Getting around our car-infested city just got a little bit easier.

On Friday, May 8, hundreds of Metro board members and Los Angeles County officials gathered at the Petersen Automotive Museum to celebrate the D Line’s new service to three stations. It’s the latest effort – albeit a long overdue one – to expand L.A. public transportation through the heart of the city. LA Blade was on the scene.

With stations connecting Western Avenue to La Cienega Boulevard, the new line now makes travel from Beverly Hills to Downtown Los Angeles possible in 21 minutes, according to Metro officials. To celebrate the project’s commitment to connecting people to culture, the ribbon-cutting ceremony was followed by a celebratory outdoor event with local food vendors.

CEO Stephanie Wiggins addressed why the L.A. Metro “might just be having a moment” right now: “When gas prices are off the charts, traffic feels endless and parking costs are more than your lunch – $1.75 a ride that gets you pretty much anywhere in the region starts to look pretty smart.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Mayor Karen Bass (@mayorofla)

Getting to West Hollywood by transit – a vital spot for the city’s queer culture and nightlife – is another goal for the county. But there’s still a ways to go: construction on an official station isn’t expected to start until 2041.

While the D Line expansion was made possible by a grant from the federal government, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said at the press conference that “we don’t wait for the federal government. We know we can’t depend on others. Obviously, we need the federal government and the state government, but Angelenos say we are going to tax ourselves to do what is needed.”

This expansion comes as L.A. invests billions of dollars in public transportation ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, 2027 Super Bowl, and 2028 Olympics – all events placing an extra spotlight on one of the busiest cities in the country. Just last June, a metro stop opened at LAX, connecting residents and visitors to L.A’s main airport.

As L.A. tries to catch up with the public transportation infrastructure of major hubs like New York City, one speaker also took the opportunity to address tensions with the nation’s capital:

“I will tell you, being in D.C., there is such an attack against California coming from Washington right now, and against transit across the nation,” U.S. Rep. Laura Friedman said. “And we are here to show Washington that while you know who is tweeting at 3 a.m., we have Angelenos underground building things for this country. We are showing that transit is essential, and we are not going to let Washington defund our children’s future.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (@metrolosangeles)

Ongoing construction for the L.A. Metro continues as the city hopes to make big on its “28 Projects by 2028” promise. But for now, residents can enjoy free rides all weekend long, along with 60 days of activations and events at the three new stations.

“I am looking forward to being at the ribbon cutting in a few more years as we move forward and take this line all the way to Westwood,” Bass said. “We celebrate something that Angelenos deserve – a city that’s easier to move through, easier to connect in, and that’s built for the future.”

A report the Vatican released on Tuesday acknowledges LGBTQ+ Catholics have felt isolated within the church.

The report, which the Vatican’s General Secretariat of the Synod’s Study Group 9 released, includes testimony from two married gay Catholics from the U.S. and Portugal.

“Regarding the resistances — limiting ourselves to those emerging from the lived experiences shared with us — we wish to highlight the following: the solitude, anguish, and stigma that accompany persons with same-sex attractions and their families, not only in society but also within the church; this is often linked to the temptation to hide in a ‘double life,'” reads the report. “Within this problematic outlook lie the positions expressed in the pressure to undergo reparative therapies or, even more gravely, in the simplistic advice to enter the sacrament of marriage.”

“At the root of both the emerging openings and the persisting resistances, it seems possible to identify a difficulty in coordinating pastoral practice and the doctrinal approach. Other testimonies received by our study group from believers with same-sex attractions further confirm how arduous it is for individuals and Christian communities to reconcile “doctrinal firmness” with “pastoral welcome,'” it adds.

The report appears to criticize so-called conversion therapy. It also states “every person, first and foremost, is singular, irreducible, irreplaceable, and original” and “this is the meaning of the Biblical-theological theme of the human being, male and female, created in the image and likeness of God.”

The National Catholic Reporter notes “a group of theologians, including bishops, priests, a sister and a layperson” the Vatican commissioned “to study ‘controversial’ issues that Pope Francis’s Synod on Synodality raised wrote the report.

Francis in 2023 launched the multi-year synod to examine on ways to reform the church.

The Argentine-born pontiff died in April 2025. Pope Leo XIV, who was born in Chicago, succeeded him.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday met with Leo at the Vatican. The meeting took place against the backdrop of increased tensions between the U.S. and the Holy See over the Iran war.

LGBTQ+ Catholic groups largely welcome report

LGBTQ+ Catholic groups welcomed the report; even though it will not change church teachings on homosexuality, marriage, and gender identity.

“It was a really bold choice to make LGBTQ issues — or homosexuality — one of the case studies,” Brian Flanagan, a senior fellow at New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based LGBTQ+ Catholic organization, told the Los Angeles Blade on Wednesday during a telephone interview.

Flanagan is also the John Cardinal Cody Chair of Catholic Theology at Loyola University in Chicago.

“They (the study group) could have punted and said something easier,” he said. “Instead, they’re putting what was frankly one of the hottest issues leading up to and after the Synod and addressing it more head on.”

New Ways Ministry Executive Director Francis DeBernardo in a statement described the report as a “breath of refreshing air, the first acknowledgment that LGBTQ+ issues were taken seriously by the three-year global consultation of all levels of the church.”

“By establishing mechanisms and recommendations to continue dialoguing with LGBTQ+ people, the report is a significant step forward in the church’s process to become a more welcoming place for its LGBTQ+ members,” he said.

