The West Hollywood City Council voted unanimously on Nov. 2 to create a registry for those in “multi-partner domestic relationships.” 

The measure gives those in polyamorous relationships the same legal rights afforded to monogamous couples. Those include visitation rights in hospitals and jails in West Hollywood and certain tenant protections. 

In 1985, West Hollywood became the first city in the nation to recognize domestic partnerships between same-sex couples. Within a few decades, legal recognition of same-sex couples extended to many cities and states and in 2015 marriage equality was legalized nationally. Now, advocates for polyamory say that WeHo is starting another trend toward recognizing other non-nuclear family structures. 

“The new law not only gives polyamorous unions legal recognition, I think it also gives people permission to imagine a future together and to plan their lives openly,” said Christina Fialho, president of Rewrite the BiLine, a non-profit organization that works to expand queer media representation that advocated for the measure. She hopes that as time passes, more cities and states will pass legislation that legally recognizes those outside of traditional monogamous relationships. “This is the first of many more wins to come, and we hope to see more cities adopt similar ordinances,” Fialho said. A few cities in Massachusetts also currently recognize multi-partner relationships. 

Fialho said the growing prevalence of non-monogamous relationships will help create demand for more legal recognition. “In the United States, consensual non-monogamy is actually as common as owning a cat,” Fialho said, which amounts to around 5% of the population. They are particularly prevalent among LGBTQ people, with around “50% of LGBTQ+ people” having been in “consensually non-monogamous relationships,” according to Fialho. 

Megan Katz, a West Hollywood resident and librarian is part of that 50%. Katz has practiced polyamory for years and is currently in a committed marriage while also dating outside of it. She views the ordinance as a major victory. “It is one more step toward legitimizing nontraditional relationships and specifically polyamorous relationships,” Katz said. 

Katz does not plan on immediately using the registry, as one of her relationships “is not established enough,” but she “very much appreciates that the city is taking these steps.” 

Katz considers herself lucky that she has not experienced much personal discomfort or discrimination due to her polyamorous relationship. “With my personal, private communities, and even just my personal circles, I really have not had any problems,” she said. But she thinks the ordinance will help curb larger cultural stigmas around polyamory and non-monogamy. 

“I am polyamorous and I am very comfortable with that, but it’s not a concept that’s very well known culturally and is sort of vilified or looked down upon,” she said. “There’s nothing wrong with it when you’re engaged in it ethically.”

Following Democratic victories in the midterm elections, LGBTQ+ advocates are looking to the incoming Congress for renewed opportunities to pass pro-LGBTQ+ legislation.

For decades, advocates and lawmakers have pushed for a federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. With Democrats set to take control of both chambers in January, advocates say the new majority could provide an opening to advance legislation that has repeatedly stalled in Congress, even as the Trump administration continues its efforts to roll back existing protections.

The Equality Act remains at the top of the legislative wish list. The legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related federal laws to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service.

The latest version was introduced in the House by Equality Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and in the Senate by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) among its co-sponsors.

Other proposals include the Transgender Bill of Rights, reintroduced in February by Markey and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), with Reps. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) and Takano among its co-sponsors. The resolution calls on the federal government to take steps to protect transgender and nonbinary people and ensure access to medical care, shelter, safety, and economic security.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), a co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, has also backed legislation aimed at addressing discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. She has co-sponsored the Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2025, which would prohibit commercial sexual orientation conversion therapy, as well as the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act, which would require colleges and universities to establish policies addressing homophobia and transphobia on campus.

But while advocates see a Democratic-controlled Congress as an opportunity to advance those proposals, they are also approaching the next two years with an understanding of the political and legislative challenges ahead.

The Los Angeles Blade spoke with Ricardo Martinez, executive director of GLAD Law, about the future of federal LGBTQ+ policy under the new Congress and what the midterm results revealed about the priorities of American voters.

“The first thing that I think of when I think of the election is that this election showed that people are tired of division, and they want leaders who are focused on everyday concerns like healthcare, safety, economic security,” Martinez told the Blade by phone Tuesday. “I think a lot of people in the United States, including LGBTQ people, are hurting.”

Martinez said the incoming 120th Congress has tools to protect LGBTQ+ people, even if passing sweeping new federal protections proves difficult in the near term.

“Passing new federal protections for LGBTQ people specifically may be hard in the near term, and we are realistic about that,” Martinez said. “But still, Congress can lay the groundwork now, either through hearings or bill development.”

He pointed to healthcare and economic policy as areas where lawmakers could make progress that benefits LGBTQ+ people alongside the broader public.

“But there’s a lot Congress can do on healthcare minimum wage that would apply and benefit LGBTQ people,” he said. “Lasting progress has always depended on the support of both parties, so that’s a coalition that I think is worth building, and hopefully, in the not so near future, the Equality Act can be a thing that moves.”

Beyond passing legislation, Democrats are preparing to use their new majority to scrutinize the Trump administration. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the gay lawmaker who won reelection, is slated to chair the House Oversight Committee when Democrats take control of the chamber.

Garcia has pledged to investigate the administration and hold officials accountable for actions he believes violated the law. That promise has already drawn a response from the White House, where Trump administration officials have warned against efforts to intimidate or threaten executive branch employees.

In response to those warnings, the Democratic staff of the House Oversight Committee defended Congress’ authority to investigate the administration, arguing that its oversight powers come from the Constitution and do not depend on White House approval.

Martinez said that kind of oversight is particularly important when government actions affect personal privacy, healthcare, and community programs.

“Oversight of the executive branch is one of Congress’s basic responsibilities, no matter who is in office,” Martinez said. “So, recent federal actions on personal privacy and data cuts to healthcare, research, and community programs deserve careful review.”

He said the consequences extend beyond LGBTQ+ people, warning that government actions targeting one group’s privacy or access to services can threaten protections for everyone.

“Their effects reach Americans broadly, not only LGBTQ people,” Martinez said. “And when the government can single out one group’s privacy or services, everyone’s rights are less secure, and transparency protects all of us.”

