India’s Supreme Court is expected to issue a closely watched constitutional ruling that could shape the future of LGBTQ+ rights litigation. 

The decision will determine whether courts can continue to rely on the doctrine of constitutional morality, a principle that has underpinned several landmark rights decisions. During hearings in April, the Indian government urged the Supreme Court to reject the doctrine, arguing that it has no basis in the Constitution and should not guide judicial decision-making.

For years, the Supreme Court has relied on the constitutional morality doctrine to treat the Constitution as a living document: one whose enduring promises of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity must be applied to the realities of a changing society rather than remain frozen in the era in which it was written.

The Indian government in April asked the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutional reasoning behind two landmark judgments: one that struck down the country’s adultery law and another that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations, arguing that both relied on a subjective invocation of constitutional morality and should no longer be treated as good law.

Arguing before a 9-judge bench considering constitutional questions referred from the Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala temple case, which allowed women of menstruating age to enter one of Hinduism’s holiest shrines after a centuries-old ban, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, India’s second-highest law officer, argued that “constitutional morality” has no textual basis in the Constitution and is instead a judicially evolved concept that is vague and indeterminate.

Mehta said the government did not oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 497 of the Indian penal code, which criminalized adultery, if it was based on Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Instead, he argued that the court should not have relied on what he described as the “vague and subjective” doctrine of constitutional morality to reach its conclusion.

Mehta told the Supreme Court that its 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ruling that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations wrongly equated “morality” with majoritarian or mob morality while relying on constitutional morality as the basis for its reasoning.

To support his argument against relying on constitutional morality, Mehta quoted extensively from then-Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas. 

Scalia argued that courts should not import foreign legal trends or allow evolving social values to drive constitutional interpretation, contending that judges must remain neutral arbiters rather than participants in broader cultural debates.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Navtej Singh Johar and Joseph Shine, Mehta questioned whether the judgments reflected the constitutional vision of India’s founding generation. 

“If these judgments, Navtej Johar, Joseph Shine, etc., were to be read by Dr. Ambedkar or Kanhaiyalal Munshi or Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, I do not know whether they would be surprised, shocked or they would say that this is what we wanted. I believe, they did not want this to happen,” he told the bench.

“A new trend starts, which is Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi,” Mehta said. “This is the judgment of Delhi High Court which was ultimately affirmed in Navtej Johar, sodomy … ‘In our scheme of things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view.’ In case of a country governed by democratic principles, the view which is always majoritarian will prevail. When it is question of testing a law, it is always the majority which passes the law. How can you define morality based on this?”

The Naz Foundation case marked the beginning of a landmark constitutional challenge to Section 377 of the Indian penal code, a colonial-era provision that criminalized consensual same-sex relations between adults as “against the order of nature.” The public interest litigation, filed in 2001 by the Naz Foundation, an NGO working on HIV/AIDS and sexual health, argued that the law violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 

In 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled in the organization’s favor, holding that Section 377 violated the rights to equality under Article 14, protection against discrimination under Article 15, and life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling was short-lived. 

In 2013, the Supreme Court, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation overturned the decision, recriminalizing homosexuality under Section 377. 

The court held that the law affected only a “minuscule fraction” of the population and said it was for Parliament — not the judiciary — to decide whether the provision should remain on the statute books. Five years later, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench in Navtej Singh Johar, unanimously overruled its 2013 judgment, holding that Section 377 was unconstitutional. The decision marked the culmination of the Naz Foundation’s long legal challenge to the colonial-era provision.

Anish Gawande, the first openly gay person to serve as a national spokesperson for a major political party in India, the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar), told the Los Angeles Blade that the doctrine of constitutional morality, which he said underpinned not only Navtej Singh Johar but also forms one of the foundational principles of India’s constitutional jurisprudence, is “an incredibly important concept.”

“It provides a moral backbone to the document in a way that prevents any amendments to the Constitution from being out into place that would violate the very ethos upon which the Constitution was framed,” Gawande said. “Constitutional morality is an incredibly important antidote to societal morality. It’s been what has allowed us to clamp down on things like dowry. It’s been something that has allowed us to bar even regressive religious practices that might go against human dignity. It’s also been an incredibly important framework that has allowed for the advancement of LGBTQ rights in opposition to arguments made by practitioners and leaders of various religious denominations about the societal immorality of queerness.” 

“The most critical part of constitutional morality, which is a doctrine that has been put in place by the courts, is that it is a very effective bulwark against majoritarianism and the unilateral diktat of the executive over the judiciary and, in some ways, also the legislature,” he added.

Gawande said those factors make constitutional morality “an incredibly important concept” in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. 

If the Supreme Court were ultimately to narrow or reject the doctrine, he said, judgments that have relied on constitutional morality, including the landmark Navtej Singh Johar ruling could come under renewed scrutiny. He added, however, that he did not believe the Supreme Court would take that step because it would run contrary to its own institutional interests.

Gawande said the government has advanced several reasons for challenging the doctrine of constitutional morality. One of them, he said, is that the solicitor general has opposed the doctrine in cases involving religious issues, arguing that courts should not rely on it in constitutional adjudication. 

“The downward repercussions of this, however, could extend to LGBTQ rights and to the rights of all sorts of persecuted minorities in the future,” he said.

“The second thing is that, in principle, the section 377 judgment, of course, rests upon constitutional morality, but it is also resting upon so many other fundamental rights, including the right to privacy that Puttuswamy upheld before the Navtej Singh Johar verdict,” Gawande added. “In Navtej, the right to privacy was also cited as an incredibly important condition upon which the decriminalization of ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ could be permitted. In many ways, the fact that Section 377 does not exist on the statute books at all in the present updated penal codes, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, provides some respite. The entry of Section 377, at least immediately after a reading down of constitutional morality, is not imminent yet. However, it opens the door for a new Section 377 to be introduced and the judicial mechanism available to counter that new section 377, if it were to be introduced, to be reduced significantly.”

Ankit Bhupatani, an LGBTQ+ activist, said he does not believe the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of constitutional morality would lead to the recriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations. 

He argued the 2018 Navtej Singh Johar decision rests on multiple constitutional principles beyond constitutional morality, but warned that weakening the doctrine could make it more difficult to secure future LGBTQ+ rights through the courts.

“If we have to take an informed guess on why the government does not like the concept of constitutional morality, it is because it wants a narrower field of judicial review and an elected legislature restored as the primary author of social policy,” Bhupatani said. “But we have already seen parliament’s ability to make laws related to LGBT rights, and it does not give optimism.” 

“The only practical way forward for LGBT rights in India is the judiciary,” he added. “But if the government’s argument is accepted by the Supreme Court, it means the next gay Indian who walks into a court for marriage, for adoption, for inheritance, or for a job they were fired from, finds it more difficult to secure these rights from the only institution from which we could hope for a positive outcome.”

Bhupatani said the decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations would probably survive because the Navtej Singh Johar judgment also rests on the constitutional principles of privacy and equality. However, he warned that weakening the doctrine of constitutional morality could stall broader progress for LGBTQ+ rights. 

“The community keeps the floor and loses the staircase,” he said. “Nobody is criminalized, but nobody moves up.”

