News
Criticized for being too gay and not gay enough, Buttigieg has unique burden
Out candidate endures criticism from all sides

Pete Buttigieg faces a unique burden over his sexual orientation as a gay candidate. (Photo courtesy of Pete for America)
Faced on one side with complaints from conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh about being too gay and LGBTQ activists on the other side who say he’s not gay enough, Pete Buttigieg faces a unique burden as an out presidential candidate despite the history he made with success in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The anti-LGBTQ and pro-LGBTQ criticism, of course, aren’t comparable in terms of where they originate. But in the face of this dichotomy — which would seem to leave Buttigieg no option for winning — other openly gay public figures who have won public office have a singular piece of advice for the candidate: Keep calm and carry on.
Annise Parker, CEO of the LGBTQ Victory Fund and the first openly lesbian mayor of Houston, said her advice is “to keep doing exactly what he’s doing, to focus on the issues of the campaign.”
“He should just keep doing what he’s always done, which is focus razor-sharp on the issues, acknowledge when there’s differences of opinion or there are venues that he might not be a expert on, and that’s what we want in a presidential candidate,” Parker said.
On the anti-LGBTQ side, trouble for Buttigieg came to the fore last week when Limbaugh — who has a long history of homophobic comments — complained on his radio show about Buttigieg kissing his spouse, Chasten Buttigieg.
“So I saw a political ad, where Mayor Pete, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, going on and on and on and on and on, about how parents in America are struggling to explain President Trump to their children,” Limbaugh said.
Then Limbaugh held up a photo of Buttigieg kissing his husband, which was visible to subscribers watching his video feed.
“You think — natural conclusion — so he says Trump causes problems for parents, what about that?” Limbaugh said. “If you’re not watching on the ditto cam, what it is, a picture of Mayor Pete kissing his husband, which he does frequently.”
Limbaugh had more to say: “America’s still not ready to elect a gay guy kissing his husband on the debate stage president.”
(The radio show host has just announced he was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer and received from President Trump the Presidential Medal of Freedom live during the State of the Union address, which apparently did nothing to change his hostility to LGBTQ people.)
Even Trump, at least at first, wouldn’t defend that. In an interview days later with Geraldo Rivera on Fox News, Trump was asked if American voters could one day elect a gay candidate to the White House.
Putting distance between himself and his ally Limbaugh, Trump replied, “I think so.”
“I think there would be some that wouldn’t, and I wouldn’t be among that group to be honest with you,” Trump added.
Limbaugh, however, wouldn’t let up. On his radio show on Monday, the radio show host asserted Trump had called him and told him to “never apologize” for his remarks.
“Hell, the president even called me about this!” said Limbaugh on his radio talk show, according to the International Business Times. “He said, ‘Rush, I just got to tell you something. Never apologize. Don’t ever apologize.’
“I had no idea this thing had even bubbled up,” Limbaugh reportedly added. “You know, I’m up doing the medical thing that I have to do here, and I wasn’t even aware of this.”
The White House didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on whether Limbaugh’s claim Trump had called him was accurate.
Buttigieg, in the aftermath of Limbaugh’s comments and Trump’s response, delivered a cutting response at a CNN town hall when asked if he believes Trump is telling the truth when says he could support a gay candidate.
“Well, not if he’s sending out his supporters to talk in this way,” Buttigieg said. “And look, I mean, the idea of the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Donald Trump lecturing anybody on family values? I mean, I’m sorry, but one thing about my marriage is, it’s never involved me having to send hush money to a porn star after cheating on my spouse with him or her. So, they want to debate family values? Let’s debate family values. I’m ready.”
Christine Quinn, a lesbian and former speaker of the New York City Council, said Buttigieg had the right approach when speaking with the Blade on Wednesday.
“My advice to him would be to continue doing what he’s been doing, which is facing homophobes head on and responding to them in a very thoughtful, authentic way,” Quinn said. “He needs to keep doing that.”
Slamming Limbaugh’s anti-gay comments, Quinn also urged Buttigieg to “not spend too much time responding to homophobes because they don’t deserve it, they don’t warrant it.”
“He has made it very clear from before day one of his presidential campaign that he is a very out and proud gay man who is wildly in love with his husband and who has a lovely family,” Quinn said. “That’s the reality of who he is. He’s shared that with Americans. If some Americans don’t like it because they are full of hate, that’s really not Mayor Pete’s problem.”
Parker said she isn’t surprised by Limbaugh’s homophobic comments because he made them in past and the latest remarks are just par for the course.
“He has made a lot of money by demonizing and attacking various groups, so it’s surprising, I’m shocked,” Parker said. “Why would anybody be shocked that Rush Limbaugh would say something like that?”
Referencing Trump saying he’d vote for a gay president, then apparently calling Limbaugh to defend the radio show host’s anti-gay comments, Parker added Trump is “probably lying” one way or the other.
“I cannot imagine any LGBT person in America legitimately saying that Donald Trump is good for the LGBTQ community,” Parker said. “Certainly no one who is trans can say he’s good for the transgender community.”
‘Queers Against Pete’ collects 4,000 signatures against Buttigieg
But Buttigieg is also facing criticism based on his sexual orientation from within the LGBTQ community from those who say he’s not gay enough, which is often a metaphor for criticism saying he’s not progressive enough.
One visible LGBTQ group against Buttigieg is Queers Against Pete, which touts gathering a list of nearly 4,000 signatures from LGBTQ people across all 50 states and D.C. for a petition criticizing Buttigieg.
Among its complaints is Buttigieg’s opposition to universal free public college and cancelling student loan debt, having no plan to restore voting rights to felons and incarcerated people or an end to cash bail; support for an increase in defense spending and Medicare for All Who Want It Plan than that falls short of the Medicare for All and universal childcare plans proposed by other candidates.
As Buttigieg struggles with support among black voters, Queers Against Pete also criticizes the candidate for his handling as South Bend mayor of a white police officer shooting a black resident, the firing a black police chief investigating racism in the police force and a housing plan that demolished low-income homes, including in minority communities.
“Some have touted former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s openly gay identity as proof of progress in our politics,” the letter says. “However, being gay is not enough to earn the support of LGBTQIA communities. We cannot in good conscience allow Mayor Pete to become the nominee without demanding that he address the needs and concerns of the broader lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual communities.”
