logo
Some Advice from LGBTQ Elders as Worldpride Kicks off Amid Fears

Some Advice from LGBTQ Elders as Worldpride Kicks off Amid Fears

Yomiuri Shimbun04-06-2025
Matt McClain/The Washington Post
People dance during a WorldPride Welcome Party at Berhta in Northeast Washington on Saturday.
They were born too late to have witnessed Stonewall, lived through darkest days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic or have memories of a time when it was illegal for same-sex couples to marry anywhere in the country.
Still, four 20-somethings from a small private college in south-central Pennsylvania got out of bed before sunrise and spent a few hours on a bus to D.C. so they could make it to the U.S. Supreme Court for a gathering that would take them back in time.
They would listen as longtime LGBTQ advocates, who had come together to celebrate the 100th anniversary of gay pioneer Frank E. Kameny's birth, spoke about struggle and the progress it has wrought. They would hold candles and look on as those advocates marched in loops in the high court's shadow holding large signs – black lettering on white poster board that recalled the very first gay rights demonstration in the nation's capital 60 years ago. The posters declared such things as 'Gay is good' and 'Homosexuals ask for the right to the pursuit of happiness.'
Tatiana Gonzales, 22, watched in awe, an electric candle in each hand, a 'trans lives matter' shirt peeking out from beneath their black hoodie. Gonzales would later describe the experience as transformative, how the candles in their own hands felt more like a passed torch – a reminder that their generation must pick up the work started long before to ensure that progress is not undone.
'Wow,' Gonzales recalled thinking, 'these are really the people that helped make this happen. These are really the people who fought for us to have these rights.'
As D.C. decks itself in rainbows and welcomes WorldPride, one of the largest international observances of Pride Month, many LGBTQ people say that they are finding inspiration not by imagining a brighter future – but instead by revisiting a more hostile past.
After years of buoyant celebrations of advancements and greater acceptance for members of the LGBTQ community over the last two decades, for many, Pride is taking place this year in the shadow of mounting legal and cultural attacks: books featuring LGBTQ+ characters have been removed from school libraries and curriculums; hate crimes are on the rise; the federal government has barred transgender people from the military and girls' sports; HIV prevention programs and gender-affirming health care have been slashed; drag shows have been banned at the Kennedy Center; and state legislatures around the country have introduced more than 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills.
The young people assembled outside the Supreme Court that day kept coming back to one word: 'Scary.'
They feel fearful of political and social attacks on LGBTQ people, they said, and they worry about the safety of their friends, family and even themselves.
'There's a very real shot that we won't have those rights that we've just kind of had for the majority of our lives,' said Elspeth Hunter, 20. 'It's so scary.'
In the D.C. area, LGBTQ trailblazers who formed secret societies in the '60s, marched in the '70s, read aloud the names of AIDS patients of the '80s and '90s, and staged kiss-ins and mass weddings in the aughts have also been reflecting on the nature of progress: how it is won and how it is protected.
How they hope the next generation is listening – and preparing – to carry it into the future.
Finding 'familia' at Pride
José Gutierrez, 63, knows what it feels like to watch the government turn its back on LGBTQ people.
When he was in his 20s, Gutierrez said, he kept a personal phone book with the names and numbers of all the people he knew. In the worst throes of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, he said, he would open that book nearly every month to cross out the names of those who had died.
The grief felt inescapable, unending.
'I wish that new generations knew what that was like,' he said. 'Those were difficult times because we didn't have any medications, we didn't have services, and people that were infected with HIV/AIDS, some of them, not everybody, but some, would prefer to commit suicide.'
In 1993, Gutierrez was invited to attend the March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation as a representative from Atlanta and a member of the Latino community. When he arrived, he said, he could hardly believe what he was witnessing: A million people in the streets. ACT UP protesters carrying coffins through the city to protest the government's inaction in response to the epidemic. A giant memorial quilt unfurled across the National Mall that included panels from every state and 28 countries.
Gutierrez was asked to read aloud the names of Latino people who had died of the disease. Recalling that moment still makes him weep.
Gutierrez moved to Washington soon after, inspired to continue working to support those who were HIV-positive and immigrants and Latinos in the LGBTQ community. He's advocated for better bilingual health care and education about the HIV/AIDS epidemic and worked to create distinct spaces for LGBTQ Latinos in the District. In 2000, he founded the Latino GLBT History Project. Seven years later, he organized the first D.C. Latino Pride.
On Saturday, Gutierrez will ride at the front of the Pride parade as an honoree and co-chair of this year's WorldPride march – an event he said is as much a protest as it is a celebration.
'We're protesting because we need visibility for many reasons. The first is: We have, against our community, the LGBTQ community and especially the transgender community, so much violence and hate,' Gutierrez said. 'We also need to celebrate our lives, our rights, even though we are now having a lot of issues, just to be with thousands and thousands of people around the world in a safe space.'
'Familia, like we call it in Spanish,' he added. At Pride, 'we're in familia.'
The pendulum keeps swinging
Eva Freund isn't coming to the parade. She doesn't like crowds or loud noises and, is still recovering from a fall last year in which she broke her femur.
But at 87, Freund is one of the earliest members of the District's first gay rights group, the Mattachine Society of Washington, and still makes herself – and her beliefs – known everywhere she goes.
In the retirement community where she lives with her wife, Elke Martin, Freund's front door stands out in the long, winding hall. Rainbow flags dot the wall, the door frame and the flower pot from which a long, winding pothos vine crawls. A sticker declares her home a 'hate free zone,' and a rainbow plate says, 'Love always wins.' An ornate marriage contract, framed and signed by Freund and Martin, hangs in the hallway surrounded by photos.
