News
Leahy withholds amendments for gay couples in immigration bill
In tearful speeches, Dems says time is wrong for measures
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) withheld UAFA as a committee amendment. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Tuesday withheld amendments to include gay couples as part of immigration reform in the aftermath of speeches — sometimes tearful — from Democrats on the panel who said they couldn’t support the measures.
After an extended speech on why he believes discrimination against gay couples is wrong — Leahy said “with a heavy heart” he wouldn’t introduce the amendments before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They would have made bi-national same-sex couples equal under the law to straight couples for immigration purposes.
“In the immigration context, if you’re an American and fall in love will someone of the same sex from a different country and you get married legally, your spouse will not be treated like any other immigrant spouse would be by your federal government,” Leahy said. “My amendments would change that. I don’t want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country.”
During his remarks, Leahy asked members of the “Gang of Eight” who produced the base bill and were also members of the Senate Judiciary Committee why they decided to exclude gay couples from the initial legislation.
Under current law, gay Americans are unable to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States — even if they’re married — unlike straight Americans. For couples that are married, that’s because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. LGBT advocates had been pushing Congress to rectify this issue as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
Two amendments were proposed by Leahy. One mirrored the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. The other would have allowed for the approval of marriage-based green card applications for married same-sex couples.
Democrats who are known for being LGBT rights supporters — Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) — said they were torn on the issue, but couldn’t support the amendments out of fear they would lose Republican support and it would kill the legislative package.
Feinstein said the Supreme Court, which is currently considering the constitutionality of DOMA, may make the issue “moot” because a ruling against the anti-gay law in June would end federal discrimination against married same-sex couples.
“We now know that this is going to blow the agreement apart,” Feinstein said. “I don’t want to lose Sen. Graham’s vote because Sen. Graham’s vote can represent and be used as the rationale for dozens of other [lawmakers] who then will not vote for the immigration bill. … I am for what Sen. Leahy is proposing, I would just implore to hold off on this amendment at this time.”
Schumer, a member of the “Gang of Eight,” said he tried to persuade other senators to support the idea and believes current law is “rank discrimination,” but can’t bring himself to support the amendments because of Republican opposition.
“If we make the effort to add it to this bill, they will walk away,” Schumer said. “They’ve said it publicly, they’ve told me privately — I believe them. The result: no equality, no immigration bill. Everyone loses.”
Prior to the vote, Schumer was targeted by LGBT groups for being the only Democrat on the committee to not voice support for including UAFA as part of the larger package.
Durbin was particularly emotional and had tears in his eyes as he explained why they couldn’t support the measures. A member of the “Gang of Eight,” Durbin said he supports UAFA, but doesn’t see immigration reform as the best vehicle for the measure.
“I believe in my heart of hearts that what you’re doing is the right and just thing … but I believe this is the wrong moment, this is the wrong bill,” Durbin said. “There are approximately 250,000 LGBT undocumented immigrants in America that would benefit from passage of immigration reform. I want to make certain they have that chance.”
LGBT rights groups responded to the committee’s exclusion of same-sex couples from immigration reform with vocal disappointment.
Rachel Tiven, executive director of the LGBT group Immigration Equality, attended the markup and — while she said she’s “proud’ of Leahy for his support — expressed frustration with other Democrats.
“I’m very proud of Sen. Leahy; I’m very dismayed that his colleagues did not stand up with him to talk about the dignity of LGBT immigrant families,” Tiven said. “Only Sen. Leahy talked about the LGBT immigrants that he represents who have dreams, too, and who want to see a good bill passed that will help everyone, and who need immigration reform as badly as any other immigrant.”
Tiven named Democrats on the panel with whom she was particularly disappointed because of their previously articulated support for the LGBT community.
“To hear Sen. Durbin say, ‘Well, this is an outside issue like gun control,’ to hear that Sen. Franken didn’t speak up for families like Ginger and Ness Madeiros, whose visa runs out in August — what are they and their eight-month-old son going to do?” Tiven said. “I can’t imagine how they’re feeling right now about Sen. Franken. How could he not say these are immigrant families, too?”
With the exception of Schumer, Tiven maintained the Democrats on the panel expressed support for including same-sex couples in the reform package, which made their statements during the committee markup surprising.
But Republican members of the panel were most opposed to including the measures. They reiterated their opposition to including the measure in the package and said adopting them would break apart the coalition that helped put it together.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Republican member of the “Gang of Eight,” said the legislation would lose support from evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church, who’ve supported the measure, if those protections were included.
“I support traditional marriage without animosity,” Graham said. “I’m not married; I guess that means maybe I shouldn’t speak at all about it, but I do believe that the people of my state, and the people of other states who have gone different ways than Vermont, believe it would throw the coalition out of balance.”
