Omar Guido Chávez, the 51-year-old owner of Sodoma NightClub, a popular LGBTQ+ gogo bar in Tijuana, Mexico, was discovered dismembered in the trunk of his own car on October 18.
Authorities have indicated that evidence linking the Sinaloa drug cartel to the crime was found in Chávez’s vehicle. While police have arrested two suspects, they are not treating the murder as a hate crime.
In the back seat of the car, investigators found a “narco-banner,” a message commonly used by drug cartels to convey threats and warnings.
On Friday, two suspects, identified in reports as “Gabriel N.” and “Juan Diego N.,” were taken into custody. Surveillance footage reportedly connected Gabriel N. to Chávez’s abandoned vehicle. The suspects allegedly attempted to flee when stopped by police for driving without headlights and seatbelts, running from the scene on foot.
Baja California homicide prosecutor Miguel Ángel Gaxiola stated there is no evidence suggesting that anti-LGBTQ+ bias played a role in the murder, noting that there were no prior threats against Chávez or the nightclub. Investigators believe the murder may be linked to ongoing conflicts between rival drug cartels.
In a heartfelt Instagram post, Sodoma NightClub expressed their sorrow over Chávez’s passing, remembering him as a beloved friend and outstanding leader. “We will always remember his smile, love for life, and noble heart,” the club wrote, extending condolences to his family and friends.
On the night of October 27, the nightclub hosted a showcase of guest artists as a tribute to Chávez.
Local LGBTQ+ organization Comunidad ABC shared an open letter on Facebook, calling on authorities to ensure the safety of all individuals in Baja California. The letter emphasized the need for thorough investigations, sensitivity towards diverse communities, and a commitment to preventing future tragedies. “We will not cease our pursuit of justice for Omar Guido and all victims of violence in our community,” it stated.
The vice-presidential candidate received an even lower score than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Republican vice-presidential candidate Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) received a zero rating on the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) newly released Congressional Scorecard for the 118th Congress.
This biannual report evaluates each member of Congress on their record regarding LGBTQ+ rights, assigning scores out of 100. Vance’s zero score indicates he did not support HRC’s stance on any LGBTQ+-related legislation.
This comes as no surprise, as Vance recently attributed America’s educational challenges to transgender inclusion, alleging that teachers are too occupied with “radical ideas” about gender to focus on fundamental academics. He also opposed the federal Respect for Marriage Act and, last year, refused to confirm U.S. foreign ambassadors, claiming they lacked sufficient opposition to LGBTQ+ rights. Additionally, Vance introduced Senate legislation aimed at banning gender-affirming care for trans youth and limiting access for trans adults.
Sen. Vance’s close alignment with Donald Trump—who worked to dismantle LGBTQ+ rights during his first term—further underscores his adversarial stance toward LGBTQ+ people.
Other senators who scored zero on the HRC report include Mitt Romney (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Marco Rubio (R-FL). In the House, members receiving zeros included Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Jim Jordan (R-OH), James Comer (R-KY), Greg Steube (R-FL), Dan Bishop (R-NC), and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who is noted for his outspoken anti-LGBTQ+ positions.
Interestingly, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), despite her frequent opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, scored an 8 for supporting HRC’s position on four bills—having voted against larger spending bills containing anti-LGBTQ+ measures. However, the report did not analyze her reasons for these votes.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, 217 members of Congress scored 100, demonstrating a full commitment to advancing LGBTQ+ rights and countering anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. Among those with perfect scores were senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), John Fetterman (D-PA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and Laphonza Butler (D-CA), the first Black lesbian to serve in the Senate. Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) scored a 93, as she missed two votes and did not co-sponsor specific anti-discrimination bills.
In the House, representatives like Adam Schiff (D-CA), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) achieved scores of 100. Every out LGBTQ+ House member also received a perfect score. Former Rep. George Santos (R-NY) was excluded from the scorecard due to his expulsion before completing his term.
Steny Hoyer, celebrating his perfect score, highlighted Congress’s duty to combat discrimination, especially against LGBTQ+ Americans facing hostility from MAGA Republicans. “I will continue to work with Democrats to advocate for LGBTQ+ Americans and their rights,” Hoyer stated.