Even the mezuzah at the entryway is painted as a rainbow.
On a recent day, as Freund made her way upstairs, a young man stopped and thanked her for speaking out at a recent event.
'Hey, kudos to you for saying what everyone was thinking,' the man said.
Freund smiled. She had asked a visiting politician what meaningful actions they planned to take to protect marginalized people – she was tired of the talk and the 'do-nothing Democrats,' she said.
'I just appreciate you standing up and saying what you said yesterday; I know that's nothing new to you,' he added. 'But especially in that setting where everybody's there and everybody's kind of like, 'Did she really just say that?' And, like, 'Yeah. She did.' '
When Freund began identifying as a lesbian in the 1960s, being gay was all but illegal in public spaces. Workers suspected of being gay were fired from their jobs in the federal government. LGBTQ people were routinely rounded up and arrested at bars or in parks amid police raids.
Even the American Psychiatric Association at the time classified homosexuality as a mental illness.
In her youth, Freund demonstrated for women's rights and gay liberation. She carried signs with other trailblazers like Paul Kuntzler and Lilli Vincenz, calling for federal reforms and the removal of homosexuality from the APA's list of mental illness diagnoses.
She was defiant in the face of police, who, when Freund was at a D.C. lesbian bar with her friends in the early '60s, raided the joint, asking each patron to hand over their IDs.
'I never saw myself as an activist. I saw myself as a curmudgeon,' Freund said. 'I wouldn't be necessarily someone who wanted to lead marches or organize marches, because I know that change comes incrementally. Unless you have a really bloody revolution, change does not come in a big fell swoop. And people's minds get changed incrementally.'
But, she admits, she has seen a whole lot of change: Friends, who for years hid who they were, able to come out. Her marriage to Martin, her partner of more than 30 years. Legal protection against discrimination – in Virginia, where she lives, it's illegal to deny housing or employment to anyone based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
She doesn't take it for granted. Freund has recently found herself thinking about the period after the Civil War – a period of reconstruction and freedom, for some, but also a devastating backlash that brought with it systemic segregation and discrimination against Black Americans.
'When the pendulum swings,' she said, 'the folks who are in power lose power, and they can't stand it. So when they get back in power they have to chip, chip, chip, chip away' at whatever progress was made.
'The question,' she went on, 'is how much damage can they accomplish in all that chipping?'
Freund does what she can in her own little slice of the world to keep that chipping at bay. That means trying to help young people understand the history that came before them – how to persevere in the face of hatred and discrimination – and being out, proud and visible.
Each night when Freund goes down to the community dining room to eat with her wife, she said, the two of them walk in together, past tables of people, holding hands.
The last survivor of the 1965 march
Kuntzler, the sole surviving participant of the District's first gay rights march in 1965, has remained active in the ways he knows how.
The 82-year-old, who still rides his bike to get around the city, is a regular at anti-Donald Trump demonstrations, having attended the 2017 Women's March on Washington, where he held up a sign that read 'Donald Trump Is the Ugly American' (a nod to the 1958 novel 'The Ugly American'). He later walked in the March for Science and the People's Climate March.
In April, Kuntzler marked Trump's second term by attending the 'Hands Off!' rally on the National Mall with a homemade sign: 'Trumpism is fascism.' Later that month, he joined supporters at a reenactment of the 1965 protest for gay rights in front of the White House.
As he walked in circles outside the tall White House fence, Kuntzler held up a placard much like the one he made more than half a century ago. It read: 'Fifteen Million U.S. Homosexuals Protest Federal Treatment.'
The figure he cited – 15 million – was an estimate based on the statistic that about 10 percent of the population at the time was probably gay.
Decades later, Kuntzler marvels at the passage of time and the progress it has brought.
Gay and lesbian politicians hold office in Congress and state legislatures around the country; the former U.S. secretary of transportation, Pete Buttigieg, is openly gay, married and a dad.
Kuntzler and his partner of more than 40 years, Stephen Brent Miller, became legal domestic partners in a civil ceremony in 2002 – two years before Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.
'Well, I think probably the national gay community, LGBT, probably have made more progress than any other group in America. I mean, the change has been astonishing,' Kuntzler said. 'We couldn't conceive of the idea back in the '60s that there would be laws to protect us from discrimination, that there would be openly gay elected officials. … The whole idea of marriage equality was something we couldn't conceive of.'
Kuntzler ran Kameny's campaign for Congress in 1971 – a historic first in several ways: Kameny was the first openly gay man to seek congressional office and he did so in the District of Columbia's first election for its nonvoting delegate seat.
Kuntzler had planned to attend Kameny's centennial demonstration, but rainy weather kept him home. Kuntzler was heartened, however, to hear that so many young people had attended. He hopes they'll also come to a public exhibit he's featured in and leads tours of: the Rainbow History Project's display in Freedom Plaza on 'Pickets, Protests, and Parades: The History of Gay Pride in Washington.'
Vincent Slatt, the curator, said he built the exhibit to be more than a look back at history. Slatt said he hopes it serves as inspiration – and instruction.
'At that first picket in 1965, it was 10 people outside the White House. By the 1993 March on Washington, it was a million people. What we have grown here, in Washington, D.C., is a movement,' Slatt said. 'This exhibit is not about old people and what old people do or did. … These were all young people who got off their asses and fought, and sometimes they won and sometimes they lost. But over 60 years, we've won a lot more than we've lost.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Married couples still excluded under Japan's transgender law
Married couples still excluded under Japan's transgender law