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, an LGBTQ+ Catholic organization, in her own statement said the report “demonstrates a welcome humility and openness to learning from the People of God about people’s lives and faith journeys.”

“It is clear that the study group members understand that the doctrines of the church undermine the deep relationship with God that many LGBTQ+ people have, or try to have, and that this needs to be corrected,” she said. “Church officials have decades of testimony from people who have found their sexual orientation or gender identity to be a blessing and a gift, and their relationships to be sacred. To see this reality reflected and respected in this document is a long-awaited positive step.”

Duddy-Burke added the report largely ignores “the experiences of transgender and nonbinary people.” She further notes it “provides few concrete recommendations and proposes no doctrinal changes.”

“Rather, it calls for dialogue, encounter, and communal theological reflection to shape how the Catholic Church moves forward in addressing doctrine and pastoral practice,” said Duddy-Burke. “The paradigm shift repeatedly called for in this report is a significant and very welcome change. Experience, especially of those most impacted, must be key to developing dogma.”

Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who served in the House from 1981 until his retirement in 2013 and who became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay in 1987, has resurfaced in the news over the past two weeks after announcing he has entered home hospice care and plans to publish a new book on, among other things, how Democrats can and should regain control of Congress.

 According to media reports and an interview Frank conducted this week with the Washington Blade, his book, entitled “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy,” calls on the Democratic Party’s progressive left leaning members to be more strategic in pushing for laws and policies initially considered “politically unacceptable” to most U.S. voters and the American people.

Frank told the Blade he believes the LGBTQ rights movement has succeeded in advancing most of its agenda seeking protections against discrimination by initially pushing less controversial advances such as the end to the ban on gays in the military and non-discrimination in employment before taking on the more controversial issue of same-sex marriage.

While acknowledging that Congress has yet to pass a national law banning discrimination against LGBTQ people in employment, housing, and public accommodations as 22 states and D.C. have already done, he points to the two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, one legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, and the other declaring sexual orientation and gender identity are protected categories for which employment discrimination is prohibited under existing federal law in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.

Frank notes that while some in the LGBTQ community are fearful that LGBTQ rights are under attack and may be pulled back under the Trump administration, he believes Republicans in Congress at this time will not attempt to repeal any existing LGBTQ protections, especially those regarding marriage rights and employment protections secured by the Supreme Court rulings.

He says transgender rights are the remaining LGBTQ issue that have yet to be adopted rationally, and he fully supports ongoing efforts to advance trans rights. But like his criticism of the progressive left among Democrats, Frank says the efforts to advance trans rights could be jeopardized by the highly controversial issue of “male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports.” 

He added, “That’s the most controversial, the most difficult. It affects the fewest number of people.” While he says trans rights supporters should continue to advocate for that, “they should not make it a litmus test and say well if you’re not for that you’re not a supporter of the rights of transgender people. There are places where people are supportive, and we want to encourage that.”

Frank, 86, told Politico he has entered home hospice care as he deals with ongoing congestive heart failure. He said he is remaining in his home in Ogunquit, Maine, where he has lived with his husband, Jim Ready, since retiring from Congress in 2013.

“I’ve been doing some writing. I wrote this book,” Frank told the Blade. “I’ve relaxed. Meanwhile, my health has been failing. Jim has been a saint in taking care of me,” he said. “And so, I take it easy.”

Frank spoke to the Washington Blade in a phone interview from his home on May 4.

Washington Blade: We’re hearing some interesting reports about the book you’ve been writing. Can you say when it will be published?

 Barney Frank: Sept. 15 is the publication date.

Blade: Some of the reports about the book in the media have said you want the far left within the Democratic Party to be more cautious.

Frank: No, I’ll give you this. The job is to defeat populism to keep democracy. Clearly you have to know what caused it. I believe that the essential cause in the surge of populism was economic inequality and the failure of mainstream liberals to address inequality. And beginning in the ‘80s economic growth became less and less fair in its institutions. And that led to all this anger.

So, the mainstream left finally figured that out after [Bernie] Sanders and Trump in ’16.  So, we then – because I was working to make that change – got the Democrats to pay attention to economic inequality. And Joe Biden’s program did. The problem is at that point, people on the left who had correctly been critical of the failure to address equality said, OK, that’s not the only problem you guys are missing. There are all these other problems.

And they jumped from being right on the question of inequality and equality to believing in a lot more social changes, some of which were just unacceptable to the public. And the mistake they make is they don’t distinguish – there are a lot of issues I’ve been for in my life, but I had to assert that they were not currently politically survivable.

So, you do two things. Those that are politically survivable work to get them done. Others, you become an advocate. But you don’t make the most controversial part of your agenda litmus tests and drive away your allies. You will remember that on marriage that was an issue and in 2000 they insisted you will be for marriage.

So, my thesis is that while the mainstream understood its mistake on inequality, the most militant and ideological of our left misunderstand public opinion and they are pushing the public to — and they are insisting on acceptance of things that are not politically acceptable.

Blade: Having said what you said, how do you see that impacting gay rights or LGBTQ rights? 

Frank: Well in the first place, gay rights – one of the things I want to address – is this fear that gay rights are going to be taken away – rights for LGB people. Nonsense. We’re not going to lose any of those rights. If they tried to undo marriage, for instance, the political reaction they would get would be abortion type sentiment. They are just not going to do that because it causes them too many political problems.