“The clever thing about this is that it lets the government have it both ways. To its so-called base, who think that making the law, especially on social issues, is the work of elected parliamentarians and not judges,” said Bhupatani. “It signals that the 2018 verdict was a judicial overreach that ought never to have happened. To everyone else, truthfully, that it never asked to recriminalize anyone. Both messages, one filing.”

Bhupatani said the implications of the government’s position extend beyond LGBTQ+ rights, arguing that asking the Supreme Court to treat the reasoning in Navtej Singh Johar as “not good law” raises broader questions about India’s commitment to constitutional rights. He said such a move could also affect how India’s constitutional democracy is perceived internationally.

Advocacy groups have joined the relief efforts in Venezuela after two back-to-back earthquakes devastated large swaths of the country on June 24.

The magnitude 7.2 and 7.5 earthquakes caused widespread damage in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, and elsewhere in the country.

Officials in the South American country say the earthquakes killed more than 4,500 people and left more than 16,000 others injured. La Guaira state on Venezuela’s Caribbean coast in which the country’s main international airport is located is one of the hardest hit areas.

Yonatan Matheus, a Venezuelan LGBTQ+ rights activist who currently lives in the U.S., was born and raised in La Guaira.

He wrote on his website that relatives and close friends who still live in the state have lost their homes. Matheus in his post that the Los Angeles Blade published on Monday also said the earthquakes killed two gay men he knew.

“Their names reminded me that behind every statistic lie stories, personal bonds, and life plans,” he wrote. “They also made me think of all those people whose lives and deaths are unlikely to make headlines — especially those who lived on the margins for years, with little visibility and without full recognition of their dignity.”

“They reminded me that emergencies never affect everyone equally,” added Matheus. “Those already facing greater vulnerability often bear an even heavier burden during the recovery process.”

The earthquakes struck less than six months after American forces seized then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their home in Caracas during an overnight operation.

Maduro and Flores on Jan. 5 pleaded not guilty to federal drug charges in New York. The Venezuelan National Assembly the day before swore in Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s vice president, as the country’s acting president.

Hugo Chávez died in 2013, and Maduro succeeded him as Venezuela’s president. Subsequent economic and political crises prompted millions of Venezuelans to leave the country.

Rodríguez has faced criticism over the Venezuelan government’s response to the earthquakes.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation Latin America Bureau Chief Patricia Campos in a message she sent to Michael Weinstein, the group’s president, on June 29 described the government’s response as “uncoordinated, poor, and delayed, influenced by political interests.”

“The number of fatalities continues to rise, and many shelters have been set up in public spaces to help those in need,” said Campos. “Hospitals and morgues are working tirelessly beyond their capacity, demonstrating the community’s resilience. Fortunately, international rescue teams have arrived, offering much-needed assistance to recover those still trapped in the debris.”

AHF has clinics in Cúcuta, a Colombian city that is a few miles from the country’s border with Venezuela, and elsewhere in Colombia.

Campos told Weinstein that AHF Colombia “has been communicating with” more than half of the 1,080 “of our patients in care who live in Venezuela.” Campos also noted AHF relief supplies arrived in Venezuela with the 11/13 Foundation, another NGO, and they had been distributed.

New York-based AID FOR AIDS International, an HIV/AIDS service organization that works in Venezuela, has launched an earthquake relief fund.

The Venezuela Earthquake Emergency Relief Fund has thus far raised $55,893.39. It hopes to raise $250,000.

“All donations will go directly to our network of local partners on the ground in Venezuela, who are working to assess the most urgent needs and provide emergency support to affected communities — including but not limited to medicines, food, water, and shelter,” says AID FOR AIDS International.

The group adds “the scale of destruction is the greatest challenge.”

“La Guaira has been catastrophically damaged, and Caracas continues to deteriorate — with looting, businesses closing due to insecurity, widespread power outages, and hospitals overwhelmed with injured patients but critically lacking supplies,” it says. “Reaching affected communities quickly and safely is not easy under these conditions.”

“Our challenge is immediacy,” added AID FOR AIDS International, which is working with its colleagues in Venezuela and students at the country’s Universidad Central de Venezuela who are part of the relief efforts. “Through the strategic partnerships we have already established with trusted organizations on the ground in Venezuela, we are positioned to mobilize resources directly and efficiently, ensuring that every dollar reaches the families in the affected areas.”

Other groups, such as Venezolanos en Barranquilla, which is based in the Colombian city of Barranquilla, have also joined the relief effort.

Barranquilla Vice President Juan Carlos Viloria in an interview with the Washington Post accused the Venezuelan government of “systematic negligence” by restricting “access to the most affected zones.” Venezolanos en Barranquilla nevertheless continues to work with the Catholic Church and other NGOs to mobilize rescue workers and to facilitate the distribution of food, water, generators, and other items in La Guaira and Caracas.

“Despite this situation, we are continuing to do everything for our people,” Viloria told the Blade last week.

Mexico’s first openly gay mayor was killed last week.

Media reports indicate former Fresnillo Mayor Benjamín Medrano was shot to death on July 7 inside an ice cream store in Guadalajara, the country’s second-largest city that is located in Jalisco state.

Fresnillo is a city in Zacatecas state.

Medrano, 59, in 2013 became Mexico’s first openly gay mayor. He represented Zacatecas’s First Federal Electoral District in the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the Mexican Congress, from 2015-2018.

Medrano in 2017 was among the elected officials from across Latin America and the Caribbean who attended a conference in the Dominican Republic that focused on bolstering LGBTQ+ and intersex political engagement in the region. The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute is among the groups that organized the gathering.

Medrano after he left office faced accusations that he embezzled more than 60 million pesos ($3,443,101.20) in public funds when he was president of the Zacatecas National Fair’s Board of Trustees.

La Voz de Fresnillo, a Fresnillo newspaper, reported Medrano did not have any identification with him when he was shot. A relative identified him two days later.

State and federal authorities have not announced a potential motive. They have also not made any arrests in connection with Medrano’s murder.

Anti-LGBTQ+ violence and kidnappings are commonplace in Mexico.

A gay couple from the U.S. were among four people found dead in a mass grave outside Mexico City last month.

Members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in February set fire to cars and buses in Puerto Vallarta, a resort city in Jalisco state that is a popular destination for LGBTQ+ tourists from the U.S., after Mexican forces killed its powerful leader.

Puerto Vallarta is roughly 180 miles west of Guadalajara.

Uncloseted Media published this article on July 14.

By HOPE PISONI | Jordan Korgood has come a long way. In 2023, she ran into financial difficulties while studying at Northeastern University in Boston and ended up unhoused. Ordinary shelters are hotbeds of discrimination and mistreatment for transgender women like her, and the only trans shelter was full. So for five months, she slept in her car, in public libraries and anywhere she could find in order to continue her studies and campus activism.

Korgood, now 24, started a bid in March for a seat on Massachusetts Governor’s Council, a state board tasked with approving judicial candidates. Despite running against an incumbent who has been in office for 41 years, she secured key endorsements from local Democrats and racked up more than 7,000 Instagram followers, the equivalent of nearly one-tenth of primary voters during the last election cycle.

