World
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe and Asia
Irish State Minister Jack Chambers has come out as gay
IRELAND
In an Instagram post on Sunday, Irish State Minister Jack Chambers, who is a member of the lower house of the Irish Parliament for Dublin West, the Teachta Dála, came out as gay.
Chambers wrote: “Here’s a look back at some of 2023. As I look forward to 2024 I am sharing with you something a little different but it’s something I wanted to do for a while.
As a politician it can sometimes be difficult to speak about my own personal life and that can lead to things drifting. However, It’s important for me to be true to myself firstly — and to you all in my public service role. I am starting 2024 by telling you all that I am proud to say that I am gay. 🏳️🌈
As a politician and citizen I want to share this today as part of who I am. Having shared it with many of my close family and friends, their support and love has given me the confidence and courage to share this publicly today.
I am fortunate that Ireland is a country that has made so many strides in recent years, — becoming a much more inclusive and equal society to the extent that the sharing of this information is becoming increasingly unremarkable.
I’m looking forward to a busy, productive and hard working year ahead as a TD for Dublin West along with my ministerial responsibilities and helping colleagues across the country as Fianna Fáil’s Director of Local Elections 2024.”
Reaction to the minister’s announcement was overwhelmingly positive including from his fellow Teachta Dála lawmaker, John Lahart, who wrote: “Proud of you Jack — the best colleague one could hope for. Always there for you whenever you need it. You’ve an amazing future ahead of you.”
SERBIA
In another of an ongoing series of attacks on the LGBTQ Pride Info Center in the Serbian capital city of Belgrade, an unknown suspect described only as a masked male, during the afternoon of on January 7, 2024, threw a series of objects at the glass front windows of the center shattering them completely.
In a press release, Goran Miletić, director of Europe and MENA Department at Civil Rights Defenders, stated that this is the 19th attack on Pride Info Center since its establishment in August 2017, and none of the previous attacks has been thoroughly investigated, nor have any of the perpetrators been prosecuted to date.
“We can’t ignore the ongoing danger and vulnerability the community faces. It’s crucial to act now and work together to guarantee the safety and well-being of everyone,” Miletić said.
Miletić went on to express solidarity with the Pride Info Center.
“Civil Rights Defenders has been supporting Pride Info Center since its opening. The center aims to raise awareness about the community, addressing its issues and challenges while also serving as an information point for Belgrade Pride and the broader LGBTQ+ movement. Additionally, it functions as a social and creativity hub, hosting exhibitions, performances, movie screenings, debates and discussions organized by various LGBTQ+ organizations.
We express solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community in the country in demanding justice and equal rights. Together, we strive for a world where love triumphs over hate. The attack is reprehensible because it undermines the very essence of inclusivity and acceptance and is a stark contradiction to the principles of understanding, respect, and unity. It is a call to action for us to stand together, unwavering in our commitment to create a society where diversity is celebrated and everyone can live free from fear.
We strongly condemn the attack and call on the Serbian authorities to thoroughly investigate the case and ensure accountability for those responsible.”
Nearly two years ago on Feb. 18, 2022, another individual had gained access to the center breaking furniture and other things and he threatened the staff. The man was escorted out by security guards and was arrested by a police patrol.
GREECE
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in a Jan. 10 interview with state broadcaster ERT announced that his government intended to implement further LGBTQ rights.
The prime minister told ERT that a bill he had pledged in July 2023 to legalize same-sex marriages will be moving forward in the next few months.
“I, and all those who believe in this legislation, must convince our parliamentarians and subsequently those who may still have a negative stance,” Mitsotakis said. “What we are going to legislate is equality in marriage, which means the elimination of any discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is not something radically different from what applies in other European countries.”
Greece’s left-wing opposition leader, Stefanos Kasselakis, who married his longtime male partner Tyler Mcbeth in New York in October 2023, several weeks after winning a party leadership election, told reporters in a press conference last November that legislation legalizing same-sex marriage will be brought to the Greek Parliament before its current term expires in 2027.
The prime minister faces steep opposition from right-wing conservatives and the powerful Greek Orthodox Church. Opinion polls indicate that Greeks are evenly divided on the issue of same-sex marriage but generally oppose granting full parental rights to gay couples.
