A gay sex ban is overturned in Trinidad and Tobago. What the ruling says about LGBTQ+ rights and post-colonial identity

Read more at CNN.

A British court has overturned a law prohibiting gay sex in Trinidad and Tobago, marking a milestone for LGBTQ+ rights in the twin-island Caribbean nation and nullifying a colonial-era law dating over a century.

In its ruling, the London-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – the highest appeals court for several former British colonies – said that it agreed with a lower court ruling that had previously struck down the islands’ government law, which had criminalized “buggery” and “indecency” between gay partners.

The law had allowed for prison terms of up to five years for “buggery” and two years for “gross indecency.” In contemporary legal systems, the term “buggery” is largely obsolete and considered offensive.

Ruling that Trinidad and Tobago’s law was unconstitutional, Privy Council Judge Philip Sales said: “Those laws cannot be regarded as reasonably justifiable in a society that has a proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.”

“Laws which seek to criminalize such activities cannot be justified,” Sales said.

Trinidad and Tobago is a former British colony that gained independence in the 1960s and remains a republic within the British Commonwealth.

While a number of other former colonies have overturned or repealed colonial-era sodomy laws — with England and Wales decriminalizing gay male sex in the 1960s — similar restrictions remain in dozens of others.

The Privy Council had been asked to rule on Trinidad and Tobago’s law after it was challenged by Jason Jones, an LGBTQ+ rights activist who was born in Trinidad and lives in the UK. Jones first challenged the law in the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, winning a victory in 2018, but the islands’ Court of Appeal overturned that ruling in 2025. Jones and his attorneys then took the case to the Privy Council for a final appeal.

Activists and legal experts say the judgment could pave the way for similar challenges from campaigners in other former colonies that still criminalize gay sex. At least four other former British colonies in the Caribbean — Jamaica, Guyana, Grenada and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines — criminalize sexual activity between men, according to the UK charity Human Dignity Trust, though not all are in the Privy Council’s appellate jurisdiction.

Ahead of the ruling, Jones told CNN that he had filed his lawsuit to kick off a movement toward equality, though he acknowledged there was a long road ahead.

“My case is not just about decriminalizing (gay sexual acts in) countries in the Commonwealth that carry these British colonial-era laws. It’s about making people aware (of) how homophobia is being weaponized to take away our democratic rights,” he said.

The Human Dignity Trust welcomed Tuesday’s ruling, with its chief executive Téa Braun saying, “This is not only a victory for LGBT+ people in Trinidad and Tobago but another powerful affirmation that laws criminalizing private, consensual same-sex intimacy have no place in a society with due respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.”

Beyond LBGTQ+ rights, the case highlights how Britain’s imperialist legacy continues to influence the legal systems of some of its former colonies and has led many to question why some now-independent countries still cling to policies dropped by their former ruler decades ago.

“We have to still think about the fact that these laws were inherited from our colonial masters,” said Ria Mohammed, an attorney and director of the Caribbean Centre for Human Rights. “They (the British) have long since abandoned them. So why are we holding on to them?”

An ancient law

The origin of the law goes back centuries, with England passing a “Buggery Act” during Henry VIII’s rule in the 1500s. The British Empire later enacted a version of it in Trinidad and Tobago with a 1925 act.

After Trinidad became independent, it kept the ban in place due to a savings law clause that shields pre-independence laws from being challenged, Mohammed said. The clause was originally created by the British as a temporary measure to prevent legal vacuums as ex-colonies transitioned to independence, but some ex-colonies including Trinidad and Tobago continue to implement them. Critics say that has allowed outdated policies that no longer meet modern societal standards to remain in force in some countries.

In 1986, Trinidad and Tobago repealed the sexual offenses laws of the 1925 act and introduced new, tougher measures which increased prison sentences for offenders and punished women for indecency, too. It was this move that paved the way for Jones’ challenge to the law.

Jones’ lawyers argued that the new 1986 measures were distinct from those in the colonial-era act of 1925, so they weren’t protected by the savings law clause and could indeed be challenged.

“This is no longer blaming Henry VIII and the British. This is our own homegrown homophobia,” Jones told CNN.

The Privy Council agreed, ruling on Tuesday that the criminalization of private sexual acts between consenting adults is not immune from challenge.

