The Virginia Senate voted this past Friday in favor of repealing an amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Senate Joint Resolution 3, introduced by state Sen. Adam Ebbin (D), passed the chamber in a 26-13 vote and would ban the state “from denying the issuance of a marriage license to two adult persons seeking a lawful marriage on the basis of the sex, gender, or race of such persons.” It also requires Virginia to “recognize any lawful marriage between two adult persons and to treat such marriages equally under the law, regardless of the sex, gender, or race of such persons.”
A proposed Constitutional amendment must be voted on by two successive state legislatures before heading to the ballot, where voters ultimately decide its fate. Both chambers voted in favor of the resolution in 2025, and the House of Delegates already approved it again earlier this month. As such, the resolution will go to voters during the November 2026 elections.
Virginia’s 2006 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage has been unenforceable since the 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized marriage equality nationwide. In 2024, amid increasing threats that the Court may reexamine the decision, then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) (who is generally anti-LGBTQ+) signed a bill codifying same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth.
The law now ensures same-sex marriage remains legal in Virginia regardless of any change in federal protections, but those championing the constitutional amendment say it’s still not enough.
“It’s time for the Virginia constitution to accurately reflect the law of the land. Full stop,” Ebbin said in a statement. “20 years ago, the Virginia Bill of Rights was unnecessarily stained in an overreaction. It’s past time to fix that and see that loving Virginia couples are not mistreated or discriminated against. I am confident that the voters will ratify this marriage equality amendment in November.”
“It’s about time Virginia gets this done,” added state Rep. Mark Sickles (D), who introduced the resolution in the House of Delegates. “All Virginia couples deserve the freedom to marry without fear that their rights could be rolled back. By advancing this amendment, we’re ensuring that the freedom to marry is protected by the people. It’s up to the voters now and I’m confident they’ll do the right thing in November.”
Virginia’s resolution comes after a new trend last year in which several Republican-led states introduced resolutions calling for the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. Two justices on the Supreme Court have openly stated that they want to overturn Obergefell, which has stirred fears in the LGBTQ+ community as the court has moved increasingly to the right.
In a victory for LGBTQ+ people, the Supreme Court opted in November not to hear an appeal from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis asking the court to reconsider its marriage equality decision.
Even if the Supreme Court had taken the case, Chris Geidner, the gay publisher and author of Law Dork, told LGBTQ Nation last year that he didn’t think a case like Davis’ would provide sufficient legal reasoning to overturn same-sex marriage entirely.
Rather, he said that a successful religious freedom or free speech challenge to Obergefell would do other “bad things,” like hollow out civil protections or public accommodations for same-sex couples, essentially inconveniencing or endangering them, but not outright denying them the right to a marriage license.
Mauritania criminalizes same-sex sexual activity under its Penal Code, which provides a maximum possible sentence of death by stoning for men. However, in 2021, the government confirmed its de facto moratorium on the death penalty.
There have been reports of people being arrested and detained for these charges in recent years, as well as LGBTIQ people being harassed.
LGBTIQ visibility is fairly low in Mauritania, which contributes to social stigma. Due to the fear of discrimination and rejection, many LGBTIQ people remain private about their identities.
The country became a refuge for Senegalese LGBTIQ people after 2008, when homosexuality became the subject of recurrent public controversies in Senegal. Some Senegalese LGBTIQ people have been granted refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) but face serious legal dangers, health risks, and social rejection, making it difficult for them to get the help and protection they need.
[Mauritania’s anti-homosexuality law] specifically applies to Muslim men, though it is not clear if it applies equally to non-Muslim men.
There is some evidence of the law being enforced in recent years, with LGBT people being occasionally subject to arrest. A high-profile incident in 2020 saw ten people arrested and detained on same-sex activity charges, with eight of them being prosecuted and sentenced. There have been limited reports of discrimination and violence being committed against LGBT people in recent years, and the lack of reporting is attributed to social stigma.
