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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In recent years, some of Asia’s most significant legal developments involving LGBTQ+ rights have unfolded not in parliamentary chambers but in courtrooms. From marriage equality lawsuits in Japan to litigation over same-sex spousal benefits in South Korea and constitutional challenges in countries including India and Nepal, courts across the region have increasingly been asked to decide questions that lawmakers have yet to resolve. The trend raises a broader question: Why has constitutional litigation become a recurring pathway for LGBTQ+ people seeking legal recognition in parts of Asia?

The pattern has unfolded over nearly two decades. 

In 2007, Nepal’s Supreme Court issued one of Asia’s earliest landmark rulings recognizing the rights of sexual and gender minorities, directing the government to end discriminatory laws and examine legal recognition for same-sex couples. A decade later, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the constitution, paving the way for the region’s first marriage equality law. In India, the Supreme Court recognized transgender people as a third gender in 2014 before striking down a colonial-era ban on consensual same-sex relations four years later.

The pattern continued across Asia. 

Japan’s courts repeatedly questioned the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. The rulings intensified pressure for legal reform. Parliament, however, has yet to act. 

South Korea’s judiciary expanded legal protections for same-sex couples. It recognized spousal health insurance benefits. A recent district court also awarded damages after a same-sex relationship ended. The ruling added momentum to the country’s marriage equality movement. 

China’s courts took a different path. 

Landmark constitutional rulings never emerged. Still, litigation prompted the Supreme People’s Court to acknowledge anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination. The developments reflected courts’ growing role in LGBTQ+ rights disputes.

The Philippines added another dimension. 

Marriage equality remains unresolved, yet the Supreme Court recently recognized property rights for some same-sex couples. The ruling stopped short of recognizing marriage. Still, it acknowledged legal protections for LGBTQ+ relationships. The decision reflected another way courts have shaped LGBTQ+ rights across Asia.

Constitutional courts occupy a distinct place in democratic systems. Legislatures enact laws. They also respond to political priorities and public opinion. Constitutional courts serve a different function. They decide whether laws or government actions comply with constitutional guarantees. They resolve legal disputes brought before them. Their role is not to measure a policy’s popularity. It is to determine whether it is constitutionally valid. That distinction has placed constitutional courts at the center of many of Asia’s most consequential LGBTQ+ rights disputes.

Nepal offers an early example. 

In 2007, LGBTQ+ activists turned to the Supreme Court through a public interest petition. They argued that discriminatory laws and government practices violated constitutional guarantees of equality. They also sought legal recognition for gender and sexual minorities. The government urged the court to dismiss the petition. It argued existing laws already protected all citizens. It also said the claims relied on assumptions rather than specific instances of discrimination. The court disagreed. It held that sexual orientation and gender identity are natural variations of human identity. It directed the government to eliminate discriminatory laws and policies. The ruling also ordered a study on legal recognition for same-sex couples, laying the foundation for future reforms.

“Since it is the absolute jurisdiction of the legislature to decide as to what type of law should be made and amended on a particular issue, and as this matter does not fall under the jurisdiction of this office, therefore, there does not seem any pertinent reason and valid ground to make this Office a respondent,” said Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers in its 2007 affidavit. “Let the writ petition be dismissed on the ground that the unconcerned office is being made as an opposite party in the case.”

In India, a prominent leader of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, Subramanian Swamy, described homosexuality as a “genetic disorder” in 2015. He also wrote on social media that it was a “genetic handicap,” reflecting the political discourse surrounding LGBTQ+ rights before the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in 2018.

The Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling decriminalized consensual same-sex relations. The decision did not end the debate. Soon afterward, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right wing, Hindu nationalist volunteer and paramilitary organization, an ideological parent of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, said it did not consider same-sex relationships a crime. It added, however, that it did not support such relationships.

After the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling, Arun Kumar, a senior Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader, told the media that same-sex relationships and marriage were neither “natural” nor “desirable.”

During the 2023 marriage equality hearings, the Indian government repeatedly argued that the issue belonged before Parliament, not the judiciary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Constitution Bench that the case involved a “very complex subject” with “profound social impact” and that “all the questions in this case must be left to the Parliament.” He argued that recognizing same-sex marriage through judicial interpretation would require rewriting the Special Marriage Act and could have unintended consequences across multiple laws. During the hearings, Mehta also questioned how existing marriage laws would operate for same-sex couples, asking, “Who will be the wife in a lesbian relationship?” 

The Los Angeles Blade covered these arguments as the hearings unfolded.

Three years have passed since the Supreme Court declined to recognize same-sex marriage, holding that creating such a legal framework was a matter for Parliament. Marriage equality, however, remains unrecognized in India. Parliament has not enacted legislation extending civil marriage to same-sex couples. The legal position has remained unchanged since the court’s 2023 ruling.