The problem is advances we hope to make in the area of transgender people. But there is no chance of losing – I can’t think of a single right that is in jeopardy. They are not going to reintroduce the ban in the military. They’re not going to tell people their marriages are cancelled. Again, the Republicans are not even trying to do that because they know there would be a terrible backlash. 

With regard to LGBT there is one analogy. And that is the most controversial issue we faced over the years on what was the gay-bisexual agenda was same-sex marriage. And we left that until the end. And you remember we did the military. We did ENDA. We moved on to everything else, and it wasn’t until the very end that we went into marriage. [NOTE: ENDA did not ultimately pass.]

I think the analogy to that is male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports. That’s the most controversial, the most difficult. It affects the fewest number of people. And I believe had we deferred on marriage — people who believe that’s important should advocate for it. But they should not make it a litmus test and say well if you’re not for that you’re not a supporter of the rights of transgender people. There are places where people are supportive, and we want to encourage that.

Blade: You said you don’t think we will lose any rights, most of the laws related to nondiscrimination are from the states or municipal laws that were passed.

 Frank: Tell me what you think will be lost. You and I always have this problem. I’ve always felt you were cynical and skeptical. Tell me what right we now have that’s in jeopardy.

Blade: One would be if the Supreme Court reverses its decision on same-sex marriage.

Frank: If they do, Congress would now step in on that, which would be the passage of Tammy Baldwin’s bill.

Blade: But what I was going to ask you next is in all the years you’ve been in office and as of now a federal LGBTQ rights bill has not been passed by Congress yet. Is there a chance of that happening?

Frank: I do not think it will happen because the members of Congress do not want to be in the position of voting to cancel people’s marriages. There are valid marriages throughout the country. And the notion that Congress will pass a bill invalidating those, no they won’t. They won’t do anything that’s as disruptive and that will cause a strong reaction. Have you seen a federal bill to do that? I haven’t.

Blade: No, and I am sorry if I’m not putting the question across correctly. I’m talking about the bill that bans discrimination based on employment, public accommodations and other areas for LGBTQ people that Congress has not yet passed. You co-sponsored that for many years.

Frank: I know that, and the Supreme Court did that one. No, I don’t think that – oh, all right, that’s a different question than marriage. If the Supreme Court reverses itself on that – I don’t see any sign that they’re going to, then I think you would see the federal bill passed.

 [He is referring to the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that employment discrimination against gay, bi, and trans people was equivalent to sex discrimination, which is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.]

Blade: Are you talking about marriage?

Frank: For both for marriage and for non-[discrimination] – I don’t think a marriage bill would pass nationally. To distinguish, I don’t think a bill striking down marriages would pass. Too much violent reaction. As to employment discrimination, where they haven’t acted yet, if the Supreme Court changes that – I think that’s extremely unlikely – then I think Congress would step in.

Blade: Are you saying we may not need an LGBTQ non-discrimination act by Congress for the states that haven’t passed that?

Frank: I would be in favor of that, yes. But again, I think you and I – you have always been pessimistic. There is a political time now that works in our favor. And as I said, on abortion, they burned themselves very badly on abortion. And yes, I’m still for a national anti-discrimination bill. But I do not think the right wing wants to be caught taking rights away that already exist. Because that’s a lot harder than denying them in the first place. And I don’t see any movement for that. You tell me what you are worried about. What bills are you worried about? 

Blade: I was simply saying they haven’t yet passed a federal non-discrimination bill. 

Frank: No, what’s going to change on the Supreme Court? I don’t see a pretty quick reversal on the Supreme Court. So, I think people are just – they have to have a cause. And they are inflating the likelihood that we are going to lose some rights when I see no evidence of it. And in fact, I see a lot of political reasons why those in Congress don’t want to do that.

I’ll tell you there are a lot of Republicans who would vote for same-sex marriage. For example, the leadership would say for Christ’s sake, don’t bring that up. They don’t want to take a position on it. And they got burned on abortion, badly. 

Blade: To the extent that you are observing this, do you think the LGBTQ rights organizations are doing what they should be doing?

Frank: Well, I think some are stressing the negative too much. Because when people believe nothing good ever happens, they may get discouraged. I think they should be concentrating on the transgender issue. And I know the most controversial parts are protecting people’s rights to medical care, their rights selecting their own gender. And that’s what I would be working on. 

And yeah, it would be nice to pass the national bill. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Well, if the Democrats get the House, the Senate, and the presidency, maybe it will happen. But I don’t see the urgency of that because I don’t see any movement to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision.

Blade: What message would you have for the LGBTQ community?

Frank: My message is one, we’re in good shape. And two, that what remains in the transgender issue – who is first? Which are those of your issues that are the most politically acceptable. And you work your way through and as you win on some of those the resistance on the tougher ones will diminish. And the other issue is we are – the problem is the stand to protect the rights of transgender people. But the rights for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, I do not think they are in jeopardy and I do not think a lot of resources should be spent on being what I think is a very small threat.

Blade: For those states and municipalities that do not have laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination, do you think attitudes are changing so there would be little or no discrimination?

Frank: Oh, no question. First of all, I think it’s very unlikely that any of the rights they have will be taken away. And secondly, if they had to take some positive steps to take away protections they would not do it. And I think that ship has sailed in our direction and isn’t going back. In the end, you cannot underestimate there’s a big political difference between denying people their rights in the first place and taking it away from them after they’ve enjoyed it.

Anything is theoretically possible, but I don’t see any evidence that’s likely to happen.

Blade: We’re coming up to the midterm elections this year, but is there anyone coming up in the next presidential election who you might be supporting?