In January, ten people were arrested and detained after video footage emerged on social media of what was alleged to be a same-sex wedding. [In the capital,] Nouakchott Police Commissioner, Mohamed Ould Nejib, subsequently acknowledged in a television interview that the event had not been a same-sex wedding but was simply a birthday celebration. He indicated that the men had been arrested for “imitating women”. According to the police report, the eight men “confessed that they are homosexuals” during police interrogations, at which they had no legal representation, but these confessions were subsequently refuted during the trial.
Eight of those arrested were subsequently convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for ‘indecency’ and ‘inciting debauchery’ under Articles 264 and 306 of the Penal Code respectively. One woman received a one-year suspended sentence for participating in ‘inciting debauchery’ by being present at the event. The restaurant owner was acquitted.
The U.S. Department of State evaluated LGBT rights in Mauritania in 2022: The US Department of State found that LGBT persons are reportedly harassed and subjected to violence from the National Police, the General Group for Road Safety, neighbours, and family members. No laws protect LGBT persons from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics. LGBT identity is rarely publicly identified or discussed, which observers attributed to the severity of the stigma and the legal penalties attached to it.
Texas judges can decline to perform same-sex weddings because of their “sincerely held religious belief” and not be in violation of the rules on judicial impartiality, according to the Texas Supreme Court.
A lawsuit is being brought by Judge Brian Keith Umphress in Jack County, Texas, against the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In November 2019, the commission issued a “public warning” to Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace who recused herself from officiating at same-sex weddings, according to coverage by Legal Newsline.
Umphress later sued the commission’s members, citing that a judge’s refusal to officiate only same-sex unions could result in sanctions by the commission and violate his federal constitutional rights.
He is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to restrain the commission from punishing judges for not performing same-sex marriage ceremonies, for either religious or secular reasons.
For LGBTQ+ people, safety has never been an abstract idea. Concerns for our community show up in legislation, healthcare and how the government treats its citizens. In the United States, where LGBTQ+ rights are being rolled back at both the state and federal level following President Donald Trump’s reelection, many people are quietly asking the same question: where, if anywhere, does stability still exist, and what does real safety actually look like?
That question shapes real decisions. Not just about travel, but about long-term plans, family, work, medical care and whether it is possible to build a future without constant political uncertainty. International data from organizations including ILGA-Europe and Equaldex, alongside migration analysis and residency reporting from Get Golden Visa, points to a widening global divide. Some countries are strengthening legal protections and expanding access to care. Others are narrowing definitions of who is protected under the law, often by targeting transgender people first and testing how much rollback the public will tolerate.
The countries highlighted here represent a snapshot of places that currently offer strong legal protections and relative social stability for LGBTQ+ people. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and conditions can change quickly as governments shift and political climates evolve. Still, these examples help illustrate what safety looks like when it is embedded into legal systems, healthcare infrastructure, and public accountability, rather than left to cultural goodwill or temporary leadership.
One country that consistently ranks at the top is Malta. It has held the number one position on ILGA-Europe’s Rainbow Index for multiple consecutive years, a reflection of both legal protections and enforcement. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2017, conversion therapy is banned nationwide, and gender identity is explicitly protected under the constitution. Legal gender recognition is based on self-determination, without medical or psychiatric requirements, and those protections extend into healthcare, employment, education, and family law, creating long-term security rather than symbolic inclusion.
Iceland also continues to stand out for both legal protections and social acceptance. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2010, non-binary gender markers are recognized, and gender-affirming care is available through the public healthcare system. Comprehensive anti-discrimination laws are paired with high levels of public trust in institutions, which means LGBTQ+ protections are not constantly relitigated or politicized, but treated as settled rights reflected in daily life.
.Finland has taken meaningful steps in recent years, particularly for transgender people. A 2023 update to its law allows transgender adults to change their gender through self-determination, removing medical gatekeeping that had long been criticized by advocacy groups. While non-binary recognition remains limited, Finland’s strong social safety net and political consensus around equality have kept LGBTQ+ rights largely outside culture war framing, offering stability rather than constant legal vulnerability.