Similar tensions have surfaced elsewhere in Asia. 

In Japan, a growing number of courts have questioned the constitutionality of denying marriage to same-sex couples, even as Parliament has yet to amend the law. In South Korea, courts have steadily expanded legal protections for same-sex couples, while the government has argued that recognizing same-sex marriage is up to lawmakers. In the Philippines, marriage equality and civil partnership bills have repeatedly failed to secure congressional approval amid religious and political opposition. The legislative stalemate has prompted advocates to pursue constitutional litigation before the Supreme Court. 

Indonesia presents a different picture. 

Rather than debating legal recognition, much of the political discourse has focused on restricting LGBTQ+ rights. In a landmark 2017 case, however, rights groups successfully opposed a petition that sought to criminalize all consensual same-sex relations nationwide. The Constitutional Court rejected the petition, ruling that creating new criminal offences was a matter for Parliament, not the judiciary.

The Nepalese Supreme Court on June 18 ruled the country must extend full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court in 2023 ordered the country’s government to allow same-sex couples to temporarily register their marriages, but this recognition did not guarantee full marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

“Since the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 decision, dozens of same-sex couples have legally married in Nepal under a temporary registration system,” said the Blue Diamond Society, a Nepalese LGBTQ+ advocacy group, in a June 19 press release. “However, the lack of national legislation has created uncertainty and fear for couples who want to register their marriage.”

“Many couples have been denied marriage licenses by local clerks who claim there is no national law instructing them to register marriages of same-sex couples,” further noted the Blue Diamond Society. “Other couples have been forced to file legal cases and endure costly legal battles simply to register their marriage. And even among couples who have registered their marriages, there is concern that their marriages may not be respected when it comes to adoption, inheritance, and other important protections they need to care for their families.”

Thailand and Taiwan are among the countries that have extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The Japanese Supreme Court in March said it will consider six marriage equality lawsuits. The South Korean marriage equality movement in recent years has gained momentum with several court rulings that recognized same-sex relationships.

The Blue Diamond Society in its press release notes the June 18 decision is the fourth time the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of marriage equality.

“Today is a day of celebration for LGBTQIA+ people and families across Nepal,” said Blue Diamond Society Executive Director Manisha Dhakal. “The Supreme Court has once again affirmed that same-sex couples deserve the same dignity, respect, and legal protections as any other couple.”

“We are grateful for the court’s continued leadership,” added Dhakal. “With a newly elected government more committed than ever to equality, now is the time to complete this important work by updating Nepal’s civil code and ensuring marriage equality is fully and clearly protected in law.”

Dhakal in the press release said the Blue Diamond Society “looks forward to working constructively with the government of Nepal, lawmakers, and civil society partners to ensure the court’s vision of equality is fully realized.”

“The Supreme Court has spoken clearly,” Dhakal said. “The government has expressed its support for equality. We are encouraged by that commitment and urge Parliament to act swiftly so that every LGBTQIA+ couple in Nepal can access marriage with certainty, dignity, and respect. Nepal has already taken a historic step. Now it is time to finish the job.”

On Oct. 30, 2025, a same-sex couple in South Korea filed a petition with the country’s human rights commission after a public institution denied marriage leave to one of the men and later reduced his pay and performance bonus for taking time off for their wedding ceremony. The commission last month completed its investigation and continues to consider the case.

The petition comes as South Korea’s same-sex couples have won a series of legal victories in recent years, even though the country does not extend marriage rights to them. Courts have increasingly been asked to decide whether existing laws and workplace policies can extend equal treatment to LGBTQ+ people, often in the absence of legislative change.

The employer’s policy granted marriage leave, but it did not define marriage or specify who could claim the benefit. After the employee submitted a wedding invitation and requested a brief leave for a ceremony with his same-sex partner, the institution denied the request and treated his absence as unauthorized.

The South Korean Supreme Court ruled on July 18, 2024, that denying dependent health insurance benefits to same-sex couples while extending them to opposite-sex couples amounted to discriminatory treatment. The court said the unequal treatment infringed on human dignity and the right to pursue happiness.

South Korea’s marriage equality movement has evolved gradually, moving from social taboo and legal nonrecognition toward greater public visibility and limited judicial victories. 

In 2004, a same-sex couple unsuccessfully sought a division of assets under a de facto marriage. Nearly a decade later, filmmaker Kim Jho Gwang-soo and his partner, Kim Seung-hwan, applied to register their marriage, but South Korean courts rejected their bid, as well as subsequent attempts by same-sex couples to gain legal recognition.

In February 2023, the Seoul High Court ruled that the National Health Insurance Service must extend dependent health insurance benefits to same-sex partners, marking a landmark legal victory for LGBTQ+ couples. The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision made it final.