Frank: Oh, I think at this point we’re going to have a fairly open Democratic process. And it’s very clear at this point the way American politics is going it will be a basically supportive Democrat against a basically opposed Republican. And I’ll be supporting the Democrat. And so, this Democrat would be the best one, the most electable. And which one, I haven’t decided that. I want to see how people will fare when they start running.

But I think it is inconceivable that the Democrats would nominate someone who is not fully supportive.

Blade: Some people might be asking what you have been doing since you retired from Congress.

Frank: I’ve been doing some writing. I wrote this book. I’ve relaxed. Meanwhile, my health has been failing. Jim [husband Jim Ready] has been a saint in taking care of me. And so, I take it easy. In terms of what I do, I have two rules, two pieces of advice for people who retire. One is that you should make up two lists. One is you should have a bucket list, a list of things you want to do before you’re through. But more important than the bucket list is a list that rhymes with bucket. That’s a very important list. And that’s one that I increasingly defer to.

Blade: And what is the one other than bucket?

Frank: It rhymes with bucket. What rhymes with bucket?

Blade: Oh, OK.

Frank: That’s the list I follow.

Following the passage of anti-DEI legislation in Florida, Key West will no longer receive any state funding for its future Pride events.

In a letter provided to the Key West Business Guild, the LGBTQ+ visitor and tourism center for the string of islands, a senior assistant county attorney for Monroe County officially said that the organization would no longer receive funding for its ongoing projects as a result of Senate Bill 1134 and House Bill 1001, starting in 2027.

The popular Key West Pride, gay men–leaning Tropical Heat weekend, and Womenfest will no longer receive any state money. This is something that Gay Key West Visitor Center Executive Director Rob Dougherty highlighted will shift how all the largest LGBTQ+ events in the Keys will be held after this year.

He said that the explanation is solely a result of SB 1134 and HB 1001, which limits the official actions of local governments by “prohibiting counties and municipalities, respectively, from funding or promoting or taking official action as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion …”

The legislation is being used to impose restrictions on funding events that exclude — whereas the events’ true purpose is to uplift already marginalized groups.

“Womenfest lost it [funding] because it’s a women’s-only event. Tropical Heat lost it because it’s a men’s-only event … that’s how this is being applied.”

This will not impact anything this year, Dougherty assured the Los Angeles Blade; however, the future is not as certain.

“The law that (Republican Florida) Gov. DeSantis signed does not go into effect until Jan. 1, so for 2026 we’re okay,” Dougherty told the Blade. “But it impacts Key West Pride 2027, it impacts Tropical Heat 2027 and Womenfest — so we have lost all funding for those three events.”

He said that this will amount to a large chunk of the expected funding for the LGBTQ+ celebrations, which the Key West tourism board says is “internationally known as a gay mecca.”

“We’re due to lose about $200,000. Not all of that is direct, but the way that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) distributes their money, about $75,000 of it is for Key West Pride, and that helps to pay for things like marketing, swag, and other things that promote the event.”

He went on to explain that marketing to many major metropolitan areas with large LGBTQ+ populations may not see the same Key West advertisements and push as in years past — and that is the point.

“Our digital marketing, our print marketing, our SEO marketing — all of that is paid for through there, and it targets places with direct flights like Washington, D.C., New York, Philly, Atlanta, Dallas. So it’s definitely going to impact that.”

The money that will stop coming is not just to run events and celebrations, he explained. Money that goes back directly into the community is going to be hardest hit.

“An estimated 250,000 LGBTQ+ travelers make it to Key West on an annual basis, and on a very conservative basis, for every LGBTQ+ person there are two to four allies traveling with the same values.”

“The TDC also estimates that $1,500+ is spent per person per visit … so if you take those figures and multiply those all together, it comes up to about $1.2 billion … that is potentially going to be lost.”

He says that this will intrinsically change how Key West’s tourism — especially the large LGBTQ+ side of it — will run, especially since gay vacations need a foundation and expectation of safety and support to blossom.

“We travel based upon where we feel most welcome,” Dougherty said. “Key West has always been its own little place … the LGBTQ+ history of Key West and everything about Key West has always been a little bit weird for people, and that’s why they come here.”

The Guild was formed in 1978 to encourage summer tourism and support Key West’s gay community — becoming the nation’s first LGBTQ+ destination marketing organization. It has grown tremendously from its original membership to now include more than 475 enterprises representing virtually every facet of the island’s business community.

He also went on to say that this should be eye-opening for anywhere considered an LGBTQ+ destination, regardless of whether it is in a blue state or a red one.

“I think it can be a wake-up call across the country, because if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.”

The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.

Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.

The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.

The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.

This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.

Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.

“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”

“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”

This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ+ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.

Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.

Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ+ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.

A little over a year ago, it looked as if Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the city’s first woman mayor, would easily win reelection in 2026. But criticism of her handling of the disastrous wildfire in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood in early 2025 has thrown the mayoral race wide open.

As the mayoral primary looms on June 2 and a debate is set for Tuesday night, 14 candidates are vying for the seat, and there are some competitive City Council races as well. Big bucks have poured into the city races, according to the Los Angeles Times, and progressive forces may be looking to repeat the success of Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s election as New York City mayor last year. In Los Angeles city races, a candidate who wins more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary is elected outright; otherwise, the top two vote recipients face each other in the November general election.