Spain has long been viewed as one of Europe’s most LGBTQ+-affirming countries, and recent legislation has reinforced that reputation. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005, and a 2023 gender self-identification law allows people to change legal gender without medical or psychological evaluations. Conversion therapy is banned, and public opinion surveys consistently show strong support for LGBTQ+ equality, particularly in major cities where protections are paired with visible community infrastructure.
In North America, Canada has become a focal point for LGBTQ+ Americans seeking stability. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005, non-binary gender markers are available on federal identification, and conversion therapy was banned nationwide in 2022. Advocacy organizations and international reporting have documented a rise in inquiries from U.S. LGBTQ+ residents since the 2024 election, especially among transgender people weighing whether legal protections at home will continue to erode.
The Netherlands remains one of the most legally secure environments for LGBTQ+ people. As the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, it continues to offer robust anti-discrimination protections and publicly funded gender-affirming healthcare. For some U.S. citizens, the Dutch-American Friendship Treaty has made relocation more feasible, a trend that has accelerated since the 2024 US presidential election.
None of these countries are immune to political change, and none represent a perfect solution. But in 2026, they show what becomes possible when LGBTQ+ safety is treated as a structural commitment rather than a cultural preference. As rights erode in some places, the countries that choose to protect them are defining where dignity, stability, and the possibility of a future still exist.
Decriminalized Sodomy: St. Lucia, Niue (reported in 2025; it happened in 2024).
Decriminalized Sodomy in Armed Forces: Dominican Republic
Repeal of Sodomy Laws Proposed: Guyana, Sri Lanka; Massachusetts (USA)
Court Challenges Pending: Grenada, Trinidad & Tobago, Zambia, possibly also St Vincent & the Grenadines and Jamaica
Criminalization Proposed: Niger
The net change in the number of criminalizing states was zero, thanks to losing two states as we gained two others, keeping the total at 65. The same thing happened in 2024, when Mali and Iraq criminalized sodomy while Namibia and Dominica decriminalized it. The number of criminalizing states hasn’t dropped since 2023, when Cook Islands and Mauritius decriminalized. And in fact, prior to 2024, no state had made sodomy a crime since 2019.
It should also be noted that the four states that criminalized sodomy in 2024-25 are all internationally recognized sovereign states with large populations, while the four decriminalizing states include three microstates, two of which aren’t sovereign.
Looking ahead to 2026, we can probably expect the criminalization wave across West Africa to continue into Niger, and possibly some other former French colonies in the area. As for decriminalization, our most likely candidates are Guyana, whose president vowed to decriminalize during last fall’s elections, and Grenada, the last of five Caribbean countries where a constitutional challenge was pending before the local courts. We may see a court challenge go ahead in Zambia this year as well, though the timeline is not currently clear. We’re also unlikely to get a result on the Privy Council appeal of Trinidad & Tobago’s sodomy law until 2027 or later. It also appears that efforts to get decriminalization passed in Sri Lanka have stalled.
Recognition of same-sex unions — 2025 tally and 2026 preview
Equal Marriage Brought into Effect: Liechtenstein, Thailand (both passed in 2024)
Equal Marriage codified: Guanajuato (Mexico)
Codification of Equal Marriage Proposed: Brazil;Virginia, Ohio, Oregon, Missouri (USA, by referendum); Aguascalientes, Chihuahua (Mexico)
Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Gabon (passed 2024)
Criminalized Same-Sex Marriage: Burkina Faso
Constitutional Ban on Gay People Adopting: Slovakia
Limited Recognition of Same-Sex Unions: Suriname, Turks & Caicos Islands (UK), Japan, India, European Union (court ruling affecting Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania, yet to be implemented)
Court Challenges for Equal Marriage Pending: Japan, Botswana
Civil Union Bill Pending: Poland, Lithuania, Nagasaki (Japan)
Same-Sex Adoption Legalized: Guanajuato (Mexico – Codified), Czechia (stepchild only; passed in 2024), Thailand (passed in 2024)
Ended Discrimination against Same-Sex Couples in Adoption: Luxembourg, Israel, Chile
Surrogacy Legalized: Western Australia
Despite the number of developments listed above, we’ve entered a period where advances in same-sex marriage rights have slowed down, and we should be upfront about that going into 2026. We didn’t win same-sex marriage anywhere, and courts and governments only granted limited civil unions or relationship recognition for a specific limited rights in a handful of jurisdictions.
