Poland’s top court this week rejected the recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed in other EU countries.

The EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg last November ruled in favor of a same-sex couple who challenged Poland’s refusal to recognize their German marriage. Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court in March reaffirmed the decision.

The couple, who lives in Poland, brought their case to Polish courts in 2019. The Supreme Administrative Court referred it to the EU Court of Justice.

The Polish government in May announced it will recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other EU countries. Polish President Karol Nawrocki on July 17 vetoed bills that would have extended rights to same-sex couples.

The Constitutional Tribunal ruling, which it issued on July 28, was unanimous and final. It also sets up a potential clash between it and the EU Court of Justice.

More than four years after Taiwan began formally studying legislation to overhaul its legal gender recognition system, and despite repeated recommendations from international human rights experts, the government has yet to introduce a bill that would replace decades-old administrative rules governing how transgender people can change the gender marker on official documents.

On May 15, an independent international review committee examining Taiwan’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights urged the government to enact legislation governing legal gender recognition. The committee said Taiwan’s continued reliance on an administrative order, despite a 2023 Supreme Administrative Court ruling that mandatory gender-affirming surgery violates constitutional rights, has created legal uncertainty for transgender people, administrative authorities and judges.

In Taiwan, legal gender recognition has long been governed by a 2008 Interior Ministry administrative directive rather than legislation. 

Under the directive, applicants seeking to change the gender marker on their national identification documents are generally required to provide diagnoses of gender dysphoria from two psychiatrists and proof that they have undergone gender-affirming surgery. For trans men, this typically involves the removal of the breasts, uterus, and ovaries, while trans women generally must undergo the removal of the penis and testicles. Because these requirements are established through an administrative directive rather than a law enacted by the legislature, trans rights activists and human rights organizations have argued they violate human rights.

Although Taiwanese courts have increasingly allowed trans people to change the gender marker on their official documents without undergoing gender-affirming surgery, the Interior Ministry’s 2008 directive requiring surgery remains in force. As a result, Taiwan’s administrative rules and judicial decisions are no longer fully aligned.

In a landmark ruling in May 2024, the Taipei High Administrative Court ordered a household registration office to approve a trans man’s application to change the gender marker on his household registration without requiring gender-affirming surgery. The court held that the Interior Ministry’s 2008 administrative directive, which requires applicants to submit proof of surgery, cannot be treated as an absolute prerequisite for legal gender recognition. Instead, it found that the applicant had provided sufficient medical evidence of a stable and long-standing gender identity and that denying the application solely because he had not undergone surgery was unlawful.

The Executive Yuan began work on legislation in April 2020, when it decided to commission an academic study examining international legal gender recognition systems rather than immediately drafting a law. 

The government subsequently commissioned Shih Hsin University to prepare a report reviewing foreign legal models and developing legislative recommendations, including a bill. Since 2022, the Executive Yuan has held a series of inter-agency meetings involving multiple ministries to consider the study’s recommendations and legislation governing legal gender recognition, though no bill has yet been enacted.

In September 2023, Taiwan’s Supreme Administrative Court set aside a lower court ruling that had upheld the Interior Ministry’s refusal to change a trans person’s legal gender without proof of surgery and ordered the case to be reheard. 

The court held that the ministry’s 2008 administrative directive requiring surgery could not be treated as the controlling legal standard because it lacked a clear statutory basis and implicated constitutional protections, including bodily autonomy and personality rights. Rather than treating surgery as an automatic prerequisite, the court instructed the lower court to determine whether the applicant had established a stable gender identity based on the evidence presented.

“From our perspective, the primary goal should be lowering the barriers to legal gender recognition, particularly by abolishing the mandatory surgery requirement,” the Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association, a nonprofit LGBTQ+ advocacy and support organization founded in 1998, said in an email to the Los Angeles Blade.

The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said several factors have stalled progress toward comprehensive legislation. 