LGBTQ public figures who spoke the Blade about the criticism were indignant over the idea the group make gay identity grounds to criticize Buttigieg, saying it validates the idea that a gay person should conform to certain stereotypes or ideals.
Parker called the “Queers Against Pete” faction a “tiny group of fringe voices.” Although she acknowledged “there are important issues being raised,” she questioned why they’d focus on the gay candidate as an LGBTQ group and not others.
“I’m intrigued by the idea there’s ‘Gays Against Pete,” but not ‘Gays Against Bloomberg’ or ‘Gays Against Klobuchar’ or ‘Gays Against Sanders,’ which makes me question the motivation of the group,” Parker said.
In response to the list of the nearly 4,000 LGBTQ signatures “Queers Against Pete” compiled against Buttigieg, Parker said out of 7 million LGBTQ voters in the United States “that’s something like .0005 percent of LGBTQ voters.”
Queers Against Pete, however, repudiates the idea their criticism is about Buttigieg not being gay enough. A Queers Against Pete spokesperson referred the Blade in response to a request to comment to the organization’s website, which states the organization has “never stated or implied Buttigieg isn’t gay enough” but has said “being gay isn’t enough to warrant our support.”
“We are uniquely positioned as LGBTQIA+ people to state our opposition to Pete,” the website says. “We’ve seen Black people name the harm he’s caused them and they’re called homophobic. We stand in unity with all marginalized communities and some of us belong to more than one oppressed group.”
Gregory Cendana, a D.C.-based consultant and organizer with Queers Against Pete, also criticized questioning of motivation behind the LGBTQ group.
“Our collective believes in racial justice — from being in community with Black Lives Matter — South Bend to asking how candidates will center Black Trans Women and Transgender Women of Color in their policies, campaigns and governing,” Cendana said. “By questioning the motives of gender non-confirming people and queer people of color, these leaders and the organizations they represent, are using the levers of white supremacy to divide and conquer. This is bigger than this election or any of us as individuals.”
But Queers Against Pete isn’t the only LGBTQ entity against Buttigieg. A look at social media accounts from LGBTQ progressives would reveals their discontent over the fact the LGBTQ community is being represented in the presidential primary by a white man who hasn’t endured the experience of a racial minority and who has no background in LGBTQ activism leading to his candidacy.
Parker said the idea of criticizing Buttigieg for not being gay enough is “absolutely an absurd statement” because the LGBTQ community had long fought against those constraints.
“We are different, but are differences part of who are and we’re asking for you to asking to accept that, and then to turn around and attack someone fit some standards of gayness that only they know exist upsets me,” Parker said.
Up in arms over the idea Buttigieg should be criticized for not being gay enough was Quinn, who she said she doesn’t even understand the concept.
“What the hell does that mean?” Quinn said. “What the hell does not gay enough mean? That’s ridiculous. The man is gay. Period. He is a out gay public official, elected official, former mayor who has never once done anything anti-LGBT. If he was gay and against the community, then you can attack him and should attack him, but that is not the case as it relates to Mayor Pete.”
Other criticisms about Buttigieg’s “aesthetics” as a gay candidate, Quinn added, are “ridiculous.”
“It just feeds into the stereotyping of the LGBT community,” Quinn said. “He needs to be himself, to be Pete Buttgieg, to be himself, to be a veteran, a former mayor, a husband, on and on. That’s who he needs to be, to be a gay veteran, a gay former elected official, a gay candidate for president, a husband. That’s what he needs to be because that’s what he is.”
At the end of the day, Parker said attacks about Buttigieg based on the ground of his gay identity — whether it’s from Limbaugh, Queers Against Pete or any other critic — won’t hamper the candidate’s chances in either the primary or general election.
“There’s no candidate whom everyone is going to agree with,” Parker said. “What a candidate does is get out and put forward plans, policies, express where they stand on issues and voters make choices. Voters need to make choices on who they’re preferred presidential candidate is without creating divisive and frivolous attacks based on things not related to policies and programs a candidate has put forward.”
A Buttigieg campaign spokesperson referred the Blade to Buttigieg’s response during the CNN town hall when asked about challenges he faces as a gay candidate from pro-LGBTQ and anti-LGBTQ critics.
Politics
Honoring Stonewall: A conversation with Senator Toni Atkins on the past, present, and future of Pride
As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, the Stonewall Democratic Club honors leaders like Senator Toni Atkins, whose lifelong commitment to equality and public service reflects the enduring legacy and ongoing promise of Stonewall
As we rapidly approach the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising – an inarguably paramount moment that fueled a national movement for LGBTQ civil rights – the Stonewall Democratic Club continues to carry into the future the spirit of that rebellion through advocacy and political action. This milestone also provides our community with an opportunity to reflect on the leaders who have carried that spirit forward, including Senator Toni Atkins, whose decades of public service have been shaped by a resounding commitment to equality and representation of marginalized communities. Her journey, from growing up in rural poverty to becoming one of California’s most impactful legislative leaders, embodies the progress made since Stonewall and the work that still lies ahead for us.
As our community and our country approach the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, how does that milestone resonate with you personally, politically, or otherwise?
Personally, I came out at age 17 in a very conservative rural community. I didn’t see other people like me, and I didn’t believe society was built for someone like me. So I am simply grateful to have been part of our movement for civil rights for my LGBTQ+ community. Politically, we have made tremendous gains, and we now face a very intentional and serious backlash. Our work and political engagement are more important than ever.
In your opinion, what do you believe was the most significant achievement that came from Stonewall? What unfinished business do we still have to work on?
The most significant achievement was visibility – seeing our collective strength for the first time.
Today, we must fight to regain the ability to serve openly in the military, protect marriage equality, and hold our hard-won ground. We must continue educating allies and families about the lives and experiences of nonbinary and transgender community members. In many ways, we are refighting some of the same battles.
We also have to work in partnership with other marginalized communities on issues beyond civil rights – income inequality, access to healthcare (including gender-affirming care), educational opportunities, and affordability. The struggle for justice is interconnected.
How do you view the connection between the activism of that time in our country and the modern policy work of the California Legislature?
Activism and organizing were essential then, and they remain essential today. We still have to strategize, organize, and take action. That hasn’t changed.