2026 doesn’t appear to offer much hope for advances, either. A supreme court case in Japan could go either way – or could even find that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional but order no solution. Sint Maarten (Netherlands) appears to just be waiting for a court challenge to copy the successful challenge in its partner states Aruba and Curacao in 2024, but none has been filed as far as I can see. And no other states in Europe or Latin America appear open to it now, with one asterisk.
At time of writing, the US military has imposed a regime change in Venezuela, removing its sitting president/dictator Nicolas Maduro to stand trial in New York. Who knows who’ll be running Venezuela by the end of 2026? Trump has ruled out the opposition leader who won a Nobel Peace Prize last year, and he insists that the US will be running the country somehow. Meanwhile, Maduro’s vice president has assumed the presidency with the support of Maduro’s supreme court. It’s easy to imagine a democratic Venezuela that is more amenable to LGBT rights than Maduro – there have been intermittent discussions about it in government since 2009. But it’s also easy to imagine that a US-imposed leader may not be keen to advance LGBT rights while dependent on Trump’s support, or another despot taking over in the event of a power vacuum.
Various countries in Africa and in parts of the Muslim world have proposed bills that would impose criminal sanctions on same-sex marriage, including Ghana and Niger. We’ll have to watch out for these.
Poland’s government agreed to a weak civil union bill in the last week of December, but it remains to be seen if even that will survive a threatened presidential veto. And Lithuania’s government has been lukewarm to codifying civil unions into law after the 2025 court ruling made them possible.
Discrimination, hate crime, and conversion therapy protections — 2025 tally and 2026 preview
Gender Identity Discrimination Ban Ordered by Court: Kenya
Discrimination Protections Removed: USA (Trump executive order); Iowa (gender identity protections repealed); UK (supreme court ruled trans women aren’t women under equality law)
SOGIE Discrimination Bans Proposed: Ukraine, Montenegro; Castille & Leon and Asturias (Spain)
Constitutional Ban on SOGIE Discrimination Proposed: Oregon, Ohio, Missouri, Vermont, Connecticut (USA, by referendum)
Conversion Therapy Banned: Spain (penalties enhanced); South Australia & New South Wales (passed 2024); Chiapas, Tamaulipas, Durango, San Luis Potosi & Guanajuato (Mexico, banned federally since 2024); Quezon City (Philippines); New South Wales, South Australia (Australia, both passed in 2024)
Conversion Therapy Bans Proposed/Pending: UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Colombia; Tasmania, Western Australia (Australia); Gibraltar (UK)
LGBTQ Hate Crime Laws: Australia (Nationwide)and Victoria and Tasmania; Karnataka (India)
Hate Crime Law Proposed: Mexico
Hate Crime Law Enhancements Proposed: Canada, Argentina, Ukraine, Romania, UK
Blood Donation Ban Ends: Australia
Blood Donation Ban Reinstated: Greece
Once again, we saw very limited gains in 2025 across these fields, though there were some milestones. The court finding that sexual orientation discrimination is banned under the Dominican Republic constitution is a major development that will likely have ripple effects going forward. And the developments across Australia have been positive even if they were mostly traced to last year.
Looking ahead to 2026, we’re probably heading into another bad year in the United States, which will likely only be mitigated or reversed if Democrats pull off major electoral victories in mid-term and state legislative elections in November. But the supreme court also looks likely to strike down all conversion therapy ban laws across the country during this session too.
Prospects look a little bit brighter in Europe, where applicant EU countries are all racing to shore up their LGBTQ human rights standards and discrimination rules as part of the accession negotiation process. I think the European countries with proposed conversion therapy bans also seem likely to actually pass them this year – maybe the Australian states too.