Under South Korean law, a de facto marriage generally refers to a couple who live together and hold themselves out as married without formally registering their union. While such relationships may receive limited legal recognition in certain circumstances, a marriage is not legally recognized unless it satisfies legal requirements and is registered with the government.

In a ruling made public on June 5, a Seoul court found a same-sex couple had built a life partnership similar to a common-law marriage and deserved legal protection. The court ordered a third party whose affair led to the relationship’s breakdown to pay 10 million won ($6,611.59) in damages.

The court, however, said existing law did not allow it to recognize the relationship as a common-law marriage, underscoring the legal limits that same-sex couples continue to face.

“There is no evidence that the plaintiff and the former partner held a wedding ceremony or revealed their relationship to acquaintances outside their families,” said the court. “From September 2019, when they shared their finances, or at the latest from June 2023, when they lived with the plaintiff’s family and received engagement rings from the plaintiff’s parents and were recognized as a couple, they shared an emotional, physical and financial relationship with a mutual intent to marry, forming a life partnership similar to a common-law marriage.”

On May 31, 2024, South Korean lawmakers introduced the country’s first marriage equality bill. Former Justice Party member Jang Hye-yeong proposed the legislation that 12 lawmakers from across the political spectrum co-sponsored. and co-sponsored by 12 lawmakers from across the political spectrum. The legislation failed later. 

While consensual same-sex relations are not criminalized in South Korea, marriage equality remains unrecognized. Reports suggest many LGBTQ+ people continue to live with limited public visibility.

Recent opinion surveys suggest public support for marriage equality in South Korea has declined. 

A 2025 Hankook Research poll found that 31 percent of respondents supported extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, down from 36 percent in 2021. A separate Gallup Korea survey found that 34 percent backed marriage equality while 58 percent opposed it, reversing gains in public support and returning attitudes to levels seen nearly a decade ago.

The report attributed the decline in support to South Korea’s broader social and political climate. 

Activists told the publication that far-right mobilization, heightened political tensions, and growing online radicalization among some young men had likely contributed to the shift. They also argued politicians routinely cite a lack of public consensus to delay measures such as the Life Partnership Act and the Marriage Equality Act, describing the argument as an excuse for inaction.

Kiyong Shim, an activist with Chingusai, a Korean gay rights group, told the Los Angeles Blade that the marriage leave dispute illustrates the challenges same-sex couples continue to face in South Korea. Shim said the country’s Civil Act contains no provision that explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage, but that marriage registrations by same-sex couples are refused as a matter of administrative practice.

“Because their relationships have no legal standing, exclusion arises in nearly every area of daily life: marriage leave, family allowances, medical decision-making, inheritance, housing, and more,” said Shim. 

He said the marriage equality movement is advancing along two tracks: one is public campaigning, lectures, workshops, and community networking centred on the Marriage for All Korea campaign and the second is through litigation. Fourteen same-sex couples are now plaintiffs in various lawsuits that have been before South Korean courts since 2024.

Shim told the Blade that change is also beginning to take root in South Korea’s judiciary, pointing to the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that recognized dependent health insurance benefits for same-sex partners.

“Those holding political responsibility — in the legislature, the executive, and beyond — continue to turn away from the rights of LGBTQ+ people,” said Shim. “LGBTQ+ individuals remain exposed to discrimination and hatred in everyday life, and many live by painfully concealing who they are. This is precisely why the campaigning cannot stop, and why the work of organizing must continue.”

Shim told the Blade that public opinion is moving in a more favorable direction, albeit gradually. He said attitudes toward homosexuality, sexual minorities, and marriage equality have steadily become more accepting.

“The problem lies in politics,” said Shim. “In Korea, the forces driving anti-homosexuality sentiment are largely conservative Protestant church groups, and these church groups are deeply entangled with politicians in the ruling Democratic Party. As a result, even within the ruling party, this issue is difficult to address. So we are in an asymmetric situation: the judiciary and public opinion are moving forward, while the very political actors charged with legislation and administration remain stationary.”

Taiwan, Nepal, and Thailand have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples. Shim told the Blade there is a growing sense that South Korea is falling behind.

“Society’s perceptions shift most deeply when the fact that LGBTQ+ people are right beside us becomes a natural part of daily life, but this cannot be left to those individuals alone,” he said. “The conditions that make coming out possible must be built by allies together with the community — building workplaces, schools, families, and neighborhoods where discrimination and hatred need not be feared.” 

“What Korea needs right now is exactly this kind of broad, everyday solidarity,” added Shim. “Change in the law and change in daily life have to move together, and that is why the work of campaigning and organizing must not stop. There are already many same-sex couples in Korea living as families, caring for one another. The question is not whether they exist — it is when the state will finally recognize this reality in law.”