Mitsotakis stated that his proposed law would not extend to allowing same-sex couples to adopt children via surrogacy, saying: “We won’t change the law on assisted parenthood. The idea of women who are turned into child-producing machines on demand … That is not going to happen.”
It would, however, protect existing children of same-sex parents, including adopted children or those born to surrogacy abroad.
The legal clarification would mean that should one of the parents die, the other will be given parental rights.
A member of the church’s governing body, the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan of Piraeus, Seraphim, has threatened to excommunicate lawmakers if they voted in favor of legalizing same-sex unions, and has called homosexuality “an abuse of the body” and a “great sin.”
“The position of the Church of Greece remains that children have an innate need and therefore a right to grow up with a male father and a female mother. No amount of social modernization and no amount of political correctness can bypass (this),” the church said.
POLAND
A Polish nationwide daily economic and legal newspaper confirmed with a Warsaw District Court this week that two pardons issued before Christmas by President Andrzej Duda were given to two anchors of state television who were found guilty by the court of criminal defamation against a prominent activist for abortion and LGBTQ rights.
Magdalena Ogórek and Rafał Ziemkiewicz were given pardons in a case against the pair dating back to 2019. They were accused of defaming Elżbieta Podleśna, a licensed psychotherapist and civil rights activist who was a leading person in the Polish Women’s Strike protests in 2017 and 2018.
English language Polish media outlet Notes from Poland reported that in one episode of the news show W tyle wizji on TVP, the state broadcaster, the pair spoke about Podleśna, an activist best known for being put on trial for the crime of “offending religious feelings” by adding LGBTQ rainbow colors to an image of the Virgin Mary and Jesus.
During their show, Ogórek and Ziemkiewicz suggested that Podleśna, who is a practicing psychologist, used her “quasi-medical skills” to “manipulate” her “brainwashed” patients into attending protests.
In response, Podleśna launched action against the TV presenters using Poland’s criminal defamation law Notes from Poland reported. The pair were found guilty in December 2022, with an appeal against the conviction rejected in May 2023. As a punishment, Ogórek and Ziemkiewicz were ordered to pay Podleśna 10,000 zloty ($2,506.06) each.
TVP was heavily aligned with the anti-LGBTQ Law and Justice (PiS) government which suffered a major defeat this past fall. Duda’s office told Polish media that he had made the decision to pardon the pair based on “the principles of justice and rationality of criminal repression, as well as the incidental nature of the acts of the convicted persons.”
Notes from Poland noted that Duda was an ally of the former PiS government and approved a large increase in state funds for TVP, which subsequently supported the president during his successful 2020 re-election campaign.
Human Rights Watch issues World Report 2024
Editor’s note: The following article was provided by Human Rights Watch, an international NGO headquartered in New York that conducts research and advocacy on human rights.
Global leaders have failed to take strong stands to protect human rights during 2023, a year of some of the worst crises and challenges in recent memory, with deadly consequences, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2024. Governments should stop engaging in transactional diplomacy and do their utmost to uphold universal human rights principles.
Renewed armed conflict between the Israeli government and Hamas caused tremendous suffering, as did conflicts in Ukraine, Myanmar, Ethiopia and the Sahel. The year 2023 was the hottest since global records began in 1880 and the onslaught of wildfires, drought and storms wreaked havoc on communities from Bangladesh to Libya to Canada. Economic inequality rose around the world, as did anger about the policy decisions that have left so many people struggling to survive.
“The international system that we rely on to protect human rights is under threat as world leaders look the other way when universal principles of human rights are violated,” said Tirana Hassan, executive director at Human Rights Watch. “Every time a country overlooks these universal and globally accepted principles, someone pays a price and that price is sometimes peoples’ lives.”
In the 740-page World Report 2024, its 34th edition, Human Rights Watch reviews human rights practices in more than 100 countries. In her introductory essay, Executive Director Tirana Hassan says that 2023 was a consequential year not only for human rights suppression and wartime atrocities but also for selective government outrage and transactional diplomacy that carried profound costs for the rights of those not in on the deal. But she says there were also signs of hope, showing the possibility of a different path, and calls on governments to consistently uphold their human rights obligations.