Freedom of expression and assembly — 2025 tally and 2026 preview
New Laws Banning LGBTQ Expression/Pride Events Passed: Hungary, Kazakhstan (signed in 2026), Burkina Faso
These laws, modeled after the “LGBT Propaganda” laws passed by Russia back in 2013 and Uganda’s “Anti-Homosexuality Act” from 2024, have been multiplying in recent years in countries in Russia’s orbit and across Africa. The EU is doing work to push back against such laws, but with limited success.
Hungary will hold elections in the spring, which will present the best chance to get a less hostile government in power — and hopefully they can reverse the worst anti-LGBT and anti-democratic actions of the Orban regime.
Trans-specific issues — 2025 tally and 2026 preview
Gender Recognition Law Passed: Cuba; Veracruz (Mexico); New South Wales, ACT (Australia, passed in 2024)
Gender Care Banned/Restricted: USA (Supreme Court decision upholding bans in 27 states); Brazil; Sweden (passed 2024); New Zealand; Queensland (Australia)
Trans Sports Ban Proposed: Colorado, Washington (USA, referendum pending)
Transfemicide Laws Passed: Nayarit, Mexico City, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Campeche, and Mexico (Mexico)
Trans people made some substantial gains in 2025, particularly in Mexico, but also suffered some huge setbacks as a global anti-trans movement increasingly found its footing with right-wing governments. In particular, anti-trans activists have found success pushing bans on gender care for minors, but the agenda is clear that they want to expand this to all gender care and legal gender recognition cases.
Looking ahead to 2026, I think Mexico and the EU and its applicants are the likeliest states to see positive developments, though the anti-trans movement in Europe has been strong too. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to see a change in the trajectory of the USA on these issues unless Democrats win big in November.
Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz (R) says his Republican majority intends to permanently ban gender-affirming care for minors this year. The move comes more than seven months after the release of a Utah Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) report, mandated by a Republican-backed state law, which found that medical evidence actually supports access to gender-affirming healthcare for minors, a different result than many conservatives were hoping for.
Utah already has what former state Rep. Mike Kennedy (R) — who now represents the state’s third district in Congress — described to Deseret News as a “permanent” ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Passed in January 2023, S.B. 16 banned gender-affirming surgeries for minors — despite such surgeries being exceptionally rare — and instituted an indefinite moratorium on providing puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to minors for the purposes of gender-affirming care.
Kennedy, who co-sponsored S.B. 16, admitted to Deseret News that characterizing the law’s ban on puberty blockers and HRT as a “moratorium” was essentially a tactic to win over lawmakers who wanted more data on the effects of such treatments. The ban, he said, is already effectively permanent unless Utah lawmakers act to lift it.
S.B. 16 also ordered the state DHHS to commission a review of medical evidence around puberty blockers and HRT prescribed for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, with the goal of lawmakers using the report’s findings to inform future policy decisions.
That review, conducted by the University of Utah’s Drug Regimen Center, was released last May, and as Mother Jones reported at the time, its conclusions “unambiguously” supported the benefits of gender-affirming care for trans young people.
However, Utah Republicans, including Schultz, Kennedy, and state Rep. Katy Hall — who co-sponsored S.B. 16 — have dismissed the report.
“Common sense is common sense,” Schultz told Deseret News. “I don’t need a report, one way or the other, to tell me that. I just firmly believe that minors should not be transitioning.”
At the same time, however, Schultz told the outlet that he agrees with a separate review of the DHHS report by anti-trans advocacy group Do No Harm. The group’s review, published early last month, claims that the DHHS report does not meet the standards of a true systematic review of medical evidence, according to Deseret News.
“Unlike true systematic reviews, it does not assess the reliability of studies and whether the research can provide guidance for weighing the risks and benefits of medical intervention for children with gender dysphoria,” Do No Harm’s report claims.
A spokesperson for University of Utah Health defended the Utah DHHS review, telling Deseret News in a statement that it was based on “an extensive body of research regarding the safety and efficacy of these treatments.”