The organization told the Blade the complexity of the issue and the lack of constructive dialogue are among the primary obstacles. It said legal gender recognition requires extensive discussion, with views differing even within the trans community itself. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association added that opinions also vary widely within the legislature and across Taiwanese society, while effective channels for dialogue remain lacking.

The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association also attributed the lack of progress to what it described as a lack of political will and an over reliance on “social consensus.” 

According to the organization, the executive branch lacks the political momentum to advance legal gender recognition reforms. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said the Interior Ministry and other relevant agencies have often adopted a passive approach in the face of opposition from conservative groups, delaying progress by arguing that there is no social consensus or that further discussion is needed.

The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association also said progress has been hindered by what it described as a backlash following the legalization of same-sex marriage. According to the organization, groups opposed to gender equality and trans rights, including some conservative religious and anti-trans organizations, shifted their focus to trans issues after marriage equality became law. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said these groups have promoted fear-based narratives, including concerns about safety in public restrooms, leading many politicians to view trans rights as a politically risky issue and reducing momentum for legislative action.

“The existing system makes changing one’s legal gender marker extremely difficult. Forced surgical removal of reproductive organs imposes a heavy financial burden since it must be paid out-of-pocket, and not every trans person can afford, desires, or is medically advised to undergo organ removal,” the Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said. “Additionally, requiring psychiatric evaluations is problematic because specialized medical resources are scarce and concentrated in major cities. These obstacles severely impact transgender individuals in their daily lives.”

The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association said the continued reliance on an administrative directive rather than legislation has created systemic uncertainty for trans people. The organization said the absence of a statutory framework allows executive agencies to alter requirements without legislative oversight, leaving trans people uncertain whether future policies will become more restrictive or more permissive. The Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBTQ+) Hotline Association added that while several trans people have secured favorable court rulings since 2023, those decisions apply only to the individual cases before the courts and do not guarantee similar outcomes for others. The group also said pursuing litigation requires significant time, financial resources, and emotional investment, making it an inaccessible path for many trans people seeking legal recognition.

The Executive Yuan and the Interior Ministry did not respond to the Blade’s requests for comment.

Editor’s note: International News Editor Michael K. Lavers and Photo Editor Michael Key will be on assignment in the Netherlands through Aug. 10. They will be covering World Pride in Amsterdam.

AMSTERDAM — Madonna on Saturday will perform at World Pride in Amsterdam.

She is scheduled to appear alongside Stuart Price, Honey Dijon, and other “special guests” at the World Pride Music Festival at AFAS Live concert hall. The Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade will take place earlier on Saturday.

MISTR, a telehealth platform that offers free access to PrEP, Doxy PEP, STI testing, and long-term HIV care, is organizing Madonna’s performance.

Madonna on July 2 released her new album, “Confessions II,” to rave reviews.

She appeared at The Abbey in West Hollywood in April. Madonna in June celebrated Pride month with a pop-up performance in New York’s Times Square.

“Everyone here is a work of art,” says the World Pride Music Festival performance poster, referring to a line from “Danceteria” on “Confessions II.”

HIV/AIDS activists on Sunday protested a Trump-Vance administration official at the 2026 International AIDS Conference in Rio de Janeiro.

Health GAP Executive Director Asia Russell and others disrupted U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Jeff Graham, who is leading the Trump-Vance administration’s AIDS 2026 delegation, as he spoke. They were protesting the Trump-Vance administration’s cuts to U.S. foreign aid that they maintain have had a devasting impact on the global HIV/AIDS fight.

“The U.S. government has stolen HIV treatment from 77,163 HIV positive children, slashed PrEP enrollment by 42 percent, closed 1,700 PEPFAR HIV treatment sites, decimated programs led by and for key populations, implementers report slashing condom programming by 93 percent, and so much more,” said Russell in a Bluesky post that contained pictures of her and other activists on stage at AIDS 2026.