Governments’ double standards in applying the human rights framework not only put countless lives at risk, but they chip away at trust in the institutions responsible for enforcing and protecting rights, Human Rights Watch said. When governments are vocal in condemning the Israeli government’s war crimes against civilians in Gaza but silent when it comes to Chinese government crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, or demand international prosecution for Russian war crimes in Ukraine while undermining accountability for U.S. abuses in Afghanistan, they weaken the belief in the universality of human rights and the legitimacy of the laws designed to protect them.
Governments have found it easier to disregard human rights issues in the international arena in part because their violations of human rights at home have gone unchallenged by the international community, Human Rights Watch said.
The human rights and humanitarian crises have led many to question the effectiveness of the human rights framework, when abusive governments are able to benefit from the lukewarm endorsement of a rights approach by more democratic and rights-respecting governments, Human Rights Watch said. Civil society organizations, grassroots movements and human rights defenders can help to re-establish the human rights framework as the roadmap to building thriving, inclusive societies.
Many governments that condemned Hamas’ war crimes have been reserved in responding to those by the Israeli government. The unwillingness to call out Israeli government abuses follows from the United States and most European Union member countries’ refusal to urge an end to the Israeli government’s 16-year closure of Gaza.
Tradeoffs on human rights in the name of politics are clear when many governments fail to speak out about the Chinese government’s intensifying repression. Chinese authorities’ cultural persecution and arbitrary detention of a million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims amount to crimes against humanity, yet many governments, including in predominantly Muslim countries, stay silent.
In Sudan, which descended into armed conflict in April 2023 when the two most powerful Sudanese generals began battling each other for power, the U.N. has failed to stop massive abuses against civilians, most notably in the Darfur region. The U.N. Security Council closed its political mission in Sudan at the insistence of the Sudanese government, ending what little remained of the U.N.’s in-country capacity to protect civilians and publicly report on the rights situation. It has also done nearly nothing to tackle the Sudanese government’s intransigence in cooperating with the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In the U.S., President Joe Biden has shown little appetite to hold responsible human rights abusers who are key to his domestic agenda or those in China’s sphere of influence. US allies like Saudi Arabia, India and Egypt continue to violate the rights of their people on a massive scale.
The EU has circumvented its human rights obligations, pushing asylum seekers and migrants back to other countries or striking deals with abusive governments like Libya and Turkey to keep migrants out. Democratic governments in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia consistently deprioritize human rights in the name of assuring military alliances and trade.
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s democracy has slid toward autocracy, with authorities targeting minorities, tightening repression and dismantling independent institutions.
In Tunisia, President Kais Saied has eliminated checks and balances. El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has manipulated high levels of crime for a security crackdown to grab and consolidate power. In Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government ordered the arrest of over 10,000 opposition leaders and supporters ahead of the January 2024 election.
But just as these threats are interconnected, so too is the power of the human rights framework to protect people’s freedom and dignity.
In a milestone decision, in November, the International Court of Justice ordered the Syrian government to prevent torture and other abuses. The Japanese parliament passed its first law to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from “unfair discrimination.” In Mexico, a civil society coalition persuaded Congress to pass a law establishing full legal capacity, benefiting millions of people with disabilities and older people.
In March, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his children’s rights commissioner for war crimes relating to the forcible transfer of children from occupied territories of Ukraine to Russia. Brazil’s Supreme Court upheld all Indigenous peoples’ rights to their traditional lands, one of the most effective barriers against deforestation in the Amazon.
And in November, the United Kingdom’s highest court unanimously found that Rwanda is not a safe third country for the government to send asylum seekers, striking down an agreement that effectively shifted the UK’s asylum responsibilities to Rwanda.
“Human rights crises around the world demonstrate the urgency of applying longstanding and mutually agreed principles of international human rights law everywhere,” Hassan said. “Principled diplomacy, by which governments center their human rights obligations in their relations with other countries, can influence oppressive conduct and have a meaningful impact for people whose rights are being violated.”