“Our review also found that the consensus of that evidence is that the treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, and metabolic changes; and they are effective in terms of positive mental health and psychosocial outcomes,” the statement read, according to Deseret News.
A Colorado organization is leading two ballot measures that would restrict rights for transgender children in the state.
Protect Kids Colorado, a coalition led by prominent anti-LGBTQ activist Erin Lee, is gathering signatures for ballot measures that would prevent transgender children from participating in school sports and receiving gender-affirming surgeries. Lee led several anti-LGBTQ initiatives that the Colorado Title Board rejected ahead of the 2024 election.
The group has until Feb. 20 to submit 124,238 valid signatures from registered voters for each initiative to the Colorado secretary of state’s office. If that threshold is met, the measures would be placed on the November 2026 ballot.
Z Williams, co-director of the Denver nonprofit Bread and Roses Legal Center, said both of the issues the ballot measures seek to address are relatively minute. Williams said they have yet to see “actual validated science” that supports the need for the initiatives.
“The number of trans athletes is incredibly small, and the number of gender-affirming surgeries done for transgender youth or minors is even smaller,” Williams said. “We have two ballot measures … that are going to require hundreds of thousands of dollars, waste a lot of time, create a lot of confusion during the election over two pretty much manufactured issues.”
Protect Kids Colorado did not respond to Newsline’s request for comment on the initiatives.
Coloradans value freedom, a freedom that belongs to everyone, including transgender youth and their families.
– Cal Solverson, spokesperson for One Colorado
There isn’t clear data on the number of transgender student athletes in Colorado, and the two major hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors do not offer surgeries to minors.
Cal Solverson, spokesperson for LGBTQ+ advocacy organization One Colorado, said the ballot measures are ill-informed and jeopardize individual freedom. They also put transgender people, their families and health care providers across the state at risk, Solverson said.
“Coloradans value freedom, a freedom that belongs to everyone, including transgender youth and their families,” Solverson said in a statement. “The right to exist as we are extends beyond the exam room to the playing field, where every child deserves the opportunity to stay active, develop life skills, and experience the deep camaraderie of a team.”
If the measures make it to the ballot, Solverson said One Colorado trusts that Colorado voters will defend transgender youth and “ensure that freedom continues to exist for all Coloradans and not just some.”
Prohibit certain surgeries on minors
Ballot Initiative 110 would prohibit health care professionals from knowingly performing any surgery on a minor “for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics.”
The measure would also prohibit state and federal funding including Medicaid from being used to pay for gender-affirming procedures.
Children’s Hospital Colorado and Denver Health have paused gender-affirming care for youth amid the Trump administration’s threats to pull Medicaid and Medicare funding entirely.
A document on Protect Kids Colorado’s website says that Children’s Hospital Colorado performs gender-affirming surgeries on minors, but Children’s Hospital said in a statement that it has never provided gender-affirming surgical care to patients under 18, and it stopped offering such surgeries to adults in 2023. Denver Health stopped offering surgeries to minors in early 2025.
The document also says that while the ballot measure only targets gender-affirming surgeries, the organizations has “a multi-pronged plan to outlaw puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors as well.”
The language in the initiative includes medical terms that aren’t necessarily related to surgery, such as prescriptions. It also applies to health care professionals such as podiatrists, dentists and chiropractors, who wouldn’t be performing gender-affirming surgeries in the first place. That adds concern about how the measure would affect other elements of gender-affirming care, according to Mardi Moore, CEO of LGBTQ+ advocacy group Rocky Mountain Equality.
“It’s kind of like they’re throwing the spaghetti at the wall to see what’s going to stick,” Moore said. “There’s not a lot of people you can trust anymore, and I think Protect Kids Colorado is one of those groups that cannot be trusted to think they will keep all children safe.”
If the measure passes, it would lead to discriminatory practices in medical care, affecting all children, not just transgender children, Moore said.
Male and female participation in school sports
Ballot Initiative 109 would create definitions in state statute aiming to define boys and girls based on physical anatomy, excluding transgender people.