When Leahy asked Graham if anything in the amendments would require South Carolina to change its state law on marriage, Graham said no, but maintained it would be making him vote in favor of a concept he opposes.
“You got me on immigration; you don’t got me on marriage,” Graham said. “I can’t just tell any more directly; you want to keep me on immigration; let’s stay on immigration.”
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), another GOP member of the “Gang of Eight,” also said he expected the coalition that put the bill together to fall apart if same-sex couples were included.
“This is an issue that is being addressed by the courts right now, I think that it would certainly upset the coalition that we have,” Flake said. “Certainly, we in Arizona, like in South Carolina, have spoken on the issue. It would certainly mean that this bill would not move forward. That would be a real shame, given how far we’ve come and the work that’s gone into this.”
Winnie Stachelberg, vice president of external affairs at the Center for American Progress, pointed at Republicans as the reason why same-sex couples weren’t included in the legislation.
“We’re all disappointed that at this juncture in the process, a small handful of Republicans prevented the provision from being voted on, but we’ve got a long way to go in the process and we’ll continue to work hard to secure the votes on the floor if it comes up,” Stachelberg said.
Following the discussion on the Leahy amendments, the committee reported out the legislation by a 13-5 vote. Supporters of immigration reform in the room — largely members of immigrant community — chanted, “Yes we can! Yes we can!” and embraced senators who voted in favor of the legislation as they snapped photos with them.
According to a report from the Williams Institute, an estimated 275,000 undocumented LGBT Americans would have a path to citizenship as the legislation currently stands if it reaches President Obama’s desk and is signed into law.
In a statement after the vote, Obama, who called for a gay-inclusive bill as part of his vision for reform, commended the committee for completing work on the legislation and urged a floor vote as soon as possible.
“None of the committee members got everything they wanted, and neither did I , but in the end, we all owe it to the American people to get the best possible result over the finish line,” Obama said. “I encourage the full Senate to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor at the earliest possible opportunity and remain hopeful that the amendment process will lead to further improvements.”
Leahy’s announcement came after an Associated Press report saying the White House had asked the Vermont senator to hold off on offering the amendments until the measure goes before the full Senate.
It’s unclear whether Leahy will introduce the amendments once the legislation reaches the Senate floor, which is expected early in June. Passage on the Senate floor would be significantly more difficult than passage would have been in committee if a 60-vote threshold is necessary to overcome a filibuster.
After the committee reported out the bill, the Washington Blade asked Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) whether he wants to see UAFA brought up as an amendment on the Senate floor.
“You’ll have to ask Sen. Leahy about that,” Schumer replied. “As you heard, I believe strongly in UAFA. I don’t think I have to say anything more; I spoke long enough on it.”
Although the amendment for same-sex couples wasn’t included, the committee on Monday rejected an amendment that would have removed a provision supported by LGBT advocates that was included in the base bill.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) offered two amendments that would have eliminated the repeal of the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers. One amendment failed on a vote of 6-12 and the other failed on a vote of 9-9.
LGBT advocates had supported that provision in the base bill because LGBT asylum seekers often don’t know they have a one-year deadline to apply for asylum in the United States, or lack financial resources to make the application.
Colombia
Colombia withdraws from Equal Rights Coalition
International LGBTQ group ‘not a priority’ for country’s new government
Colombia last week withdrew from a coalition of more than 40 countries that pledges to champion LGBTQ and intersex rights.
The Bogotá Post, an English-language news website in the Colombian capital, reported the country officially withdrew from the Equal Rights Coalition on Sept. 17.
The Equal Rights Coalition formed in 2016.
The group’s current members are Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cabo Verde, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, the U.K., and Uruguay. Civil society organizations from Colombia and dozens of other countries, including the U.S., work with the Equal Rights Coalition.
Colombia had co-chaired the group alongside Spain.
The decision to withdraw from the Equal Rights Coalition took place less than two months after far-right Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella took office.
El Páis, a Spanish newspaper, reported Colombian Vice Minister for Consular and Migration Affairs Pedro Agustín Roa said the Equal Rights Coalition “is not a priority” for his government and the country’s participation in it was “something from a previous government.”
Caribe Afirmativo is a Colombian LGBTQ advocacy group that works with the Equal Rights Coalition. Wilson Castañeda, its director, criticized his country’s withdrawal from it.
Ecuador
Caso Karlina: Una sentencia histórica contra las terapias de «conversión»
Karlina Quiroz, una mujer trans de Chone, fue internada contra su voluntad
La última vez que Karlina Quiroz, una mujer trans de 57 años, salió sola a la calle en Chone, terminó encerrada contra su voluntad en un centro de rehabilitación donde intentaron “corregir” su identidad de género mediante humillaciones, amenazas y agresiones.