It ruled that clauses that immunize old laws from challenge based on fundamental constitutional rights “should be interpreted narrowly” so they don’t protect large areas of old law from scrutiny.

“Whatever might have been the position in 1986, the current understanding of the fundamental individual right to respect for private and family life is that it protects such a core part of human identity as one’s sexual orientation and the sexual activities carried out in private between consenting adults to give expression to that identity,” Sales said.

The ‘ultimate irony’

The judgment applies to Trinidad and Tobago only. However, activists hope it could pave the way to challenges against gay sex bans in some of the other former colonies that still use the London-based court as their highest appeals court.

“The decision is going to be binding in Trinidad and Tobago. But as a matter of logic, if you are a part of the appellate structure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council … it is unlikely that a case from a different jurisdiction would be decided in a different way,” Mohammed said.

As a result, the outcome of the case is likely to be closely watched across the English-speaking Caribbean, where several former colonies have kept the Privy Council as their final court of appeal while also continuing to maintain laws against gay sex.

In some of these countries, Jones’ case has renewed debate about whether they should replace the Privy Council with the Caribbean Court of Justice as their final court of appeal.

Five countries (Belize, Guyana, Barbados, Saint Lucia and Dominica) have already done so.

Mohammed said it was ironic that to settle a challenge on a colonial-era policy, Trinidad and Tobago had to use the judicial system of its former colonial ruler.

“That is the ultimate irony, and it also is a moment for us to sit and reflect about what are we really doing?” she said. “It really is about us having a mature conversation about what kind of society do we want to build.”

Bald bearded man sitting on steps wearing a white Jones vs. T&T rainbow logo T-shirt

South Korean government apologizes for saying homosexuality is a form of delinquency

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The government of South Korea apologized on Wednesday for language in a manual written for youth counselors that categorized homosexuality as deviant behavior.

Homosexuality was grouped with sexual violence, theft and drug abuse under “delinquency-related issues” in the manual, the Korea JoongAng Daily reported.

Human rights groups, led by a support center for LGBTQ+ youth, issued a joint statement Wednesday demanding that the offending language be removed. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family responded the same day, expressing regret over the description.

“We regret that the classification of content concerning sexual minorities as a type of delinquency-related problem in the manual has caused discomfort and concern to sexual minority youth and those involved,” the ministry said in a statement.

The association of LGBTQ+ youth with juvenile delinquency in the publication, produced for “youth companions” and staff at youth counseling and welfare centers in South Korea, was first reported by local news outlets on Monday.

The manual, published by the Korea Youth Counseling & Welfare Institute, guides counselors who visit at-risk young people and connect them with counseling, welfare, healthcare, education, and other support services. The institute is affiliated with the ministry.

The categorization appeared in the first edition of the manual in 2019. The 4th edition, published in 2026, included the same language.

The institute blamed the manual’s writing team for the error, which it said had carried the wording over from outdated reference material. The ministry said it will correct the passage immediately and review the resource in its entirety in consultation with counseling experts. It pointed to another overhaul undertaken this summer to update a similar publication.

“Based on feedback gathered last December from groups supporting sexual minorities and others, we revised the youth human rights protection manual for youth shelter staff in August,” a ministry official said. “We will work to ensure that all young people can receive counseling and protection without discrimination.”

South Korea has a mixed record on LGBTQ+ rights following the country’s emergence from military dictatorship in 1988, and homosexuality is still considered taboo by a majority of its citizens.

While same-sex relations are legal in the country, homosexuality is a bar to military service. Trans service members are also barred from the military, and gender-affirming care for trans youth is illegal in the country. Transgender adults may change their gender identity on official documents.

South Korea does not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions, but did change its census in 2025 to allow same-sex couples to identify as “spouses” or “cohabiting partners.” Adoption by same-sex couples is banned.

There are no federal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, although sexual orientation as one of several protected classes came with the creation of South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission in 2001.

While polling indicates a higher acceptance of homosexuality among young people in South Korea, a survey from Human Rights Watch revealed LGBTQ+ youth face a hostile environment in the country’s schools. A 2021 investigation found that LGBTQ+ students in South Korea face “bullying and harassment, a lack of confidential mental health support, exclusion from school curricula, and gender identity discrimination.”