China’s Supreme People’s Court on May 8 issued a rare response to a petition involving LGBTQ+ discrimination.

In a surprising response; it discussed sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The response also mentioned workplace discrimination, public humiliation, and school bullying, language considered uncommon from China’s legal system.

The response stemmed from a proposal submitted by a postgraduate student in Qingdao through China’s xinfang petition system on March 25, urging the court to establish clearer judicial standards against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Six weeks later, the Supreme People’s Court Research Office issued a written reply.

The Research Office is an internal legal and policy body within the Supreme People’s Court. It studies legal issues, drafts judicial guidance, and responds to legal inquiries submitted through official channels. Its responses do not carry the same legal weight as a judicial interpretation or court ruling.

“The opinions and suggestions you raised are of great value,” reads a translated version of the Supreme People’s Court Research Office response. “In order to thoroughly implement the Constitution, Civil Code, Employment Promotion Law and other legal provisions, and effectively protect citizens’ personality rights from infringement, the Supreme People’s Court has guided local courts at all levels to handle a number of related cases, and through typical cases and other forms has clarified adjudication rules.”

The response stated that courts may determine public insults, defamation and, discriminatory conduct targeting sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as infringement of personality rights. It also said employers treating individuals differently in hiring, employment, transfer or dismissal based on those characteristics could face employment discrimination claims. Schools could also bear legal responsibility for improper discipline or bullying involving students based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, according to the response.

“It’s not a systematic change from the authorities recognizing LGBTQ rights,” said Renn Hao, an LGBTQ+ activist in China. “However, it’s an informal statement from the Supreme Court. According to a scholar researching LGBTQ legal cases in China, courts are recognizing more cases involving LGBTQ discrimination and same-sex partners through their verdicts.”

China decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in 1997 and removed homosexuality from the country’s list of mental disorders four years later. Chinese law, however, does not recognize same-sex relationships.

Public advocacy involving LGBTQ+ issues also remains tightly controlled. Authorities in recent years have continued restricting community organizing, public events, and online expression involving sexual minorities.

Discussions involving LGBTQ+ issues are also frequently censored on Chinese social media platforms. 

Activists and advocacy groups say Chinese authorities in recent years have removed online content, shut down LGBTQ+ student group accounts and restricted public discussion involving sexual minority issues. After the Supreme People’s Court response began circulating online, related posts and articles were also removed from some Chinese platforms.

“It may still be too early to fully assess the long-term impact, as this development has only just happened and the situation is still unfolding,” said Xiaogang Wei, a Beijing-based LGBTQ+ rights activist, filmmaker, and founder of the China Rainbow Collective Foundation. “Although the reply is not legally binding, it represents a rare form of institutional acknowledgment of SOGIE-related discrimination in China. For Chinese LGBTQ people and advocates, this could become a meaningful reference point for future legal advocacy, public communication, and community awareness.”

Wei said the rapid removal of related posts and articles limited the development’s broader public impact and underscored how fragile LGBTQ+ visibility remains in China. 

“This is why we believe it is important to continue sharing verified information and ensuring that this development is not erased from public understanding,” Wei said.

Chinese courts in recent years have also heard a number of LGBTQ+-related employment discrimination cases, despite the absence of explicit nationwide protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In one notable case, the Supreme People’s Court in 2018 formally recognized “equal employment rights disputes” as a legal cause of action, allowing some discrimination-related cases to proceed through the courts.

Chinese courts have previously handled several LGBTQ+-related disputes involving employment discrimination, custody, and so-called conversion therapy. In 2024, a Beijing court drew attention after recognizing visitation rights for a child involving a same sex couple, a decision activists described as a milestone for LGBTQ+ families in China.

About 80 days into the U.S.-Iran war, while much of the world struggles with oil supplies, India is confronting a different crisis: a widening condom shortage. Health activists warn the supply disruption could worsen HIV/AIDS risks in the world’s most populous country.

Disruptions in maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz have strained supplies of petrochemicals and industrial lubricants used in condom manufacturing. The crisis has increased production costs across the sector and pushed retail prices sharply higher.

India’s condom manufacturing industry is valued at nearly $1 billion. 

Production depends heavily on silicone oil and ammonia. Silicone oil, a key lubricant used in manufacturing, is in short supply. Ammonia, which stabilizes raw latex, is expected to see price increases of 40-50 percent. Rising packaging costs have added further pressure. Some manufacturers and retailers have reported condom prices increasing by as much as 50 percent.

India is home to an estimated 2.5 million people living with HIV, the world’s second-largest population of HIV-positive people, according to a 2024 report. The Health Ministry’s India HIV Estimation 2025 technical report said 5.4 percent of HIV cases in 2024-2025 were linked to transmission between men who have sex with men.