Bass, a former member of Congress, and businessman Rick Caruso advanced to the general election in 2022, in which she bested him by 55 percent to 45 percent. This year, her top rivals in the primary are City Council member Nithya Raman, running to the left of Bass; community organizer Rae Huang, also on the left; software entrepreneur Adam Smith, a moderate; and reality TV personality Spencer Pratt, courting conservative voters. The race is officially nonpartisan, but all the leading mayoral candidates are Democrats, except for Pratt, a Republican.

Bass was in Ghana when the Palisades fire started, and many residents found her response wanting, the L.A. Times notes. Twelve people died as a result of the fire, and thousands of homes were lost. The mayor ended up firing out lesbian fire chief Kristin Crowley, who sued the city, accusing Bass of orchestrating “a campaign of retaliation to conceal the extent to which Bass undermined public safety and transparency,” according to ABC7 Eyewitness News.

Bass leads in the mayoral polls, but many of those surveyed disapprove of her performance, according to a poll by UC Berkeley and the Times. Still, as she touts reductions in homelessness and homicides in the city, she has drawn support from major donors and celebrities. She received perhaps her biggest endorsement Monday—from Kamala Harris. Harris released a statement saying Bass “is the leader Los Angeles needs right now,” multiple media outlets report.

Bass’ big individual contributors include Hollywood producers J.J. Abrams and David Miner, actor Samuel L. Jackson, and philanthropist Edythe Broad, L.A.’s NBC affiliate reports, and the Times analysis shows her far ahead in fundraising.

But Raman may be a formidable candidate from the left—and L.A.’s police union is worried. Raman has been elected to two terms on the council with the support of the Democratic Socialists of America, which touts New York’s Mamdani as a member. The Democratic Socialists haven’t made an endorsement in the L.A. mayoral primary, although many of the group’s members favor Raman. But the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file officers, is spending heavily on ads against Raman, who opposed the police pay increases backed by Bass.

The union has spent $400,000 in its anti-Raman campaign so far and plans to spend more than $1 million overall, according to the Times. A recent video ad denounces her opposition to a city ordinance saying homeless people can’t camp within 500 feet of a school.

“Raman has voted over 75 times to allow homeless camps next to schools, daycares, parks, and other sensitive locations, undermining public safety,” the video’s narrator states.

Raman responded with a video defending her record, saying the police pay raises were more than the city could afford and that other services had to be cut “to the bone.”

The police union tried to defeat Raman in her run for reelection to the City Council in 2024 but failed. The union opposed Bass in 2022 and endorsed Caruso, but she and the Protective League are considerably friendlier now.

Another union that has been active in the city races is Unite Here Local 11, which represents more than 32,000 workers in the L.A. area, mostly in the hospitality industry. It endorsed Bass in 2022 but hasn’t endorsed in the mayoral race yet this year. The union, which is familiar to West Hollywood politicians, did not respond to a request for comment.

However, Unite Here Local 11 has endorsed in three City Council races: Eunisses Hernandez in Council District 1, Faizah Malik in District 11, and Hugo Soto-Martinez in District 13.

Malik’s race has been particularly heated. She is challenging incumbent Traci Park. Local 11 “has been furious with Park, who voted against a hike in the minimum wage for tourism workers to $30 per hour,” the Times reports. Park contended that the higher wage would cost many workers their jobs.

Unite Here has spent about $340,000 to promote Malik and denounce Park. Malik is also backed by the Democratic Socialists of America.

In its campaign materials, Unite Here has tried to associate Park with Donald Trump and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, something Park, a Democrat, has called “dishonest and disgusting,” according to the Times.

Park, meanwhile, has the support of the Police Protective League and United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, which together have spent nearly $900,000 toward her reelection.

Two Los Angeles hotels, in partnership with the California Hotel and Lodging Association, have given $300,000 to a political action committee backing Park as well as Maria Lou Calanche against Hernandez, the incumbent, and Jose Ugarte, one of several candidates seeking to succeed Curren Price, who is termed out of the City Council and is facing felony embezzlement charges.

Back to the mayoral race: Chung is a Presbyterian minister who said she’ll cut police funding and work for affordable housing and renters’ protections. Miller has said his business expertise will serve him well as mayor. He’s also focused on housing and created a nonprofit, Better Angels, to address homelessness.

Pratt, who appeared in the reality TV show The Hills, has harshly criticized Bass, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and other politicians. He has called Bass “trash” and denounced homeless encampments, saying L.A. children have to witness “the filth and degeneracy of the homeless drug zombies,” as reported by the Times. He has touted himself on social media as the only candidate with “the will to clear encampments in this city,” and said getting people into treatment for addiction and mental illness has to be the first step toward reducing homelessness.

They and other mayoral candidates will debate at 5 p.m. Wednesday at the Skirball Cultural Center in L.A. KNBC4, the local NBC station, and KVEA, affiliated with Spanish-language Telemundo, will broadcast the one-hour debate live.

Then at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, KNBC and KVEA will host a one-hour debate with California gubernatorial candidates. It will be broadcast on those stations as well as stations in San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, and Monterey. Xavier Becerra, formerly California attorney general and Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, has surged in support since U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out due to sexual assault allegations.

But a new California Democratic Party poll shows Becerra tied with Republican businessman and Trump-endorsed candidate Steve Hilton, each favored by 18 percent of respondents. The large number of candidates seeking to replace Newsom, who is term-limited, has led some Democrats to fear a Republican could prevail in California’s “jungle primary” system.

Others in the race include former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and businessman-activist Tom Steyer. Becerra has been endorsed by Equality California, the statewide LGBTQ+ rights group. Equality California has not made endorsements in the L.A. city elections.