The US government has stolen HIV treatment from 77,163 HIV positive children, slashed PrEP enrolment by 42%, closed 1700 PEPFAR HIV treatment sites, decimated programs led by and for key populations, implementers report slashing condom programming by 93% and so much more

[image or embed]

— Asia Russell (@asia-ilse.bsky.social) July 26, 2026 at 2:26 PM

Secretary of State Marco Rubio shortly after the Trump-Vance administration took office issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Washington Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.

The International AIDS Society in a press release it issued last week noted PEPFAR “has saved more than 26 million lives” since President George W. Bush implemented it in 2003, “and changed the trajectory of the HIV pandemic.” The group also said PEPFAR “was a a success under the first Trump administration, with major progress toward the 95-95-95 goals.”

The UNAIDS’s 95-95-95 goals are 95 percent of people with HIV knowing their status, 95 percent of people with HIV having access to antiretroviral therapy, and 95 percent of those receiving ART having suppressed viral loads by 2030.

“Since the start of the second Trump administration, however, it has undergone major disruptions,” added the International AIDS Society.

“No one has to accept being lied to by this administration, particularly not the scientists and communities and activists who know the best what is at stake and what is actually happening,” said Russell on Bluesky.

many many people stood up and applauded during our protest, and thanked us afterward.

No one has to accept being lied to by this administration, particularly not the scientists and communities and activists who know the best what is at stake and what is actually happening

— Asia Russell (@asia-ilse.bsky.social) July 26, 2026 at 2:45 PM

AIDS 2026 will end on Friday.

On Saturday, during Berlin’s Christopher Street Day, one of Europe’s biggest LGBTQ+ Pride events, a 21-year-old religious extremist drove a van into the crowd and then used a knife to stab multiple people. One person died and 29 others were injured.

When I saw this news on social media, I sincerely felt scared, and not because one more bigot used his religion to justify violence against people like me. It has, unfortunately, happened too often. Despite being happy to see the overwhelming support for the queer community and the condemnation of terrorism, I was terrified by the wave of Islamophobic and anti-immigrant statements that came even from “left” and “progressive” people who should know better, who generally support refugees, who know that all people are equal, and that you shouldn’t treat others as less human because of their religion.

In 2020, a Russian MP threatened to start a criminal case against me after I interviewed Muslim women about why they called themselves feminists and wrote about my own relationship with feminism and Islam, mentioning that I was following events in Syria and had read some academic books on the Islamic State. Surprisingly, the MP claimed that I was recruiting women to ISIS by using feminist ideas, which, of course, was absolutely ridiculous for many reasons, including the fact that I was an openly nonbinary transgender person. But some media outlets and queer people online, including those who called themselves progressive, refused to support me or believed the lie. This is what an anti-extremist witchhunt looks like. If I had been in Russia, and not in the UK, I probably would have been in prison.

It is extremely important to oppose extremism by knowing the actual facts about terrorist groups and not starting a moral panic.

Here are four examples of what media coverage and queer people online often misunderstand about the events in Berlin, and why it’s important.

1. Islam is not the problem

Despite a common misunderstanding, this terrorist act wasn’t even about Islam. 

Islam, just like Christianity and Judaism, has a variety of views on LGBTQ+ rights, from affirmative to condemning. I think everyone in the American Bible Belt has met Christian fundamentalists who praised violence against LGBTQ+ people or used violence against their own queer children, so it is a universal problem. But the thing is Abdul Ballout was not an ordinary conservative Muslim. He was known for wanting to join ISIS. It is an apocalyptic cult that teaches that we are living in the last era, so they are trying to re-create the caliphate that they believe should be restored before Doomsday. 

Most of the Muslim people I know, including conservative Salafi Muslims, see the group as dangerous criminals, or don’t see the group as a Muslim group at all. The vast majority of ISIS victims are not Western people or queer people, but cisgender heterosexual Muslims in the Middle East and Africa who the group considers to be infidels. ISIS is widely condemned by Muslim communities and scholars, and blaming Islam for the actions of cult members is like blaming Christianity and all Christians — or even all Christian fundamentalists — for the actions of Branch Davidians members or for the mass murder-suicide committed by members of the People’s Temple.