But last month, her momentum was ripped away. It started when Ronald Iacobucci, one of her opponents, noticed that she was still registered to vote in the 2024 election with an old New York address. He proceeded to file an objection with the state, alleging that Korgood didn’t meet the five-year residency requirement. While Korgood has lived in Massachusetts since 2019, she didn’t have a valid address to register in the state while she was unhoused. So she used her mother’s address, where she had lived before moving.

In an email to Uncloseted Media, Iacobucci wrote: “Because serious questions have arisen concerning compliance with those requirements, an objection was appropriate so the matter can be reviewed through the lawful process established by the commonwealth. This objection was nothing personal, it was always about the integrity of the process.”

While most residency challenges like this fail in Massachusetts, the State Ballot Law Commission disqualified Korgood on June 18. While she initially attempted to appeal the decision, the financial and logistical burden became too much — she estimates it drained about 40 percent of her campaign funds. So on July 10, Korgood suspended her campaign.

“I am incredibly frustrated that this is what I have to do at this point,” Korgood told Uncloseted Media. “I’ve spent thousands of hours, I’ve sacrificed my own mental health, my social life, friendships, my professional aspirations and advancement to work on this campaign, and this is how they’re ruling.”

“These are cherry-picking remote issues to target specific individuals,” Eliot Tracz, assistant professor of law at New England Law Boston, told Uncloseted Media. “They’re legitimate laws, but what they’re looking for is a selective application.”

Korgood isn’t the only trans candidate facing barriers. While a 2025 report by the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute found that trans representation among elected officials has increased by over 700 percent since 2017, candidates still face major hurdles.

Uncloseted Media found examples of trans candidates running for public office in Ohio and Michigan who have been threatened with disqualification over challenges to their eligibility. Often, the challenges come from their primary opponents: fellow Democrats.

“It should be voters, not political opponents, who decide who represents them,” Daniel Hernandez, vice president of political programs at the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, a nonprofit supporting queer candidates for public office, told Uncloseted Media. “This is not a legitimate way to fight — if you have a disagreement on policy, that’s one thing, but to try and target trans people just because of who they are is completely unacceptable, especially in a Democratic primary.”

A growing strategy

The first widely publicized eligibility challenge against a trans candidate Uncloseted Media identified took place in Stark County, Ohio, in 2024. The Stark County Board of Elections, which has the same chairman as the county’s Democratic Party, disqualified Vanessa Joy, a trans woman who was running for a seat in the state legislature. The board cited an obscure state law requiring candidates who changed their name in the last five years to list their former name on candidacy petitions — in Joy’s case, her deadname.

“The original spirit of the law I kind of agree with,” Joy told Uncloseted Media. “But there’s hardly any information about this law ever being enforced.”

Days later, Arienne Childrey and Bobbie Arnold, two other trans candidates, had their eligibility challenged based on this law. While both candidates were cleared to run, that wasn’t the case for Joy, who never made it on the ballot.

Tom Sutton, a political science professor at Baldwin Wallace University, told Spectrum News 1 he had never seen this law enforced in his 30 years of study. At the time, the relevant forms didn’t include a space to list former names, an omission that has since been corrected.

“The only way to find out about it was to dig deep into all of the additional documents on their website,” says Joy. “They used this law against me.”

Similar challenges cropped up in Michigan this year. Joanna Whaley, a trans woman running for a seat in the state legislature, faced a legal complaint from her Democratic primary opponent Frank Liberati, who claimed in April that she should have filed campaign paperwork under her deadname.

“Because both the original and amended affidavits of identity filed by ‘Joanna Michelle Whaley’ contain FALSE statements, she/he cannot be certified to appear on the Aug. 4, 2026, primary election ballot,” the complaint argues.

The county clerk denied the challenge, which deadnames Whaley, because she had legally changed her name. Liberati’s complaint was widely condemned, with the Michigan Legislative LGBTQ+ Caucus calling it “meritless” and “transphobic.”

“It completely backfired on him,” Whaley told Uncloseted Media. “We tripled our cash on hand within a week because of the support that we’ve gotten from our community, and actually are in a stronger position now to win this race.”

While Whaley benefited from the challenge, that’s not the norm. Toni Mua, a trans woman running for a seat in the Michigan legislature, received a complaint from political activist Robert Davis in April who alleged that she also should have run under her deadname.

One of Mua’s opponents, Democrat Arthur Harrington, had discussed the challenge with Davis before it was filed, according to DeNiro Jones, Harrington’s former campaign manager. Jones told Uncloseted Media he sat in on a meeting between the two where they discussed the plan.

Jones also sent Uncloseted Media a screenshot of what he says is a text thread that Harrington sent him. In the screenshot, Davis tells Harrington, “The transgender candidate will be eliminated,” and Harrington responds that “Toni also won’t have the money to fight it.” Those texts were from April 22, two days before Davis filed the challenge.

In an email to Uncloseted Media, Davis called this story “baseless and meritless” and referred to Mua as “an illegitimate candidate seeking attention.”

“A candidate who happens to identify as transgender clearly violated Michigan Election Law and should not have been allowed to appear on the ballot,” Davis wrote. “A person’s sexual orientation nor identity played no part in the litigation seeking to have the person who filed a false affidavit of identity properly removed from the ballot.”

Arthur Harrington did not reply to multiple requests for comment. But in a June statement to Michigan Advance, he denied allegations that he was involved in Davis’s challenge.

These legal fights cost a lot. Korgood paid her lawyer $5,000. And while Mua defeated her challenge, she also had to use an estimated 40 percent of her campaign funds, or $10,000, to fight it.

In its opinion rejecting Davis’s challenge of Mua’s candidacy, the state court of appeals wrote, “Plaintiff misreads the statute … The Court of Claims did not err by concluding that Mua complied with the law or that the Wayne County Clerk did not err in rejecting plaintiff’s challenge.”

“I had to leave my job to run for this open seat,” Mua told Uncloseted Media. “It truly pisses me off, because [Democrats] have always said that they were better than this, and it’s showing truly where their support lies.”

Quinn Allred, executive director at Let Us Lead, a youth-focused voting rights nonprofit, finds these eligibility challenges from Democrats “despicable.”

“Instead of saying ‘trans people shouldn’t be running,’ [they’re entering] into this respectability politics and saying ‘oh, it’s actually because the names don’t match up, or it’s because of this residency law,’” Allred told Uncloseted Media. “[It’s a] special brand of cowardice that it takes for a Democrat to target a queer person who is also running for office.”

Uneven enforcement

While challenges to candidates’ residency aren’t uncommon in Massachusetts, they usually fail, according to Western Mass Politics & Insight, a long-running blog by local political and legal analysts.

The blog says most officials with authority over elections have a “great reluctance … to remove an individual from the ballot.” This makes Korgood’s removal unusual.

And while the State Ballot Law Commission says it considers many factors when determining a candidate’s residency and “no factor standing alone can be dispositive,” it largely cited Korgood’s voter registration in its decision despite other evidence that supports her eligibility, including apartment leases and membership in city programs.

“While there’s an undertone of legitimacy to some of those claims, it’s very selective,” Tracz says. “Most of us, when we move to a new state, don’t bother to go through the process of getting rid of our registration to vote in the prior state.”