Han pasado cinco años desde ese episodio, ocurrido en 2021; y el 11 de septiembre de 2026 Karlina por fin obtuvo justicia.
La Fiscalía informó, el 14 de septiembre, que el Tribunal de Garantías Penales de Chone sentenció a seis personas por actos de odio contra Karlina, al ser víctima de violencia basada en su identidad de género.
Entre los seis sentenciados están sus dos hermanos, que —según la denuncia de Karlina— ordenaron su encierro a este centro.
El caso de Karlina refleja el odio y la violencia hacia personas trans en Ecuador y vuelve a poner bajo la lupa la existencia de centros conocidos como clínicas de “deshomosexualización” o espacios de “terapias de conversión”.
De acuerdo con la denuncia presentada por Karlina, en julio de 2021 fue interceptada por varios hombres y trasladada contra su voluntad a un centro para el tratamiento de adicciones ubicado en Chone, Manabí, en la vía a Pedernales. Allí permaneció retenida y sometida a tratos degradantes, violencia psicológica y agresiones físicas.
Según su testimonio, durante el encierro recibió insultos relacionados con su identidad de género y amenazas orientadas a “modificarla”.
Karlina denunció, además, que esta no habría sido la primera vez. Según su relato, en 2019 permaneció aproximadamente tres meses internada de manera forzada en otro centro de rehabilitación, también ubicado en la vía a Pedernales, en Chone. Durante ese período habría sido sometida a dinámicas similares de aislamiento, control y presiones dirigidas a modificar su identidad y expresión de género.
Según información de la Fiscalía, en septiembre de 2021, como parte de las diligencias investigativas, se allanó el centro clandestino en Chone. Allí se recabaron indicios relacionados con el internamiento forzoso de Karlina durante tres meses.
Con esos y otros elementos de convicción obtenidos durante la investigación, la Fiscalía inició un proceso penal contra las seis personas, quienes fueron luego llamadas a juicio.
El proceso, explicó Karlina, incluyó los dos casos: el de 2019 y 2021. “El crimen se investigó desde que comenzó la primera gota de sangre”, señaló Karlina, en alusión a la violencia física que sufrió en su primer encierro.
De los seis sentenciados, tres fueron condenados como autores directos a cuatro años de pena privativa de libertad. Se trata de los dos hermanos de Karlina y un sobrino, por ordenar su encierro al centro de adicciones.
Los otros tres recibieron una pena de dos años, como cómplices.
De acuerdo con Karlina, uno de ellos es el director del primer centro al que fue ingresada contra su voluntad en 2019 por tres meses, y los otros dos son quienes la interceptaron la segunda ocasión, en julio de 2021, para llevarla al centro. Ella los señala como “capturadores” de las personas que son recluidas en los centros.
“Cuando recibí la noticia (el viernes 11 de septiembre durante la audiencia de juzgamiento) no podía creerlo. Las piernas me temblaron y las lágrimas se me salieron. Estoy tranquila y satisfecha”, señaló Karlina en una llamada telefónica.
Para Pedro Gutiérrez, abogado especialista en derechos humanos, la sentencia es importante no solo por reconocer un delito de odio, sino también por las características de los hechos: el ingreso (por orden de sus hermanos) a un centro de “deshomosexualización” en el que se cometen actos de tortura y violencia física.
Durante la audiencia, constó el testimonio de Karlina. La Fiscalía también presentó el informe de reconocimiento del lugar de los hechos, la inspección ocular técnica, el levantamiento de evidencias y los testimonios de personas que confirmaron que los actos de violencia por perjuicio hacia su identidad de género fueron ejecutados de manera reiterada por los ahora sentenciados.
El caso volvió a poner la atención sobre las llamadas terapias de conversión en Ecuador, prácticas ampliamente cuestionadas por organismos internacionales de derechos humanos y señaladas como formas de tortura o violencia psicológica. Aunque el Estado ecuatoriano ha realizado operativos y clausuras de algunos centros en los últimos años, organizaciones sociales sostienen que estos espacios continúan funcionando de manera clandestina o bajo otras denominaciones.
La legislación ecuatoriana penaliza los actos de tortura con la intención de modificar la orientación sexual o identidad de género, pero no existe una sanción contra los centros que ofrecen las denominadas terapias de conversión.
En 2020, la Asamblea aprobó el Código Orgánico de Salud y una de sus disposiciones fue prohibir expresamente este tipo de terapias, pero fue vetado totalmente por el expresidente Lenín Moreno en medio de una campaña de sectores antiderechos.
La sentencia también dispuso, como reparación integral a favor de Karlina, tratamiento psicológico e indemnizaciones por daños materiales e inmateriales.