You have had a long and devoted career in public service in California. What first inspired you to get into politics? How have your own experiences as a queer woman shaped your journey along the way?
Our stories – every one of them – matter. My history has shaped every policy issue I’ve worked on. I grew up in a working-poor family. My parents, three siblings, and I lived in a four-room house with no indoor plumbing. We carried water from a nearby spring to drink, cook with, and bathe. We lacked consistent healthcare. My father was a lead miner; my mother worked as a seamstress in a factory.
Coming out as a lesbian at a young age was another defining part of my story. All of this influenced my work on housing, healthcare, LGBTQ rights, the environment, and labor protections. I saw firsthand how the mines destroyed the environment, how little safety, benefits, or protections my father had, and how families like mine struggled. Much of my political work has been about empowerment – for myself, my family, and others facing similar obstacles.
I entered politics by helping my mentor, Christine Kehoe, get elected to the San Diego City Council in 1993 – the first openly LGBTQ candidate elected to that body. Working with her at City Hall showed me the difference we could make when we had a seat at the table. That was my motivation – not only for the LGBTQ community but for all marginalized communities, working families, and women. I am forever grateful to Chris for giving me a chance to serve.
What moments in your legislative or leadership roles shine brightest in your mind as being most impactful to you?
So many- the Gender Recognition Act, Proposition 1, which I authored to enshrine abortion and contraception into the California Constitution, and Proposition 3, which did the same for marriage equality. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for working individuals and families. Creating a permanent source of funds for affordable housing. The California Dream For All downpayment assistance loan for people to buy their first home. Support for funding Prep and for community clinics and Planned Parenthood. Increased funding for childcare for working families and increased paid family leave! So many issues and so much good can be done through public policy and budget actions. That is the importance of the political work of the LGBTQ community and our allies!
As the former Speaker and as President ProTem – I have had the ability not just to sit at that table but to actually set the agenda. I’m grateful and honored for the opportunity.
Over the years you have spent in politics, how has your sense of “why I do this work” evolved, particularly in relation to our queer community and broader social justice aims?
I have seen how strategy, organizing, fundraising, and activism empower us to influence policy and budget decisions rooted in shared values. Relationships also matter – the ones we build, the conversations we have, and the listening we do. Those connections make us better and more effective.
Decades ago, we relied heavily on allies because we didn’t have seats at the table ourselves. We must never forget that. There is no shortcut for the crucial, ongoing conversations needed to continue advancing equality.
How would you describe the state of queer rights and representation in California today?
California’s values – in the public and in the Legislature – largely reflect strong support for our community. Still, especially regarding trans rights, we must keep engaging allies and others about who we are as nonbinary and transgender individuals. That is the next frontier of our civil-rights journey.
And our LGBTQ Caucus has never been larger or more effective. Many members, as I once was, are now in positions of real power and influence, moving forward policies that support our community.
West Hollywood
West Hollywood invests $1 million to build LGBTQ+ Olympic hospitality house
Pride House LA/WeHo will be an interactive space for queer athletes and allies to celebrate the 2028 Summer Games together.
The first-ever Olympic hospitality house began with humble roots in 1992: a tent pitched on the Port of Barcelona for athletes to gather with their families. Since then, they transformed into fixtures of several major sporting events, with hopes of fostering belonging and safety for athletes of various cultural backgrounds.
It wasn’t until 2010 that the first LGBTQ+ hospitality house, the Pride House, appeared during the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Over the years, its existence and visibility have faced barriers. During the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games in Russia, Pride House International was denied from organizing its safe hub. The rejection was a blow to the visibility and safety that the organization was trying to promote and create for queer athletes. But this didn’t go unnoticed. International fans demonstrated quiet resistance, hosting remote Pride Houses in support of the Olympians who were barred from openly communing and celebrating together.
As Los Angeles prepares to host the Summer Olympics in July 2028, Pride House is coming back stronger than ever. In early October, the West Hollywood city council approved an agreement that would allocate $1 million to sponsor Pride House LA/WeHo as they prepare to build a temporary structure at West Hollywood Park for the 2028 Games. For 17 days, vibrant LGBTQ+ sports programming will fill the park’s grassy knolls.
Pride House LA/WeHo CEO Michael Ferrera detailed at a Nov. 1st Out Athlete Fund fundraising event that the team plans to build a concert stage to seat over 6,000 people. There will also be a museum that will take viewers through 100 years of queer Olympics history, viewing areas for people to watch the games, and a private athlete village for queer Olympians. “The dream of that is — imagine you’re an athlete from a country where you can’t be out,” said Ferrera. “You come here, and you can be safe and sound.”

As outlined in the city council agreement and stated by Ferrera, most of the programming will be free and open to the public, and in the heart of a neighborhood that many of the county’s queer residents recognize as their safe haven. “We’re centering this important event in West Hollywood Park where our community has come together for decades in celebration, in protest, to support each other and to live our lives,” Pride House LA/WeHo CEO Michael Ferrera wrote to the Blade. “There is no place that is more representative of inclusion and safe spaces.”
The City of West Hollywood is promoting this inclusion further by asking for local community members to voice their perspectives on the formation of Pride House LA/WeHo at West Hollywood Park. On Monday, a community conversation will take place at Plummer Park to encourage residents to help shape the cultural programming that will take place in the summer of 2028. Another conversation will take place on Nov. 21st at the City’s 40th anniversary of Cityhood event.
“We couldn’t do this without the generosity and partnership of the city of West Hollywood,” Pride House LA/WeHo marketing co-lead Haley Caruso wrote to the Blade. “We are so happy to help bring the Olympic spirit to West Hollywood while also providing the community a safe and entertaining venue to enjoy the Games.”
Head to PrideHouseLAWeho.org for more information
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bill that reopens the federal government.
Six Democrats — U.S. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Adam Gray (D-Calif.), Don Davis (D-N.C.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) — voted for the funding bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two Republicans — Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.) — opposed it.
The 43-day shutdown is over after eight Democratic senators gave in to Republicans’ push to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act. According to CNBC, the average ACA recipient could see premiums more than double in 2026, and about one in 10 enrollees could lose a premium tax credit altogether.