Democrats could also use their control of congressional spending negotiations to push for funding for programs serving LGBTQ+ communities. Martinez specifically pointed to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and said lawmakers should oppose discriminatory policy riders in federal spending bills.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, House Republicans introduced more than 50 anti-LGBTQ+ policy riders across federal funding bills over the past year. The proposed provisions sought to restrict gender-affirming care, permit discrimination against same-sex couples and undermine diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which have been a longstanding target of the president’s agenda.

Separately, significant cuts have affected federal funding for HIV/AIDS programs. Under the Trump-Vance administration, funding shortfalls pushed by the administration have emerged in programs serving LGBTQ+ people and other vulnerable communities. The HIV and Hepatitis Policy Institute says $1 billion in cuts to domestic HIV prevention, surveillance, and support programs have left some of the communities most affected by HIV struggling to cover medical costs.

“Last year was full of disruptions in HIV prevention grants and services, which created great instability. Not only do we need to maintain current funding levels, but increases are urgently needed, particularly for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) due to rising enrollment and insurance premium costs,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, earlier this year.

Still, congressional oversight and funding decisions will not necessarily stop the administration from pursuing policies LGBTQ+ advocates oppose. Martinez said GLAD Law plans to continue challenging those actions in court.

“Our plan has always been and will remain consistent, which is we are in the process of a surge in litigation, which means that we’re going to try to stop as much of the bad as possible,” Martinez said.

The organization’s work will also extend to state governments, where many laws directly affecting LGBTQ+ people’s daily lives are passed. Martinez said GLAD Law will continue challenging harmful state policies while pursuing legislation to strengthen legal protections for LGBTQ+ families, including in adoption, assisted reproduction and parental recognition.

The election also offered hope on transgender rights, despite continued political attacks targeting transgender people. Martinez said advocates must continue challenging misinformation and helping Americans better understand the lives of LGBTQ+ people.

That message was echoed by U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the nation’s first transgender member of Congress, who pushed back against the idea that Democrats should abandon transgender people politically to win elections after winning her re-election last week.

Speaking during a HRC call Tuesday night, McBride argued that Democrats’ electoral gains were not built by sacrificing vulnerable communities.

“The majority was not built by throwing vulnerable people under the bus. This majority was built by people of principle, by candidates who have defended their voters and their constituents, all of them, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity,” McBride said.

She also pointed to her own re-election as evidence that voters were not rejecting transgender representation at the ballot box.

“I’m proud that at a time when Republicans seemingly made every single issue in some form or fashion about trans issues, that voters in my state returned the nation’s first out transgender member of Congress to office, with the largest number of votes of any candidate on the statewide ballot this year,” she said.

For Martinez, the work ahead will involve not only legislation and litigation, but also changing how Americans understand LGBTQ+ people, particularly transgender people.

“Accurate information also matters,” he said. “And we’re going to continue countering misinformation and disinformation, and helping more people understand LGBTQ people’s lives, especially transgender people.”

He said advocates must continue sharing their experiences and emphasizing their place in communities across the country.

“We are your neighbors. We are small business owners. We are, you know, your colleagues and coworkers, and that’s important for people to know,” Martinez said. “Familiarity is incredibly important, and at the heart of this is something very simple: that transgender people want to live their lives in peace, like everyone else, and that’s a value I think Americans share across party lines.”

Israeli President Isaac Herzog has tapped Gadi Eisenkot to try and form a government after the country’s Oct. 27 elections.

Eisenkot was the Israel Defense Forces’ chief of staff from 2015-2019. He was a minister in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks — Eisenkot’s son, IDF Master Sgt. Gal Meir Eisenkot, died in combat in the Gaza Strip roughly two months after Hamas militants attacked Israel.

The International Criminal Court in 2024 issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu; former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant; former Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar; Mohamed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, the head of Hamas’s military wing known as the Qassam Brigades; and Ismail Haniyeh, chair of the Hamas Political Bureau, after it accused them of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza and Israel.

The Israeli government has strongly denied it has committed genocide in Gaza.

An Israeli airstrike on a compound in Khan Younis, a city in southern Gaza, on July 13, 2024, killed killed Deif, one of the alleged Oct. 7 masterminds. Israel less than three weeks later assassinated Haniyah in Tehran, the Iranian capital. IDF soldiers on Oct. 16, 2024, killed Sinwar in Rafah, a city in southern Gaza.

Gadi Eisenkot resigned in 2024. He founded Yashar!, a centrist party that means “Straight!” in Hebrew, in 2025.

Gadi Eisenkot was the main opposition candidate in the Oct. 27 elections.

Netanyahu, who chairs the right-wing Likud party, and his allies lost their majority in the 120-member Knesset.

The Likud bloc has 53 seats in the Knesset, compared to the 48 seats the Yashar! coalition has. Arab-led parties that could prove pivotal to Gadi Eisenkot’s efforts to form a government have 19 seats.

The new Knesset was sworn in on Tuesday.

Three MKs —Amir Ohana of Likud, Eitan Ginzburg of the center-right Beyachad party, and former Ramat Gan Mayor Israel Zari, a Yashad! member who is a former spokesperson for the Aguda, an Israeli LGBTQ+ rights group — are openly gay.

Ohana in 2022 became the Knesset’s first openly gay speaker and is the country’s first out Cabinet minister. The Knesset on Nov. 17 is scheduled to vote on who will will succeed Ohana in the post.

Gadi Eisenkot has six weeks to form a government. Herzog will then tap Netanyahu, who remains Israel’s caretaker prime minister, if Gadi Eisenkot fails. Another election could take place if neither man can form a new government.

Gadi Eisenkot’s party supports LGBTQ+ legislative package

Yashar!’s website states the “LGBT community is an integral part of Israeli society.”

“Its members bear the burden and are full partners in civic duties; but are not equal in rights and are exposed to violence, hatred, and incitement,” it reads.

The Yashar! website further states “the right to security is the right of every person,” but notes “those who serve, donate, and pay taxes feel threatened or discriminated against due to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity” and it “is a reality that cannot be accepted.” The party also says it “advocates for the right of every person to choose their lifestyle and to have equal rights as a citizen of the country, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

“We will ensure that members of the LGBT community are safe in the public sphere, enjoy equal rights under the law, and receive all the social services that every citizen is entitled to by law,” it says.