Gutiérrez considera que la reparación para Karlina es limitada, pues -por ejemplo- no hay llamados de atención al Ministerio de Salud o disculpas públicas a la víctima.
“Mi nombre es Ariel Karlina Zambrano, soy una mujer trans de Chone, Manabí. Desde niña supe que quería ser mujer, quería ser bonita, libre. Pero mi familia nunca lo aceptó. Mis hermanos y mi padre, profundamente machistas, me maltrataban constantemente”, contó Karlina en un testimonio en 2025 que recogió el Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (CDH).
Para activistas y defensores de derechos humanos, el caso de Karlina evidencia además un patrón de violencia que suele permanecer oculto dentro de círculos familiares, religiosos y comunitarios. En muchos casos, explican, los internamientos forzados son promovidos bajo la idea de “corregir” orientaciones sexuales o identidades de género consideradas inaceptables.
Karlina intentó vivir en Chone, creyendo que con la denuncia y las medidas cautelares estaba a salvo, pero su hermano le pagaba a personas para que la acosaran, según su relato. Por ello, tuvo que esconderse por meses.
Las personas trans en Ecuador enfrentan altos niveles de discriminación, violencia y exclusión social, especialmente fuera de las grandes ciudades. Según la Encuesta Nacional sobre las Condiciones de Vida de la Población LGBTI+ del INEC, el 53,5 por ciento de las personas LGBTQ mayores de 18 años en el país ha sufrido algún tipo de discriminación o violencia a lo largo de su vida, siendo el entorno familiar uno de los principales espacios de agresión.
En materia de violencia letal, organizaciones como Asociación Silueta X y el Observatorio Runa Sipiy documentaron 30 asesinatos de personas LGBTQ y transfemicidios en Ecuador durante 2025. De esos casos, alrededor del 70 por ciento corresponden a mujeres trans, lo que las posiciona como el grupo más expuesto a crímenes de odio y violencia extrema.
Diversas organizaciones de derechos humanos han advertido además sobre la persistencia de centros de “deshomosexualización” o internamientos forzosos, prácticas denunciadas desde hace más de una década en Ecuador pese a prohibiciones estatales y operativos de control insuficientes.
El caso de Karlina pone a prueba algo más grande que una sentencia individual: si Ecuador está dispuesto o no a reconocer que estas prácticas siguen existiendo y que la violencia contra personas LGBTQ continúa ocurriendo, muchas veces con la complicidad o el silencio de sus propios entornos familiares.
“Con mi caso, debe quedar un precedente. Debemos luchar contra el odio que podemos encontrarlo dentro de nuestras propias familias. Por nuestra libertad y derechos, debemos luchar”, indicó Karlina.
Netherlands
Dutch prime minister visits Stonewall Inn
Rob Jetten is the Netherlands’ first openly gay prime minister
Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten on Monday visited the Stonewall Inn in New York.
“The Stonewall Inn is not just a gay bar in New York, but the place where in 1969 riots took place as a reaction to years of discrimination and police violence,” wrote Jetten on X. “This is seen as the starting point of the global LGBTIQ+ emancipation and activism. Nowadays, the bar is a national monument, dedicated to the LGBTIQ+ rights movement.”
“For me, it is impressive and moving to be here tonight. And also fitting, because the defense of human rights is an important part of our foreign policy,” he added. “The Netherlands stands alongside the Stonewall Inn community when it comes to everyone’s right to live openly, safely, and with pride, no matter who you are or who you love.”
De Stonewall Inn is niet zomaar een gay bar in New York, maar de plaats waar in 1969 rellen plaatsvonden als reactie op jarenlange discriminatie en geweld van de politie. Dit wordt gezien als startpunt van de wereldwijde lhbtiq+-emancipatie en activisme. Tegenwoordig is de bar… pic.twitter.com/hJmFYjF91Z
— Rob Jetten (@MinPres) September 23, 2026
Jetten in February became the Netherlands’s first openly gay prime minister.
He opened last month’s World Pride Human Rights Conference in Amsterdam. Jetten also participated in a panel with former Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, former San Marino Captain Regent Paolo Rondelli, and other current and former heads of government who are gay or lesbian.
Jetten is scheduled to speak to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday.
Colombia withdraws from Equal Rights Coalition
Caso Karlina: Una sentencia histórica contra las terapias de «conversión»
Washington Blade responds to concerns over White House pool duties
Young people should know history of the fight for human rights
Dutch prime minister visits Stonewall Inn
Over 2,000 turn out for Hands Around the Kennedy Center protest
PHOTOS: Wanda Alston Foundation Fall Reception
PHOTOS: Walk and 5K to End HIV
What LGBTQ veterans are building after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