Vermont Voters Deliver LGBTQ+ Rights Victory With Constitutional Protections

Read more at Them.

This story originally appeared on The Advocate.

Vermont voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday explicitly protecting LGBTQ+ people against discrimination, delivering a victory for civil rights advocates seeking stronger state safeguards against unequal treatment.

The Associated Press called the result just after 11 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday. Proposal 4 adds explicit equal protection guarantees covering sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, along with race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability and national origin.

The amendment builds on Vermont’s existing constitutional principles of equality by spelling out protections for groups that have historically faced discrimination. It also preserves the state’s ability to adopt measures intended to provide equal treatment and opportunity for those groups.

The approved text adds a new article to the Constitution. A provision sets Tuesday as the effective date after voters ratify it.

“The federal Constitution represents a floor, not a ceiling, of rights. It shows us the minimum we can do, not the maximum,” state Rep. Barbara Rachelson said when presenting the proposal in May, according to VTDigger. “Therefore, it’s important that Vermont develop its own jurisprudence regarding equal protection, and not simply rely on the one found in our federal Constitution.”

The victory follows years of organizing and overwhelming legislative support. The Vermont Senate approved the proposal 29-0 in March, and the House followed in May with a 128-14 vote. Proposed constitutional amendments in Vermont must clear two successive legislatures before going to voters.

The measure reached voters nearly a decade after it was first proposed in the Senate. Supporters argued that explicit state protections had become increasingly urgent amid threats to federal civil rights safeguards and decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

“Proposal 4 is about constitutional clarity,” Rev. Mark Hughes, executive director of the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, told Vermont Public in May. “It’s about ensuring that equal protection under the law is explicit and also that it’s enforceable.”

Virginia repeals same-sex marriage ban from state constitution

Read more at The Hill.

Virginia voters have approved a measure repealing language from the state constitution restricting same-sex marriage, Decision Desk HQ projects.

The amendment removes a provision stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman and prohibits the state from denying a marriage license to two adults because of their sex, gender or race.

A federal judge struck down the ban as unconstitutional in 2014, and same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide since the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The high court also rejected an appeal of the decision last year.

Now, the successful measure formally takes the restriction off the books in Virginia.

Some advocates have expressed concern that Obergefell could be overturned following the court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court should review other cases decided with similar legal reasoning, including the 2015 case. Other justices, however, did not join that opinion.

A few other states have also repealed their bans on same-sex marriage in recent years. Nevada was the first to do so in 2020, and California, Colorado and Hawaii followed suit in 2024.

Maggie Ellis becomes 1st out LGBTQ+ person elected to a statewide office in Texas

Read more at KXAN Austin.

Voters chose Maggie Ellis as their next Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, according to the Associated Press. Her campaign says it’s also a historic first for Texas, as she will be the state’s first out LGBTQ+ person to win a statewide election.

Ellis’ victory, along with the projected wins of Democratic candidates Chari Kelly, Kristen Hawkins and Gisela Triana to the high court, ends 26 years of SCOTX having nine Republican justices. All three of the justice-elects previously served as appellate justices.

“Texas, we made history. As a mom, I can’t help but think about what this means for the next generation of Texas kids,” said Ellis in a statement. “I want every child growing up in this state to know that no door is closed to them because of who they are, where they come from, or who they love.”

Ellis also previously served as an appellate justice. Before that, she was a public school teacher and attorney. According to her campaign, she “experienced poverty and homelessness as a child.”

“I know what it’s like to feel like the system wasn’t built for people like you,” Ellis said. “That’s why I’ve always believed you can’t serve people you don’t see. Our courts should work for everyday Texans, not just the wealthy and well-connected.”

Her statement notes she wants to revisit the court’s orders related to same-sex marriage and work “to expand access to justice and increase funding for indigent defense.”

State Rep. Jessica González, Texas House LGBTQ Caucus chair, congratulated Ellis Wednesday.

“Last night, Texas voters rejected the divisiveness that has plagued our state and politics for too long. This year, millions of dollars were spent in our state demonizing the LGBTQIA+ community on television ads, social media ads, radio and print—all of which fell on tired ears,” González said. “As our state’s very first statewide LGBTQIA+ identifying officeholder, Justice Ellis has sent a clear message to our LGBTQIA+ community: work hard, stay true to yourself, and believe in the people of Texas. The pursuit of justice lives on in Texas.”