Additional reporting from Greek Public Broadcasting ERT, Notes from Poland, PinkNewsUK, Agence France-Presse, the BBC and Human Rights Watch.
Japan
Japanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
Japan only G7 country that does not legally recognize same-sex couples
The Japanese Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will consider six marriage equality lawsuits.
NHK, the country’s public broadcaster, noted all 15 of the court’s justices will consider the case.
Japan is the only G7 country that does not legally recognize same-sex couples, despite several court rulings in recent years that found the denial of marriage benefits to gays and lesbians unconstitutional.
Tokyo High Court Judge Ayumi Higashi last November upheld Japan’s legal definition of a family as a man and a woman and their children.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who became the country’s first female head of government last October, opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples. She has also reiterated the constitution’s assertion that the family is an institution based around “the equal rights of husband and wife.”
Same-sex couples can legally marry in Taiwan, Nepal, and Thailand.
NHK reported the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in early 2027.
Botswana
Lorato ke Lorato: marriage equality, democracy, and the unfinished work of justice in Botswana
High Court considering marriage equality case
As Botswana prepares for the resumption of a landmark marriage equality case before the High Court on July 14–15, the country finds itself at a critical constitutional crossroads.
At first glance, the matter may appear to be about whether two women, Bonolo Selelelo and Tsholofelo Kumile, can have their love legally recognized. At its core however, this case is about something far more profound: the dismantling of patriarchy, the decolonization of law, and the integrity of Botswana’s constitutional democracy.
Beyond marriage: a question of power
Marriage, as a legal institution, has never been neutral. It has historically functioned as a mechanism for regulating women’s bodies, sexuality, and social roles within a patriarchal order. To deny LBQ (lesbian, bisexual, and queer) women access to marriage is not merely to exclude them from a legal benefit, it is to reinforce a hierarchy of relationships, where heterosexual unions are deemed legitimate and all others invisible. This case therefore challenges the very foundations of who gets to love, who gets to belong, and who gets to be protected under the law.
As feminist scholars have long argued, patriarchy is sustained through institutions that appear ordinary but are deeply political. The law is one such institution. And it is precisely here that this case intervenes: by asking whether Botswana’s legal system will continue to uphold exclusion, or evolve to reflect the constitutional promise of equality.
A constitutional journey: Botswana’s courts and human dignity
This is not the first time Botswana’s courts have been called upon to affirm the dignity of LGBTQI+ persons. Over the past decade, the judiciary has built a progressive body of jurisprudence grounded in equality, nondiscrimination, and human dignity.
In Attorney General v. Rammoge and Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. CACGB 128-14, 2016), the Court of Appeal upheld the right of LEGABIBO to register as an organization. The court affirmed that:
“The refusal to register the appellant society was not only unlawful, but a violation of the respondents’ fundamental rights to freedom of association.”
This was followed by the ND v. Attorney General of Botswana (MAHGB-000449-15, 2017) case, where the High Court recognized the right of a transgender man to change his gender marker. The court held:
“Gender identity is an integral part of a person’s identity … and any interference with that identity is a violation of dignity.”
In Letsweletse Motshidiemang v. Attorney General (MAHGB-000591-16, 2019), the High Court decriminalized same-sex activity, declaring sections of the Penal Code unconstitutional. Justice Leburu powerfully stated:
“Human dignity is harmed when minority groups are marginalized.”
This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Attorney General v. Motshidiemang (CACGB-157-19, 2021), where the court emphasized:
“The Constitution is a dynamic instrument … it must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the values of dignity, liberty, and equality.”
These cases collectively establish a clear principle: the Constitution of Botswana protects all persons, not just the majority.
The marriage equality case now asks a logical next question: If LGBTQI+ persons are entitled to dignity, identity, and freedom from criminalization, why are their relationships still denied recognition?
Decolonizing the law: What is truly ‘UnAfrican’?
Opponents of marriage equality often argue that homosexuality is “unAfrican.” This claim, while politically powerful, is historically inaccurate. Same-sex relationships and diverse gender identities have existed across African societies long before colonial rule. What is foreign, however, are the laws that criminalize these identities.