These eight senators — U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) — sided with Republicans to pass legislation reopening the government for a set number of days. They emphasized that their primary goal was to reopen the government, with discussions about ACA tax credits to continue afterward.
None of the senators who supported the deal are up for reelection.
King said on Sunday night that the Senate deal represents “a victory” because it gives Democrats “an opportunity” to extend ACA tax credits, now that Senate Republican leaders have agreed to hold a vote on the issue in December. (The House has not made any similar commitment.)
The government’s reopening also brought a win for Democrats’ other priorities: Arizona Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in after a record-breaking delay in swearing in, eventually becoming the 218th signer of a discharge petition to release the Epstein files.
This story is being updated as more information becomes available.
El Salvador
El Salvador: el costo del silencio oficial ante la violencia contra la comunidad LGBTQ+
Entidades estatales son los agresores principales
En El Salvador, la violencia contra la población LGBTQ+ no ha disminuido: ha mutado. Lo que antes se expresaba en crímenes de odio, hoy se manifiesta en discriminación institucional, abandono y silencio estatal. Mientras el discurso oficial evita cualquier referencia a inclusión o diversidad, las cifras muestran un panorama alarmante.
Según el Informe 2025 sobre las vulneraciones de los derechos humanos de las personas LGBTQ en El Salvador, elaborado por el Observatorio de Derechos Humanos LGBTIQ+ de ASPIDH, con el apoyo de Hivos y Arcus Foundation, desde el 1 de enero al 22 de septiembre de 2025 se registraron 301 denuncias de vulneraciones de derechos.
El departamento de San Salvador concentra 155 de esas denuncias, reflejando la magnitud del problema en la capital.
Violencia institucionalizada: el Estado como principal agresor
El informe revela que las formas más recurrentes de violencia son la discriminación (57 por ciento), seguida de intimidaciones y amenazas (13 por ciento), y agresiones físicas (10 por ciento). Pero el dato más inquietante está en quiénes ejercen esa violencia.
Los cuerpos uniformados, encargados de proteger a la población, son los principales perpetradores:
- 31.1 por ciento corresponde a la Policía Nacional Civil (PNC),
- 26.67 por ciento al Cuerpo de Agentes Municipales (CAM),
- 12.22 por ciento a militares desplegados en las calles bajo el régimen de excepción.
A ello se suma un 21.11 por ciento de agresiones cometidas por personal de salud pública, especialmente por enfermeras, lo que demuestra que la discriminación alcanza incluso los espacios que deberían garantizar la vida y la dignidad.
Loidi Guardado, representante de ASPIDH, comparte con el Los Angeles Blade un caso que retrata la cotidianidad de estas violencias:
“Una enfermera en la clínica VICITS de San Miguel, en la primera visita me reconoció que la persona era hijo de un promotor de salud y fue amable. Pero luego de realizarle un hisopado cambió su actitud a algo despectiva y discriminativa. Esto le sucedió a un hombre gay.”
Este tipo de episodios reflejan un deterioro en la atención pública, impulsado por una postura gubernamental que rechaza abiertamente cualquier enfoque de inclusión, y tacha la educación de género como una “ideología” a combatir.
El discurso del Ejecutivo, que se opone a toda iniciativa con perspectiva de diversidad, ha tenido consecuencias directas: el retroceso en derechos humanos, el cierre de espacios de denuncia, y una mayor vulnerabilidad para quienes pertenecen a comunidades diversas.
El miedo, la desconfianza y el exilio silencioso
El estudio también señala que el 53.49 por ciento de las víctimas son mujeres trans, seguidas por hombres gays (26.58 por ciento). Sin embargo, la mayoría de las agresiones no llega a conocimiento de las autoridades.
“En todos los ámbitos de la vida —salud, trabajo, esparcimiento— las personas LGBT nos vemos intimidadas, violentadas por parte de muchas personas. Sin embargo, las amenazas y el miedo a la revictimización nos lleva a que no denunciemos. De los casos registrados en el observatorio, el 95.35 por ciento no denunció ante las autoridades competentes”, explica Guardado.
La organización ASPIDH atribuye esta falta de denuncia a varios factores: miedo a represalias, desconfianza en las autoridades, falta de sensibilidad institucional, barreras económicas y sociales, estigma y discriminación.
Además, la ausencia de acompañamiento agrava la situación, producto del cierre de numerosas organizaciones defensoras por falta de fondos y por las nuevas normativas que las obligan a registrarse como “agentes extranjeros”.
Varias de estas organizaciones —antes vitales para el acompañamiento psicológico, legal y educativo— han migrado hacia Guatemala y Costa Rica ante la imposibilidad de operar en territorio salvadoreño.
Educación negada, derechos anulados
Mónica Linares, directora ejecutiva de ASPIDH, lamenta el deterioro de los programas educativos que antes ofrecían una oportunidad de superación para las personas trans:
“Hubo un programa del ACNUR que lamentablemente, con todo el cierre de fondos que hubo a partir de las declaraciones del presidente Trump y del presidente Bukele, pues muchas de estas instancias cerraron por el retiro de fondos del USAID.”
Ese programa —añade— beneficiaba a personas LGBTQ+ desde la educación primaria hasta el nivel universitario, abriendo puertas que hoy permanecen cerradas.
Actualmente, muchas personas trans apenas logran completar la primaria o el bachillerato, en un sistema educativo donde la discriminación y el acoso escolar siguen siendo frecuentes.
Organizaciones en resistencia
Las pocas organizaciones que aún operan en el país han optado por trabajar en silencio, procurando no llamar la atención del gobierno. “Buscan pasar desapercibidas”, señala Linares, “para evitar conflictos con autoridades que las ven como si no fueran sujetas de derechos”.
Desde el Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS), su cofundadora Leslie Schuld coincide. “Hay muchas organizaciones de derechos humanos y periodistas que están en el exilio. Felicito a las organizaciones que mantienen la lucha, la concientización. Porque hay que ver estrategias, porque se está siendo silenciado, nadie puede hablar; hay capturas injustas, no hay derechos.”
Schuld agrega que el CIS continuará apoyando con un programa de becas para personas trans, con el fin de fomentar su educación y autonomía económica. Sin embargo, admite que las oportunidades laborales en el país son escasas, y la exclusión estructural continúa.
