on April 20, requesting amendments including the removal of the death penalty. The revised bill, passed on May 2, contains only minor changes. Families and landlords will still be forced to turn out queer people living into the streets. Speaking up for the “normalization” of sexual and gender diversity, or funding work that advances human rights or economic inclusion for LGBTQ people, still leads to a 20-year prison sentence. Prison officials and social welfare agents would be tasked with “rehabilitating” people convicted under the bill in a form of state-sponsored “conversion therapy” practices. The law maintains a “duty to report” anyone suspected of homosexuality, calling on everyone in Uganda to support the police state by spying on their neighbors, family members and coworkers.
Uganda is only the tip of the iceberg. Its brand of virulent homophobia appears to be contagious: In Kenya, MP George Peter Kaluma submitted the Family Protection Bill of 2023 to the National Assembly on April 7. The bill was a harsh response to a Supreme Court victory affirming that the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission had the constitutional right to register and operate as a non-governmental organization. Kenya’s proposed law follows Uganda’s example in providing the death penalty for some consensual same-sex acts, prohibiting organizations from “normalizing” homosexuality, and penalizing landlords who rent living quarters to persons in same-sex relationships. It copies and pastes language from Uganda’s bill that forces citizens to become thought police: If you “suspect” that someone “intends” to commit an act prohibited by the proposed law and do not report them, you can be fined or jailed. It also prohibits “cross-dressing,” an attempt to specifically legislate trans people out of existence.
Ghana’s Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Act of 2021, currently before Parliament, seems to have provoked less global outrage: It prescribes 3-year prison sentences for offenders rather than life imprisonment or the death penalty. Yet some of its provisions are even more draconian. They criminalize the very existence of diverse identities and orientations: a person can be shut behind bars for “holding out” as “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, ally, pansexual and any other diverse sexual or gender identity.” Again, an attempt to legislate queer people out of existence.
Other proposed anti-homosexuality legislation looms in Francophone countries that were spared the British colonial heritage of criminializing so-called unnatural offenses. In Mali, Justice Minister and Keeper of the Seals Mahamadou Kassogue described homosexuality as “an unnatural relationship,” stating that it would soon be banned and that the Malian “justice does not accept this practice of homosexuality.” In Niger, President Mohamed Bazoum made remarks on the intention to introduce a new Penal Code that would criminalize homosexuality.
The tabling of legislation has been accompanied by a barrage of comments from politicians calling for atrocities to be perpetrated against LGBTQ people. On March 21 during Uganda’s Parliamentary Caucus on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, MP Sarah Opendi made statements to the effect that life imprisonment upon conviction for homosexuality is inadequate, adding that the most appropriate sentence would be castration. In Tanzania, a senior ruling party member Mary Chatanda also called for castration of people in same-sex relationships in March. Like Uganda, Tanzania already has a life sentence on the books for “unnatural offenses” and while no new law is pending, Chatanda’s comments were followed by a spike in anti-LGBTQ violence and raised fears that new laws might be tabled. Still within the same month, Burundi President Evariste Ndayishimiye urged citizens to “curse those who indulge in homosexuality, because God cannot bear it.” He added that “they must be banished, treated as pariahs in our country.” Queer people are already denied other fundamental rights in Burundi, where the law lists homosexuality as a basis of expelling students from secondary schools, thus interfering with the right to access education.
From the death penalty to elimination of safe access to housing, health care and education to calls for castration, banishment and mandatory “conversion therapy” practices, these laws and statements share one characteristic: They seek to destroy LGBTQ lives and livelihoods. Outright has documented how even before such bills are passed, they contribute to increased violence by members of the public as well as by law enforcement officials. These bills are deadly, and while legislating the elimination of queer people from public existence may not legally constitute genocide, it is genocidal thinking. Politicians who call for the execution, castration or banishment of queer people should also be aware that they are advocating crimes against humanity. The implementation of such laws could be tantamount to gender persecution — persecution on the basis of gender as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population — which is prohibited under the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court.
Meanwhile, not only queer people but also the general public in countries passing such bills will see their rights eviscerated through provisions that regulate what opinions they can express, what human rights causes they can support and to whom they can provide goods and services. Internet users, medical providers, artists, well-wishers, allies and creatives will find themselves in conflict with these laws.
Human rights are universal, inherent, inalienable and indivisible. Outright not only recommends that these bills are not affected into law, but also urges all civil society to condemn such moves to curb the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the name of eliminating LGBTQ existence.
A right does not need to be banned to be restricted. Sometimes it only needs to be made uncertain.