Botswana’s anti-sodomy laws were inherited from British colonial legal systems, not from indigenous Tswana culture. As scholars of African history have demonstrated, colonial administrations imposed rigid Victorian moral codes that erased and suppressed existing sexual diversity. To claim that homosexuality is unAfrican, while defending colonial-era laws, is therefore a contradiction.
A truly decolonial approach to the law requires us to ask: Whose morality are we upholding? And whose history are we erasing?
Marriage equality, in this sense, is not a Western imposition: it is part of a broader project of reclaiming African dignity, plurality, and humanity.
Democracy on trial: the question of separation of powers
This case also raises important questions about the health of Botswana’s democracy.
Following the 2021 Court of Appeal decision affirming the decriminalization of same-sex relations, Botswana witnessed public demonstrations, including marches led by groups such as the Evangelical Fellowship of Botswana (EFB), opposing the judgment and calling for the retention of discriminatory laws.
While public participation is a cornerstone of democracy, these events raise deeper concerns about the separation of powers. Courts are constitutionally mandated to interpret the law and protect fundamental rights, even when such decisions are unpopular. When judicial decisions grounded in constitutional principles are publicly resisted on moral or religious grounds, it risks undermining the authority of the courts and the rule of law itself.
Democracy is not simply about majority opinion: it is about the protection of minority rights within a constitutional framework.
Botswana is not a theocracy
It is also important to clarify a recurring misconception: Botswana is not a Christian nation.
Botswana is a secular constitutional democracy and more accurately, a pluralistic society that recognizes and respects diversity of belief, culture, and identity. The Constitution does not elevate one religion above others, nor does it permit religious doctrine to dictate legal rights. The law must serve all citizens equally, regardless of faith.
To frame marriage equality as a threat to Christianity is therefore misplaced. The question before the courts is not theological, but constitutional: Does the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violate the rights to equality and nondiscrimination?
Love, equality, and the future of justice
At its heart, this case is about love, but it is also about power, history, and justice. It asks whether Botswana is prepared to move beyond colonial legal frameworks and patriarchal norms, and to embrace a future grounded in equality, dignity, and inclusion.
It asks whether the Constitution will continue to be interpreted as a living document, one that evolves with society, or remain constrained by outdated moral assumptions. Ultimately, it asks whether Botswana’s democracy can hold true to its founding promise: that all persons are equal before the law.
As the High Court prepares to hear this case in July 2026, the nation has an opportunity to affirm not only the rights of two individuals, but the broader principle that love, in all its diversity, deserves recognition, and protection.
Lorato ke lorato.
Love is love.
Justice, if it is to mean anything at all, must make space for it.
Nozizwe is the CEO of LEGABIBO (Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana)
India
Menaka Guruswamy celebrated as India’s first openly LGBTQ MP
Constitutional lawyer elected to Rajya Sabha on March 9
India’s LGBTQ community has found renewed hope in the election of Menaka Guruswamy, a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court, as the country’s first openly LGBTQ MP.
Guruswamy was declared elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Parliament, on March 9, representing West Bengal. The All India Trinamool Congress, the regional party that governs the state, nominated her.
Guruswamy is a constitutional lawyer who studied at Oxford University, Harvard Law School, and the National Law School of India University. She has argued several significant cases before the Supreme Court and is widely known for her work on constitutional law, civil liberties, and LGBTQ rights.
Guruswamy was part of the legal team that successfully challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations, which the Supreme Court struck down in 2018. She has also written and spoken extensively on issues of democracy, rights and institutional accountability.
Ankit Bhupatani, a global diversity, equity and inclusion leader and LGBTQ activist, welcomed Guruswamy’s election.
“This is significant not because Parliament needed a queer person, but because a queer person needed Parliament,” Bhupatani told the Washington Blade.
India has seen LGBTQ representation in elected office at the state and local levels, though it has remained limited.
In 1998, Shabnam Mausi was elected to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Sohagpur constituency, becoming one of the first openly transgender people to hold public office in India. Mausi’s election marked a rare moment of visibility for trans people in the country’s political system, where representation has historically been sparse. Since then, a small number of openly trans candidates have contested and, in some cases, won local and state elections, but no openly LGBTQ person had been elected to Parliament before Guruswamy.