Yashar! also supports the Sagi Laws for Equality, a package 10 legislative proposals that would expand rights to LGBTQ+ Israelis. They are named in honor of Sagi Golan, an IDF major who Hamas militants killed on Oct. 7 in Be’eri, a kibbutz that is near the Israel-Gaza border.

His fiancé, Omer Ohana, with the support of Israeli advocacy groups, successfully lobbied Israeli lawmakers to amend the country’s Bereaved Families Law to recognize LGBTQ+ widows and widowers of fallen servicemembers. A ban on so-called conversion therapy, stronger hate crimes and nondiscrimination laws, and civil marriage equality are among the other proposals in the Sagi Laws for Equality package.

The Aguda promoted it ahead of the Oct. 27 elections.

“Yashar! is committed to promoting equal rights for members of the LGBT community,” says Yashar! on its website, while reiterating its support of the legislative package to “restore the personal security of members of the LGBT community, to end existing discrimination in legislation, and to provide the necessary government responses in education, health, welfare, and all areas of life.”

Five states across the country had ballot initiatives targeting transgender people and seeking to restrict their rights in some form, from bathroom restrictions to limitations on access to school sports.

Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Washington all considered measures targeting transgender people during the 2026 election.

Missouri’s anti-trans ballot initiative failed; while voters in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, and Washington approved their respective measures.

Arizona

In Arizona, voters passed Proposition 318, also known as the Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona Act, with approximately 58.7 percent of the vote. The proposition, which was placed on the ballot by the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature, expands the state’s existing Sports Participation Ban, passed in 2022, which restricts trans girls from competing on public school girls’ sports teams.

The amendment further restricts athletic participation based on biological sex and addresses access to restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas in public schools.

Arizona also has a surgery ban in place that prohibits physicians from providing “irreversible gender reassignment surgery” to minors under the age of 18. The state also excludes “gender reassignment surgeries” from Medicaid coverage.

Joel Edman, a spokesman for Progress Arizona, a local advocacy group, criticized the measure following its passage, warning of the broader consequences it could have for trans people and girls in general.

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

Colorado

In Colorado, voters approved two anti-trans propositions, both targeting trans youth.

Proposition 134 requires public schools and colleges to designate sports teams according to students’ sex, while restricting trans athletes from participating on teams that align with their gender identity. The Associated Press called the race, with support for trans restrictions at 52 percent of the vote.

Proposition 135, which prohibits health care professionals from knowingly performing any surgery on a minor “for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics,” also passed, receiving 51.92 percent of the vote.

Bruce Parker, executive director of Rocky Mountain Equality, described the results as a setback for transgender youth, their families and the state’s broader LGBTQ+ community.

“Today is a bad day for Colorado. While we certainly have some good news from the results, including the rejection of Amendment 81, our fundamental commitment to privacy and freedom has been undermined by the passage Propositions 134 and 135, two misleading and discriminatory ballot measures. This is devastating for a lot of kids, families, and communities.

“The impact of these measures on Colorado families is real. Right now, parents are wondering what this means for their children’s healthcare. Students are wondering if they’ll be allowed back on their teams or what they might have to do to be allowed to play. To those kids and families I want to say: you are not alone, and we are not going anywhere.”

Parker continued, saying the language of the measures was intentionally vague, creating a chilling effect for those unsure whether they were violating the law. He argued that this would lead more people to err on the side of caution and preemptively act in ways that align with the legislation, regardless of whether those actions are actually illegal under the new measures.

“Props 134 and 135 were written broadly and vaguely on purpose. They leave basic questions unanswered about who enforces them, how decisions get made, and what safeguards exist. That ambiguity is what the proponents want. They want for there to be gray areas where the policies could potentially reach even farther into our private lives.

He also added that, while they lost the final tally, the close race indicated that many people in the state genuinely care about protecting trans youth, making the issue more of a fight than conservatives had made it out to be.

“More than a million Coloradans voted against these harmful measures. The vote was close, and we are so grateful for every person who made calls, knocked doors, and voted. Now the newly elected Colorado legislators have an opportunity to negate the damage these policies will cause, and we expect them to step up.

“To every transgender kid and family, we’ve got your back. This is your home too. This vote doesn’t change that,” Parker finished with.

Mardi Moore, chief executive officer of Rocky Mountain Equality Action Fund, similarly criticized the measures, arguing that voters had been misled into supporting policies that would disproportionately affect trans youth and their families.

“While we elected many pro-equality candidates and defeated a measure targeting our immigrant neighbors, voters were misled into accepting policies that unnecessarily and unfairly target trans youth and their families,” Moore said. “Supporting the hateful priorities in Project 2025, these poorly written measures will cause confusion and harm for real kids, families, schools, and doctors. We will continue to fight for every person’s freedom and privacy, and we will work with newly elected lawmakers to mitigate the harm these policies can do to Colorado kids.”

Missouri

Missouri, one of the most consistently Republican states on the list, was the only state to reject its anti-trans ballot measure, with 55.42 percent of Missourians voting “No.”

Voters in the Show Me State rejected Amendment 3, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that attempted to enshrine a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in the state constitution, alongside abortion restrictions.

LGBTQ+ advocates in the state attributed the outcome to grassroots organizing that emphasized the right to live free from discrimination, rather than the expansive and often dangerous rhetoric anti-trans politicians have been injecting into this race and others across the country.

PROMO Communications Director Robert Fischer said the organization views the result as part of a longer-term effort to build political support for trans Missourians.

“Our goal is to build a pro-trans majority in Missouri, which means that the majority of voters in Missouri would reject any candidate, law, or ballot initiative that tries to discriminate against trans Missourians,” Fischer said. “We understand that this would be a 5-10 year goal, which is why our deep canvassing work is about power building. We set out to have 10,000 completed conversations with voters across the state and we are proud to say that we exceeded that number, hitting over 13,000 by Election Day.”