In 2024, India recorded an estimated 64,470 new HIV infections and 32,160 AIDS-related deaths nationwide. The figures marked declines of 48.69 percent and 81.42 percent, respectively, compared with 2010.

Ankit Bhuptani, an LGBTQ+ activist in India, told the Los Angeles Blade that the country has made significant progress in reducing HIV infections over the past two decades. But, he said, that progress depended heavily on affordable condoms, targeted outreach programs and on-the-ground work by NGOs serving MSM and transgender people.

“Pull one thread and the whole thing loosens. What worries me about this particular shortage is that it arrives at exactly the moment when India’s LGBTQ community was beginning to access healthcare more openly after the Section 377 reading down,” said Bhuptani. “Young queer Indians in tier-two cities were just starting to trust government health systems enough to engage with them. A price spike that prices them out, or a shortage that sends them to substandard alternatives, could set that trust back by years.”

The Indian Supreme Court in 2018 struck down Section 377, a colonial-era law that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations.

In March, the Commerce and Industry Ministry acknowledged the difficulties faced by Indian exporters due to disruptions caused by the war in West Asia and launched a roughly $51.5 million Resilience and Logistics Intervention for Export Facilitation, or RELIEF, program. It provides credit insurance support for exporters whose shipments have been stranded because of the conflict.

“Price elasticity in sexual health products is brutal. When a condom pack goes from 20 rupees to 40, usage drops. It’s that simple,” said Bhuptani. “And when usage drops in populations with higher baseline HIV exposure, you don’t see the consequences for two or three years. Then the numbers arrive and everyone acts surprised.”

The situation has been further aggravated by the structure of India’s condom market, which operates on a high-volume, low-margin model designed to keep products affordable for a population of more than 1.4 billion people. Industry analysts say that model is now under growing pressure from rising raw material and shipping costs.

Reports in Indian media said supply constraints and price volatility involving PVC foil, aluminium foil, and packaging materials have disrupted production and complicated order fulfilment across parts of the condom manufacturing sector.

“Supply chain vulnerability assessments almost never include sexual health commodities. They should. India imports roughly 86 percent of its anhydrous ammonia from West Asian countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman, with that ammonia being essential for stabilizing the natural rubber latex used in domestic condom production,” said Bhuptani. “That is a documented strategic dependency that was never flagged as a risk. The Iran war converted it from a latent vulnerability into an active supply shock in a matter of weeks.”

The National AIDS Control Organization, or NACO, which oversees India’s HIV/AIDS programs, during the 2026-2027 fiscal year received an allocation of about $249 million, up from roughly $238 million the previous year. By comparison, the U.S. approved a $6 billion funding package in 2026 for global HIV/AIDS programs, according to the United Nations.

“The gay and trans community in India report high perceived HIV risk and adopted PrEP through non-profit and private channels, with cost and access remaining consistent concerns,” said Bhuptani. “The community organizations managing that risk perception are now operating in a tighter supply environment while simultaneously absorbing the downstream effects of USAID funding cuts. Health workers seeing increased anxiety among community members are observing the predictable consequence of removing redundancy from a system that had very little to begin with.”

The Blade reached out to Indian condom manufacturer Manforce several times, but the company declined to comment.

Harish Iyer, an LGBTQ+ and equal rights activist in India, told the Blade that this is the time when the government needs to step in. Condoms, Iyer said, are not about pleasure, but about life.

“Not just in terms of HIV, it is also a source of contraception in a nation which is heavily populated. So, if there is a crisis in the condom industry, it has an adverse effect on the LGBTQ community,” said Iyer. “And eventually it has a compounding effect on the economy as well. Because if the cases of HIV wrecks to rise, if the population was to explode, it is going to have a straining effect on the economy as well. So, I think it is time that the government steps in, and condoms should be recorded as a necessity commodity rather than making it feel like any kind of commodity that some (privileged people) can afford.”

Iyer told the Blade that the government should provide condoms free of cost. 

He pointed to the Nirodh Scheme, India’s long-running family planning and safe sex program launched by the government in 1968. Condoms, Iyer said, are a necessity, not a luxury product. He urged the government to classify them as essential items and either remove the Goods and Services Tax or reduce it to a minimum.

The Nirodh Scheme was launched by the Health and Family Welfare Ministry to promote contraception and prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, through the nationwide distribution of subsidized and free condoms.

A new health agreement between the U.S. and the Philippines has raised questions among HIV/AIDS service providers.

A joint declaration signed by the U.S. and the Philippines on April 7 sets out a plan for closer health cooperation, aimed at transitioning the Philippines toward greater autonomy and “self-reliance” in its health systems, according to a State Department statement released.