Throughout history, Massachusetts candidates who faced similar challenges have been left on the ballot. These include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who received a tax credit in Utah reserved for primary residences, and Brockton, Mass., mayoral candidate Hamilton Rodrigues, who had gotten his voter registration in Brockton removed and hadn’t voted in the city for over 10 years.

Months after Joy’s disqualification in Ohio, the Mahoning County Board of Elections struck down a similar challenge against Republican Tex Fischer, a cisgender man who changed his legal name. They allowed him to stay on the ballot.

Tracz says a judge would likely find selective enforcement like this questionable.

“[That rule is] applicable to any candidate, and the question then becomes ‘Is this only being enforced against a select group of candidates?’” he says. “Why are we only investigating a specific type of candidate? I think that will give some courts pause.”

Making existing challenges worse

Trans candidates face hurdles beyond eligibility challenges. A June report from the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute found that nearly two-thirds of LGBTQ+ candidates face in-person harassment and nearly 80 percent of them face online harassment.

“Whether it’s threats of violence, coordinated harassment campaigns, attempts to remove people from the ballot, the cumulative effect is the same: public service becoming more difficult and less accessible to the LGBTQ community,” says Hernandez of the Victory Fund.

Whaley says the increased attention from Liberati’s challenge brought even more harassment her way. She says she reports death threats to the police weekly and has a security detail at every public appearance. Security has become her second-largest campaign expense, and for good reason; in October, her team intervened when a man wearing a Make America Great Again hat followed her around with a gun at a No Kings rally.

“At the end of the day, I want to get home to tuck my kids in bed,” Whaley says. “We could be using that money for other things, but we’re having to use it to just keep me alive.”

Eligibility challenges distract from the candidates’ policies. Childrey remembers one woman telling her she couldn’t vote for her because she’s “only about the rainbow people.”

“Most of what [I’m] talking about is affordability, funding for our public schools … bread and butter issues,” Childrey told Uncloseted Media. “There is an assumption, because we’re trans, that that’s all it is.”

Barriers also pile up intersectionally. Nearly one-third of trans people experience homelessness at some point in their lives, a rate eight times higher than the general population. This means barriers for unhoused people disproportionately affect trans candidates.

“Trans youth, trans people of color, students, those who are unhoused like [Korgood] was, or who are disabled or low-income — those barriers only compound,” Allred says.

What could change?

Zein Murib, a political science professor at Fordham University, says these incidents demonstrate the need for more leniency with official documentation, arguing that a candidate’s deadname or legal sex aren’t relevant information. Today, 45 states accept common-law names, or the name a person uses in everyday life regardless of their ID, for other legal procedures, and Whaley says this should apply to campaigns as well.

Besides these policy changes, Allred says LGBTQ+ advocacy groups should allocate more funds to defend trans candidates from eligibility challenges. And Hernandez says that more people should condemn these tactics and show support for those targeted.

“We need to make sure that we set the expectation that everyone … is rejecting these tactics that are disproportionately burdening our trans candidates,” he says. “We have to call it out when we see it, and we have to make sure that we are not just letting candidates fight these fights themselves.”

Mua says that she doesn’t see a future for herself or other trans people with the Democrats unless the party stands up for them. “I refuse to put myself into a party where I don’t see my safety and protection being vital.”

While Korgood says she is saddened by this outcome, she doesn’t intend for her political career to end.

“I’m incredibly proud of what we were able to accomplish, and while I am beyond disappointed and frustrated that this is how this is ending, I am so grateful that I earned the support and the attention of thousands of people in this race.”

---

Uncloseted Media also reached out to the Stark and Mahoning County Boards of Elections as well as the office of the Secretary of State in Ohio, and the Elections division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under which the State Ballot Law Commission serves. None replied.

by Karen Ocamb and Trudy Ring

After an historic and expensive July 4^th fireworks display capped Donald Trump’s self-indulgent commemoration of America’s 250^th birthday, voters are now watching state races explode into political pyrotechnics as Democrats fight to win majorities in Congress and Republicans plan to keep buying power.

With the midterm elections just over three months away and several primary races still undecided, most pundits predict the decline in Trump’s approval ratings will result in Democrats winning the House, if infighting doesn’t turn off voters.

Democrats’ dream of taking the Senate, however, turned into a nightmare with the scandalous Graham Platner debacle in must-win Maine. Energized party leaders hope to put on a Master Class in democracy as they pick a new candidate before July 27.

The hike to Senate victory is still steep. Republicans have a 53-47 advantage – meaning Democrats must win 8 of 11 competitive races, including defending seats currently held in Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Georgia, for a net gain of four seats.

LGBTQ+ people intent on reversing Project 2025’s prolific erasure might focus on lesbian Rep. Angie Craig’s race in Minnesota.

With the retirement of Democratic Sen. Tina Smith, The Cook Political Report’s out guru Amy Walter labeled the open seat “likely” Democrat but with only a +3-point advantage.

New York Times Polling data reporter Alex Lemonides notes that “Trump lost Minnesota by four percentage points in 2024, and Minnesotans have not sent a Republican to the Senate since the 2002 midterms, so a Republican win in the general election would buck the trend.”

But this whole election cycle is about bucking trends. With so many Democratic Socialists defeating Establishment candidates, “socialist” is no longer a slur, forcing Trump to switch to the old Cold War charge of Communist!

In Minnesota, Bernie Sanders-backed candidate Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan is out-polling Craig, a more centrist Democrat who flipped a battleground House seat in 2018. Their primary is on August 11.

Republicans are salivating over challenging Flanagan for her administrative role in the scandal that forced Gov. Tim Walz to forgo a third term and deal with widespread fraud in social programs.

Former NBC’s Sunday Night Football sideline reporter and current political podcaster Michele Tafoya has a built-in “bro” audience. The announcement of her Republican candidacy was featured on ESPN.com.

“As Minnesota’s senator, I will clean up the system, fighting corruption, ending the fraud, and protecting your tax dollars,” Tafoya said. “I will protect what’s fair and safe, standing with our law enforcement officers, deporting dangerous criminals, and keeping female sports for female athletes.”

Craig responded quickly. “Trump’s hand-picked candidate just jumped in the race for US Senate,” she said on social media. “Minnesota needs a Senator who will stand up and fight for our state – and we know it won’t be MAGA Michele.”

Craig tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters that she has been happy to represent Minnesota’s Second Congressional District in the U.S. House since 2019. Now she wants to represent the entire state as a U.S. senator.

“The state of Minnesota has been so good to me and my family,” says Craig, who chose to move to the state because it would accept her family.

Craig grew up in a mobile home park in Arkansas, one of three children of a single mother. She worked her way through the University of Memphis, earning a degree in journalism, and became a reporter with the Memphis Commercial Appeal.

She has a long history of fighting for LGBTQ+ rights, including her own. In the late 1990s, while living in Tennessee, Craig and her then-partner, Debra Langston, adopted their first son, Joshua. Under Tennessee law at the time, only one of them could be recognized as an adoptive parent; Craig was listed as Langston’s roommate.

The birth mother wanted the couple to have Joshua, but her parents intervened, seeking to adopt him. The courts had to decide if Langston and Craig were “fit” parents. One appellate court judge objected to the boy being raised by “open, practicing lesbians,” but his two colleagues disagreed, and Langston and Craig won the precedent-setting case in 2000, albeit with lots of caveats.