“We’ve seen the beginnings of people’s hearts and minds shift in Missouri as we talk to voters. There are so many people in each of our regions that simply are eager to talk with a trans person — to hear more from them and learn more about them. Our deep canvassing program started in 2024 and it will continue after this year’s election.”

Fischer also said he believes the outcome reflects a broader national shift in how voters view political attacks targeting trans people.

“Nationally,” Fischer added, “I think you’ll see Missouri is on pace with the rest of the country in that voters are tired of politicians using trans people as political fodder.”

Nebraska

Voters in Nebraska approved Initiative 442, the Fairness for Girls constitutional amendment. The proposal received 67.81 percent of the vote, the highest level of support among the anti-trans ballot measures considered during this election cycle.

The measure bars students assigned male at birth from participating in sports designated for girls and women, enshrining sex-based athletic eligibility requirements in the state’s constitution.

OutNebraska, an advocacy organization for LGBTQ+ people in the state, was a vocal opponent of the measure. Although the policy had already been enacted through state law, the ballot initiative made it part of the state constitution, making it more difficult to change or challenge.

The organization previously described the measure as causing “real damage” to trans children.

“The ‘Fairness for Girls’ initiative is not a grassroots effort to protect girls’ sports. It has received the majority of its funding, more than $3 million, from a dark money nonprofit,” Nia Patterson, the organization’s communications manager, posted in June. “It is designed to permanently embed into Nebraska’s constitution a policy that was already passed as regular law, specifically making it harder to change or challenge that law.”

“Transgender students are not a threat to girls’ sports,” Patterson added. “They are kids who want to play. OutNebraska knows that Nebraska is for all of us. That includes every young person who wants to be part of their school community.”

Washington

Washington voters approved Initiative 638 with more than 55 percent of the vote, barring students assigned male at birth from participating in girls’ K-12 sports. The measure also requires all girls — both cisgender and trans — to verify their sex before joining a girls’ team, while boys face no similar requirement. Verification can be based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.

The vote marks a reversal of nearly two decades of state policy allowing trans students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity.

Despite the measure’s passage, LGBTQ+ and educational organizations swiftly moved to challenge its legality in court.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Pacifica Law Group filed a lawsuit seeking to block the measure. On Nov. 9, a second coalition of parents and educators filed a separate challenge, arguing that the initiative discriminates against trans girls and violates several provisions of the state constitution.

The plaintiffs include TransFamilies, a nonprofit supporting families with trans and gender-diverse children; the Washington Education Association, which represents more than 90,000 educators; and parents of students who play girls’ sports. TransFamilies and the parents are represented by the ACLU of Washington and Legal Voice, while the educators’ union is represented by Pacifica Law Group.

The lawsuit argues that the sex-verification requirements violate students’ privacy rights under Article I, Section 7, and the state’s Equal Rights Amendment by subjecting girls, but not boys, to additional scrutiny. It also cites Article IX’s guarantee of equal access to education and argues that the initiative improperly amends the Washington Law Against Discrimination and other state laws protecting trans people.

The coalition will seek emergency relief to prevent the measure from taking effect Dec. 3.

TransFamilies founder Aidan Key, who helped lead efforts to establish Washington’s inclusive school sports policy in 2007, said the state had spent two decades embracing trans and gender-diverse student-athletes.

“It has been my great privilege over the last two decades to see communities throughout Washington embrace trans and gender-diverse student-athletes in their schools,” Key said. “When people are provided accurate information, have their questions or concerns addressed, and understand why participation —for trans children and everyone else — matters, they gain clarity and confidence that inclusion, not division, makes us all stronger.”

“Washington educators are committed to fair and welcoming schools where all students can thrive,” said Washington Education Association President Janie White. “This new requirement is in direct conflict with the state’s paramount duty to educate our children without discrimination.”

“Sports give young people a place to make friends and be part of a team, but Initiative 638 seeks to deny transgender girls those opportunities,” said Adrien Leavitt, staff attorney for the ACLU of Washington. “Washington has long had strong protections against discrimination. We will fight to stop this law from taking effect and prevent this needless attack on youth in our state.”

“Think about what this law actually does: it creates an invasive surveillance process that could traumatize young girls across Washington — all in the name of discriminating against trans people,” said Legal Voice Managing Director Julia Marks. “Legal Voice has been fighting for equal access to athletics for all girls since our first case 50 years ago, and we’re not about to go backward in Washington.”

The broader political fight over trans rights

Despite the passage of several significant anti-trans ballot measures across the country, candidates who were targeted by anti-trans political advertisements won their races in Ohio, Texas, Michigan, and Alabama. Georgia and Wisconsin also elected their first trans or nonbinary state lawmakers.

The results highlight the increasingly prominent role trans rights have played in the culture-war politics of the Trump era. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on anti-trans political advertisements in elections across the country, as Republicans increasingly weaponized trans identity and made it a central part of their party platform.

However, the strategy came as voters continued to prioritize issues such as affordability and corruption, potentially benefiting their Democratic counterparts and contributing to one of the bluest retaliatory swings of the political pendulum in recent memory.

Lambda Legal Deputy Legal Director for Policy Cathryn Oakley argued that the election demonstrated the limits of using trans people as political targets.

“We already have learned a fundamental truth from the outcome of this election — throwing transgender and nonbinary people under the bus failed to accomplish the objectives of people who invested hundreds of millions of dollars into trying to turn us against each other,” Oakley said. “In Virginia, voters cleared antiquated, discriminatory language out of their constitution and affirmed that marriage equality is here to stay. In Missouri, voters rejected efforts to take healthcare decision making away from Missourians and give it to lawmakers instead. We are hopeful that when all the ballots are counted in Colorado and Washington, that voters in those states will have turned down measures that would have subjected girls to invasive inspections, taken health care decisions away from families and doctors, and stripped protections from students who confide in trusted adults at school.”

Oakley also emphasized the impact the political climate has had on trans and nonbinary young people, particularly those targeted by political campaigns.