2. Refugees are not the problem — and Germany is not a safe haven for refugees

First, the attacker was a German citizen. But the media continue to blame migration. Germany is seen as a safe haven for refugees and asylum seekers in the U.S., the UK and beyond. But the time when Germany was safe is long gone. For refugees from Russia between 2022 and 2025 alone, around 90 percent of refugee claims have been refused by Germany, including the claims of political prisoners. The situation for non-White Muslim refugees is even worse, especially in regions such as Bavaria.

I have personal experience working with some refugees in Germany who are also Muslim. The way the migration service mistreated them is beyond anything I saw while working with refugees and being a refugee in the UK. I saw cases in Germany where an asylum seeker’s family was threatened back home because of social media posts the asylum seeker had made, or where a person was detained and sent back to their homeland despite having a history of persecution and torture by the government. Very often, when a person is taken by the immigration service, their loved ones don’t know where they are. Queer refugees also report homophobic and transphobic attitudes in the system.

The narrative that Germany is too generous to refugees was created by the far right and has little to do with reality, and it harms actual refugees, including queer refugees, by silencing their voices.

3. There is no collective responsibility

It is an extremely old and dangerous idea.

Just as all gay men shouldn’t be blamed for what the American serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer did just because he was gay; we shouldn’t blame all Muslims, all people of Middle Eastern origin, or any other large demographic group for the crime of one terrorist. Even if the terrorist had been a refugee and a Muslim, it shouldn’t actually matter, because under the law in any modern non-authoritarian country, an individual shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of their social group.

After all, when a white, Christian, cisgender, heterosexual, neurotypical person commits a crime, it is almost always seen as an individual’s fault. Why is it different for marginalized groups? The idea of collective responsibility harmed the gay community for decades and is harming the trans community right now, for example after Charlie Kirk’s murder. The best thing we can do is stop this narrative, because it will be used against us.

The only reason I explained about ISIS and the refugee experience in Germany is to show how far from reality the popular accusations are.

4. Witch-hunts and scapegoating serve the far-right agenda and are extremely anti-queer

From my own experience, as an openly trans person speaking against Islamophobia, sexism and queerphobia who was accused of supporting the cult that kills queer people, promotes the sexual exploitation of women and sees the majority of Muslims as legitimate targets, I can say for sure that moral panic can go wild.

People who remember the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, or even the attacks on Muslim communities after Sept. 11, should know this.

Now even queer people are attacking refugees and Muslim communities online while the German government is introducing more draconian measures against those groups.

ILGA-Europe, the biggest LGBTQ+ organization in Europe, made a statement warning against any attempt to weaponize the attack. 

“This tragedy must not be used to fuel hatred against migrants, foreigners or Muslim communities. We reject any attempt by anti-democratic actors to exploit what happened to divide communities, scapegoat minorities or turn one group against another,” Chaber, the group’s executive director, said. “LGBTI people must not be instrumentalized to spread hatred against others, nor should the existence of racism, Islamophobia or anti-migrant hatred be used to minimize the threats faced by LGBTI people. The rights, safety, and dignity of all people must be defended.”

People who live at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities — LGBTQ+ Muslims, LGBTQ+ people of color and LGBTQ+ refugees — will probably suffer the most from this moral panic. Moreover, these are the same political groups that target refugees, Muslim communities and queer people. If this hatred isn’t stopped now, everyone is potentially at risk. 

Condemning terrorism is important, but it is no less important to stop creating more victims.

Editor’s note: International News Editor Michael K. Lavers and Photo Editor Michael Key will be on assignment in Amsterdam from Aug. 5-10.

Queen Máxima on July 25 participated in this year’s World Pride opening ceremony in Amsterdam.

