World
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe and Asia
Lesbian Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabić has stepped down
LITHUANIA
A group of same-sex couples is taking the Lithuanian government to the European Court of Human Rights, seeking access to civil unions, marriage and parental rights.
The couples involved in the suit are seeking registration of civil partnerships and recognition of same-sex marriages contracted in foreign countries. In a separate case, a same-sex couple is seeking equal parenting rights for their child. The petitioners will also be asking the Lithuanian Constitutional Court to clarify the definition of marriage in the constitution.
Lithuania does not recognize any form of same-sex relationship. A bill to legalize civil unions was proposed by the governing coalition and is one vote from passing through Parliament, but has been put on hold amid fears that it doesn’t have enough support to pass.
“The year-long litigation marathon clearly shows the reasons why trust in courts is so low in Lithuania. International law does not work in Lithuania,” Martynas Norbutas, one of the petitioners, said at a press conference.
The European Court of Human Rights is a supranational court for all members of the Council of Europe, which tries cases involving the European Convention on Human Rights. While the court has found that the convention does not require states to allow same-sex marriage, it has in the past found that same-sex couples must be grants some alternative status that is equivalent to marriage. However, it is up to individual states to implement the court’s rulings, as it has no enforcement mechanism.
Of the Council of Europe’s 46 members, 21 allow same-sex marriage, 10 allow same-sex civil unions and 15 currently have no recognition of same-sex unions.
In February, Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė said she was disappointed that members of her coalition had gone back on their word by failing to support the civil union law.
“I know very well that I cannot convince some of my colleagues despite the fact that the absolute majority of our factions vote for that law,” Šimonytė said on the local news program Laisvės TV.
It isn’t the first time Lithuania’s unruly coalition has failed to pass an LGBTQ rights law. Last year, the government tried to repeal an old “LGBT propaganda” law that the European Court ruled violated the convention’s right to freedom of expression, but the bill was voted down in parliament. A separate bill that would have seen Lithuania join the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention on Domestic Violence was also voted down after anti-LGBTQ activists began a campaign linking the convention to “gender ideology.”
Parties on both sides of the issue are attempting to shore up support ahead of parliamentary elections expected in October.
In neighboring Poland, the newly elected government says it is still planning to introduce same-sex civil unions, although it will miss its self-imposed deadline of doing so within its first 100 days. Equalities Minister Katarzyna Kotula told OKO.press that the government is still working with its coalition partners to come to agreement on what civil unions will entail, with the government preferring that same-sex couples get all the rights that come with marriage, including adoption and parenting rights.
GEORGIA
The government of the former Soviet republic of Georgia has announced plans to introduce a series of laws and constitutional amendments to limit so-called “LGBT propaganda,” ban gender change and ban adoption by LGBTQ people.
Georgia’s Parliament amended the constitution in 2017 to ban same-sex marriage. This proposal would add a new special constitutional law for the protection of family values and minors.
Under the new constitutional law, the state would be forbidden from recognizing any relationship other than heterosexual relationships, restrict adoption to married heterosexual couples and heterosexual individuals, ban any medical treatment to change a person’s gender and require that the government only recognize gender based on a person’s genetic information and ban any expression or organization promoting same-sex relationships or gender change.
Mamuka Mdinaradze, the executive secretary of the governing Georgian Dream party, says the goal of the constitutional amendments is to “protect society from pseudo-liberal ideology and its inevitable harmful consequences.”
Mdinaradze says the reforms will allow the government to block attempts by courts or international bodies to force the government to recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions.
While the Georgian government has been pursuing an alignment with the West and membership in the European Union, its government has recently taken many regressive steps on human rights and rule of law.
Last year, it introduced a “foreign agents” law that would have cracked down on media and non-governmental organizations that are critical of the government. The government backed down after massive protests.
But the conservative Georgian society appears unlikely to mobilize in massive numbers to oppose this bill, even if it does attack basic human rights.
However, as the proposed reforms would conflict with the European Union’s standards for free expression and human rights, the proposal may force Georgians to decide between repressing LGBTQ rights and its goal of EU membership.
“As an EU candidate country, Georgia is expected to align its laws with EU legislation,” the EU delegation in Georgia told German newspaper DW. “The candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing respect for human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.”
The Georgian Dream party seems to have introduced the bill to shore up support ahead of elections scheduled for October.
SERBIA
Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabić has stepped down after seven years in power, in a reshuffle of President Alexander Vučić’s government. Brnabić will take on the role of speaker of Parliament, while Vučić has named his ally Miloš Vučević as her successor.