“The issue in this case is not whether the members of this court approve the homosexual lifestyle or the adoption of children by homosexuals, but rather whether the adoption of this child by this prospective parent is in the child’s best interest. As in any adoption case, the determinative issue was and remains what is in the child’s best interest,” wrote Judge Alan E. Highers in his opinion concurring with the majority in ruling In re: ADOPTION OF M.J.S. in the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

By then, Craig was working in corporate communications for Smith & Nephew, a multinational maker of medical equipment, and the couple had another son, Jacob, born to Craig through alternative insemination. She and her family moved to London, where the company was based, in the early 2000s. They returned to the U.S. in 2005; Craig went to work for another medical equipment company, St. Jude Medical, in the suburbs of Minneapolis-St. Paul. She later said it was the least lucrative job offer she had, but she took it because she knew the area was welcoming to LGBTQ+ people.

Craig and Langston separated in 2006, and Craig married Cheryl Greene in California in 2008. They have four sons and three grandsons, with a fourth on the way. Greene is a former middle school teacher still involved with youth programming.

Craig worked for LGBTQ+ equality within her company and for statewide marriage equality in Minnesota. She also fought against an anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment in 2012, which voters rejected. The state legislature passed a marriage equality bill the following year that Gov. Mark Dayton signed into law.

In 2016, when she ran for Congress in Minnesota’s 2^nd District, a Republican stronghold for more than a decade, she told the Twin Cities Pioneer Press that the fight for custody of Joshua gave her strength.

“Whether I win or lose on Election Day, I know that that won’t be the hardest thing or the biggest challenge that I’ve ever faced,” said Craig, then 44. “When you get up every day and wonder, ‘Am I going to (still) have my child the next day?’ you get pretty good at being focused on the big picture.”

“I’ve always talked about my family openly” on the campaign trail and in office, Craig, Co-Chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. Often at events in her district and around the state, she’ll meet someone who mentions they have an LGBTQ+ family member, she notes. She finds that if she listens to constituents and addresses what’s important to them, her identity isn’t an issue.

What Craig has addressed for constituents includes health care costs, such as capping the out-of-pocket cost of insulin and limiting overall out-of-pocket drug costs for people on Medicare. These came from a bill introduced by Craig and became provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022. She also wants a public option for health insurance, an increased child tax credit, and she introduced a bill to eliminate federal taxes on Social Security benefits.

In a June 19 SurveyUSA poll, Minnesotans say their single most important issue is inflation (39%) and cost of living, followed by health care, immigration, gas prices, and the war in Iran.

But immigration may soon jump to the front as more information leaks out about ICE agents shooting and killing Lorenzo Salgado Araujo during a traffic stop in Houston, Texas, on Tuesday morning, July 9. Homeland Security says the father, with no criminal record, driving to work, ignored verbal instructions and tried to ram their vehicle. ICE shot him in self-defense – the same excuse ICE used on January 7th, 2026, when an ICE agent killed nonviolent protester Renee Good. In both instances, video footage proved ICE lied.

Also caught on tape was Craig’s angry confrontation with Republican Majority Whip Tom Emmer on the House floor the day Renee Good was killed after Emmer supported ICE on social media. The story and her response went viral.

But Craig continues to be criticized for voting for the Laken Riley Act, named for a woman who was killed by an undocumented immigrant. It allows for undocumented immigrants to be detained or deported if they are simply accused of crimes, even nonviolent ones. Critics say she has never apologized – but she has.

In a commentary for The Minnesota Star Tribune in May, Craig wrote, in part:

“The text of the bill did not include the word deportation. I made the difficult decision to vote for it. Democrats like Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff — leaders I deeply respect — all came to the same conclusion.

But as I stood side by side with protesters on the streets of Minneapolis and opposite dozens of armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the Whipple Federal Building after Renee Good’s killing — and again after the killing of Alex Pretti — I couldn’t help but question whether I made the right call last year… It’s also become clear that supporting any bill that gives ICE new authority in this administration was the wrong decision. And I regret my vote.”

“What happened under Operation Metro Surge was horrific,” Craig tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. The U.S. can secure its borders in a humane fashion while providing a path to citizenship for undocumented people, those brought here as children, and others, she adds.

On LGBTQ+ rights, Craig says the Equality Act has been a huge priority of hers in the House and would remain so in the Senate.

Since 2019, Craig has introduced The John Lewis Every Child Deserves a Family Act that “would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or marital status in those programs, prohibit the use of federal funds for so-called ‘conversion therapy’ and create a resource center for LGBTQ+ foster and adoptive youth within the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families,” according to a press release.

Another priority is passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for the late civil rights activist and longtime congressman. “I was lucky enough to serve with John Lewis,” she says.

Additionally, Craig supports campaign finance reform. The recent Supreme Court ruling that further loosened restrictions was “just another blow to our democracy,” she says. She supports limits on Supreme Court terms.

On foreign policy, she condemns Trump’s war of choice in Iran. “The administration has had zero strategic objectives,” she says, adding that the war has caused “tremendous economic damage,” such as the spike in gas prices.

And though Craig supports a two-state solution to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict, with Palestinians having their own state, her campaign does not accept direct donations from AIPAC’s political action committee — the pro-Israel group held fundraisers for her before her Senate announcement – another point exploited by primary opponent Flanagan.

On gender-affirming care for trans youth, Craig says politicians should not interfere with decisions made by young people and their parents. Regarding trans girls and women in sports, she says the matter is best handled locally—and that local conversations can foster understanding.

But Craig has had a strong public reaction to federal transphobia. After that, Reps. Tulsi Gabbard and Markwayne Mullin introduced the Protect Women’s Sports Act in December 2020. Craig released the following statement:

“As a lesbian woman, I am no stranger to prejudice and intolerance — but this legislation is beyond the pale. Plain and simple, the Protect Women’s Sports Act is transphobic — and this type of discrimination has no place in the halls of Congress. Especially at a time when the transgender community is suffering from a tragic rise in suicide rates and experiencing a surge of transphobic violence, such a bigoted and appalling effort is simply unacceptable. Queer and transgender women must stand together in the face of intolerance — and I am proud to do so today by emphatically denouncing this narrow-minded and hateful legislation, which is harmful not only to transgender women but to the LGBTQ Community at-large.”

Craig has been endorsed by prominent LGBTQ+ groups, including Victory Fund, the Human Rights Campaign PAC, Equality PAC, and LPAC. She has also been endorsed by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, plus many nationally known political figures, such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Flanagan has the endorsement of Sen. Smith and her predecessor, Al Franken, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and, from outside the state, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, among others. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and the state’s governor, Tim Walz, so far haven’t made endorsements.

“I’m ready on day one” to serve in the Senate, says Craig, noting her four terms in the House, her substantial career before going into politics, and her two votes to impeach Trump. “If we can take the House and Senate, we can put a cap on this administration.”

This is a cross-post from Karen Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.

Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has died, and what he has left behind is a power vacuum for his U.S. Senate seat — and within the Republican Party.