Smiling gray-haired woman wearing a black top and green pendant necklace

Arizona voters back Prop 318, banning trans students from bathrooms matching their gender

Read more at the Arizona Mirror.

Arizona voters appear all but certain about excluding trans students from girls sports teams and the school bathrooms and locker rooms that reflect their gender identity.

Dubbed the “Protect Girls Sports in Arizona Act,” Proposition 318 threatens schools and athletic associations with lawsuits if they allow trans girls to join the sports teams consistent with their gender identity or let someone use a locker room, shower facility or bathroom intended to be for a person of the opposite biological sex. It is already illegal under Arizona law to permit trans girls to play on school sports teams designated for girls, but the initiative would extend that prohibition to private athletic organizations, like Little League.

Votes for Prop. 318 raced to a likely insurmountable lead of more than 200,000 votes when initial election results were released shortly after 8 p.m. Tuesday. Those votes came from early ballots that were returned prior to Election Day.

Republicans put the question to voters in a bid to avoid a veto from Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has consistently vetoed legislation that attacks LGBTQ Arizonans. Republican supporters framed the proposal as a “common-sense” measure intended not to discriminate but rather to protect cisgender women. Rep. Selina Bliss, R-Prescott, who sponsored the initiative’s underlying legislation, said during a news conference in January that it would keep girls safe.

“This is common-sense legislation that, in this political environment, sadly must go to the ballot for the voters to decide,” she said. “The voters will decide this fall if they want to give schools and athletic associations the opportunity for transparency and to set all children up for success.”

Supporters of the measure have billed it as a way to prevent girls from facing sexual harassment, but research shows there is no link between trans-inclusive policies and the harrassment of cisgender women. And critics argue that the focus on villainizing trans people is nonsensical, given how few trans Arizonans, particularly those who are athletes, call Arizona home.

A 2022 population study by the Williams Institute found that just 3% of Arizona youth aged 13 through 17 identified as transgender. And between 2017 and 2022, when Arizona’s first trans athletic ban was passed, the Arizona Interscholastic Association — which oversees more than 170,000 student athletes across the state — approved just 16 applications from transgender students to play on teams that matched their gender identity. Half of them were from trans girls.

Opponents of the ballot measure argued that the language is broad enough to loop in people who visit schools during sporting events. And they warned that schools and athletic association administrators will have no choice but to police the gender of their students and members, opening up the possibility of intrusive questions or policies being implemented. Prop. 318 makes athletic associations and schools vulnerable to lawsuits if another student feels uncomfortable sharing a space with a trans student, but it includes no explanation for how officials are expected to implement the prohibition.

Critics also argued that the initiative does the opposite of what it purports to do, by exposing cisgender girls to uncomfortable questions and discrimination based on what someone else perceives their gender identity to be.

“The negative impacts (this) would have, not only on trying to bully and shame transgender people of all ages back into closets, into the shadows, but also to enforce a stereotype of what girls are supposed to look and dress and act like,” Joel Edman, a spokesman for Progress Arizona said. “The real risk that this measure poses is having all girls potentially scrutinized for being too tall, or too strong, or too good at whatever sport they want to play with their friends.”

Trans sports bans get voter approval in 4 states

Read more at Stateline.

Voters in four states — Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska and Washington — are on track to pass or have passed measures to restrict transgender athletes’ participation in sports, a key policy focus of the Trump administration.

Colorado, Nebraska and Washington’s measures were ballot initiatives, while Arizona reached the ballot by way of the legislature.

Although there were sweeping Democratic wins in Republican strongholds Tuesday, GOP-backed proposals are winning over voters in various parts of the country.

Arizona’s initiative, which was garnering approximately 59% support late Wednesday, expands existing restrictions on transgender athletes to include private athletic associations and prohibits schools and athletic organizations from allowing individuals to use bathrooms, locker rooms and other private spaces designated for a sex different from the one recorded on their original birth certificate.