There will be another gubernatorial debate Tuesday at 6 p.m. Pacific Time on CNN. Candidates who have qualified are Becerra, Porter, Steyer, Villaraigosa, and Matt Mahan, all Democrats, and Republicans Hilton and Chad Bianco.

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

We’re proud to partner with Los Angeles Blade to launch a new monthly column bringing you the latest updates impacting LGBTQ+ people across California. Each edition will draw from our weekly Equality Brief, with a focused look at the local and state developments that matter most to our community, including policy changes, legal updates, public health news, and opportunities to take action.

With LGBTQ+ people facing coordinated attacks across the country, staying informed is essential. California continues to play a critical role as both a leader and a line of defense, and the decisions made here have a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives.

In this column, we’ll break down what’s happening, what it means, and what comes next so you can stay informed and ready to take action.

To read more stories and sign up for the weekly Equality Brief, visit eqca.org/equalitybrief.

Supreme Court Rules ‘Conversion Therapy’ is Protected Speech:

In a 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that Colorado’s ‘conversion therapy’ ban is likely an unconstitutional violation of free speech. With this ruling — reframing therapy as protected speech — the Supreme Court weakens the ability of state licensing boards to regulate healthcare or to intervene if clinicians use unproven, misleading, or coercive techniques. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, emphasizing that not only is conversion therapy ineffective, but former participants report that it causes lasting psychological harm. 

In response, Equality California is advancing SB 934 by Senator Scott Wiener, which would extend the statute of limitations so survivors of conversion therapy can pursue civil claims against licensed providers who subjected them to these harmful practices. This timely measure builds on California’s existing protections and expands access to justice for survivors. Read our statement.

Nation’s Largest Medical Group Reaffirms Support for Transition-Related Care for Minors:

In its March newsletter, the American Medical Association (AMA) — the largest physician organization in the country — reaffirmed its support for transition-related care for youth, emphasizing that access to care should not be impeded. The AMA is among the nation’s leading medical groups that have repeatedly stated that transition-related care is not only medically necessary for those who require it, but life-saving.

REPORT: 2 in 3 LGBTQ+ Students Feel Unsafe in School:

Glisten (formerly GLSEN) released its 2025 National School Climate Survey this week — a biannual report measuring the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in K-12 schools — and the results show that hostility toward LGBTQ+ youth has increased, and students feel increasingly unsafe. Among the report’s key findings, 86% of trans students purposely avoid certain areas of their campuses, 62%  of LGBTQ+ youth experience harassment due to their sexual orientation, and 68% experience the same due to their gender identity or expression. The report surveyed 2,800 students across the country.

Pentagon Begins Removing Transgender Troops From Service:

According to a new court filing from the U.S. Justice Department, the Pentagon has begun initiating involuntary separation actions against at least two current servicemembers. Cadet Hunter Marquez and First Lieutenant Sean Kersch-Hamer, both members of the Air Force, are challenging the administration’s transgender military ban in the case of Talbott v. United States; the ban is currently in effect pending further legal action.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Anti-Trans ‘Kennedy Declaration’:

On Saturday, April 18, Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai of the Federal District Court of Oregon summarily invalidated a December declaration from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that sought to severely restrict access to medically-necessary healthcare for transgender youth. In a sweeping and sharply worded rebuke, Judge Kasubhai made clear that the administration’s actions were unlawful and dangerous, directly calling out Kennedy’s “unserious regard for the rule of law” and how such disregard “causes very real harm to very real people.” Following the decision, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued new guidance for providers and hospitals regarding transition-related care, emphasizing they “can and should continue to provide [care].” Read our statement here.

RFK, Jr. Claims ‘Press 3’ Crisis Line Option Will Be Reinstated:

HHS Secretary Kennedy said in a Senate hearing that specialized services for LGBTQ+ youth through the 988 Suicide Prevention Hotline will be restored after it was abruptly cut last summer. A recent study has found that after the launch of the hotline in 2022, suicide deaths among teens and young adults were about 11% lower than expected, amounting to roughly 4,400 fewer deaths through 2024. It remains to be seen whether RFK, Jr. — who has advanced numerous anti-LGBTQ+ policies — will follow through on that commitment.

Federal Challenge Filed Against Anti-Transgender Idaho Bathroom Ban:

Lambda Legal, the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ civil rights legal organization, and other legal groups filed suit in federal court on Thursday, April 30, on behalf of six transgender Idahoans in a challenge to the recently-passed HB 752. The bill, signed by Governor Brad Little earlier this year, is one of the most severe anti-transgender bathroom bans in the country; a first offense is a misdemeanor with up to a one-year prison sentence, while a second offense is a felony with up to five years in prison. The bill applies to all government buildings and businesses open to the public; Lambda’s Kell Olson and F. Curt Kirschner, Jr. say the law is “…intended to erase the very existence of Idaho’s transgender community.”

STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Equality California is advancing a comprehensive 2026 legislative package and budget request focused on protecting access to healthcare, strengthening privacy and safety, and expanding support for LGBTQ+ people across the state. At the center is a $26 million budget proposal to safeguard access to transgender healthcare by creating a state-only Medi-Cal funding pathway and stabilizing the provider network in response to increasing federal attacks.

All of our 2026 priority sponsored bills have successfully passed their initial policy committee hearings, and the majority are now in the Appropriations Committee’s “suspense file,” where they will be considered on May 14 alongside hundreds of other measures.