HRC president Kelley Robinson underscored the increasing attacks on LGBTQ+ inclusion in Congress, condemning the addition of anti-LGBTQ+ measures to key legislation. She also noted the success of organizers in blocking over 100 anti-LGBTQ+ riders. “With a record-high 75 million Equality Voters nationwide, informed voting and representation matter now more than ever,” Robinson affirmed, emphasizing the LGBTQ+ community’s resilience and the Senate’s critical role in protecting rights against extreme measures from the House.
For decades, LGBTQ+ rights have been leveraged as a tool to mobilize conservative voters.
LGBTQ+ ballot initiatives have often served as a wedge issue to galvanize conservative voters, impacting freedoms typically protected by the government. The 2024 election continues this trend, with November marking another instance of LGBTQ+ civil rights being subject to public debate.
In New York, voters will decide whether to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in the state constitution’s anti-discrimination amendment. Additionally, reproductive rights will also be on the ballot in ten states.
Voters in California, Colorado, and Hawaii will determine whether to repeal their states’ constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
Same-sex unions have consistently been a prominent issue in state referendums, with 34 states presenting the question to voters since 1998, many passing constitutional amendments against same-sex partnerships. This tactic was notably used to rally conservative voters in the 2004 election, when 11 states enacted such amendments in support of George W. Bush.
Until 2012, marriage equality lost at the ballot box every time. That year, voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington approved same-sex marriage, following a shift in national public opinion that saw support for same-sex marriage surpass 50% around 2009.
Though the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision in 2015 invalidated all state anti-marriage equality amendments, many remain in state constitutions. Activists are now working to repeal these amendments, especially in light of concerns that the conservative-dominated Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell, as suggested by Justice Clarence Thomas after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
“Saving” the Children
The first state ballot initiative related to LGBTQ+ rights emerged in California during the 1978 election. Proposition 6, known as the Briggs Initiative, aimed to ban individuals engaged in “public homosexual activity” from working in California public schools. It drew national attention and condemnation from then-President Jimmy Carter and then-Governor Ronald Reagan. This initiative reflected a broader trend of states repealing anti-discrimination measures, influenced by Anita Bryant’s successful 1977 campaign in Florida to repeal a local ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. Harvey Milk played a pivotal role in the campaign against Prop 6, which was defeated by a 16-point margin.
Over the years, various state ballot initiatives have sought to either legalize or ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, with voters increasingly favoring anti-discrimination measures. For instance, in 1988, Oregon voters revoked the governor’s authority to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, and in 2018, Massachusetts voters upheld a law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.
Maine and Oregon have frequently put LGBTQ+ rights to a vote. In Maine, voters initially blocked same-sex marriage in 2009 but approved it in 2012, both times with 53% of the vote. Anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in Maine were denied by referendum in 1998 and 2000 but were later approved in 2005. In Oregon, voters defeated a “don’t say gay” measure in 2000 by a 5.7% margin.
The concept of recognizing sexual orientation as a protected identity has also been subject to multiple votes, often as a conservative strategy to prevent the inclusion of “homosexuality” in anti-discrimination ordinances. In the 1990s, voters in Oregon, Idaho, and Maine supported allowing sexual orientation to be a protected identity.
Additionally, ballot-driven voter ID laws in states like Arkansas and North Carolina may hinder voting access for transgender individuals and other marginalized members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Regardless of the specific ballot measures, the state representatives elected this year will greatly influence LGBTQ+ rights. Legislatures controlled by Republican officials have introduced or passed numerous anti-LGBTQ+ bills in recent years, targeting issues such as gender-affirming health care, bathroom access, accurate IDs, inclusive education, and participation in sports. Supporting pro-equality candidates at both the state and local levels will have long-lasting effects on these laws.
Vote Like Your Rights Depend on It
Civil rights for various groups have been subject to public referendum numerous times since 1868, similar to questions regarding the legality of discrimination based on race, sex, and disability. Initially, voters supported discriminatory measures, but over time, support for equal rights has increased. Women’s rights gained traction in the 1970s, while support for LGBTQ+ rights began to emerge in the 2000s.
The determination of civil rights is increasingly influenced by courts and legislatures, which are becoming more conservative. The notion that constitutional rights can be dictated by public opinion has permitted racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination to become codified into law.