Sports teams sponsored by schools or athletic associations would be required to expressly designate those teams as for men, women or co-ed. Schools and their athletic departments would be required to adopt policies implementing the requirements of the initiative.
The measure would not affect any student’s ability to participate in co-ed sports.
The state’s commissioner of education would be tasked with enforcing the measure, and would have discretion to determine how to “take appropriate remedial action” against any school not in compliance with its requirements.
“It would mean a little 8-year-old who loves to play soccer and who happens to be trans couldn’t play anymore,” Moore said of Initiative 109.
Colorado is known to be a safe place for LGBTQ+ people, Williams said, and families have moved to the state from around the country because they share those values.
“When I was a kid, we were ‘the hate state,’ and Colorado has unequivocally disavowed that stance,” Williams said. “So I think we need to remember that these are folks that are trying to use a very marginalized community to rebuild a political ideology that’s been rejected for a very long time here.”
Protect Kids Colorado is running a third ballot measure to increase penalties for people convicted of human trafficking of a minor.
International LGBTQ+ rights advocates are calling for an investigation following a brutal police raid on an LGBTQ+ friendly venue in Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, late last month.
According to Azerbaijani LGBTQ+ outlet Qıy Vaar!, which first reported on the raid, police detained around 106 people at Baku’s Labyrinth nightclub. Those detained were reportedly forced to remain outside in freezing temperatures for over 12 hours without warm clothing, water, or access to bathrooms.
In a December 29 Instagram post, international LGBTQ+ advocacy organization ILGA-Europe reported that police arrived at the venue in buses and detained people in large groups.
Kiy Vaara, who was reportedly among those detained, described the experience as “traumatic” according to Pink News.
“When I close my eyes, I remember the faces of the police like a nightmare,” Vaara said. “Even though I begged to go to the toilet several times, they wouldn’t let me in. In that cold, without a jacket, I peed on my pants, and the urine froze on me.”
Detainees were later taken to the Nasimi District Police Department, according to Pink News. ILGA-Europe reports that detainees were photographed and fingerprinted, and authorities collected personal data. Detainees also reported physical violence and threats of extortion from police who reportedly demanded bribes in exchange for release and pressured detainees to testify against each other. ILGA-Europe also reported one case of sexual violence.
It’s unclear why authorities raided the club, or why they detained its patrons. As Pink News notes, homosexuality has been legal in Azerbaijan since 2000. However, ILGA-Europe ranks the country second to last among 49 European countries for its legal and policy practices regarding LGBTQ+ rights. The only country with a worse ranking is Russia.
Both Qıy Vaar! and ILGA-Europe released statements denouncing the raid.
“We know the perpetrators. The system that has ignored our rights for years, that does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the legislation, that has ousted the LGBTQ+ community from their places and forced them into invisibility, is the main culprit of this violence,” an English translation of Qıy Vaar’s statement reads, according to Pink News. “The Ministry of Internal Affairs must conduct an urgent, independent and transparent investigation into the allegations of violence, degrading treatment, arbitrary detention, bribery, sexual violence and torture against 106 people detained at the Nasimi District Police Department.”
ILGA-Europe’s statement, shared on Instagram, expressed the group’s deep concern over the raid.
“We stand in solidarity with the LGBTI community in Azerbaijan and support our member organisation in Azerbaijan, Qiy Vaar’s call for an urgent investigation and a public statement by the authorities,” the statement read. “Human rights and dignity must be upheld for everyone in Azerbaijan.”
A far-right political action committee says it has collected enough signatures to potentially get a trans sports ban onto Washington state’s ballot in November, and that ban would require girls to undergo physical examinations to participate in school sports.
As the Washington State Standard reports, Let’s Go Washington collected 445,187 signatures in support of Initiative Measure No. IL26-638, exceeding the 386,000 needed to advance the measure. The initiative would ban transgender girls from competing in girls’ school sports statewide
IL26-638 interprets existing state law as requiring students “to undergo a routine physical examination prior to participation in interscholastic sports, which includes documentation of the student’s sex assigned at birth.” It would require school districts and nonprofit entities to “prohibit biologically male students from competing with and against female students in athletic activities with separate classifications for male and female students.”