Our legislation includes efforts to enforce LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum in schools, restore culturally competent crisis support for LGBTQ+ youth through the 988 suicide lifeline, and strengthen privacy protections for patients and providers as out-of-state attacks on abortion and transgender health care intensify. Additional measures expand access to HIV prevention, support transgender veterans, enhance safety at community events, allow people to challenge convictions rooted in gender bias, extend justice for survivors of conversion therapy, protect sensitive LGBTQ+ data, support LGBTQ+ people in higher education, and recognize chosen family in bereavement leave policies. Together, this package helps ensure LGBTQ+ people in California can live safely, access the care they need, and be treated with dignity.

To view our entire 2026 state legislative package, visit eqca.org/legislation

UPCOMING EVENTS

The 2026 San Diego Equality Awards are happening on Thursday, May 28 from 6:00 PM-10:00 PM. We’ll be back at the spectacular Loews Coronado Bay Resort. Be there as we celebrate San Diego City Councilmember Jennifer Campbell with the Vanguard Leadership Award; more honoree and special guest announcements will be coming soon. Get your tickets today!

Our Pride Parties return this summer as we gather in community and celebrate Pride 2026! Rise Up and join us at an event near you! Tickets are on sale now!

Los Angeles: Wednesday, June 10 @ Hi Tops Los Feliz
San Francisco: Tuesday, June 23 @ El Rio
San Diego: Tuesday, July 14 @ InsideOUT

Ukrainian lawmakers have advanced a proposed new Civil Code that does not contain legal protections for same-sex couples.

The Kyiv Independent reported the proposal passed on its first reading on April 28 by a 254-2 vote margin.

The newspaper notes more than two dozen advocacy groups in a statement said some of the proposed Civil Code’s provisions “contradict European standards” and “violate Ukraine’s commitments under its EU accession process.”

“The most worrying provisions are those that make it impossible for a court to recognize the existence of a family relationship between people of the same sex,” the statement reads. “This overturns the already established case law on this issue, and closes the only legal avenue that allows partners to somehow protect their rights in individual cases.”

“Moreover, the draft completely ignores the obligations that Ukraine should have already fulfilled as part of its accession to the EU, as it lacks provisions that would allow people of the same sex to register their relationships,” it adds.

“The provisions also stipulate that all marriages concluded by people who have changed their gender automatically become invalid,” the statement further notes. “This is not just stagnation in the field of human rights or lack of progress on the path to European integration, but an actual setback in the legal sphere.”

Olena Shevchenko, chair of Insight, a Ukrainian LGBTQ+ advocacy group, in an April 28 Facebook post said the new Civil Code “is a step back on upholding the rights of women and the LGBT+ community in Ukraine.”

The Ukrainian constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2022 publicly backed civil partnerships for same-sex couples. 

The Ukrainian Supreme Court on Feb. 25 recognized Zoryan Kis and Tymur Levchuk — a gay couple who has lived together since 2013 and married in the U.S. in 2021 — as a family. Ukraine the day before marked four years since Russia began its war against the country.

Following nearly half a year in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, Allan Marrero has been released and is back home with his husband in New York.

Marrero spent 150 days in ICE custody, held in multiple detention centers across the U.S. after missing an immigration court hearing while in a rehabilitation program for alcohol addiction — a circumstance widely considered “good cause” for failing to appear.

The Washington Blade first reported on Marrero’s case in March after the Cayman Islands native was detained by ICE officers during what was supposed to be a routine marriage-based green card interview at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City.

Marrero had been married to his husband, Matthew Marrero, for two years at the time of the interview. But almost immediately, the experience turned hostile.

The Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, a minister at Middle Church in Manhattan who accompanied the couple to provide spiritual support, later described the process as “dehumanizing” and “barbaric.”

During the interview, it became clear the couple was facing an uphill battle. At one point, when asked how they met, Matthew Marrero instinctively looked over at his husband and was “snapped at” and told not to look at him. As the interview continued, the outlook only grew more grim.

Unaware that he had a prior removal order tied to the missed court date while he was in rehab, Allan Marrero was detained on the spot.

Over the following months, Allan Marrero was transferred through multiple detention facilities, including centers in Arizona and Texas, the Everglades Detention Facility — also known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” which has been described as having “unsanitary inadequate conditions” — and ultimately a detention center in Mississippi.

While in custody, Allan Marrero was denied access to prescription medication and, according to advocates, was psychologically pressured by ICE agents to self-deport rather than remain detained while his legal case proceeded.

Although a judge later reopened his case and granted bond after Allan Marrero provided proof that he had been in rehab — a valid medical reason for missing his court date — ICE used procedural mechanisms to keep him detained. A separate judge later issued a ruling denying relief, leaving Allan Marrero in custody.

On the outside, Matthew Marrero said his life felt as though it had been put on pause so ICE could meet enforcement quotas.

“[It feels like] somebody came in and kidnapped someone close to you and took away all of your control and power,” Matthew Marrero told the Blade on March 7. “You shouldn’t be able to have this much control over somebody’s life, especially if they are trying to do the right thing … You’re not going after criminals, you’re not going after the worst of the worst. You’re trying to fill a quota.”

Alexandra Rizio, Allan Marrero’s attorney with Make the Road New York, a progressive grassroots immigrant-led organization, told the Blade that “there seems to be an underlying element of cruelty baked into not only this administration, but everything.”