Public opinion on LGBTQ+ rights, particularly for LGB and transgender individuals, remains conflicted and volatile. While the majority currently supports anti-discrimination laws, relying on ballot measures is not a guaranteed path to securing rights.
As LGBTQ+ rights are again on the ballot, it is crucial to vote this year—both on referendums concerning LGBTQ+ rights and for candidates who can promote pro-equality legislation.
Police in Roseville, California, are searching for three suspects in connection with a hate crime at a Blaze Pizza restaurant, where workers were assaulted after one suspect tore down a Pride flag on display. The assault was captured on a smartphone video.
The incident took place at 10:50 p.m. on a Thursday when a food delivery driver entered the restaurant, noticed the Pride flag near the register, and threw it to the ground. When the store manager and employees confronted him, the man allegedly used a homophobic slur before leaving. He later returned with two other men, who then attacked the restaurant staff.
Haters yelled obscenties, sent a threatening letter, and vandalized their Pride flag and political signs. But the reaction has emboldened the targeted men.
A witness named Chance Chacon told KCRA that the manager and employee had defended the flag’s display, but then, when the three assailants returned, “It was like a mob. They were just kind of swinging at him.”
A video captured inside the restaurant shows one worker repeatedly shouting at the assailants, “Get the f**k out of here!” while another employee urges a co-worker to “Call the cops.”
The three men fled the scene before police arrived, but an ambulance later transported one employee on a stretcher. This worker was taken to the hospital, where he was briefly treated for a concussion and head trauma but has since been released.
A still image from the footage shows a shoeless, light-skinned suspect wearing a torn dark-colored t-shirt and hand wraps commonly used in mixed martial arts.
Police have asked for the public’s help in identifying the assailants involved in the September 20 incident. Anyone with information can submit an anonymous tip online or contact their non-emergency line at 916-774-5000.
Ruby Shields, a lesbian who owns a restaurant in the nearby town of Granite Bay, told The SacramentoBee that she doesn’t consider the area LGBTQ+ friendly. She has been too scared to display a rainbow flag at her own restaurant, and is often mistaken as the wife of her male business partner, even though she has a wife.
“We’ve been looked at with respect, but it’s always on the back of your mind, you know, ‘Should I be saying this?’” Shields said of not knowing whether to come out to restaurant patrons. “It’s not even something that I really even want to put out there because you never know. I mean, it’s horrible that it’s so close to home. Roseville is right down the street from where we’re at.”
This wouldn’t be the first time that an anti-LGBTQ+ person has committed violence in California after tearing down a Pride flag. Last August, Travis Ikeguchi — a 27-year-old man who posted anti-LGBTQ+, antisemitic, anti-vaccination Christian Nationalist content online — murdered Laura Ann Carleton, a 66-year-old LGBTQ+ ally and mother of nine, complained about the Pride flag hanging in front of her Cedar Glen, California business.
Police killed Ikeguchi shortly afterward.
Paul Feig — the director of Bridesmaids, Ghostbusters (2016), and other films — wrote, “We are all devastated for her husband Bort and her family and the LGBTQ+ community, for whom Lauri was such a true ally…. This intolerance has to end. Anyone using hateful language against the LGBTQ+ community has to realize their words matter, that their words can inspire violence against innocent loving people. Let’s all keep moving forward with tolerance and love. Let’s not let Lauri’s tragic death be in vain.”
Carleton’s friend, director Paul Feig, wrote of the incident, “Lauri Carleton was my friend. She was a wonderful person who did so much for the LGBTQ+ community as well as the community at large. What happened to her is an absolute tragedy. If people don’t think anti-gay & trans rhetoric isn’t dangerous, think again.”
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nationnewsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
In recent weeks, as awareness of Project 2025 has grown, Donald Trump has attempted to distance himself from this concerning set of policies, developed by the far-right, anti-LGBTQ+ Heritage Foundation, for a potential second term. On July 6, Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, claiming he knew nothing about Project 2025. He said he disagrees with some of its proposals and considers others “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”
Given Trump’s well-documented history of dishonesty and misinformation, it’s hard to take his claims about Project 2025 at face value. This plan, among other radical proposals to reshape the federal government in a far-right, Christian nationalist image, includes efforts to dismantle federal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Related:
Trump attempts to distance himself from Project 2025—the far right’s agenda for a second term.