Brnabić became the first woman and the first lesbian to hold the office of prime minister of Serbia, or to be a leader of any Eastern European country, in 2017. She is also the longest-serving person to have held the office.
She is still the most prominent LGBTQ person in the conservative, Eastern Orthodox country.
During her time in office, her status as a lesbian drew very little notice or criticism from Serbian society. She was the first leader of a Balkan country to attend a Pride march when she attended Belgrade Pride in 2017. She was frequently seen with her partner Milica Đurđić, who gave birth to their son in 2019.
However, despite her prominent title, it has been said that Brnabić wielded little actual power in the Serbian government, which is dominated by Vučić.
Brnabić has said that she didn’t want to be seen as the “gay prime minister” and that she prioritized policy goals other than LGBTQ rights in office. In turn, Serbia made little progress on expanding LGBTQ rights during her term.
The government introduced a civil unions bill in 2020 but shelved it months later amid backlash from legislators and a veto threat by Vučić. Beyond that, Brnabić’s government introduced a ban on discrimination against intersex people and removed regulations that barred LGBTQ people from accessing IVF or donating sperm.
During her time in office, Freedom House downgraded its classification of Serbia from “Free” to “Partly Free” due to Vučić’s increasingly authoritarian use of power and crackdowns on local media.
The government shuffle comes after December elections that were widely disputed as being rigged to favor the government. Last year, Serbia was rocked by months of nationwide protests against the government in the wake of rising gun violence, which a new opposition bloc had hoped would lead to gains in Parliament. Instead, the government won a majority.
JAPAN
The legal battle to achieve same-sex marriage in Japan reached a new milestone, as the couples involved in a court case in Sapporo announced plans to appeal their loss to the Supreme Court, and in a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples must get access to a crime victims benefit on an equal basis with married couples.
Same-sex couples have been waging a multi-front fight for same-sex marriage through the courts in Japan, given the national government’s long-standing opposition to addressing LGBTQ rights.
In March, the Sapporo High Court delivered the first appellate-level ruling on same-sex marriage, finding that the government’s refusal to allow same-sex marriage created a “state of unconstitutionality” because it discriminated against same-sex couples, but it otherwise ordered no compensation or remedy for the affected couples.
The couples have now announced they plan to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
One of the plaintiffs, Eri Nakaya, said at a press conference that the legal fight was essential for queer Japanese couples.
“If we back out now, legal recognition will not be achieved in the foreseeable future. I hope the Supreme Court will also declare (the same-sex marriage ban) unconstitutional,” he said.
Before the Supreme Court weighs in, more appellate court decisions are likely. District courts in Nagoya, Fukuoka and two courts in Tokyo have ruled similarly to the Sapporo court, while a district court in Osaka has upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.
But the Supreme Court may have tipped its hand in a ruling last week, which found that same-sex couples must be granted access to a benefit provided to victims of crime on the same basis as married heterosexual couples. The court came to that conclusion by reasoning that the purpose of the benefit — to help people recover after a crime — does not change depending on the gender of the victim or their partner.
While the ruling is limited to this one specific benefit, it appears likely that the same reasoning that led the court to this conclusion ought to be applicable to the constellation of benefits that are associated with marriage. Commentators have said that the same logic should apply to pensions, health insurance and family leave.
In the background of these decisions, local governments have increasingly come to recognize same-sex couples and families through legally non-binding “partnership certificates,” which are available or soon to be available in 29 of Japan’s 47 prefectures, as well as more than 400 municipalities.
Companies are also increasingly offering benefits to employees’ same-sex partners, including most recently Disney, which announced that it would provide benefits to same-sex partners of employees at Tokyo Disneyland last week.
NEW ZEALAND
In what Auckland police are treating as a hate crime, video captured three people painting over the New Zealand city’s Pride crosswalk with white paint, the latest in a brewing war over the LGBTQ Pride symbols being waged by Christian extremists in the South Pacific country.
A video of the vandals was posted to the TikTok account @aucklandcitynight00.
Auckland police say that the rainbow crosswalk on Karangahape Road in the heart of the city’s gay nightlife district was vandalized around 4 a.m. local time on March 27. Video shows three people in hooded sweatshirts and balaclavas stopping traffic to pour white paint on the road and cover the crosswalk with long paint rollers.
The vandals left the scene in a van that had its registration plates removed but police say they were able to trace the distinctively painted van’s owner and executed a search warrant on a property linked to the owner. No arrests have yet been made.