“It didn’t have to go down that way,” Rizio continued. “If someone goes in for a green card interview and their marriage interview, and they learn that they have a removal order, what the USCIS officer could have done is say, ‘Look, you have a removal order in your name. You need to go hire an attorney right away to get this taken care of. I can’t adjudicate your green card…’ And if you hire a lawyer, you know, you might be able to get it straightened out. Of course, that’s not what happened. And so ICE, which was in the building, were called and they did arrest Allan.”

The Marreros are scheduled to hold a press conference on Tuesday at Middle Church, where Allan Marrero will speak publicly for the first time about his detention.

For additional information on the press conference please visit middlechurch.org. 

There is something deeply unsettling about a society that turns a child’s future into a public referendum. In Eswatini, there were reports that students were expelled from school over alleged same-sex relationships, and that parents were invited to vote on whether those children should remain, forcing us to confront a difficult question on when did education stop being a right and become a favor granted by collective approval? Because this is a non-neutral vote.

A vote reflects power, prejudice and personal beliefs, which are often linked to tradition, culture, politics and religion. It is shaped by fear, by stigma, by long-standing narratives about morality and belonging. To ask parents, many of whom may already hold hostile views about LGBTIQ+ people, to decide the fate of children is not consultation. It is deferring the responsibility and repercussion. It is placing the lives of young people in the hands of those most likely to deny them protection.

And where is the law in all of this?

The Kingdom of Eswatini is not operating in a vacuum. It has a constitution that guarantees the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, including equality before the law, equal protection of the laws, and the right to dignity. The constitution further goes on to protect the rights of the child, including that a child shall not be subjected to abuse, torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.  

The Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 extends the constitution and international human rights instruments, standards and protocols on the protection, welfare, care and maintenance of children in Eswatini. The Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 promotes nondiscrimination of any child in Eswatini and says that every child must have psychosocial and mental well-being and be protected from any form of harm. The acts of this very instance place the six students prone to harm and violence. The expulsion goes against one of the mandates of this act, which stipulates that access to education is fundamental to development, therefore, taking students out of school and denying them education contradicts the law.  

Eswatini is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. These are not just commitments made to make our governments look good and appeasing. They are obligations. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear regarding all actions concerning children. The best interests of the child MUST be a primary consideration and NOT secondary one. According to the CRC, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” It is not something to be weighed against public discomfort and popularity.

The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child reinforces this, grounding rights in non-discrimination (Article 3), privacy (Article 10) and protection from all forms of torture (Article 16). Access to education (Article 11) within these frameworks is not conditional but is a foundational right. It is not something that can be taken away because a child is perceived as falling outside social norms and threatening the moral fabric of society. It is a foundational right and determines one’s ability to participate in civic actions with dignity.

So again, where is the law when children are being expelled?

It is tempting to say the law is silent but that would be too generous. The law is not silent rather, it is being ignored and bypassed in favor of systems of decision-making that make those in power comfortable. When schools and their leadership defer to parental votes rather than legal standards, they are not acting neutrally. Expelling a child from school because of allegations is not a decision to be taken lightly. It disrupts education and limits future opportunities and for children already navigating identity and social pressure, this kind of exclusion can have profound psychological effects. It isolates them. It marks them for potential harm. Imagine being a child whose future is discussed in a room where people debate your worth. That is exposure. That is harm. There is a tendency to justify these actions in the language of culture, tradition, religion and protecting social cohesion. But culture is not static and the practice of Ubuntu values is not an excuse to violate rights. If anything, the principle of Ubuntu demands the opposite of what is happening here.

Ubuntu is not about conformity. It is about recognition and is the understanding that our humanity is bound up in one another. That we are diminished when others are excluded. That care, dignity, respect and compassion are not optional extras but central to how we exist together. Where, then, is Ubuntu in a school where some children are deemed unworthy of access to education?

Why are those entrusted with protecting children are failing to do so?

There is a very loud contradiction at play. On one hand, there is a claim to shared values and to the importance of community. On the other hand, there is a willingness to isolate and exclude those who do not fit within the narrow definition of what is acceptable. You cannot have both. A community that thrives on exclusion is neither cohesive nor safe.

It is worth asking why these decisions are being made in this way. Why not follow the established legal processes? Why not ensure that any disciplinary action within schools aligns with national and international obligations? Why introduce a vote at all? The answer is uncomfortable and lies in legitimacy and accountability. A vote creates the appearance of a collective agreement. But again, I reiterate, it distributes responsibility across many hands, making it hard to hold anyone accountable. It allows the school leadership to say “lesi sincumo sebantfu”(“This is what the community decided, not me”) rather than confronting their own role in human rights violations. If the law is clear and rights, responsibilities and obligations are established, then the question is not what the community feels. The question is why those entrusted with protecting children are failing to do so.

There is also a deeper issue here about whose rights are seen as negotiable. When we talk about children, we often speak of care, of understanding, of protection and safeguarding them because they are the future. But that language becomes selective when it intersects with sexuality, particularly when it involves LGBTIQ+ identities. Suddenly, care, understanding, protection, and safeguarding give way to punishment.

Easy decisions are not always just ones.

If the kingdom is serious about its commitments under its constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, then those commitments must be visible in practice, not just in policy documents. Rather, they must guide decision-making in schools and in communities. That means recognizing that a child’s right to education cannot be overridden by a show of hands. It means ensuring that schools remain spaces of inclusion rather than sites of moral policing. It means holding leaders and institutions accountable when they fail to protect those in their care.

Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a human rights activist.