“Our hearts go out to the transgender and nonbinary young people all across the country who have been subjected to these relentless, cynical attacks for no reason other than disapproval and misunderstanding of who they are. Lambda Legal sees you and will continue to fight for you, as we will continue to fight in places like Arizona and Nebraska, where the fight against discriminatory ballot measures was hard-fought but didn’t prevail. The truth is, these ballot measures aren’t about us — they are about the need of some people to divide Americans and turn us against one another,” Oakley continued.

“We will never accept that. Lambda Legal will keep fighting through impact litigation, advocacy and public education. The time of scapegoating our communities for cheap political gains is over.”

McBride: Democrats cannot abandon trans people

U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the nation’s first openly trans member of Congress who just won reelection for her seat, pushed back against the idea that Democrats need to abandon trans people politically to win elections during a call with the Human Rights Campaign on Tuesday night. She argued that the party’s electoral gains were not built by sacrificing vulnerable communities.

“The majority was not built by throwing vulnerable people under the bus. This majority was built by people of principle, by candidates who have defended their voters and their constituents, all of them, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity.”

McBride also argued that voters were increasingly rejecting anti-trans political attacks, particularly when those attacks came at the expense of addressing more immediate concerns.

“Anti-trans politics was a flop this election; they were a flop in 2025. The American people are tired of a politics of cruelty that does nothing to lower costs or address corruption throughout our society. They want serious leaders who bring us together and focus on the issues that keep them up at night.”

Her own reelection, she said, was another indication that trans identity was not an electoral liability for candidates willing to defend LGBTQ+ people.

“I’m proud that at a time when Republicans seemingly made every single issue in some form or fashion about trans issues, that voters in my state returned the nation’s first out transgender member of Congress to office, with the largest number of votes of any candidate on the statewide ballot this year.”

Advocates warn of the lasting impact on trans youth

While the election results offered some victories for LGBTQ+ advocates, organizations working with trans youth warned that the passage of ballot initiatives in four states would have consequences extending well beyond Election Day.

Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, senior vice president of public engagement campaigns at the Trevor Project, said the election should serve as a warning to politicians who continue to use trans young people as political targets.

“If there is one takeaway from the 2026 midterms, it’s that politicians must stop attacking transgender young people in hopes of political gain. With ballot initiatives in five states and hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-transgender attack ads, the 2026 U.S. midterm elections were a historic showing for anti-trans political forces. In many races all across the U.S., voters rejected anti-transgender political rhetoric and, instead, cast their votes based on the issues that mattered most to them.

“However, it is important to underscore that multiple states advanced ballot measures that restrict the rights of transgender young people. The Trevor Project’s peer-reviewed research found that transgender and nonbinary youth living in states where anti-transgender state laws were enacted reported up to a 72 percent increase in past-year suicide attempts.

“No matter your personal politics, or who you voted for, it’s important to recognize that the hostile political environment takes a toll on transgender youth mental health that lasts long after elections end. Transgender and nonbinary youth face disproportionate rates of suicide risk not because of who they are, but because of how they are mistreated and stigmatized.

“Across every state and every political party, leaders should let these young people and their families live their lives – not attack them further to score political points. Transgender people are people. Transgender kids are kids. And they deserve to grow up in a country that respects and supports them, just like all kids do.”

The Trevor Project’s 2025 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People further illustrates the toll the political climate has taken on trans and nonbinary youth. The survey found that 40 percent of trans and nonbinary young people seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year.

It also found that 94 percent said recent LGBTQ+-related policies, laws and debates caused them stress or anxiety, while 86 percent said those developments made them feel unsafe. Additionally, 38 percent said they or their families had considered moving to another state because of those policies.

HRC President Kelley Robinson similarly warned that, despite the election results, LGBTQ+ rights remain vulnerable to political and legal challenges.

“The last couple of years have taught us as a community how fragile our rights are. Right now, too many of our rights are hanging on by a single Supreme Court case.”

Robinson pointed to the 30 states that still have same-sex marriage bans on their books and warned that employment discrimination protections could also be at risk if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Bostock v. Clayton County.

She said the political fight over trans rights is far from over, arguing that opponents will continue to use LGBTQ+ people as political targets rather than address the issues affecting Americans.

“We’ve made it through the battle, but we’re not at the end of this war. I think that we will continue to see our opposition try to weaponize queer and trans lives for only political gain because they do not have answers or solutions to the problems and the crisis that is facing most Americans every single day.”

Robinson also described the consequences of the anti-trans political advertising campaign, particularly how it has shaped public perceptions of trans people and the challenges they face.

“One of the repercussions of these ads is that people are starting to see the cruelty that is happening for trans people, the levels of violence that they’re experiencing, the challenges in getting healthcare, the challenges and bullying that kids are facing in schools, sometimes at the hands of adults.”

Polling data also suggested a disconnect between the political emphasis on trans issues and voters’ priorities.

Anna Greenberg, a senior partner at GQR, an advisory firm that conducted polling on voter attitudes toward anti-trans measures, said 65 percent of people surveyed wanted to hear less about trans issues, the highest figure among the issues included in the polling.

“What I think comes out of this survey is what we experienced in real time, in those campaigns … [is that] the actual ads made had no impact on the races that we were working in,” Greenberg said during the HRC post-election call.

She also explained that the anti-transr rhetoric that appeared to have worked in 2024 to help reelect President Donald Trump is no longer proving effective. If anything, it is beginning to alienate some of the less fringe members of the Republican Party.

“Voters think the GOP’s obsession with trans people is a little strange,” Greenberg added. “We asked this question. We said, “Do you agree or disagree with: ‘Republicans’ obsession with transgender people and children is strange and over the top.’ 58 percent of people agreed with that statement.”

She also explained during the call that only 3 percent of Republican voters mentioned trans issues when asked why they voted Republican.

A British appellate court on Tuesday struck down a Trinidad and Tobago law that criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual relations.

Jason Jones, an LGBTQ+ activist from Trinidad and Tobago who currently lives in the U.K., in 2017 challenged Sections 13 and 16 of the country’s Sexual Offenses Act.