The Dutch monarch joined Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema at the ceremony that took place in Amsterdam’s Vondelpark. Several drag queens also participated in the event.

🌈 Koningin Máxima opent WoldPride 2026 in het Vondelpark in Amsterdam. Het evenement vraagt wereldwijdaandacht voor de zichtbaarheid, emancipatie en mensenrechten van de LGBTQIA+-gemeenschap. Koningin Máxima bezoekt de Sport Pride en de Youth Pride.⁰https://t.co/eXdHJYQX2R pic.twitter.com/wNkjvaTkHY

— Koninklijk Huis (@koninklijkhuis) July 25, 2026

World Pride will take place in Amsterdam through Aug. 10.

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten, who is openly gay, is scheduled to open the World Pride Human Rights Conference on Aug. 5.

Halsema on Sunday told reporters that authorities will bolster security measures “where necessary” in response to the terrorist attack at Berlin’s annual Pride march the day before that left one person dead and 29 others injured.

At least one person died on Saturday when a van drove into a crowd at Berlin’s annual Pride march.

The incident took place shortly before 10 p.m. local time (1 p.m. PT) in Tiergarten park.

Authorities say a 21-year-old German man of Lebanese descent who tried to join the Islamic State drove the van into the crowd. German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt on Sunday told reporters during a press conference the suspect also attacked people with a machete.

Dobrint said the suspect injured 29 people — with some of them in critical condition.

He and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz confirmed authorities are investigating the attack as “an Islamist terrorist attack.” Officers killed the suspect in the Berlin suburb of Spandau on Sunday after he reportedly charged at them with a knife.

A memorial service and rally took place in Berlin on Sunday.

Hundreds of thousands of people participate in the annual Christopher Street Day parade — which is one of Europe’s largest Pride events — that winds its way through Berlin.

Tiergarten is near June 17 Street and the Brandenberg Gate where post-parade parties and concerts take place. Authorities cancelled the remaining Pride events after Saturday’s attack.

“We strongly condemn the fatal attack at the Christopher Street Day celebration in Berlin,” said the U.S. Embassy in Germany on Sunday. “This attack undermines the fundamental values of freedom and respect which underpin open and democratic societies. Our thoughts are with the victims, their families, and the first responders.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni are among those who condemned the attack.

“It is difficult for us to put into words the shock and grief of the queer community,” said Alva Träbert of Federation Queer Diversity, a German LGBTQ+ and intersex rights group known by the acronym LSVD, on Sunday in a statement. “Our solidarity goes out to all the victims and their families. The community’s grief now needs space to be expressed. This act, which according to the current state of the investigation was motivated by Islamist extremism, is to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. We owe our thanks and deep respect to the entire Berlin Pride team for their organization and to the emergency services for their swift assistance.”

Träbert added the attack “was not directed at a party, but at a political demonstration for the human rights of LGBTQIA+ people” and was “also an attack on democratic values themselves.” Träbert also urged the German government in the wake of the attack to do more to protect LGBTQ+ and intersex Germans.

Dutch authorities to ‘take extra measures’ during World Pride in Amsterdam

The attack took place on the same day that World Pride began in Amsterdam.

Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema on Sunday said authorities will “take extra measures … where necessary” during the event and the city’s annual Pride, which will take place on Aug. 1. Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten, who is gay, on social media said he expressed his condolences to Merz.

“The horrific act of aggression last night at the Pride in Berlin is a direct attack on our free and tolerant society,” said Jetten on X.

“My thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones,” he added. “In these difficult times, we stand shoulder to shoulder with our German neighbors.”

The 2026 International AIDS Conference will take place next week in Rio de Janeiro.

Francisco Ruiz, the former director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy, and UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima are among those scheduled to speak at the conference that will take place in the Brazilian city from July 26-31. Other scheduled speakers include Spanish Health Secretary Javier Padilla, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, South African Deputy Health Minister Mathume Joseph “Joe” Phaahla, and Alexus D’Marco of the United Caribbean Trans Network.