That is what emerges from a closer examination of adoption access for same-sex couples across different countries. There is no broad legal rollback. What appears instead is a more subtle pattern: rights that remain on paper but become fragile, conditional, and uneven in practice.
Italy provides a clear example.
Since 2023, under the government of Giorgia Meloni, administrative decisions have limited the automatic recognition of both mothers in female same-sex couples, particularly in cases involving assisted reproduction abroad. In practice, many families have been forced into additional legal proceedings to validate relationships already established.
At the same time, Italy has intensified its opposition to surrogacy, extending penalties even to those who pursue it outside the country. Human rights organizations have warned that these measures disproportionately affect LGBTQ families, particularly male couples.
The judiciary, however, has pushed back.
In 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that a non-biological mother cannot be excluded from legal recognition when there is a shared parental project. It also removed a long-standing restriction that prevented single individuals from accessing international adoption.
Italy has not eliminated these rights. But it has made them unstable.
When a right depends on litigation, judicial timelines, or shifting interpretations, it is no longer fully guaranteed.
In the United States, the structure differs, but the outcome converges.
At the federal level, same-sex couples can adopt. Yet the system varies widely across states.
Data from the Movement Advancement Project show that while some states explicitly prohibit discrimination in adoption, others provide no clear protections. In several states, licensed agencies can refuse to work with same-sex couples based on religious objections.
Access, therefore, is shaped not only by law, but by geography, institutions, and applied standards.
Research from the Williams Institute further complicates the narrative. Same-sex couples adopt and foster children at higher rates than different-sex couples.
The contradiction is clear.
Child welfare is invoked, yet the pool of available families is reduced. Faith is cited, yet it is used as a filter within publicly funded systems.
The consequences are tangible
children remain longer in care
processes become more complex
families face unequal scrutiny
What is happening in Italy and the United States is not isolated. Across parts of Europe, conservative governments have advanced legal frameworks that reinforce traditional definitions of family while limiting recognition of diverse ones.
Adoption is not always addressed directly. But the impact accumulates.
Options are restricted while the language of protection is used to justify it.
There is no need to soften it.
This is not only a debate about family models. It is a decision about who is recognized as family and who must continue asking for permission.
That is not neutral.
It is political.
And when a right depends on where you live, who evaluates you, or how hard you are willing to fight for it, that right is already being weakened.
Opinions
ROSENSTEIN: Chavous for Democratic D.C. Council-at-Large
Committed to fighting for statehood for our 700,000 residents
Kevin Chavous said, “I’m running for D.C. Council At-Large because Washingtonians deserve leadership focused on improving their everyday quality of life. Throughout my career, I’ve worked on the practical business of city government, and public policy, focused on solving real problems, and making government work better for the people it serves.”
Kevin’s experience spans safer streets, affordable housing, early education and school readiness, workforce and economic opportunity, support for seniors, and the day-to-day operations of city government. The knowledge he brings to the office is grounded in experience, clear-eyed oversight, and a commitment to delivering results. His platform outlines his priorities and approach, but as he has said, “it’s not the end of the conversation. I believe the best solutions come from listening and working together.”
Kevin believes safe streets are the foundation of strong neighborhoods. He is committed to having Washingtonians feel secure in their neighborhoods, and working to ensure all public safety efforts are smart, fair, and effective. To Kevin that means an approach focusing on enforcement that works, prevention that matters, and a range of services to stop crime before it happens. Kevin supports smart, effective policing, with a focus on violent crime, and getting repeat offenders off the streets. To do this he will work to strengthen community policing with the aim of rebuilding trust in every community, which will improve neighborhood-level safety. He will introduce legislation to expand targeted mental health and crisis-response services. The goal again, to prevent violence before it occurs. He will work to see government coordinates youth diversion, workforce, and support programs, which can intervene early, and reduce recidivism.
Kevin understands housing stability is essential for families, seniors, and workers, to stay and thrive in D.C. His housing priorities focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing, helping people build long-term stability in the neighborhoods they call home. He will work to increase the affordable housing supply through zoning updates, ADUs, and adaptive reuse of vacant properties. He will submit legislation to strengthen programs that help first-time, and longtime homeowners, buy and then stay in their homes. He will work to expand permanent supportive housing and targeted rental assistance for vulnerable residents, and protect tenants ensuring housing laws are enforced clearly, and consistently.
Kevin believes “every child should enter school ready to learn, with the support needed to succeed from day one. Early investment pays lifelong dividends – for families and for the District.” He will work on the Council to expand early childhood education, and school-readiness programs, citywide. He supports quality and affordable childcare for all children, birth to three, including seeing students begin the school year healthy, by supporting access to medical and dental screenings for all children.
