News
Uganda president to sign anti-gay bill into law
Int’l LGBT advocates urge Obama administration to take action
Uganda President Yoweri Museveni has signaled he would sign an anti-gay bill into law (Photo by the U.K. Department for International Development; courtesy Wikimedia Commons).
Despite earlier indications that he wouldn’t approve the measure, Uganda President Yoweri Museveni on Friday signaled his intent to sign a controversial “anti-homosexuality bill” into law.
News that Museveni would sign the bill came via Twitter from Ofwono Opondo, a spokesperson for the Uganda government, who said the Uganda president told members of the NRM party in parliament he’d “assent” to the legislation.
Multiple news outlets, including Buzzfeed, confirmed that Museveni intended to sign the bill into law.
In a subsequent tweet, Opondo later advised supporters of gay rights to “take it easy,” saying Uganda is a sovereign country and the measure can challenged in the courts.
Homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda, but the proposed legislation would impose a life sentence in prison for “aggravated homosexuality” — repeated offenses, homosexual sex with a minor or having gay sex while HIV positive. Failure to report gay people to the government would also be made a crime. It includes a provision that makes officiating a same-sex marriage ceremony punishable by seven years in prison.
Controversial provisions that would have instituted the death penalty for homosexual acts were removed from the bill in parliament.
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, blamed the situation on the efforts by U.S. evangelicals, who reportedly went to the Uganda and spoke out against homosexuality.
“Unless this bill is stopped from becoming law, lives will be destroyed, and countless people will be punished for an immutable characteristic,” Griffin said. “Anti-LGBT Americans advocated for laws further criminalizing LGBT people in Uganda, and it looks like they are now getting their wish. Whether it’s Brian Brown advocating for anti-LGBT laws in Russia or Scott Lively calling for the further criminalization of LGBT people in Uganda, anti-LGBT Americans must stop exporting their hate abroad.”
Among these evangelicals is Scott Lively, who in 2009 travelled to Uganda to help lawmakers craft the legislation. Known for his comparison of the LGBT movement to the Nazi movement in twentieth century Germany, Lively is facing a lawsuit from the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights for illegally fomenting anti-gay sentiment in Uganda.
In response to the latest news, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued an organizational statement blaming Lively for his contribution to passage of the anti-gay bill.
“LGBTI Ugandans will become second-class citizens and even more vulnerable to violence and abuse,” the statement says. “Right wing U.S. evangelical Scott Lively played a major role in the creation of the bill, and we will continue to hold him accountable in U.S. courts on behalf of our clients, Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG).”
After the Uganda parliament approved the legislation unexpectedly in December, Uganda President Yoweri Museveni reportedly said he wouldn’t sign the legislation unless he received scientific proof showing people are gay by choice, and not by birth.
According to Uganda press, scientists in the country prepared a report for Museveni along those lines. Among the findings was that widely discredited notion that “50 percent of the homosexuals revert to heterosexuality if rehabilitated in time.”
But the news that Museveni would sign the bill into law isn’t the only anti-gay development coming out of Uganda. As Box Turtle Bulletin’s Jim Burroway points out, Uganda press reported parliament leaders back Museveni’s plan to hold in jail without possibility of bail sodomy suspects — in addition to those suspected of being “defilers and rapists.” Further, he reportedly tasked the Ministry of Justice to expedite the process of amending the Constitution to that effect.
Other LGBT advocates — many of whom have been speaking out against the Uganda anti-gay bill since its introduction in 2009 — responded to the news by urging the Obama administration to take action.
Mark Bromley, chair of Council for Global Equality, said his organization is “still trying to confirm these latest reports” and urged the Obama administration to compel Museveni to change his mind about signing the bill.
“We are still trying to confirm these latest reports,” Bromley said. “That said, now is the time for the Administration to leverage all of its diplomatic assets to ensure that President Museveni understands the full consequences of this decision and the impact it would have on our bilateral relationship. Museveni has pledged to reject the current Bill. We certainly hope the United States will hold him to that pledge.”
Robyn Lieberman, senior policy strategist for the international group Human Rights First, also urged the Obama administration to prevent Museveni from signing the legislation.
“President Obama should immediately publicly condemn this legislation and emphasize the negative consequences enactment of this law will have on Uganda’s relationship with the United States,” Liberman said. “He should also make it clear to President Museveni that he will take other measures in the relationship if this bill is signed, including diplomatic, economic, and multilateral actions. This is a matter of life and death for LGBT people in Uganda and beyond, and it demands the attention of this U.S. President who has been a stellar leader on LGBT issues in this country.”
Lieberman also said “there should be no doubt” the announcement that Museveni would sign the anti-gay bill is in response to recent passage of similar anti-gay legislation in countries like Nigeria and Russia.
Neither the White House nor the State Department immediately responded to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on what action the administration will take in the wake of the news that Museveni intends to sign the anti-gay bill. The administration, as well as Obama himself during the National Prayer Breakfast in 2010, have previously spoken out against the legislation.
District of Columbia
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
Health center set to celebrate 40th anniversary of legal services program
Whitman-Walker Health, the D.C.-based community healthcare center that specializes in HIV/AIDS and LGBTQ-related health services, announced it will present its annual Dale Edwin Sanders Award for Pro Bono Excellence to the international law firm McDermott Will & Schulte at a May 6 ceremony.
“This year’s award is especially significant as it coincides with the 40th anniversary of Whitman-Walker Health’s Legal Services Program, marking it as the nation’s longest running medical-legal partnership,” a statement released by Whitman-Walker says.
“As a national leader in public health, Whitman-Walker celebrates our partnership with McDermott to strengthen the health center and to enable Whitman-Walker to reach more medical and legal clients,” the statement adds.
“McDermott’s firm-wide commitment to Whitman-Walker’s medical-legal partnership demonstrates a shared vision to serve those most in need,” Amy Nelson, Whitman-Walker’s director of Legal Services, says in the statement. “Our work protects individuals and families who face discrimination and hostility as they navigate increasingly complex administrative systems,” Nelson said.
“Pro bono legal services – like that of McDermott Will & Schulte – find solutions for people who have no place else to turn in the face of financial and health threats,” she added.
“Our partnership with Whitman-Walker Health is a treasured commitment to serving our neighbors and communities,” Steven Schnelle, one of the law firm’s partners said in the statement. “We are deeply moved by Whitman-Walker’s unwavering dedication to inclusion, respect, and equitable access to health care and social services,” he said.
The statement notes that the award for Pro Bono Excellence honors the legacy of the late gay attorney Dale Edwin Sanders. It says Sanders’s pro bono legal work for Whitman-Walker clients “shaped HIV/AIDS law for more than four decades by securing key victories on behalf of individuals whose employment and patient rights were violated.”
It says the Whitman-Walker Legal Services program began during the early years of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s at a time when people with AIDS faced widespread discrimination and often needed legal assistance. According to the statement, the program evolved over the years and expanded to advocate for transgender people and immigrants.
Whitman-Walker spokesperson Lisa Amore said the presentation of the Dale Edwin Sanders Pro Bono Excellency Award will be held at the May 6 fundraising benefit for Whitman-Walker’s Legal Services Program. She said the event will take place at the offices of the DC law firm Baker McKenzie and ticket availability can be accessed here: https://www.whitman-walker.org/gtem-2026/
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
PHOTOS: Denali at Pitchers
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
La X vuelve al tribunal
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
-
2026 Midterm Elections4 days agoHRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
-
Eswatini4 days ago
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days ago
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
-
National4 days ago
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