Under the proposed measure, students who want to participate in girls’ sports would be required to provide “a health examination and consent form or other statement signed by the student’s personal health care provider that verifies the student’s biological sex, relying only on one or more of the following: The student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”
As journalist Erin Reed notes in her newsletter Erin in the Morning, trans sports bans with similar requirements have been highly controversial, as they could potentially result in minors being subjected to invasive physical exams simply to participate in school sports.
Reed cites the failure last March of the so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would have amended Title IX — the federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in government-funded schools and education programs — to prohibit schools from allowing trans female athletes to participate in athletic programs or activities “designated for women or girls.” The Congressional Equality Caucus noted that the bill could have forced “any student to answer invasive personal questions about their bodies & face humiliating physical inspections to ‘prove’ that they’re a girl.”
Along with the signatures in support of IL26-638, Let’s Go Washington also submitted 416,201 signatures in support of a measure repealing changes to another of the PAC’s recent initiatives. The Let’s Go Washington-backed Initiative 2081, approved in 2024, codified the rights of the parents of public school students into law. As Reed notes, however, state lawmakers watered down provisions that would have reportedly mandated that schools out trans students to their parents.
According to Reed, Let’s Go Washington’s IL26-001 would restore language to the 2024 parental rights law that would effectively require the forced outing of trans students to their parents.
As the Washington State Standard reports, Let’s Go Washington submitted signatures in support of both measures to the Washington Secretary of State’s office on Friday. The Secretary of State’s office told the outlet that it may take up to four weeks to verify the signatures for the initiatives. Once verified, the initiatives will go before the state legislature, which can either approve them or reject them. If the state legislature rejects them, they will either appear on the November ballot on their own or alongside alternatives proposed by lawmakers.
Brian Heywood, the millionaire hedge fund manager and Republican megadonor who leads Let’s Go Washington, claimed that roughly half of the signatures the PAC had collected in support of the initiatives were from independent voters and Democrats. “This is not a partisan issue, this is a common sense issue,” Heywood said, according to the Standard. “This has broad support.”
However, in a statement issued by WA Families for Freedom, Gender Justice League board member Sophia Lee accused Let’s Go Washington of “playing political games with the lives of vulnerable trans and queer kids.”
Reed, meanwhile, notes that the trans sports ban is likely to face constitutional challenges should it become law. But it’s unclear whether the measure would succeed on the ballot. Reed notes that anti-trans messaging from Republicans last year coincided with significant GOP losses across the country in November’s off-year elections.
The US Supreme Court agreed to consider whether scores of state and local governments are violating the Constitution by barring licensed counselors from trying to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The justices said they will hear a challenge to Colorado’s ban on what critics call “conversion therapy.” A counselor says the 2019 law violates her free speech rights.
The case adds to a growing list of culture-war clashes the Supreme Court has agreed to hear. The justices are already assessing a Tennessee law that outlaws certain medical treatments for transgender children. And in April they will hear a dispute over the use of LGBTQ-friendly books in the classroom and a case over efforts to create the country’s first religious public charter school.
Twenty-eight states and more than 100 other jurisdictions either fully or partially ban the disputed practice, according to Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group that tracks laws around the country. The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Washington state’s ban in 2023.
The Colorado law is being challenged by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor who says she views her work as an outgrowth of her Christian faith. She is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that has been behind some of court’s highest profile cases in recent years, including the successful effort to overturn the constitutional right to abortion.
In a call with reporters, Chiles said the law “silences diverse perspectives and interferes with my ability to serve my clients with integrity.” One of her lawyers, ADF’s Jim Campbell, said Chiles had turned away multiple clients because of the law, though he didn’t disclose how many.
In upholding the law, the Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it legitimately regulates professional conduct and only incidentally affects speech. Colorado officials urged rejection of the appeal, likening the measure to malpractice laws and informed-consent requirements.
The Constitution “allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech,” Colorado argued.
The court will hear arguments and rule in the case in the nine-month term that starts in October.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.