High Court Justice Devindra Rampersad in 2018 found them unconstitutional. The country’s government appealed the ruling, and the Trinidad and Tobago Court of Appeal in 2025 overturned it in a 2-1 ruling.

Jones appealed the decision to the Privy Council, an appellate court for British territories that can also consider cases from Commonwealth countries. (King Charles III is not Trinidad and Tobago’s head of state, but the country remains part of the Commonwealth.) The Privy Council heard the case in July.

“I won,” Jones told the Los Angeles Blade. “Nobody believed it was possible and made the impossible possible.”

Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts and Nevis, Barbados, and Dominica are among the countries that have decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in recent years. (All four Caribbean nations are former British colonies.)

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2021 issued a decision that said Jamaica must repeal its colonial-era sodomy law. The Jamaican Supreme Court in 2023 ruled against a gay man who challenged it.

A judge on St. Vincent and the Grenadines’s top court in 2024 dismissed two cases that challenged the country’s sodomy laws.

U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk in his statement that celebrated the Trinidad and Tobago ruling urged other Caribbean countries to decriminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations.

“This would align with the strong regional trend of repealing outdated and harmful colonial laws and with the principle of equal treatment for everyone, regardless of who they are or whom they love,” he said.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing an impending impeachment vote as U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on Monday filed articles of impeachment.

The grounds for impeachment center on Hegseth’s handling of the Iran war, namely his disregard for congressional War Powers resolutions, along with other issues, including allegations of war crimes committed by the military in other regions of the world at Hegseth’s behest.

“By engaging in hostilities in Iran for more than 90 days without congressional authorization, Secretary Hegseth is breaking the law and must be held accountable,” Massie said.

“I’m doing this because it’s the right thing to do,” he added after discussing the articles with reporters.

According to the BBC, when asked by reporters about the impending resolution earlier Monday, Hegseth said: “We’re not worried about that,” adding that he would hold a news conference Tuesday morning “on that very topic.”

Impeaching a Cabinet secretary would be an extremely rare move for Congress, particularly given that Republicans maintain control of the House until the end of the current term in January of next year. No Cabinet member has ever been successfully impeached in U.S. history.

Under current House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)’s leadership, Massie told reporters that he remains unsure whether the measure will secure enough Republican votes, assuming all Democrats support his articles of impeachment.

Currently, there are 218 Republicans and 214 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The U.S. Senate requires a two-thirds vote to convict, a threshold that would be difficult to reach during the current congressional term.

Hegseth has been an adamant opponent of LGBTQ+ rights, both within the military and in broader civilian life. He has a military background, beginning his service in the Minnesota Army National Guard, where he served at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba and was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

After his stint in the military, Hegseth became a prominent far-right political pundit on Fox News.

Prior to his appointment to the Pentagon, where he was confirmed only after a deciding vote by Vice President JD Vance; Hegseth faced allegations of sexual misconduct, financial mismanagement, and excessive drinking.

Since taking one of the highest-ranking positions in the U.S. military, Hegseth has been at the center of a series of controversies and questionable policy decisions, including a leaked government group chat on Signal; alleged war crimes related to U.S. military strikes on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean Sea; unconstitutionally promoting Christianity within the military; using unmarked military planes for boat strikes; questions surrounding the use of force and rules of engagement in the 2026 Iran war; an unprecedented purge of admirals and generals; mandating testosterone screening for military personnel; and broadly removing military members with a history of gender dysphoria.

In September 2025, Hegseth directed military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices, identity months, and LGBTQ+ programs across the department, framing the shift as a return to a “warrior ethos.”

Many of his anti-LGBTQ+ policies come as a direct result of President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” which bars transgender people, both current and future military personnel, from being affiliated with the Pentagon.

The impeachment effort comes days after Republicans suffered stunning losses in the midterm elections, with control of Congress set to return to Democrats. The results also mark a turning point for the Trump-Vance administration as Trump enters the “lame duck” period of his presidency, with two years remaining in his term and seemingly little support from a Democratic-controlled Congress beginning Jan. 3, 2027.

Johnson will have two days to either bring the articles to a vote, or vote to refer it to committee or to set it aside for future congressional leadership to deal with.

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to Johnson’s office and to SPARTA (Servicemembers, Partners, and Allies for Respect and Tolerance for All), a trans servicemember advocacy group, about the impending articles of impeachment for Hegseth, but did not receive a response by publication time.

This story will be updated as new details become available. 

Stephen Post has won the final seat on the West Hollywood City Council, joining Chelsea Byers and Helen Krieger as the winners of this election cycle. Post beat out candidates John Duran and Kyle Brazeal in the tight race for third. While ballots are still being counted, Post leads fourth place Duran by nearly 500 votes and his lead has been growing with each new vote count. Duran conceded to Post on Saturday morning. 

In Los Angeles County, younger and more progressive voters tend to cast their ballots closer to Election Day, meaning they often get counted later. This is what caused Post’s seeming comeback victory, although this is more a factor of California’s slow ballot counting process. 

Post ran a progressive campaign, focusing on an aggressive opposition to Flock cameras, which he said posed serious privacy concerns for WeHo residents, amounting to mass surveillance. He also supported the plan for bike lanes on Fountain Avenue and building more housing in WeHo, including in large apartment buildings. Post was the only candidate endorsed by the Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose members vigorously canvassed for him and helped him reach voters. 

Post is a newcomer to politics as City Council will be his first time in elected office. He works as a business improvement district manager and previously was a non-profit advocate for criminal justice reform.  

These election results illustrate a progressive sweep of the Council, with Byers and Krieger supporting many of the same policies as Post. All winning candidates were endorsed by the Unite Here! Local 11 union, which has become a powerful player in Los Angeles campaigns, as they also backed the successful campaign of Mayor-elect Nithya Raman. More moderate candidates like Duran, Brazeal, and Larry Block all placed in fourth, fifth, and sixth place respectively. 

With Council member John Erickson staying on the Council after losing his state Senate election to Brian Goldsmith, progressives will have a 4-1 majority meaning they will be able to pass their agenda with relative ease. Vice Mayor Danny Hang is more moderate but has often collaborated with Erickson and Byers on a case-by-case basis. 