In practice, “self-reliance” in health systems refers to a country’s ability to fund, manage, and deliver care without heavy dependence on external donors. In the Philippines, programs serving LGBTQ+ people — particularly those focused on HIV prevention, testing and treatment — have relied in part on international funding and technical support, including from the U.S., according to UNAIDS. 

The Philippine Department of Health has led the national response to the pandemic.

The joint declaration of intent was signed under the Trump-Vance administration’s “America First Global Health Strategy.” The State Department said the agreement would involve co-funding of mutually agreed global health objectives under bilateral health cooperation between the U.S. and the Philippines in the near future.

The declaration also outlines areas of cooperation beyond financing: workforce development, health information systems, and emergency preparedness. The State Department said the framework is intended to strengthen coordination between U.S. and Philippine institutions while supporting the Philippines’ capacity to manage public health challenges independently over time. The statement does not specifically address LGBTQ+ health.

Similar agreements in other regions have drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups. 

In Africa, community organizations have warned that a shift from donor-funded, community-led health programs to government-to-government frameworks could affect access for marginalized populations, including LGBTQ+ people. The Washington Blade found that such changes may reduce reliance on specialized clinics that have historically provided stigma-free care, raising concerns about discrimination, privacy, and continuity of services.

Desi Andrew Ching, president of HIV & AIDS Support House in the Philippines, said the partnership presents a significant opportunity, but added that, like any large-scale international agreement, its success for the LGBTQ+ community will depend on how it is implemented on the ground.

“On one hand, it’s a positive move. Increased cooperation on health systems can lead to better technical support and potentially more resources for HIV/AIDS prevention and mental health — areas that deeply impact our community,” Ching told the Blade. “If the government and civil society work closely together, we could see some real progress.”

Ching said community concerns often center on where those resources ultimately go. Ching added there is a risk funds could remain within “usual” government-aligned channels or traditional implementers that may not have the trust or reach of grassroots LGBTQ+ organizations.

The Philippines is facing one of the fastest-growing HIV epidemics in the Asia-Pacific region, with UNAIDS statistics indicating new infections increased by about 543 percent between 2010 and 2023.

The epidemic is concentrated among key populations, particularly men who have sex with men and transgender women who account for a vast majority of new infections. A 2023 analysis found that key populations represented about 92 percent of new HIV cases in the country, underscoring the disproportionate impact on LGBTQ+ communities. At the same time, stigma, limited access to testing and gaps in healthcare delivery continue to shape outcomes for these groups.

Ching said that for the partnership to be effective, support would need to be closely targeted to reach those most at risk, including individuals who often avoid government facilities because of stigma and fear of judgment. 

“If the partnership prioritizes ‘community-led’ monitoring and direct support to local organizations, it will be a game-changer. If it stays at the top tier of administration, we might just see the same results as before,” Ching said.

Community-led organizations have been central to the Philippines’ HIV response, particularly in reaching LGBTQ+ populations often underserved by formal healthcare systems. UNAIDS notes groups such as LoveYourself have expanded testing and treatment access through community-based clinics and online outreach, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, when movement restrictions limited access to government facilities.

“To be honest, in these high-level agreements, ‘guarantees’ are hard to come by on paper. The real safeguards lie in the mechanics of implementation,” said Ching. “From the community’s perspective, we believe the best way to prevent services from being diluted is through direct involvement in the planning phase. We would like to see the funding groups and government stakeholders sitting at the same table as the community to game out the specific work plans. It should not be a top-down approach; it needs to be co-designed.”

Ching said oversight would be a critical layer of protection, adding that a dedicated point of contact, such as a U.S Agency for International Development technical lead or a similar monitor, would be needed to track how funds are used.

USAID officially shut down on July 1, 2025, after the Trump-Vance administration dismantled it.

Ching added community-led monitoring would also be necessary in addition to government oversight. He said safety and trust cannot be guaranteed by policy alone but must be built through experience, noting that community-led organizations have consistently reached the most marginalized populations. 

“Safety and trust aren’t things you can just write into a policy; they have to be built through experience,” Ching said, adding that community-based sites are often seen as more accessible and safer because they are “for us, by us.” 

He said the partnership should direct substantial support to grassroots organizations that have demonstrated an ability to overcome stigma, while strengthening coordination with government clinics. The most effective approach, he added, would combine government infrastructure with community-led delivery, allowing trusted local groups to serve as the primary point of access.

’We want a seat at the table’

According to a report by the World Health Organization on the Philippines, prevention efforts account for only about 6 percent of total HIV spending, despite a sharp rise in cases. The report said the gap has been compounded by a recent pause in U.S. funding, which has delayed the development and implementation of prevention programs and community-led responses.