Much of the white paint had washed away due to rain and traffic, but the crosswalk still showed damage late in the day.
It was the second Pride crosswalk to be vandalized last week after a crosswalk in Gisborne, about 300 miles southwest of Auckland, was vandalized Monday morning.
The rainbow crosswalk on Gisborne’s main street had been painted over by anti-LGBTQ protesters who were upset that the local library was hosting a drag queen story hour. The next day, protesters and counter-protesters turned up at the library’s storytelling event. Then on Wednesday night, three people once again tried to paint over Gisborne’s restored rainbow crosswalk and were arrested by police who were lying in wait.
Three people have been accused of vandalism — two men aged 46 and 36, and a woman aged 45. A fourth suspect fled the scene, and police are still searching for him.
The Gisborne protesters were affiliated with the extremist Divinity Church, a Christian cult led by Brian Tamaki with around 1,700 members, according to the latest New Zealand Census. Tamaki preaches a far-right political ideology alongside anti-LGBTQ messages.
The threats have already led to drag queen story hours to be cancelled in the cities of Rotorua and Hastings, about 150 and 300 miles south of Auckland respectively. Librarians in both cities said the cancellations were made due to security concerns after the Divinity Church spread threats and misinformation about the events on social media.
He has said he intends for his church to continue protesting against town councils and libraries that host LGBTQ events and plans to continue vandalizing rainbow crosswalks, although he has denied any involvement in the Auckland crosswalk vandalism.
Tamaki has previously blamed the 2011 Christchurch earthquake on homosexuality.
AUSTRALIA
Making good on a campaign promise, New South Wales’ Parliament passed a law banning conversion therapy, making it the fourth Australian state or territory to ban the discredited practice that seeks to change people’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The ban takes effect in one year and imposes a maximum penalty of up to five years imprisonment for any person that delivers conversion therapy that causes significant harm. The law also includes a civil complaints scheme.
New South Wales joins Queensland, Victory and the Australian Capital Territory in banning the practice. The governments of Tasmania and Western Australia have also proposed to ban conversion therapy.
“Conversion therapy proceeds on the basis that people in the LGBTQ+ community are broken, they need fixing,” says New South Wales Attorney General Michael Daley. “But we like them just the way they are.”
Worldwide, conversion therapy has been banned in 13 countries: Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Ecuador, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Malta, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal and Norway. A bill to ban the practice nationwide in Mexico is awaiting a final vote in the nation’s Senate after it passed through the Chamber of Deputies last week
The Vatican
New Vatican report acknowledges LGBTQ Catholics feel isolated in the church
Document contains testimonies of two gay married men
A report the Vatican released on Tuesday acknowledges LGBTQ Catholics have felt isolated within the church.
The report, which the Vatican’s General Secretariat of the Synod’s Study Group 9 released, includes testimony from two married gay Catholics from the U.S. and Portugal.
“Regarding the resistances — limiting ourselves to those emerging from the lived experiences shared with us — we wish to highlight the following: the solitude, anguish, and stigma that accompany persons with same-sex attractions and their families, not only in society but also within the church; this is often linked to the temptation to hide in a ‘double life,'” reads the report. “Within this problematic outlook lie the positions expressed in the pressure to undergo reparative therapies or, even more gravely, in the simplistic advice to enter the sacrament of marriage.”
“At the root of both the emerging openings and the persisting resistances, it seems possible to identify a difficulty in coordinating pastoral practice and the doctrinal approach. Other testimonies received by our study group from believers with same-sex attractions further confirm how arduous it is for individuals and Christian communities to reconcile “doctrinal firmness” with “pastoral welcome,'” it adds.
The report appears to criticize so-called conversion therapy. It also states “every person, first and foremost, is singular, irreducible, irreplaceable, and original” and “this is the meaning of the Biblical-theological theme of the human being, male and female, created in the image and likeness of God.”
The National Catholic Reporter notes “a group of theologians, including bishops, priests, a sister and a layperson” the Vatican commissioned “to study ‘controversial’ issues that Pope Francis’s Synod on Synodality raised wrote the report.
Francis in 2023 launched the multi-year synod to examine on ways to reform the church.
The Argentine-born pontiff died in April 2025. Pope Leo XIV, who was born in Chicago, succeeded him.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday met with Leo at the Vatican. The meeting took place against the backdrop of increased tensions between the U.S. and the Holy See over the Iran war.
LGBTQ Catholic groups largely welcome report
LGBTQ Catholic groups welcomed the report; even though it will not change church teachings on homosexuality, marriage, and gender identity.
