News
Gay, trans candidates come up short in Massachusetts primary
Gifford, Chandler out of contention to win Democratic nomination
Two LGBT candidates running for the Democratic nomination to represent Massachusetts’ 3rd congressional district in the U.S. House came up short Tuesday night.
Although a final winner in the primary for that 10-way race wasn’t called at the time of this posting, both LGBT candidates didn’t have enough votes to be in contention to win the nomination.
With 94 percent of precincts reporting, Rufus Gifford, a gay Democratic fundraiser who served as U.S. ambassador to Denmark in the Obama administration, claimed 15.3 percent of the vote, and Alexandra Chandler, a transgender former naval intelligence officer, had 5.8 percent.
The leading candidates were Daniel Koh, who has worked as a staffer for Boston mayors, and businessperson Lori Trahan. Koh had 21.7 percent of the vote and Trahan had 20.9 percent.
Gifford issued a statement Tuesday night thanking supporters of his campaign and invoking the legacy of former President Obama.
“I am filled with a lot of emotions, but the number one emotion is gratitude,” Gifford said. “I am so incredibly humbled that you were in my corner and were part of this team. You stood by me from that first cold day on the campaign trail last November, and I simply could not have survived this grueling process without you. Throughout this campaign, I found myself reflecting on advice President Obama gave me just before I started my ambassadorship in Denmark. He told me, ‘Go be you. Go represent the country you love, and go be you.'”
Gifford had the backing of the LGBTQ Victory Fund, although Chandler had the backing of transgender groups, including the National Center for Transgender Equality Action Fund and the Trans United Fund.
Had Chandler succeeded, she would have been the first openly transgender person to win a major party nomination to run for the U.S. House and potentially could have been the first openly transgender person in Congress.
Daye Pope, Trans United Fund’s organizing director, said although Chandler came up short in the Massachusetts primary, her campaign was a historic endeavor.
“Although we were hoping for a victory in today’s primary, we’re proud to be on Team Chandler and of the campaign Alexandra ran,” Pope said. “She made her support for equality and equity, #WhoeverYouAre, a cornerstone of her campaign, and she’s been a fighter for working people. Thousands of voters supported a qualified, outstanding trans candidate for public office today, and we’re looking forward to continuing to work with Alexandra to build trans political power in Massachusetts — and to elect trans candidates across the country in the fights to come.”
Another gay candidate, Democratic activist Steve Kerrigan, had also placed a bid for the Democratic nomination in that race, but dropped in February after the death of his mother.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