The voters have spoken and a progressive agenda is coming to West Hollywood. Younger and first time candidates have won out over experienced WeHo political figures. 

Caleb Kaufman is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows.

Last week, the High Court heard the case of Bonolo Selelo and Tsholofelo Kumile, whom the Department of Civil Registration refused to register and recognize their marriage. Supported by LEGABIBO as the third applicant, the applicants challenge the refusal to register their intended marriage and the constitutionality of provisions of the Marriage Act that exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage. 

The case raises questions about equality, dignity, nondiscrimination, and the extent to which the law can exclude people from a fundamental civil institution because of whom they love. The hearing highlighted a bigger struggle of religion, gender, reproduction, and who makes up a family in Botswana.  

But as I followed the proceedings and reflected on the arguments advanced, I kept returning to a question that goes beyond interpreting the Marriage Act. Why does the possibility of two women of age getting married consensually provoke such a strong response from people who are not being asked to marry them?

This is not a question about whether religious organizations are entitled to hold their beliefs. They are. It is about what happens when those beliefs determine the civil rights of people who do not share them and when religious arguments become the basis for deciding which families deserve recognition and protection under the law. For me, this is where the marriage equality case becomes much bigger than marriage. It becomes a conversation about power.

When marriage becomes a battleground

One thing that stood out in this case was the language used to defend what opponents describe as the proper or traditional understanding of marriage. The Evangelical Fellowship of Botswana, House of Prayer and Transformation, and the Dingwetsi Association of Botswana oppose recognizing same-sex marriages in Botswana. 

Their arguments are grounded in Christian beliefs, customary understandings of marriage and concerns about the implications of recognizing same-sex unions. The state has also argued that the existing legislation does not provide for marriage between people of the same sex. 

Marriage is presented as a “holy” institution that is under threat. The heterosexual family becomes something that must be protected. A particular Christian understanding of marriage is elevated into a standard that should govern everyone, including people who do not subscribe to Christianity. Suddenly, two adult women asking for access to civil marriage are no longer simply two people seeking legal recognition. They are portrayed as a “challenge” to religion, culture, tradition, procreation, and the African family values. We can even take it a step further to say that they are destabilizing the walls of patriarchy. 

What exactly is being threatened by allowing two consenting adults to enter into a civil marriage? How does recognizing their relationship prevent a heterosexual couple from marrying? Why should the legal recognition of one family require excluding another?

The argument is not merely that the Evangelical Fellowship of Botswana, House of Prayer and Transformation, and the Dingwetsi Association of Botswana believe same-sex marriage is inconsistent with their Christian faith. It is that this belief must affect the legal status of people outside that faith and the protections available to them as citizens. That is where the discussion shifts from religious conviction to this group’s exercise of public power over everyone. 

The politics of religion and the anti-gender movement

I have become increasingly interested in how opposition to LGBTIQ+ rights is connected to a wider set of anti-gender and anti-human rights narratives across Africa. The anti-rights actors are a group of globally coordinated actors pushing rollbacks on sexual and reproductive health rights, comprehensive sexual education, LGBTIQ+ rights and civic space across multiple countries at once. They frame these narratives as “protecting the African child and African family values,” “preserving African family sovereignty,” and “restoring the moral fabric of society.” These translate into restrictive laws, hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, and harassment of sexual and gender minorities. The language sounds familiar because it appeals to concerns that matter to people. But how these values are interpreted, who gets to define them, and whose rights matter in the process?

In anti-gender politics, the concept of gender is often presented as a threat to biological sex, the family and social order. Dr Haley McEwen’s article, “Nuclear power: the family in decolonial perspective and ‘pro-family’ politics in Africa,” published in “Development Southern Africa” in 2017, examines how the heteronormative nuclear family functions as a colonial and political construct. She writes that “in centering the importance of the ‘nuclear family’ model and heterosexuality, pro-family discourses exceptionalize the family as a social institution capable of carrying the lion’s share of responsibility for ensuring the (re)production and maintenance of healthy and prosperous societies. This discourse resonates with neoliberal efforts to deflect responsibility for social and economic policy away from the state and towards individuals. In positioning the heterosexual nuclear family unit as the custodian of a ‘moral,’ healthy and economically thriving society, the state is able to outsource its responsibility towards its citizenry.” In this framing, defending the family becomes a justification for restricting the rights of people whose relationships do not fit a prescribed model.

The marriage equality case in Botswana sits within this broader contest over who gets to define gender, sexuality, and family life. We should be careful not to assume that every religious objection is part of a coordinated anti-gender movement. Nor should we treat religious communities as a single political bloc. But we should recognize the overlap between arguments that defend one supposedly natural family structure and broader efforts to limit the recognition of sexual and gender diversity.

Perhaps one of the most revealing aspects of debates about marriage equality is the appeal to procreation and biological complementarity. This push seeks to redefine marriage, who it is for and its purpose. That marriage is between a man and a woman because their biological differences make reproduction possible. From this perspective, marriage’s purpose is closely tied to the possibility of producing children.

If the ability to reproduce is what makes a marriage legitimate, what happens to heterosexual couples who cannot have children? What about couples who are infertile, older couples or people who marry and decide not to have children? Are their marriages less deserving of legal recognition? Yet when same-sex couples seek marriage equality, reproduction is suddenly presented as the defining feature of the institution.

Marriage is also a legal relationship that creates rights, responsibilities, and protections between spouses. It provides a framework for property ownership, inheritance, maintenance, next-of-kin recognition, and family security. These protections matter whether a couple has biological children or not.

It takes a village

We must realize that reproduction is not the same thing as parenting and biological connection is not the only basis on which families are formed. In Botswana, children are commonly raised by grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, and the community. Some children grow up in households where one parent is absent. After all, it takes a village.

When religious arguments enter the courtroom

The Evangelical Fellowship of Botswana, House of Prayer and Transformation, and the Dingwetsi Association of Botswana’s presence in this case also raises an important question about the relationship between faith and the constitutional state. Religious organizations are entitled to participate in litigation, make arguments, and express their views. Their participation is not, in itself, evidence of wrongdoing. In a constitutional democracy, people must be free to disagree about difficult questions.