Asked whether community-led LGBTQ+ organizations would be funded and included in implementation or sidelined under a government-led approach, Ching said that remained the central question for the community, adding that no detailed plan has yet been made public.

“But we have to be realistic about the politics — both within the government and even within civil society — that can sometimes slow things down,” said Ching. “A good baseline to look at is the UNAIDS 30-80-60 targets. These milestones are specifically designed to put community-led responses at the center of the HIV fight. If we’re being honest, as a country, we are still finding our footing in meeting those specific targets. There is a very real risk of being sidelined if the execution defaults to a standard ‘government-only’ approach.”

The UNAIDS set global targets to guide the HIV response, most notably the “95-95-95” goals for 2025. 

The framework calls for 95 percent of people living with HIV to know their status, 95 percent of those diagnosed to receive sustained treatment and 95 percent of those on treatment to achieve viral suppression. The targets were designed to reduce transmission and improve health outcomes, while also highlighting gaps in access to testing, treatment, and prevention services.

“We view this new partnership with the U.S. as a chance to course-correct. If the intention is to end AIDS as a public health threat, the data shows it simply cannot be done without the community in the driver’s seat for service delivery,” said Ching. “Our hope is that the implementation isn’t just government-led, but government-enabled. We want a seat at the table not just for the sake of being there, but to ensure the resources are actually hitting the ground where they matter most. We’re looking for a partnership that honors those 2025 milestones by making community-led organizations formal, funded partners in this roadmap.”

The Japanese Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will consider six marriage equality lawsuits.

NHK, the country’s public broadcaster, noted all 15 of the court’s justices will consider the case.

Japan is the only G7 country that does not legally recognize same-sex couples, despite several court rulings in recent years that found the denial of marriage benefits to gays and lesbians unconstitutional.

Tokyo High Court Judge Ayumi Higashi last November upheld Japan’s legal definition of a family as a man and a woman and their children.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who became the country’s first female head of government last October, opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples. She has also reiterated the constitution’s assertion that the family is an institution based around “the equal rights of husband and wife.”

Same-sex couples can legally marry in Taiwan, Nepal, and Thailand.

NHK reported the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in early 2027.

The Philippines Supreme Court in a landmark ruling said same-sex couples can co-own property under the country’s Family Code.

The Philippine News Agency on Tuesday notes the court issued its ruling in the case of two women who bought a house in Quezon City, a suburb of Manila, the Filipino capital, before they broke up.

The two women, according to the Philippine News Agency, “agreed to sell the property” after they ended their relationship, “and the registered owner — the respondent — signed a document acknowledging that the other partner paid for half of the purchase and renovations.” The Philippine News Agency notes “the registered owner” later “refused to sell the property and withdrew her earlier acknowledgment of co-ownership, prompting the other partner to file a complaint.”

A Regional Trial Court and the Philippines Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court in a 14-page ruling it issued on Feb. 5 overturned the decisions. The Supreme Court published its decision on Tuesday.

“Considering that there is co-ownership between petitioner and respondent, then each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as her share is concerned,” said the Supreme Court in its ruling, according to the Philippine News Agency. “Having rightful interest over the subject property, petitioner has the right to demand the division of the subject property.”

The predominantly Catholic country’s Family Code defines marriage as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.” It also states in Article 148 that “in cases of cohabitation” outside of marriage, “only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions.”

“In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal,” it reads.

The BBC reported the Supreme Court ruling states this provision “applies to all forms of co-habitation,” regardless of the couple’s gender. A Supreme Court press release indicates the decision notes lawmakers and the Filipino government “must address same-sex couples’ rights, as courts alone cannot resolve all related policy concerns.”

“This court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples,” it reads. “With the political, moral, and cultural questions that surround the issue concerning the rights of same-sex couples, political departments, especially the Congress must be involved to quest for solutions, which balance interests while maintaining fealty to fundamental freedoms.”

LGBT Pilipinas, a Filipino advocacy group, welcomed the ruling.

“This ruling marks a monumental step forward in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ families and relationships in the country,” it said in a statement.

LGBT Pilipinas added the ruling “lays a crucial legal foundation for broader recognition of same-sex relationships and strengthens the push for comprehensive anti-discrimination protections.”

“This is a win not only for the LGBTQ+ community, but for fairness and justice in Philippine society as a whole,” said the group.

Sanae Takaichi last month became Japan’s first female prime minister after she secured the Liberal Democratic Party’s leadership and both chambers of the Diet confirmed her.

She now leads a minority government after forming a coalition with the right-leaning Japan Innovation Party, following Komeito’s decision to end its 26-year partnership with the LDP. Her rise marks a historic break in Japanese politics, but the question remains whether she will advance the rights of Japan’s LGBTQ+ community?