“It was a really bold choice to make LGBTQ issues — or homosexuality — one of the case studies,” Brian Flanagan, a senior fellow at New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based LGBTQ Catholic organization, told the Washington Blade on Wednesday during a telephone interview.
Flanagan is also the John Cardinal Cody Chair of Catholic Theology at Loyola University in Chicago.
“They (the study group) could have punted and said something easier,” he said. “Instead, they’re putting what was frankly one of the hottest issues leading up to and after the Synod and addressing it more head on.”
New Ways Ministry Executive Director Francis DeBernardo in a statement described the report as a “breath of refreshing air, the first acknowledgment that LGBTQ+ issues were taken seriously by the three-year global consultation of all levels of the church.”
“By establishing mechanisms and recommendations to continue dialoguing with LGBTQ+ people, the report is a significant step forward in the church’s process to become a more welcoming place for its LGBTQ+ members,” he said.
Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, an LGBTQ Catholic organization, in her own statement said the report “demonstrates a welcome humility and openness to learning from the People of God about people’s lives and faith journeys.”
“It is clear that the study group members understand that the doctrines of the church undermine the deep relationship with God that many LGBTQ+ people have, or try to have, and that this needs to be corrected,” she said. “Church officials have decades of testimony from people who have found their sexual orientation or gender identity to be a blessing and a gift, and their relationships to be sacred. To see this reality reflected and respected in this document is a long-awaited positive step.”
Duddy-Burke added the report largely ignores “the experiences of transgender and nonbinary people.” She further notes it “provides few concrete recommendations and proposes no doctrinal changes.”
“Rather, it calls for dialogue, encounter, and communal theological reflection to shape how the Catholic Church moves forward in addressing doctrine and pastoral practice,” said Duddy-Burke. “The paradigm shift repeatedly called for in this report is a significant and very welcome change. Experience, especially of those most impacted, must be key to developing dogma.”
Ukraine
Ukrainian MPs advance new Civil Code without protections for same-sex couples
Advocacy groups say proposal would ‘contradict European standards’
Ukrainian lawmakers have advanced a proposed new Civil Code that does not contain legal protections for same-sex couples.
The Kyiv Independent reported the proposal passed on its first reading on April 28 by a 254-2 vote margin.
The newspaper notes more than two dozen advocacy groups in a statement said some of the proposed Civil Code’s provisions “contradict European standards” and “violate Ukraine’s commitments under its EU accession process.”
“The most worrying provisions are those that make it impossible for a court to recognize the existence of a family relationship between people of the same sex,” the statement reads. “This overturns the already established case law on this issue, and closes the only legal avenue that allows partners to somehow protect their rights in individual cases.”
“Moreover, the draft completely ignores the obligations that Ukraine should have already fulfilled as part of its accession to the EU, as it lacks provisions that would allow people of the same sex to register their relationships,” it adds.
“The provisions also stipulate that all marriages concluded by people who have changed their gender automatically become invalid,” the statement further notes. “This is not just stagnation in the field of human rights or lack of progress on the path to European integration, but an actual setback in the legal sphere.”
Olena Shevchenko, chair of Insight, a Ukrainian LGBTQ advocacy group, in an April 28 Facebook post said the new Civil Code “is a step back on upholding the rights of women and the LGBT+ community in Ukraine.”
The Ukrainian constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2022 publicly backed civil partnerships for same-sex couples.
The Ukrainian Supreme Court on Feb. 25 recognized Zoryan Kis and Tymur Levchuk — a gay couple who has lived together since 2013 and married in the U.S. in 2021 — as a family. Ukraine the day before marked four years since Russia began its war against the country.
Commentary
How do you vote a child out of their future?
Students reportedly expelled from Eswatini schools over alleged same-sex relationships
There is something deeply unsettling about a society that turns a child’s future into a public referendum. In Eswatini, there were reports that students were expelled from school over alleged same-sex relationships, and that parents were invited to vote on whether those children should remain, forcing us to confront a difficult question on when did education stop being a right and become a favor granted by collective approval? Because this is a non-neutral vote.
A vote reflects power, prejudice and personal beliefs, which are often linked to tradition, culture, politics and religion. It is shaped by fear, by stigma, by long-standing narratives about morality and belonging. To ask parents, many of whom may already hold hostile views about LGBTIQ+ people, to decide the fate of children is not consultation. It is deferring the responsibility and repercussion. It is placing the lives of young people in the hands of those most likely to deny them protection.