Kevin knows economic opportunity allows families and communities to thrive. He will fight to see D.C.’s growth creates real pathways to good jobs, strong local businesses, and long-term stability for residents in every ward. His approach connects workforce training, worker protections, and neighborhood investment, so that growth benefits the people who live here. He will work to expand job training, apprenticeships, and career pipelines tied to high-demand fields, including construction, healthcare, and infrastructure. He will fight to strengthen First Source and local hiring requirements, so D.C. residents benefit directly from major development projects such as the new RFK site. He will demand the government protect workers by enforcing wage, safety, and labor standards, and holding bad actors accountable. He will introduce legislation to invest more in neighborhood-based economic development, including small businesses, BIDs, and commercial-to-residential revitalization.
Kevin has spoken out for the seniors in our city saying, “seniors built this city – and D.C. must ensure they can age with dignity, security, and independence.” Kevin will work to expand property tax relief and housing supports, so seniors can age in place. He will work with the AG to strengthen protections against fraud, exploitation, and predatory practices targeting seniors. He will support and work to expand nutrition, transportation, and community-based programs, that reduce the isolation many seniors face.
Kevin’s experience working for the Council, in the oversight role he had, gives him a practical understanding of what works, what doesn’t, and how to fix it – without delay. He will use that experience as he works to strengthen agency oversight to ensure laws are implemented as intended, and to improve service delivery by fixing bottlenecks, and outdated processes. Ensuring clear standards and accountability in inspections, enforcement, and permitting. Kevin will demand government use technology responsibly to improve efficiency, while protecting residents from fraud and abuse.
For all these reasons and more, I support Kevin Chavous. The more includes the fact Kevin has spoken out clearly, about the need to fight the antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism and homophobia, all once again rearing their ugly heads in our society. He will fight to keep ICE out of our city, and to keep immigrants safe. He is committed to fighting for statehood for the 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, while fighting for budget and legislative autonomy as we work toward statehood.
Again, I urge the voters of D.C. to cast their ballot for Kevin Chavous for DC Council-at-Large.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
The state of Tennessee has a long history of political discrimination against its 225,000 LGBTQ citizens. In 2019, a district attorney remarked that gay people should not receive domestic violence protections, and in 2023, for five months in Murfreesboro, homosexual acts in public were illegal, prompting a federal judge to have the ordinance removed.
In 2022, I briefly lived in Tennessee and played rugby with the LGBTQ-inclusive Nashville Grizzlies, who welcomed me with open arms as an ally, teaching me that rugby isn’t always about winning or losing – it’s about creating a safe, inclusive, and joyful space for people looking to feel welcome.
In Tennessee, where 87% of the LGBTQ community has experienced workplace discrimination, and where, each year, countless bills that target their identities are introduced, it can be difficult to feel welcome. The Nashville Grizzlies played rugby with the exuberance of newly liberated people who were finally able to be their authentic selves. I was inspired by their brotherhood.
When I read about the Charlie Kirk Act being passed last week, I felt a visceral need to write about it.
While the bill is presented as legislation that strengthens free speech and encourages greater public discourse on campuses, it would effectively allow a school to expel a student who felt compelled to walk out on a speaker with hateful views, forcing marginalized groups to sit through existentially harmful rhetoric.
And ironically, it doesn’t seem like free speech goes both ways — a Tennessee University administrator lost their job last year for sharing negative views on Charlie Kirk, and countless LGBTQ books have been banned not only in schools, but even in adult libraries.
We like to think that as time moves forward, progress is inevitable, but this isn’t always the case. In a 2023 study, 27% of LGBTQ Tennesseans and 43% of transgender people in the state have considered relocating, forcing them to reckon with leaving home in pursuit of a better life. Nashville Grizzlies Captain Ethan Thatcher told me, “I’ve thought about leaving Tennessee. Hard not to when the government does not want you here. What has kept me here is the Grizzlies community, and the thought that existence is resistance.”
Everybody in our country deserves to feel safe. I thought that was a core value of the American ethos, but apparently, in some states, certain groups are welcome while others are ostracized.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee should reject the Charlie Kirk Act.
Tyler Kania is a 2025 IAN Book of the Year nominated author and civil rights activist from Columbia, Conn.
Adoption under suspicion
Second trans member announces plans to resign from Capital Pride board
State Department implements anti-trans bathroom policy
I’m telling the scared little girl I once was it’s okay to feel free
Memorial for groundbreaking bisexual activist set for May 2
Inside the lonely world of MAGA gay men
PHOTOS: Night of Champions
PHOTOS: National Champagne Brunch
‘Big Mistakes’ an uneven – but worthy – comedic showcase