Colorado’s Proposition 134 was passing with 52% of the vote. The measure would require school athletic teams from elementary school through college to be designated for male, female or coeducational participation and require students to compete according to their biological sex. Nebraska’s measure is an amendment to the state constitution, which now prohibits students of the male sex from participating on teams designated for girls’ and women’s teams.

Washington’s initiative will prohibit transgender girls from competing in girls’ K-12 sports and require healthcare documentation verifying sex eligibility for students seeking to participate on female teams. The state interscholastic athletics association reported knowing of only about 10 transgender athletes participating statewide each year.

According to Ballotpedia, 29 states had laws, regulations or interscholastic rules limiting or banning participation on female school sports teams to students of the female sex.

Tens of thousands gather to celebrate inclusivity at Taiwan Pride parade

Read more at AP News.

Tens of thousands of people took to the streets of Taipei on Saturday to celebrate Taiwan’s Pride parade, one of Asia’s largest annual celebrations of inclusivity.

Participants waved rainbow flags and banners with messages of support for the LGBTQ+ community. Many donned colorful costumes, with some hailing from other countries in Asia and beyond.

“I am happy to join this kind of parade, especially here in Taiwan, Taipei,” said Jonel Malinao, a Filipino who works in Taiwan. “This is my first ever pride march and celebrating who and what we are.”

Taiwan has built a reputation as one of Asia’s most gender-inclusive places. The island democracy in 2019 was the first in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage after a yearslong campaign by gay rights advocates. Nepal and Thailand followed suit in 2023 and 2025, respectively.

However, the island’s LGBTQ+ community was rattled earlier this month by a police raid at a gay bar in Taipei. Police rounded up 51 patrons over suspected breaches of public decency rules, sparking some protests in the city on subsequent days. The city’s mayor, Chiang Wan-an, apologized, and some police officers were disciplined, according to local media.

For Billie Chang, a student in Taiwan, acceptance of gender diversity still has a long way to go on the island.

“I came out of the closet seven years ago now,” Chang, who attended the parade, said. “My parents are still not supportive. They don’t want to talk about it.”

Chang said her parents have learned to not interfere in her personal life but that she avoids displaying the rainbow flag at home.

At the parade, she wore it draped around her shoulders.

Organizers of the Pride parade estimated around 150,000 people joined this year. They urged further efforts to promote inclusivity and combat stigma against the LGBTQ+ community.

Married gay couple says coworkers threw food at them — then their employer fired them

Read more at the Advocate.

A married gay couple is suing in Maine after alleging that coworkers sexually harassed them and threw food at them and that their employer responded to their complaints by retaliating against them and firing them.

In a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in Bangor and reported by the Bangor Daily News, Jose Cordero, 30, and Wilmer Muchacho, 46, of New York City, allege that Centre Electric, a Minnesota solar company, discriminated against them while they worked as solar panel installers. They began working for the company in May 2023 and say they were fired without warning in February 2024.

The lawsuit alleges that Centre Electric violated the Maine Human Rights Act, the federal Civil Rights Act, and the Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act. The couple also filed complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued them right-to-sue letters after finding reasonable cause to believe there was retaliation on the basis of sex, according to the lawsuit.

According to the Bangor Daily News, the company did not respond to a request for comment.

In the lawsuit, the men say their coworkers harassed them for being married, called them slurs, and referred to them as sexually transmitted diseases.

The couple was transferred to another work site after reporting the harassment to their supervisor, but it continued, according to the lawsuit. They allege that the abuse escalated, with some coworkers throwing food at them.

The lawsuit also alleges that the company retaliated against the couple for reporting the conduct by denying them meal and bathroom breaks, permission to warm up in their car, and opportunities for extra weekend work that other employees received.

Related: LGBTQ+ Americans Like Me Still Face Constant Discrimination

When the company fired Cordero and Muchacho in February 2024, it cited tardiness and disrespectful behavior, according to the lawsuit. The men dispute those reasons and say they had received no warnings.

The couple is seeking a jury trial, back pay, unspecified compensatory damages, and a court order requiring Centre Electric to provide civil rights training to its employees.

“In the United States, everyone deserves to be treated with dignity at work, no matter who we love,” Muchacho told the Bangor Daily News. “We are putting our trust in a jury of Maine people to hear our story and to help us find justice.”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