And where is the law in all of this?
The Kingdom of Eswatini is not operating in a vacuum. It has a constitution that guarantees the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, including equality before the law, equal protection of the laws, and the right to dignity. The constitution further goes on to protect the rights of the child, including that a child shall not be subjected to abuse, torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
The Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 extends the constitution and international human rights instruments, standards and protocols on the protection, welfare, care and maintenance of children in Eswatini. The Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 promotes nondiscrimination of any child in Eswatini and says that every child must have psychosocial and mental well-being and be protected from any form of harm. The acts of this very instance place the six students prone to harm and violence. The expulsion goes against one of the mandates of this act, which stipulates that access to education is fundamental to development, therefore, taking students out of school and denying them education contradicts the law.
Eswatini is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. These are not just commitments made to make our governments look good and appeasing. They are obligations. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear regarding all actions concerning children. The best interests of the child MUST be a primary consideration and NOT secondary one. According to the CRC, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” It is not something to be weighed against public discomfort and popularity.
The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child reinforces this, grounding rights in non-discrimination (Article 3), privacy (Article 10) and protection from all forms of torture (Article 16). Access to education (Article 11) within these frameworks is not conditional but is a foundational right. It is not something that can be taken away because a child is perceived as falling outside social norms and threatening the moral fabric of society. It is a foundational right and determines one’s ability to participate in civic actions with dignity.
So again, where is the law when children are being expelled?
It is tempting to say the law is silent but that would be too generous. The law is not silent rather, it is being ignored and bypassed in favor of systems of decision-making that make those in power comfortable. When schools and their leadership defer to parental votes rather than legal standards, they are not acting neutrally. Expelling a child from school because of allegations is not a decision to be taken lightly. It disrupts education and limits future opportunities and for children already navigating identity and social pressure, this kind of exclusion can have profound psychological effects. It isolates them. It marks them for potential harm. Imagine being a child whose future is discussed in a room where people debate your worth. That is exposure. That is harm. There is a tendency to justify these actions in the language of culture, tradition, religion and protecting social cohesion. But culture is not static and the practice of Ubuntu values is not an excuse to violate rights. If anything, the principle of Ubuntu demands the opposite of what is happening here.
Ubuntu is not about conformity. It is about recognition and is the understanding that our humanity is bound up in one another. That we are diminished when others are excluded. That care, dignity, respect and compassion are not optional extras but central to how we exist together. Where, then, is Ubuntu in a school where some children are deemed unworthy of access to education?
Why are those entrusted with protecting children are failing to do so?
There is a very loud contradiction at play. On one hand, there is a claim to shared values and to the importance of community. On the other hand, there is a willingness to isolate and exclude those who do not fit within the narrow definition of what is acceptable. You cannot have both. A community that thrives on exclusion is neither cohesive nor safe.
It is worth asking why these decisions are being made in this way. Why not follow the established legal processes? Why not ensure that any disciplinary action within schools aligns with national and international obligations? Why introduce a vote at all? The answer is uncomfortable and lies in legitimacy and accountability. A vote creates the appearance of a collective agreement. But again, I reiterate, it distributes responsibility across many hands, making it hard to hold anyone accountable. It allows the school leadership to say “lesi sincumo sebantfu”(“This is what the community decided, not me”) rather than confronting their own role in human rights violations. If the law is clear and rights, responsibilities and obligations are established, then the question is not what the community feels. The question is why those entrusted with protecting children are failing to do so.
There is also a deeper issue here about whose rights are seen as negotiable. When we talk about children, we often speak of care, of understanding, of protection and safeguarding them because they are the future. But that language becomes selective when it intersects with sexuality, particularly when it involves LGBTIQ+ identities. Suddenly, care, understanding, protection, and safeguarding give way to punishment.
Easy decisions are not always just ones.
If the kingdom is serious about its commitments under its constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, then those commitments must be visible in practice, not just in policy documents. Rather, they must guide decision-making in schools and in communities. That means recognizing that a child’s right to education cannot be overridden by a show of hands. It means ensuring that schools remain spaces of inclusion rather than sites of moral policing. It means holding leaders and institutions accountable when they fail to protect those in their care.
Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a human rights activist.
Comings & Goings
Learn more about queer love
Calendar: May 8-14
Va. Supreme Court invalidates Democrat-backed redistricting plan
Maren Morris to headline Capital Pride Concert
Under new extremism laws, LGBTQ Russians must fight to survive
How do you vote a child out of their future?
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
A reign defined by commitment and human impact