Guruswamy and her partner, Arundhati Katju, who is also a lawyer, were part of the legal team that played a central role in the Section 377 decision.
Representing one of the plaintiffs, the two lawyers helped frame the case around constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and privacy. The Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ruling marked a watershed moment for LGBTQ rights in India.
“For too long, we have fought our battles only in courtrooms and on streets. Now, there is a seat at the table where laws are written,” said Bhupatani. “Whether that seat produces change depends entirely on how it is used. Representation without substance is decoration. But as a beginning, yes. This matters.”
Guruswamy later represented the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court’s 2023 marriage equality case, Supriyo v. Union of India, which a 5-judge panel heard in the spring of 2023.
Along with other lawyers representing same-sex couples, she advanced arguments rooted in constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and personal liberty. The Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision on Oct. 17, 2023, declined to recognize same-sex marriage — holding that such a change falls within Parliament’s domain — but did acknowledge LGBTQ people face discrimination. The Blade previously reported the ruling underscored the court’s view that it could interpret the law, but could not create a new legal framework for marriage rights.
Bhupatani said Guruswamy’s election should not be seen as an immediate shift toward legislative action on LGBTQ rights, cautioning that such expectations may not align with political realities. He said her presence in Parliament could help sustain the issue in a way it has not been before, even as broader legal change is likely to take time.
“What she can do is keep the question alive inside Parliament in a way that it hasn’t been before,” Bhupatani said. “Legislative change in India on social questions usually takes longer than advocates want and shorter than skeptics predict. The 377 decriminalization seemed impossible until it wasn’t. Partnership rights will follow the same pattern eventually.”
Bhupatani added that while Guruswamy’s election may influence the pace of change, it does not, on its own, constitute a broader political movement.
“One person in Parliament, however extraordinary, is not a movement. She is an opening,” he said. “The 2023 ruling created a responsibility. Guruswamy’s election creates an opportunity to fulfill it from inside. Whether opportunity becomes outcome is entirely a question of human will.”
Guruswamy has served as a visiting faculty member at leading American institutions that include Yale Law School, Columbia Law School, and New York University School of Law. She has also worked with international organizations, advising the U.N. Development Fund for Women in New York and the U.N. Children’s Fund in both New York and South Sudan.
According to her professional profile, Guruswamy has been involved in a range of significant cases before the Indian Supreme Court that include matters related to bureaucratic reform and accountability.
One case is connected to the AgustaWestland helicopter deal, an investigation into alleged bribery in a multimillion-dollar defense procurement contract; litigation arising from the Salwa Judum case, in which the court examined the state-backed use of civilian militias in counterinsurgency operations in central India; and cases involving the implementation of the Right to Education Act, a law guaranteeing free and compulsory education for children between the ages of six and 14.
More recently, Guruswamy represented the All India Trinamool Congress in legal proceedings challenging searches conducted by India’s Enforcement Directorate, a federal agency responsible for investigating financial crimes, including money laundering and violations of foreign exchange laws. The searches were carried out at the offices of the Indian Political Action Committee, or I-PAC, a political consulting firm that provides data-driven campaign strategy and election management services to political parties. The case raised questions about the scope of investigative powers and the use of federal agencies in politically sensitive matters.
Guruswamy’s engagement with LGBTQ rights has extended beyond courtroom advocacy into public constitutional discourse.
On July 11, 2018, during hearings in the Section 377 case, she argued the criminalization law could not be justified on the basis of “social morality,” describing it as subjective and incompatible with constitutional guarantees, and framing the case as one fundamentally about “our humanity.” The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law at the University of Virginia in February 2023 recognized Guruswamy and Katju for their work on LGBTQ rights.
Guruswamy has not responded to the Blade’s multiple requests for comment about her election.
‘Jonah’ an undeniably compelling but unusual memory play
The Oscar-losing performance that’s too good to miss
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Japanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
D.C. goes gaga for Gaga
Menaka Guruswamy celebrated as India’s first openly LGBTQ MP
HRC to host National Rainbow Seder
UPDATED: Trans-led HIV clinic in Portsmouth struggles amid funding cuts