Despite the milestone her election represents, Takaichi’s record on gender issues offers little indication of progressive change. 

She has long emphasized “equality of opportunity” over structural reforms and has opposed measures that include allowing married couples to use separate surnames, a policy many women say would ease workplace discrimination. During her leadership bid Takaichi pledged to elevate women’s representation in government to Nordic levels, yet she appointed only two women to her 19-member Cabinet. Takaichi has also resisted efforts to modernize the Imperial Household Law to permit female succession, reinforcing her reputation as a conservative on women’s rights.

Takaichi’s stance on LGBTQ+ rights has been similarly cautious. 

In a 2023 Diet budget committee session, she said there should be “no prejudice against sexual orientation or gender identity,” yet described extending marriage rights to same-sex couples as an “extremely difficult issue.” 

Her earlier record is consistent.

In 2021, she opposed an LGBTQ+-inclusive anti-discrimination bill that members of her own party, arguing its wording was too vague. 

Even after becoming LDP leader in October 2025, she reiterated her opposition to marriage equality and emphasized traditional family values. Takaichi highlighted that Article 24 defines marriage as being based on “the mutual consent of both sexes” and frames the institution around “the equal rights of husband and wife,” language she argues leaves no constitutional room for extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.

While her rhetoric avoids overt hostility, her record suggests limited appetite for the structural reforms sought by Japan’s LGBTQ+ community.

A series of landmark court rulings has built escalating pressure for national reform. 

On March 17, 2021, the Sapporo District Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage violated the constitution’s equality clause. In May 2023, the Nagoya District Court similarly declared the ban unconstitutional, with a subsequent decision from the Fukuoka District Court reaffirming Japan’s current legal framework clashes with constitutional equality principles. 

The momentum peaked on Oct. 30, 2024, when the Tokyo High Court found the marriage ban incompatible with guarantees of equality and individual dignity. 

Japan remains the only G7 country without legal recognition of same-sex couples.

Akira Nishiyama, a spokesperson for the Japan Alliance for LGBT Legislation, noted to the Los Angeles Blade that in leadership surveys the group conducted within the LDP in 2021 and again in 2025, Takaichi offered only a cautious position on reforming Japan’s legal gender recognition law. When asked whether she supported easing the requirements under the Act on Special Cases in Handling Gender Status for Persons with Gender Identity Disorder, she responded that “multifaceted and careful discussion is necessary,” avoiding any commitment to substantive change.

Nishiyama added the legal landscape has already shifted. 

In October 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the law’s sterilization requirement for legal gender recognition is unconstitutional, and several family courts have since struck down the appearance requirement on similar grounds. She urged the Takaichi administration to act quickly by amending the statute to remove these provisions, along with other elements long criticized as human rights violations.

“[Prime Minister] Takaichi has stated that ‘careful discussion is necessary’ regarding amendments to ‘Act on Special Cases in Handling Gender Status for Persons with Gender Identity Disorder’ and the enactment of anti-discrimination laws based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI),” noted Nishiyama. “However, as indicated in Candidate (at that time) Takaichi’s responses to our survey, if she considers issues related to SOGI to be human rights issues, then she has to work hard to advance legal frameworks to address these issues.” 

“For example, regarding the government’s announcement that they will consider whether same-sex couples could be included or not in the 130 laws concerning common-law marriages couples, [Prime Minister] Takaichi responded to our survey that ‘the government should continue to advance its consideration,’” she added. “As per this response, the Takaichi Cabinet should continue deliberating on this matter and ensure that same-sex couples are included in each relevant law.”

Takeharu Kato, an advocate for marriage equality who spoke to the Blade in a personal capacity, urged observers not to view Takaichi’s appointment solely through a negative lens. 

He acknowledged she holds deeply conservative views within the LDP and has openly opposed marriage equality, but noted several aspects of her background could leave room for movement. 

“She is Japan’s first female prime minister in history. Furthermore, she does not come from a political family background but rather from an ordinary household,” said Kato. “She also has an unusual career path, having graduated from a local university and worked as a television news anchor before entering politics.” 

“Additionally, while her husband is a member of the Diet, he became partially paralyzed due to a cerebral infarction, and she has been caring for him,” he further noted. “She possesses several minority attributes like these, and depending on our future efforts, there is a possibility she could change her stance on same-sex marriage. It could also be said that, as a woman navigating the conservative Liberal Democratic Party, she has deliberately emphasized conservative attitudes to appeal to her base of right-wing supporters.” 

Kato stressed that “having reached the pinnacle as prime minister, it cannot be said she (Takaichi) has no potential to change.”

“We need not alter the strategy we have pursued thus far,” Kato told the Blade. “However, we believe some fine-tuning is necessary, such as refining our messaging to resonate with those holding more conservative values.”