Matar sin balas: la anulación de la existencia
“En efecto, no hay datos registrados de asesinatos a mujeres trans o personas LGBTIQ+ en general, pero ahora, con la vulneración de derechos que existe en El Salvador, se está matando a esta población con la anulación de esta.”, reflexiona Linares.
Esa “anulación” a la que se refiere Linares resume el panorama actual: una violencia que no siempre deja cuerpos, pero sí vacíos. La negación institucional, la falta de políticas públicas, y la exclusión social convierten la vida cotidiana en un acto de resistencia para miles de salvadoreños LGBTQ+.
En un país donde el Ejecutivo ha transformado la narrativa de derechos en una supuesta “ideología”, la diversidad se ha convertido en una amenaza política, y los cuerpos diversos, en un campo de batalla. Mientras el gobierno exalta la “seguridad” como su mayor logro, la población LGBTQ+ vive una inseguridad constante, no solo física, sino también emocional y social.
El Salvador, dicen los activistas, no necesita más silencio. Necesita reconocer que la verdadera paz no se impone con fuerza de uniformados, sino con justicia, respeto y dignidad.
National
Serving America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
Advocates sue to reverse Trump ban while service members cope with new struggles
President Trump signed EO 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, directing the Department of Defense (DoD) to adopt policies that would prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.
The Trump-Vance administration’s policy shift redefines the qualifications for military service, asserting that transgender people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the DoD, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.
On Jan. 28, 2025, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) filed Talbott v. Trump, a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. Originally filed on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals seeking enlistment, the case has since grown to include 12 additional plaintiffs.
The Blade spoke exclusively with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott, U.S. Army, a plaintiff in the case, and with Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law, who is leading the litigation.
For Talbott, serving in the military has been a lifelong aspiration, one he pursued despite the barriers posed by discriminatory policies.
“Being transgender posed quite the obstacle to me achieving that dream,” Talbott told the Blade. “Not because it [being trans] had any bearing on my ability to become a soldier and meet the requirements of a United States soldier, but simply because of the policy changes that we’ve been facing as transgender service members throughout the course of the past decade… My being transgender had nothing to do with anything that I was doing as a soldier.”
This drive was fueled by early life experiences, including the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which shaped his desire to protect his country.
“Even for an eight-year-old kid, [9/11] has a tremendous amount of impact… I remember thinking, you know, this is a terrible thing. Me, and when I grow up, I want to make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” he said. “I’ve still tried to gear my life in a way that I can be preparing myself to eventually help accomplish that mission of keeping America safe from anything like that ever happening again.”
The attacks inspired countless Americans to enlist; according to the New York City government, 181,510 joined active duty and 72,908 enlisted in the reserves in the year following 9/11. Although Talbott was too young to serve at the time, the events deeply influenced his educational and career path.
“For me, [9/11] just kind of helped shape my future and set me on the path that I’m currently on today,” he added. “It ignited my passion for the field, and it’s something that you know, I’ve carried with me into my adult life, into my professional life, and that I hope to have a career in the future.”
Talbott holds a master’s degree in criminology with a focus on counterterrorism and global security, and while completing his degree, he gained practical experience working with the Transportation Security Administration.
Despite the public scrutiny surrounding the lawsuit and the ongoing uncertainty of his military future, Talbott remains grounded in the values that define military service.
“Being so public about my involvement with this lawsuit grants me the very unique opportunity to continue to exemplify those values,” Talbott said. “I’m in a very privileged spot where I can speak relatively openly about this experience and what I’m doing. It’s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery.”
The ban has created significant uncertainty for transgender service members, who now face the possibility of separation solely because of their gender identity.
“With this ban… we are all [trans military members] on track to be separated from the military. So it’s such a great deal of uncertainty… I’m stuck waiting, not knowing what tomorrow might bring. I could receive a phone call any day stating that the separation process has been initiated.”
While the Department of Defense specifies that most service members will receive an honorable discharge, the policy allows for a lower characterization if a review deems it warranted. Compensation and benefits differ depending on whether service members opt for voluntary or involuntary separation. Voluntary separation comes with full separation pay and no obligation to repay bonuses, while involuntary separation carries lower pay, potential repayment of bonuses, and uncertain success in discharge review processes.
Healthcare coverage through TRICARE continues for 180 days post-discharge, but reduced benefits, including VA eligibility, remain a concern. Those with 18–20 years of service may qualify for early retirement, though even this is not guaranteed under the policy.
Talbott emphasized the personal and professional toll of the ban, reflecting on the fairness and capability of transgender service members.
“Quite frankly, the evidence that we have at hand points in the complete opposite direction… there are no documented cases that I’m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender… Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.”
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals… those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody … military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
Talbott also highlighted the unique discipline, dedication, and value of diversity that transgender service members bring—especially in identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others think or say. That, he explained, was part of his journey of self-discovery and a key reason he wants to continue serving despite harsh words of disapproval from the men leading the executive branch.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through… This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today… my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He sees that as an asset rather than a liability. By having a more diverse, well-rounded group of people, the military can view challenges from perspectives that would otherwise be overlooked. That ability to look at things in a fresh way, he explained, can transform a good service member into a great one.
“I think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is… We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of… and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.”
Beyond operational effectiveness, Talbott emphasized the social impact of visibility and leadership within the ranks. Fellow soldiers often approached him for guidance, seeing him as a trusted resource because of his transgender status.
“I can think of several instances in which I have been approached by fellow soldiers… I feel like you are a person I can come to if I have a problem with X, Y or Z… some people take my transgender status and designate me as a safe person, so to speak.”
With the arrival of Veterans Day, the Blade asked what he wishes the public knew about the sacrifices of transgender service members. His answer was modest.
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that… We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, also spoke with the Blade and outlined the legal and human consequences of the ban. This is not Levi’s first time challenging the executive branch on transgender rights; she led the legal fight against the first Trump administration’s military ban in both Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She highlighted procedural abuses and punitive measures embedded in the policy compared to the 2017 ban.
“In the first round the military allowed transgender people to continue to serve… In this round the military policy purge seeks to purge every transgender person from military service, and it also proposes to do it in a very cruel and brutal way, which is to put people through a process… traditionally reserved for kicking people out of the military who engaged in misconduct.”