The South Carolina senator had been a major part of Republican politics up until his Saturday death at his home in Washington, reportedly of an aortic dissection related to arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Graham has been a fixture in government at both the state and federal level. He began his political career in the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1992, representing the Palmetto State’s 2nd District before eventually moving to the federal government.

He moved up to Capitol Hill after his 1994 run for the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2003 he stepped across the rotunda to the Senate in 2003 following the retirement of longtime U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond.

He consistently opposed LGBTQ+ rights while alive.

He voted against the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, saying the decision should be left up to state governments, and the 2013 Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

With Graham’s sudden passing, the Republican Party is scrambling to find a replacement who can advance both its goals and those of the president as Republicans’ supermajority in the federal government begins to shrink.

Among those reportedly in the running is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the highest-ranking openly LGBTQ+ federal official in American history and fifth in the presidential line of succession.

Bessent, a South Carolina native, was formerly a supporter of the Democratic Party and donated to several Democratic presidential candidates before switching parties in 2017 following Trump’s election in 2016. He later donated $1 million to Trump’s 2017 presidential inaugural committee.

On Sunday, Bessent was also fielding calls from people asking him to run, according to a person familiar with the communications. A person close to Bessent told Politico that he is not interested in the seat, saying he is happy in his role as Treasury secretary, a position he has long wanted.

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to the Treasury Department for comment, but did not receive a response by publication time.

One of the most anticipated and widely discussed names for the vacant Senate seat is Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette.

Evette is a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump and has gone as far as criticizing Republicans for not supporting the conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Trump also endorsed her gubernatorial campaign, though she ultimately lost to her now-boss, Gov. Henry McMaster.

McMaster has a long history of opposing LGBTQ+ rights.

During an October 2022 gubernatorial debate, McMaster said that if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Obergefell v. Hodges, he would enforce South Carolina’s preexisting law banning same-sex marriage. In 2022, he also signed legislation requiring student athletes from elementary school through college to compete on teams corresponding to the sex listed on their birth certificates.

Other names reportedly being considered include U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who has had a contentious relationship with LGBTQ+ issues during her time in Congress. She began as a supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, becoming one of the few Republicans to publicly support the Respect for Marriage Act, before making a complete about-face as transgender issues became a central part of the Republican Party’s political strategy.

As part of that strategy, Mace introduced a resolution to ban trans women from using female restrooms in the U.S. Capitol, a move she acknowledged was in direct response to the election of U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first out trans person elected to Congress.

In a November 2024 post on X, Mace wrote: “We support gay marriage, and voted for the Respect for Marriage Act twice. However, if you think protecting women is discrimination, you are the problem. We don’t care if you’re trans, if you have balls we don’t want you in the women’s bathroom.”

Two other names being floated are U.S. Rep. Russell Fry, who represents South Carolina’s 7th Congressional District, and U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, who represents the state’s 5th Congressional District.

Trump recommended Graham’s sister, Darline Graham, should serve as the state’s temporary senator in a post on Truth Social on Monday.

“This would be a fabulous tribute to Lindsey, who loved her dearly!” Trump wrote on his social network.

The scramble comes as Republicans hold increasingly narrow majorities over Democrats in both the Senate and House, potentially complicating efforts to advance Trump’s agenda. That agenda includes continuing the war in Iran, securing Todd Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general, and adding $350 billion in defense spending to the SAVE America Act — a controversial proposal deemed a “Jim Crow 2.0” among voting rights advocates.

McMaster is expected to announce Graham’s interim replacement on Monday at 4 p.m. ET.

El 24 de junio de 2026, dos terremotos sacudieron Venezuela y alteraron la vida de miles de personas en cuestión de segundos. Para gran parte del mundo fue una noticia que ocupó titulares durante algunos días. Para quienes nacimos allí, el tiempo pareció detenerse. Antes de pensar en la magnitud del sismo o en el número de viviendas afectadas, hubo una pregunta que desplazó cualquier otra: ¿estarán bien quienes amo?

Los desastres naturales no solo transforman los territorios; también modifican la manera en que quienes vivimos en el exilio nos relacionamos con el lugar al que seguimos llamando hogar. La distancia no reduce el dolor ni la preocupación por quienes permanecen allí. Cada llamada sin responder, cada fotografía y cada mensaje recuerdan que existen vínculos que sobreviven a las fronteras, al tiempo y a la propia migración.

Lo primero que hice fue llamar a mi familia en La Guaira. Durante esos minutos comprendí, una vez más, que también existen terremotos que se sienten desde el exilio. La incertidumbre crece con cada llamada que no entra y con cada mensaje que permanece sin respuesta.

Cuando finalmente logré comunicarme, confirmé que familiares y personas cercanas habían perdido sus hogares, que distintas zonas de La Guaira enfrentaban graves afectaciones y que comunidades como Carayaca, El Junko y otros sectores del oeste del estado también sufrían las consecuencias de los terremotos. Aunque algunas de estas localidades registraron daños estructurales de menor magnitud que las zonas más devastadas, sus habitantes también vieron alterada su vida cotidiana por la interrupción de servicios, las dificultades de acceso y la profunda interdependencia social, económica y comunitaria que caracteriza a La Guaira.

Algunos miembros de mi comunidad también habían fallecido. Entre ellos estaban dos hombres gays a quienes conocía. Sus nombres me recordaron que detrás de cada cifra existen historias, afectos y proyectos de vida. También me hicieron pensar en todas aquellas personas cuyas vidas y muertes difícilmente ocuparán un titular, especialmente quienes durante años vivieron en los márgenes, con escasa visibilidad y sin el pleno reconocimiento de su dignidad. Me recordaron, además, que las emergencias nunca afectan a todas las personas por igual y que quienes ya enfrentaban mayores condiciones de vulnerabilidad suelen soportar una carga aún más pesada durante la recuperación. 

El país del que uno sale nunca desaparece

Nací y crecí en La Guaira. Allí permanecen buena parte de mi historia, mi familia, mis amistades y una comunidad que sigue formando parte de quien soy. Hace diez años tuve que salir de Venezuela y solicitar asilo en Estados Unidos como consecuencia de la persecución que enfrenté por ser un hombre gay y defensor de derechos humanos. Con el tiempo comprendí que el exilio no consiste únicamente en cambiar de país. También significa aprender a vivir con la certeza de que una parte de nosotros permanecerá siempre en el lugar del que tuvimos que partir.

Cada celebración familiar, cada crisis y cada tragedia confirman que seguimos perteneciendo a ese territorio. Las personas refugiadas y migrantes no dejamos de vivir las emergencias de nuestros países de origen; simplemente las vivimos de otra manera. Mientras otras personas pueden desplazarse para abrazar a sus familias o participar directamente en las labores de ayuda, quienes estamos lejos intentamos acompañar desde la incertidumbre, con la impotencia de saber que el corazón permanece donde el cuerpo ya no puede estar.

Quizá esa sea una de las dimensiones menos visibles del desplazamiento forzado. Vivimos las tragedias de nuestro país a la distancia, con menos posibilidades de actuar físicamente, pero con el mismo dolor y con un profundo sentido de responsabilidad hacia las personas y los lugares que siguen formando parte de nuestra historia.