Biden recently condemned the plan, which is closely tied to several former Trump officials.
However, even if we were to take Trump’s word on Project 2025, his own proposed agenda for a second term remains equally troubling for LGBTQ+ Americans.
The Trump campaign has outlined many of its anti-LGBTQ+ plans under “Agenda 47” on its website, including videos of Trump detailing his proposals. Among these plans, Trump promises to pass a federal law banning what he calls “child sexual mutilation” (despite gender-affirming surgeries rarely being performed on minors) and to push Congress to permanently halt federal funding for such procedures.
He also vows to seek a congressional bill defining genders as strictly male and female, assigned at birth, and to instruct the Department of Education to enforce severe consequences on states and school districts if any teacher suggests to a child that they might be in the wrong body. This could include potential civil rights violations for sex discrimination and loss of federal funding.
Additionally, Trump pledges to eliminate federal DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, which he inaccurately describes as enforcing “racist and woke sexual ideology” throughout the federal government.
His “Plan to Save American Education and Give Power Back to Parents” includes cutting federal funding for schools or programs promoting Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, or other content he deems inappropriate. It also proposes adopting a “Parental Bill of Rights” for full curriculum transparency and keeping men out of women’s sports.
This is merely the beginning. As noted by many observers, Trump would enter a second term with a much stronger position to implement his far-right, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-democratic agenda. Whether it’s through Project 2025, Agenda 47, or a combination of both, the consequences would be dire
During the traffic stop, an officer documented that Republican state Rep. Nico Rios became “verbally abusive, displaying homophobic, racially discriminatory behavior.
Recently, North Dakota state Rep. Nico Rios, a member of the Republican party, was arrested for DUI, and during the arrest, he reportedly made homophobic and xenophobic comments to the police.
On December 15, authorities arrested Nico Rios and issued citations for DUI, DUI refusal, and an open container, according to a Williston Police Department report.
The representative was pulled over around 11:30 p.m. after reportedly swerving between lanes, as stated in the report.
The police officers who initiated the stop then administered a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, Walk and Turn test, and One-Leg-Stand test. During these tests, Rios allegedly exhibited “slurred speech and difficulty constructing sentences,” as outlined in the report.
In the report, one of the police officers noted that during the testing, Rios became.
An officer reported that Rios became “verbally abusive, homophobic, racially abusive, and discriminatory” during the tests, leading to his arrest when he refused to undergo a screening test.
“Irrespective of my state of inebriation, my conduct and words toward law enforcement that night were entirely unacceptable,” Rios stated in a comment to CNN. “Just two officers doing their job to keep the community safe when they encountered me on a night when I chose to act foolishly. They did nothing to warrant any form of disrespect. I owe it to myself, my district, and everyone, and I vow to ensure this never happens again.”
In the body camera footage released of the incident, Rios can be seen making the remarks while being transported to jail.
At the traffic stop, Rios can be heard using a homophobic slur and asking the officer about his accent. The officer responds that he is originally from England.
“You’re arresting me for driving home while people come into your country and rape your women? And I’m the bad guy?” Rios says after mentioning that the U.K. is being “taken over” by migrants.
Rios stated to the Associated Press that he was leaving a Christmas party before he was stopped and has “only received support from my colleagues, although a few have yelled at me, for sure I deserved it.”
The legislator was elected last year and currently serves on the House Judiciary Committee, a panel overseeing legislation related to law enforcement.
“Moving forward after this incident, I want to emphasize my complete and total commitment to supporting law enforcement,” Rios stated. “I messed up big time, and I am truly sorry.”
Republican House Majority Leader Mike Lefor stated to the AP that he hadn’t watched the video but had heard sufficient details about it.
He mentioned that he is assessing the available options and plans to have a discussion with Rios before providing further comments on the incident. Lefor didn’t disclose whether he had already requested Rios’s resignation.
“We are profoundly concerned about Rep. Rios’ reckless choice to drive under the influence and his comments to law enforcement officers,” stated North Dakota Republican Party Chairwoman Sandi Sanford in a text message to the news wire. “His actions do not reflect the values of the NDGOP.”
Rios is scheduled for a pretrial conference in municipal court on February 5th.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.