Levi cited multiple examples of discrimination, including the revocation of authorized retirements and administrative barriers to hearings.
She also explained that the administration’s cost argument is flawed, as removing and replacing transgender service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost… it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people… than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
On legal grounds, Levi noted the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause.
“The Equal Protection Clause prevents laws that are intended to harm a group of people… The doctrine is rooted in animus, which means a bare desire to harm a group is not even a legitimate governmental justification.”
When asked what she wishes people knew about Talbott and other targeted transgender military members, Levi emphasized their extraordinary service.
“The plaintiffs that I represent are extraordinary… They have 260 years of committed service to this country… I have confidence that ultimately, this baseless ban should not be able to legally survive.”
Other organizations have weighed in on Talbott v. Trump and similar lawsuits targeting transgender service members.
Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson criticized the ban’s impact on military readiness and highlighted the counterintuitive nature of removing some of the country’s most qualified service members.
“Transgender servicemembers serve their country valiantly, with the same commitment, the same adherence to military standards and the same love of country as any of their counterparts,” Robinson said. “This ban by the Trump administration, which has already stripped transgender servicemembers of their jobs, is cruel, unpatriotic, and compromises the unity and quality of our armed forces.”
Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Sasha Buchert echoed the legal and moral imperative to reverse the policy.
“Every day this discriminatory ban remains in effect, qualified patriots face the threat of being kicked out of the military,” she said. “The evidence is overwhelming that this policy is driven by animus rather than military necessity… We are confident the court will see through this discriminatory ban and restore the injunction that should never have been lifted.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
Justices declined to revisit the Obergefell decision
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Ky., clerk best known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Following the Obergefell ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and has since filed multiple appeals seeking to challenge same-sex marriage protections. The court once again rejected her efforts on Monday.
In this latest appeal, Davis sought to overturn a $100,000 monetary award she was ordered to pay to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Her petition also urged the court to use the case as a vehicle to revisit the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The petition, along with the couple’s brief in opposition, was submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 and considered during the justices’ private conference on Nov. 7. Davis needed at least four votes for the court to take up her case, but Monday’s order shows she fell short.
Cathy Renna, the director of communications for the National LGBTQ Task Force, a non-profit organization that works towards supporting the LGBQ community through grassroots organizing told the Los Angeles Blade:
“Today’s decision is not surprising given the longshot status of Davis’s claim, but it’s a relief that the Supreme Court will not hear it, given the current make up of the court itself. We hope that this settles the matter and marriage equality remains the law of the land for same-sex couples.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement:
“Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone — including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.
Thanks to the hard work of HRC and so many, marriage equality remains the law of the land through Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. Even so, we must remain vigilant.
It’s no secret that there are many in power right now working to undermine our freedoms — including marriage equality — and attack the dignity of our community any chance they get. Last week, voters rejected the politics of fear, division, and hate, and chose leaders who believe in fairness, freedom, and the future. In race after race, the American people rejected anti-transgender attacks and made history electing pro-equality candidates up and down the ballot.
And from California to Virginia to New Jersey to New York City, LGBTQ+ voters and Equality Voters made the winning difference. We will never relent and will not stop fighting until all of us are free.”
This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Los Angeles
LA Assessor Jeffrey Prang to be honored by Stonewall Democrats
Prang is among America’s longest-serving openly gay elected officials
You may not be too familiar with LA County Assessor Jeffrey Prang. You’ve probably never heard of the office of the LA County Assessor, or you might only have a vague notion of what it does.
But with a career in city politics spanning nearly thirty years, he’s among the longest-serving openly gay elected officials in the United States, and for his work serving the people of Los Angeles and championing the rights of the city’s LGBTQ people, the Stonewall Democratic Club is honoring him at their 50th Anniversary Celebration and Awards Night Nov 15 at Beaches Tropicana in West Hollywood.
Prang moved to Los Angeles from his native Michigan after college in 1991, specifically seeking an opportunity to serve in politics as an openly gay man. In 1997, he was elected to the West Hollywood City Council, where he served for 18 years, including four stints as mayor.
“I was active in politics, but in Michigan at the time I left, you couldn’t really be out and involved in politics… My life was so compartmentalized. I had my straight friends, my gay friends, my political friends, and I couldn’t really mix and match those things,” he says.
“One of the things that was really impactful was as you drove down Santa Monica Boulevard and saw those rainbow flags placed there by the government in the median island. That really said, this is a place where you can be yourself. You don’t have to be afraid.”
One thing that’s changed over Prang’s time in office is West Hollywood’s uniqueness as a place of safety for the queer community.
“It used to be, you could only be out and gay and politically involved if you were from Silver Lake or from West Hollywood. The thought of being able to do that in Downey or Monterey Park or Pomona was foreign. But now we have LGBTQ centers, gay pride celebrations, and LGBT elected officials in all those jurisdictions, something that we wouldn’t have thought possible 40 years ago,” he says.
Prang’s jump to county politics is emblematic of that shift. In 2014, amid a scandal that brought down the previous county assessor, Prang threw his name in contention for the job, having worked in the assessor’s office already for the previous two years. He beat out eleven contenders in the election, won reelection in 2018 and 2022, and is seeking a fourth term next year.
To put those victories in perspective, at the time of his first election, Prang represented more people than any other openly gay elected official in the world.
Beyond his office, Prang has lent his experience with ballot box success to helping get more LGBT people elected through his work with the Stonewall Democrats and with a new organization he co-founded last year called the LA County LGBTQ Elected Officials Association (LACLEO).
LACLEO counts more than fifty members, including officials from all parts of the county, municipal and state legislators, and members of school boards, water boards, and city clerks.
“I assembled this group to collectively use our elected strength and influence to help impact policy in Sacramento and in Washington, DC, to take advantage of these elected leaders who have a bigger voice in government than the average person, and to train them and educate them to be better advocates on behalf of the issues that are important for us,” Prang says.
“I do believe as a senior high-level official I need to play a role and have an important voice in supporting our community,” he says.
Ok, but what is the LA County assessor, anyway?
“Nobody knows what the assessor is. 99% of people think I’m the guy who collects taxes,” Prang says.
The assessor makes sure that all properties in the county are properly recorded and fairly assessed so that taxes can be levied correctly. It’s a wonky job, but one that has a big impact on how the city raises money for programs.