Cuando una casa representa toda una vida

Después de una emergencia suele repetirse una frase bien intencionada: “Lo importante es que todos están vivos; lo material se recupera.” Aunque busca transmitir esperanza, también puede invisibilizar una realidad profundamente humana. En Venezuela, una vivienda rara vez representa únicamente una construcción. Es el resultado de años de trabajo, sacrificios compartidos y sueños familiares. En sus paredes también habitan recuerdos, fotografías, documentos y la memoria de quienes la construyeron.

Cuando un terremoto destruye un hogar, también altera el proyecto de vida de una familia. Por eso no basta con volver a levantar edificios. Es necesario crear las condiciones para que las personas recuperen estabilidad, seguridad y la posibilidad de imaginar nuevamente un futuro. Como trabajador social, estoy convencido de que los territorios no vuelven a ponerse de pie únicamente con cemento. También necesitan confianza, organización, apoyo mutuo y espacios donde las personas puedan elaborar el duelo y fortalecer nuevamente sus redes de apoyo.

Ese proceso tampoco ocurre en igualdad de condiciones para todas las personas. Los desastres suelen profundizar desigualdades que ya existían antes de la emergencia. Las personas adultas mayores, la niñez, las personas con discapacidad, quienes viven con enfermedades crónicas o con VIH y muchas personas LGBTQ+, especialmente aquellas que enfrentan pobreza, discriminación o redes de apoyo limitadas, suelen encontrar mayores obstáculos para acceder a servicios, restablecer sus medios de vida o volver a sentirse seguras. Una respuesta verdaderamente humanitaria no consiste únicamente en llegar primero; consiste en asegurar que nadie quede atrás cuando comienza el largo camino para reconstruir su vida. 

Cuando la emergencia deja de ser noticia

Las primeras horas después de un desastre suelen despertar lo mejor de una sociedad. Vecinas y vecinos organizan rescates, personas voluntarias distribuyen alimentos, equipos de salud trabajan sin descanso y miles de ciudadanos, dentro y fuera del país, buscan la manera de ayudar. Esa movilización espontánea representa uno de los recursos más valiosos frente a cualquier crisis y demuestra que, incluso en contextos de profunda polarización, la vida humana sigue siendo capaz de convocar encuentros.

Sin embargo, para quienes sobrevivieron, el verdadero desafío apenas comienza cuando la emergencia deja de ocupar los titulares. Mientras los medios dirigen su atención hacia otras noticias y las donaciones disminuyen, miles de familias siguen intentando recuperar sus hogares, restablecer sus medios de vida y reorganizar una cotidianidad profundamente alterada. La crisis termina mucho antes para la opinión pública que para quienes continúan enfrentando sus consecuencias.

En la acción humanitaria suele describirse un fenómeno conocido como fatiga de la compasión. En términos generales, hace referencia a la disminución progresiva de la atención pública y de parte de la movilización solidaria conforme una crisis deja de ocupar el centro de la conversación. No significa que desaparezca la voluntad de ayudar, sino que nuevas urgencias desplazan rápidamente a las anteriores. El riesgo es que los territorios afectados queden solos precisamente cuando enfrentan la etapa más compleja de volver a levantarse.

Las principales organizaciones humanitarias recuerdan que reparar edificios constituye sólo una parte del proceso. También es indispensable fortalecer la salud mental, ofrecer apoyo psicosocial, recuperar el tejido comunitario y garantizar que la población participe activamente en las decisiones sobre su propio futuro. Una vivienda puede reconstruirse en algunos meses; recuperar la sensación de seguridad, la confianza o el sentido de pertenencia suele requerir mucho más tiempo.

Esta realidad resulta especialmente importante para quienes ya enfrentan condiciones de vulnerabilidad antes del terremoto. Las personas adultas mayores, la niñez, las personas con discapacidad, quienes viven con VIH y muchas personas LGBTQ+ suelen encontrar mayores barreras para acceder a servicios, mantener sus tratamientos, recuperar sus ingresos o reconstruir sus redes de apoyo. Las emergencias no crean esas desigualdades, pero con frecuencia las hacen más visibles y profundas. Por eso, una recuperación verdaderamente sostenible no consiste únicamente en volver al punto donde estábamos antes del desastre, sino en aprovechar ese proceso para reducir brechas históricas y fortalecer la inclusión.

Como trabajador social, prefiero hablar de una resiliencia consciente. No de una resiliencia que exige fortaleza permanente o invita a ocultar el dolor bajo la idea de que “hay que seguir adelante”, sino de aquella que reconoce las pérdidas, entiende que el duelo necesita tiempo y acepta que pedir ayuda también forma parte del camino. Ninguna comunidad debería sentirse obligada a reconstruirse sola, ni ninguna persona a demostrar que ya superó una tragedia antes de estar preparada para hacerlo.

Permanecer también es una forma de ayudar

El exilio me impidió estar físicamente en La Guaira durante los días posteriores a los terremotos, pero no me impidió asumir la responsabilidad de acompañar desde donde hoy me encuentro. Durante esas semanas utilicé mis plataformas para verificar información antes de compartirla, visibilizar localidades que históricamente han recibido menor atención —como Carayaca, El Junko y otros sectores del oeste del estado— y promover mensajes centrados en las necesidades de la población afectada.

Ese compromiso también dio origen a la serie documental La Guaira: Antes y Después, un esfuerzo por documentar cómo cambiaron distintos espacios y contribuir a que no desaparezcan de la memoria colectiva cuando termine la cobertura periodística. Más que registrar la destrucción, busca recordar que detrás de cada fotografía existen familias que seguirán necesitando apoyo mucho después de que las cámaras se hayan ido.

Creo profundamente que comunicar con responsabilidad también es una forma de acción humanitaria. Verificar antes de publicar, evitar la desinformación y mantener visibles a los territorios históricamente olvidados constituye una manera concreta de acompañar el proceso de recuperación y fortalecer el compromiso colectivo desde la distancia.

La solidaridad que decide quedarse

Los terremotos del 24 de junio de 2026 dejarán cicatrices visibles en edificios, carreteras y viviendas. Otras permanecerán en silencio, acompañando a familias que deberán reconstruir no solo sus hogares, sino también su sensación de seguridad, sus proyectos de vida y la confianza en el futuro.

Como venezolano, guaireño, refugiado y defensor de derechos humanos, esta experiencia reforzó una convicción que ha guiado buena parte de mi trabajo: las personas deben permanecer en el centro de cualquier respuesta humanitaria. Ninguna diferencia política, institucional o ideológica debería ser más importante que proteger la vida, aliviar el sufrimiento y garantizar que quienes enfrentan mayores condiciones de vulnerabilidad reciban el acompañamiento que necesitan para volver a empezar con dignidad.

Los terremotos dejan de sentirse cuando la tierra deja de temblar. El olvido comienza cuando dejamos de mirar. Entre una cosa y otra existe un largo camino que exige memoria, compromiso sostenido y la decisión colectiva de no abandonar a quienes siguen intentando levantarse cuando el resto del mundo ya ha seguido adelante. Porque una sociedad no termina de recuperarse cuando reconstruye sus edificios; lo hace cuando todas las personas tienen la oportunidad de volver a vivir con seguridad, esperanza y la certeza de que nadie quedó atrás.