The International AIDS Society-organized AIDS 2026’s theme is “Rethink. Rebuild. Rise.”

AIDS 2026 will take place against the backdrop of U.S. funding cuts that have significantly impacted the global HIV/AIDS fight.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio shortly after the Trump-Vance administration took office issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Los Angeles Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.

The International AIDS Society in a press release it issued on Tuesday noted PEPFAR “has saved more than 26 million lives” since President George W. Bush implemented it in 2003, “and changed the trajectory of the HIV pandemic.”

“PEPFAR was a success under the first Trump administration, with major progress toward the 95-95-95 goals,” it said.

The UNAIDS’s 95-95-95 goals are 95 percent of people with HIV knowing their status, 95 percent of people with HIV having access to antiretroviral therapy, and 95 percent of those receiving ART having suppressed viral loads by 2030.

“Since the start of the second Trump administration, however, it has undergone major disruptions,” added the International AIDS Society.

Eswatini is among the African countries that have received doses of lenacapavir, a groundbreaking HIV prevention drug that users inject twice a year, through PEPFAR since the Trump-Vance administration took office.

The White House last month announced it will end PEPFAR funding for South Africa.

President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, that banned U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services. The Trump-Vance administration earlier this year expanded the prohibition to include groups that promote “gender ideology” and support gender-affirming care and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

The International AIDS Society in its press release notes 52 percent of “all implementing partners had at least once terminated award,” while 77 percent of them “had been asked to restrict their work to comply with an additional U.S. policy.” The International AIDS Society notes 1,010 public health facilities, 325 “access points” and 126 “drop-in centers” around the world have closed because of U.S. funding cuts.

“Science is moving fast, giving us more powerful HIV prevention and treatment tools. But these advances cannot save lives if they never reach the people who need them,” said International AIDS Society President Beatriz Grinsztejn, who co-chairs AIDS 2026 and is the director of Rio de Janeiro’s Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infection Diseases’ HIV/AIDS Clinical Research Unit. “That requires robust, stable financing and steadfast political commitment.”

Polish President Karol Nawrocki on July 17 vetoed bills that would have extended rights to same-sex couples.

Reuters reported Nawrocki rejected two measures that would have allowed same-sex couples who live together to enter into “cohabitation contracts.” Reuters noted the bills would have allowed same-sex couples to make decisions on issues that include access to medical information, property rights, and burial.

The country’s coalition government backed the bills that MPs approved. Nawrocki, a socially conservative Catholic, in a statement said they “create a new, formalized institution of family law, ​equipped with a broad catalogue of rights similar to those of marriage.”

“As the guardian of the Constitution, I cannot accept a solution that would lead to the loss of the ‌special ⁠status of marriage, defined in Article 18 of the Constitution as a union of a man and a woman under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland,” said Nawrocki, as Reuters noted.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk sharply criticized Nawrocki.

Miko Czerwiński of the Campaign Against Homophobia, a Polish LGBTQ+ advocacy group, in a statement noted nearly 80 percent of Poles “believe that the status of same-sex couples should be protected.”

“Once again, the voice of society has proven irrelevant to those in power,” said Czerwiński. “We are not willing to accept this. We will continue working towards full marriage equality.”

The EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg last November ruled in favor of a same-sex couple who challenged Poland’s refusal to recognize their German marriage. Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court in March reaffirmed the decision.

The couple, who lives in Poland, brought their case to Polish courts in 2019. The Supreme Administrative Court referred it to the EU Court of Justice.

The Polish government in May announced it will recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other EU countries. Tusk, for his part, apologized to same-sex couples for the “years of rejection and humiliation” they suffered because Poland did not recognize their relationships.

“We will continue working towards full marriage equality,” said Czerwiński in response to Nawrocki’s vetoes. “We will not allow years of work by non-governmental organizations, activists, and our entire community to be wasted.”

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.