And that wonkiness suits Prang just fine. While the job may seem unglamorous, he gleefully boasts about his work overhauling the office’s technology to improve customer service and efficiency, which he says is proving to be a role model for other county offices.
“I inherited this 1970s-era mainframe green screen DOS-based legacy system. And believe it or not, that’s the standard technology for most large government agencies. That’s why the DMV sucks. That’s why the tax collection system sucks. But I spent $130 million over almost 10 years to rebuild our system to a digitized cloud-based system,” Prang says.
“I think the fact that my program was so successful did give some impetus to the board funding the tax collector and the auditor-controller to update their system, which is 40 years behind where they need to be.”
More tangible impacts for everyday Angelenos include his outreach to promote tax savings programs for homeowners, seniors, and nonprofits, and a new college training program that gives students a pipeline to good jobs in the county.
As attacks on the queer community intensify from the federal government, Prang says the Stonewall Democrats are an important locus of organization and resistance, and he encourages anyone to get involved.
“It is still an important and relevant organization that provides opportunities for LGBTQ people to get involved, to have an impact on our government and our civic life. If you just wanna come and volunteer and donate your time, it provides that, if you really want to do more and have a bigger voice and move into areas of leadership, it provides an opportunity for that as well,” he says.
Los Angeles
SNAP benefits remain delayed — local leaders are creating their own solutions
Assemblymember Mark González has announced a $7.5 million partnership with the YMCA’s FeedLA food distribution program.
Today marks the 37th day of the current government shutdown, the longest witnessed in the country’s history. As a result, people who receive federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have not received their monthly aid for November. In Los Angeles, over 1.5 million people rely on these funds to purchase groceries.
On Oct. 28th, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that California joined over 20 other states in suing the administration over its “unlawful refusal” to provide SNAP aid even though it has the funds to do so. Two federal judges ruled in favor of the lawsuit, though when and how much aid will be distributed remains inconclusive.
At a press briefing on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the administration is “fully complying” with the court order. “The recipients of the SNAP benefits need to understand: it’s going to take some time to receive this money because the Democrats have forced the administration into a very untenable position,” Leavitt continued. “We are digging into a contingency fund that is supposed to be for emergencies, catastrophes, for war.”
On Wednesday morning, local leaders in Los Angeles held their own press conference at the Weingart East Los Angeles YMCA to denounce the administration’s inaction and to discuss alternative efforts that are trying to fill the gap as SNAP aid remains suspended. “We’re here today because the federal government has turned its back on millions of families, and we refuse to stay silent,” said District 54 Assemblymember Mark González. “This is more than a press conference. This is a plea for sanity, a demand for humanity, and a call to action…California is stepping up to do what Washington will not, and that’s to feed our people.”
Alongside a number of other local leaders and advocates, including Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, Speaker of the California State Assembly Robert Rivas, Boyle Heights community leader Margarita “Mago” Amador, Congressman Jimmy Gomez, YMCA president Victor Dominguez, and Food Forward founder Rick Nahmias, González announced a partnership with the YMCA’s FeedLA program. $7.5 million has been secured to fund food distribution efforts across the county’s 29 YMCA sites.
Residents do not need to have a YMCA membership to take part. Resources like groceries, warm meals, and home deliveries will be available at various times throughout the week. There are currently no weekend distribution dates listed.
This announcement comes in the midst of other local efforts bolstering on-the-ground SNAP relief. On Tuesday, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a motion that will strengthen the Office of Food Systems (OFS), a partnership between county leaders and local philanthropic organizations aiming to create equitable food systems for residents. The motion would establish deeper connections between OFS and all County departments, as well as strengthen state and federal food policy coordination.
The county has also funded a $10 million contract with the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, which will allow the organization to purchase more produce and create additional pantry and food distribution pop-up sites.
For many, these solutions offer a temporary landing pad as they hold out for their benefits to be reinstated. “Food pantries are not just places where a bag of food is handed out. They are a bridge of hope for our most vulnerable communities,” said Amador, at Wednesday’s press conference. “When a family comes to a pantry, many times they don’t just bring an empty bag. They also bring worries, stress and [the] fear of not being able to feed their children. They leave with a bag of food [and] they take with them a bit of dignity, relief, and a feeling that they are not alone.”
National
Pelosi won’t seek re-election next year
Longtime LGBTQ+ ally played key role in early AIDS fight
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the nation’s first and only female speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a lifelong LGBTQ+ ally, announced Thursday that she will not seek re-election next year, after 38 years in Congress, many of them as House party leader.
“I have truly loved serving as your voice in Congress, and I have always honored the song of St. Francis, ‘Lord make an instrument of thy peace,’ the anthem of our city. That is why I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know. I will not be seeking reelection to Congress,” Pelosi, 85, announced in a video.
Thank you, San Francisco. pic.twitter.com/OP8ubeFzR6
— Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) November 6, 2025
Pelosi has represented San Francisco in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1987.
Her time in Congress began with the AIDS crisis, and she has kept up the fight ever since, as the Washington Blade reported in an exclusive and wide-ranging 2023 interview conducted just after she left House leadership.
Some excerpts from that interview:
“After committing herself and Congress to the fight against HIV/AIDS during her first speech from the floor of the House in 1987, Pelosi said some of her colleagues asked whether she thought it wise for her feelings on the subject to be “the first thing that people know about you” as a newly elected member.
“They questioned her decision not because they harbored any stigma, but rather for concern over how “others might view my service here,” Pelosi said. The battle against HIV/AIDS, she told them, “is why I came here.”
“It was every single day,” she said.
“Alongside the “big money for research, treatment, and prevention” were other significant legislative accomplishments, such as “when we] were able to get Medicaid to treat HIV [patients] as Medicaid-eligible” rather than requiring them to wait until their disease had progressed to full-blown AIDS to qualify for coverage, said Pelosi, who authored the legislation.
“That was a very big deal for two reasons,” she said. First, because it saved lives by allowing low-income Americans living with HIV to begin treatment before the condition becomes life-threatening, and second, because “it was the recognition that we had this responsibility to intervene early.”
“Other milestones in which Pelosi had a hand include the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program, President Bush’s PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) initiative, the Affordable Care Act (which contains significant benefits for Americans living with HIV/AIDS), and funding for the Ending the Epidemic initiative.