Yonatan Matheus (He/Him/Él) es defensor de derechos humanos LGBTQ+ y trabajador social y activista. Trabaja en la intersección entre Migración, Justicia Social y respuesta al VIH.

Este comentario salió en el sitio web de Yonatan el 6 de julio.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) died suddenly on Saturday.

The South Carolina Republican’s office in a statement said Graham, 71, “passed away from a brief and sudden illness.” The Washington Post reported first responders responded to Graham’s Washington home on Saturday and transported him to a local hospital.  

Graham had been in the U.S. Senate since 2002.  

The close Trump ally was running for re-election. Graham died a day after he returned to the U.S. from Ukraine.

Speculation over Graham’s sexual orientation persisted during his tenure.

The Los Angeles Blade will update this story.

Just over two and a half miles from President Donald Trump’s primary residence lies one of Florida’s most reliably Democratic congressional districts. There, a 27-year-old progressive is mounting a campaign centered on resisting what he calls the Trump-Vance administration’s attacks on civil rights, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ Americans.

Elijah Manley, an openly gay Democrat, sat down with the Los Angeles Blade to discuss why he is running for Florida’s 20th Congressional District, why he believes this moment calls for a new generation of leadership, and what he hopes to accomplish if elected to Congress.

Born and raised in Fort Lauderdale’s historic Sistrunk neighborhood — the city’s oldest African American community — Manley was raised by a single mother who struggled to make ends meet. His family experienced housing insecurity and, at one point, homelessness, experiences he says continue to shape both his politics and his policy priorities.

For Manley, those experiences are precisely what he believes Congress is missing.

“I think now the country is in need of somebody like me, with my story, my lived experience, the struggles I’ve been through in my life. We’re going through a really dark time in the country with the Trump administration coming for our civil rights and an economy that is not working for everybody. In a time where we have MAGA fascism, we need progressive leadership, and we need people who are really going to do the work of fighting back and resisting and obstructing Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans’ agenda in Congress.”

Manley said his campaign is also about ensuring people from marginalized communities — those without wealth, political connections, or institutional backing — have a voice in Congress.

“I think my story sets me aside from everyone else. I’m the only one in this race who has a story to tell voters that lines up with their lived experiences and their struggles. Growing up in poverty and experiencing homelessness was instrumental in developing my worldview and how I fight for people, and I think that’s something that’s absent on Capitol Hill.”

He argues that lived experience offers a perspective often missing on Capitol Hill.

“There are too many lawyers and people coming from professional and political backgrounds. Then you have somebody like me who is rooted in the story of this district. That’s what sets me apart from everyone else in this race.”

According to his campaign website, Manley’s interest in public service dates back to childhood. He cites the election of President Barack Obama as a defining moment that inspired him to pursue politics.

“He was inspired by Barack Obama’s historic election, igniting his passion for public service. He began writing to elected officials, speaking at school board and city council meetings, and advocating for issues affecting his community,” the website states. It goes on to describe his involvement in criminal justice and law magnet programs, Navy JROTC, and hundreds of hours of volunteer service while in high school.

As an openly gay candidate running during Trump’s second administration, Manley said Congress must take a far more aggressive approach to protecting LGBTQ+ Americans, particularly as Republican-led states continue passing restrictions targeting transgender people.

“I think we need to bring the hammer down on some of these states. I’m not one of these states’ rights people — Congress has the power to preempt laws that states pass through the Supremacy Clause. There’s never been a more important time in our history when we’re seeing fascism, we’re seeing an administration out of control, and we need Congress to act.”

His campaign has also drawn criticism from both Republicans and establishment Democrats for his positions on Gaza, immigration, and his call to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Manley said abolishing ICE does not mean eliminating immigration enforcement altogether.

“I’m not saying there should be no immigration laws. We want laws around immigration, but we want dignity. We don’t need a hypermilitarized, paramilitary group chasing people through the streets, terrorizing communities, churches, schools, and families.”

His personal experiences also inform his healthcare agenda.

“When we talk about healthcare, my experience growing up on Medicaid is seeing the failure of the government to expand Medicaid here in Florida, and now we’re seeing cuts from the Trump administration. I’m not just looking at statistics or numbers on paper — this is based on lived experience. I know how the people in this district are going to be hurt by these policies because I’ve lived it.”

California Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who has generated early buzz as a potential 2028 presidential contender for his “progressive capitalist” approach to governing, has endorsed Manley’s campaign, giving the first-time congressional candidate one of his highest-profile endorsements.

Manley faces six other Democrats in the primary, including U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, along with four Republican candidates in the general election field. Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from Congress ahead of a potential expulsion and is running again while facing federal criminal charges.

Despite running as the youngest candidate in the field, Manley said he hopes voters leave the race remembering one thing above all else.

“I want people to remember bold and authentic leadership. I want them to know I’m running because I’ve been through what people are going through right now — and it’s not that I’ve been through it, I’m actually still going through it. We need bold people who are going to fight for everybody and stand up for what’s right, and that’s what I hope voters see when they go to the polls.” 

Egyptian authorities have refused to allow a gay cruise to dock in the country.

The Scarlet Lady, a Virgin Voyages ship that Atlantis Events chartered, was to have docked in Alexandria, a port city on the Mediterranean Sea. The Los Angeles Blade obtained a letter that Atlantis Events President Rich Campbell sent to passengers on Thursday, hours before the cruise was to have arrived.

“Early this morning, we were informed that Scarlet Lady has been denied entry into Egyptian waters and, as a result, will no longer be able to call in Alexandria today,” he wrote.

“I know how much this visit meant to so many of you,” added Campbell. “We successfully sailed a similar itinerary last year, so we were surprised by this unfortunate decision.”

Campbell noted “both the Atlantis and Virgin Voyages teams worked tirelessly to make this call in Alexandria a possibility.”

“This news came as a surprise to all of us, and we’re just as disappointed as you are,” he said.

The 10-day cruise left Athens on July 5. It is scheduled to end in Trieste, Italy, on July 15.

The ship had been scheduled to dock in Kusadasi, a Turkish resort town on the Aegean Sea, and Istanbul earlier this week. Turkish authorities refused to allow it in the country.

Former Tempe, Ariz., Mayor Neil Giuliano, who is an LGBTQ+ Victory Institute board member, is among those on the cruise.

“Just a few hours before arriving in Alexandria, Egypt — a city founded by and named for one of the ancient world’s best-known homosexuals — government authorities rescinded permission for our ship of 2,000 gay men to enter Egypt,” wrote Steve May, who is also on the ship, on Thursday in a Facebook post.

Alexander the Great founded Alexandria in 331 B.C.

“As with Turkey, we have been sent away not because of what we did, but because of who we said we are,” said May. “‘I am what I am’ is too much liberty for some to bear. So it was in the United States as well not long ago, where even I ended up as a convicted homosexual after a military trial in 2001 for saying ‘I am gay.’ This is just a reminder that for all the progress we have made, our freedom is never secure — for any of us, regardless of who or how we love. Back to Europe!”

Discrimination and persecution based on sexual orientation and gender identity is commonplace in Egypt. The Egyptian Football Association, along with the Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran, objected to playing in the World Cup’s “Pride Match” that took place in Seattle on June 26.