But participation in a legal process does not automatically mean a party’s arguments should determine the outcome. A court must consider the law, the Constitution, the rights at stake, and the arguments presented by all parties. It must distinguish between a religious conviction and a constitutional justification for restricting another person’s rights. That distinction matters because civil marriage and religious solemnization are not identical questions. 

Recognizing a same-sex civil marriage does not require every religious institution to change its doctrine. Nor does it require every person to approve of same-sex relationships. It asks whether the civil law should deny a couple the legal status and protections available to other couples because of the sex of the people they wish to marry. 

Bradley Fortuin is a human rights activist. This article was first published in The Botswana Guardian newspaper. 

President Donald Trump has ousted Susie Wiles as his chief of staff, announcing that Stephen Miller, the current deputy chief of staff, will take her place on Monday.

Trump posted the message to his social media site Truth Social on Friday afternoon, informing the public of the change in leadership following the Republican Party’s devastating losses in Tuesday night’s midterm elections.

“I am pleased to announce that Mr. Stephen Miller, the current deputy chief of staff of the Trump administration, and one of my most trusted advisors, will become the chief of staff starting Monday, Nov. 9, 2026,” Trump posted. “Susie Wiles, who has done an outstanding job, will be moving over to the Trump Political Operation. I want to thank her for her service as chief of staff — She has done a great job!”

Miller, who has a long history of being closely intertwined with the 47th president, was a key voice in both of Trump’s presidential campaigns and served as one of his closest advisers. Prior to his tenure as deputy chief of staff, he served as a Homeland Security adviser beginning in 2025 and previously worked as a senior adviser and director of speechwriting during Trump’s first administration.

One of his biggest policy pushes while serving as Homeland Security adviser was the forced separation of migrant children from their parents or guardians, a policy that has led the Southern Poverty Law Center to consider him an extremist.

Miller founded the conservative legal organization America First Legal in 2021, which has acted as one of the strongest legal arms of the conservative movement in targeting LGBTQ+ rights and inclusive policies, including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, across the country.

America First Legal has worked with the Trump-Vance administration to target federal civil rights protections in K-12 schools and universities, including those related to transgender-inclusive policies.

He is expected to continue pushing anti-inclusive measures while serving as the president’s right-hand man.

Shortly after the White House announcement, openly gay U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, posted a statement on social media warning Miller and other administration officials that, following the change of power in January, they will face investigations by the committee, with the possibility of charges being brought against them for “unconstitutional” actions taken while Republicans held power.

“Just days after the American people rejected his corrupt and lawless presidency, Donald Trump is doubling down. Stephen Miller is the architect of the unconstitutional ICE raids that have terrorized our communities and kidnapped and killed American citizens and immigrant families,” Garcia posted on Instagram.

“Oversight Democrats will continue to investigate Miller for his misconduct, and we will fight against his hateful policies in Congress and the courts. Stephen Miller should lawyer up.”

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to the White House press office regarding the change in leadership and whether Miller would continue to push anti-LGBTQ+ policies while serving as the highest-ranking aide to the president and was directed to a X post made by White House Direct of Communications Steven Cheung.

“Stephen Miller is a Trump OG, someone who has been with the President since the very beginning. There is no bigger advocate for the Trump agenda than Stephen, and he will help the administration deliver on monumental victories for the rest of this historic second term,” Cheung wrote.

La visita del papa León XIV a Sudamérica, prevista para noviembre, ofrece un contexto para abordar una cuestión que atraviesa el testimonio de la escritora venezolana Marisol Johana Díaz Reyes de Córdova: el lugar de las personas trans en las comunidades de fe.

Radicada en Uruguay, Díaz de Córdova reúne en su libro “Vida Trans: Porque la sociedad nos ha separado hasta de Dios” su experiencia como mujer trans y migrante, su participación política y su relación con la espiritualidad.

La Santa Sede anunció que León XIV visitará Uruguay del 6 al 8 de noviembre de 2026, antes de continuar por Argentina y Perú. El recorrido sudamericano está previsto del 6 al 17 de noviembre.

Ante ese horizonte, la autora reivindica el amor al prójimo y la fraternidad como fundamentos de una convivencia que reconozca la dignidad de las personas trans. Su planteamiento encuentra un antecedente en el mensaje del fallecido papa Francisco a las personas LGBTQ+.

En una respuesta escrita al sacerdote jesuita James Martin, publicada por Vatican News en mayo de 2022, Francisco afirmó: «Dios es Padre y no reniega de ninguno de sus hijos». En el mismo intercambio defendió una Iglesia que convocara a todos sus hijos y rechazó una concepción selectiva de la comunidad eclesial.

Díaz de Córdova relaciona ese mensaje con el mandamiento evangélico de amarse unos a otros. Desde su experiencia personal, sostiene que reconocerse como hermanos e hijos de Dios debe traducirse en respeto hacia quienes han vivido rechazo por su identidad.

Su obra ya ha generado debate público. La presentación de Vida Trans en un ámbito vinculado al Partido Nacional motivó un planteamiento del Consejo de Representatividad Evangélica del Uruguay ante las autoridades partidarias. CBN Nicaragua recogió el episodio en agosto.

La organización evangélica precisó que su preocupación se centraba en el contexto institucional de la actividad y que no cuestionaba el derecho de la autora a escribir, publicar o presentar el libro. Esa distinción permite situar el desacuerdo sin atribuirle una prohibición de la obra.

El recorrido de la escritora ofrece un punto de partida para un reportaje internacional sobre migración, diversidad y pertenencia religiosa. Su testimonio plantea cómo se vive la fe desde una identidad que puede convertirse en motivo de exclusión y qué respuestas encuentran esas experiencias dentro de las comunidades creyentes.

La próxima visita papal aporta el contexto de actualidad. La voz de Díaz de Córdova aporta la dimensión humana: una autora que escribe sobre su relación con Dios y reivindica que el reconocimiento de la dignidad alcance también a las personas trans.