“Outside the U.S. Capitol building, Pelosi has also been celebrated by the LGBTQ community for signaling her support through, for example, her participation in some of the earliest meetings of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt, her meeting with the survivors of the 2016 Pulse nightclub massacre, and her appearance at a host of LGBTQ events over the years.
“Of course, at the same time, Pelosi has been a constant target of attacks from the right, which in the past few years have become increasingly violent. During the siege of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, her office was ransacked by insurrectionists who shouted violent threats against her. A couple of weeks later, unearthed social media posts by far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) revealed she had signaled support for executing Pelosi along with other prominent House Democrats. And last October, the speaker’s husband Paul Pelosi suffered critical injuries after he was attacked by a man wielding a hammer who had broken into the couple’s San Francisco home.
“Pelosi told CNN last week that her husband is “doing OK,” but expects it will “take a little while for him to be back to normal.”
“Among her fans in progressive circles, Pelosi – who has been a towering figure in American politics since the Bush administration – has become something of a cultural icon, as well. For instance, the image of her clapping after Trump’s State of the Union speech in 2019 has been emblazoned on coffee mugs.
“What is so funny about it,” Pelosi said, is rather than “that work [over] all these years as a legislator,” on matters including the “Affordable Care Act, millions of people getting health care, what we did over the years with HIV/AIDS in terms of legislation, this or that,” people instead have made much ado over her manner of clapping after Trump’s speech. And while the move was widely seen as antagonistic, Pelosi insisted, “it was not intended to be a negative thing.”
“Regardless, she said, “it’s nice to have some fun about it, because you’re putting up with the criticism all the time – on issues, whether it’s about LGBTQ, or being a woman, or being from San Francisco, or whatever it is.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson in a statement said there “will never be another Nancy Pelosi.”
“Throughout her career, Speaker Emerita Pelosi has remained a tireless champion for LGBTQ+ equality and worked alongside LGBTQ+ advocates to pass historic legislation that expanded access to health care, protected marriage equality, honored Matthew Shepard with federal hate crimes protections and ended ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” said Robinson. “Her steel spine, allyship and keen insight have served as powerful tools in our shared fight for progress and we are grateful for her unwavering commitment to our community.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) described Pelosi as an “iconic, heroic, trailblazing, legendary, and transformational leader” who is “the greatest speaker of all time.” President Donald Trump, for his part, told Peter Doocy that Pelosi’s retirement “is a great thing for America.”
“She was evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country. She was rapidly losing control of her party, and it was never coming back,” said Trump. “I’m very honored that she impeached me twice and failed miserably twice. Nancy Pelosi is a highly overrated politician.”
Gay California Congressman Mark Takano in a statement said he will “miss” Pelosi “immensely.”
“At a time of extraordinary challenge and change, her leadership has been a constant,” said Takano. “She has guided our caucus and our country through some of our hardest moments. But her legacy reaches far beyond the landmark legislation she passed. It lives in the people she mentored, the values she imparted, and the example she set for every person who believes that politics can still be a force for good.”
California
Prop 50 has passed, with overwhelming support from local voters and LGBTQ+ advocates
Over 5 million Californians voted in support of the congressional redistricting measure.
Yesterday, on the night of the California statewide special election, polls closed at 8 pm for the vote on Proposition 50, the “Election Rigging Response Act.” The measure was created to combat Texas lawmakers’ plans to redraw their state’s congressional districts ahead of the November 3rd, 2026, midterm elections in order to secure more Republican seats in Congress.
A “yes” vote on Prop 50 would allow California to temporarily redraw its own congressional district maps beginning in 2026, according to the California Voter Information Guide. Since August, Democratic organizers and leaders have been advocating for the passage of the measure as a way to stand up to “cheating” that has been committed by other states.
Last night, over 8 million ballots were counted, and an overwhelming 63.8% of these were votes in favor of Prop 50. In Los Angeles County alone, nearly 2 million ballots were submitted, and 73% of voters sided with passing the measure.
Governor Gavin Newsom celebrated the victory as an act of resistance. “Instead of agonizing over the state of our nation, we organized in an unprecedented way,” he said, in a series of video statements posted online. “We stood tall and we stood firm in response to Donald Trump’s recklessness. And tonight, after poking the bear, this bear roared — with an unprecedented turnout in a special election with an extraordinary result.”
The results have also fueled impassioned LGBTQ+ leaders to keep the fight going, especially as federal legislation continues to put queer and trans communities at risk. “Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans have systematically targeted LGBTQ+ rights, rolling back nondiscrimination protections, erasing our history, and attacking transgender kids and their families,” said Tony Hoang, director of LGBTQ+ civil rights organization Equality California, in a press release. “With the passage of Proposition 50, Californians have sent a clear message: our votes will not be silenced, our voices will not be ignored, and our rights will not be rolled back during a rigged midterm election.”
Advocates have also stressed that Prop 50 sets a precedent in creating more ground in the ongoing battle for increased rights and protections for queer communities. “Tonight’s victory is critical in the fight to secure a pro-equality majority in Congress,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, another notable LGBTQ+ civil rights group. “This is a victory powered by communities that refuse to be silenced and are unwavering in their commitment to defending democracy.”
-
West Hollywood6 hours agoWest Hollywood invests $1 million to build LGBTQ+ Olympic hospitality house
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
-
Opinions4 days agoMattachine Society in LA marks 75th anniversary
-
Health3 days agoPutting your ass on the line: Advocate and anal cancer survivor Daniel G. Garza talks health equity while breaking stigma
-
Events1 day agoDandyland, America’s steamiest queer erotic art and gift market, returns to downtown Los Angeles
-
a&e features4 days ago‘Peter Hujar’s Day’ director on the “radical individuality” of ‘70s and ‘80s queer artists and connecting with Ben Whishaw over legacy
-
a&e features2 days agoGottmik and Violet Chachki are bringing drag excellence across the country with ‘The Knockout Tour’
-
Politics5 hours agoHonoring Stonewall: A conversation with Senator Toni Atkins on the past, present, and future of Pride
-
National3 days agoServing America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
-
a&e features1 day agoHow Nurse Blake is bringing ‘holistic comedy’ across the country