Japan Today

timea day ago

  • Japan Today

Married couples still excluded under Japan's transgender law

Following the verdict by the Kyoto Family Court, Miki (R, pseudonym) and Chiro (pseudonym) hold up signs protesting the ruling at a press conference in Kyoto on March 26, 2025. The signs read, "Perform your judicial duties properly!!" (L) and "It seems there's no legislative discretion for divorce." (Kyodo) ==Kyodo By Mei Kodama Miki confessed to Chiro that he sometimes liked to "transform" early in their relationship. Miki (a pseudonym) was born male and lived and worked as a man but liked to go out in skirts and other feminine clothes from time to time. Chiro (also a pseudonym) was amused. They were attracted to each other and married a year later. Miki continued living as a man for a while. But after a few years, he decided on a new lifestyle and appearance and adopted a female name. Today, 10 years later, Miki is in her 50s and living as a woman. But since her appearance differs from her birth gender, it can be difficult to prove her identity. Although the couple say that gender is not central to their married life, Miki is concerned about the need to identify herself because she is listed as a man on her family register. "They don't recognize me for who I am," said Miki. "That's the hardest part." Miki wants to legally change her gender, but she cannot do so under Japan's law for people with gender dysphoria while she is married. It states that a diagnosis must be made by at least two doctors, and anyone who wants to legally change their gender must fulfill certain conditions. As it was enacted in 2004, Japan's Act on Special Cases in Handling Gender Status for Persons with Gender Identity Disorder required that people changing their gender be at least 18 years old, unmarried, without minor children, sterile, and have genitalia resembling those of the target gender. In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down the sterilization requirement as unconstitutional. Miki meets all the conditions except for being married. In July 2024, she filed a petition for a domestic relations hearing at the Kyoto Family Court to obtain a legal sex change while married. However, in March this year, Presiding Judge Akiko Nakamura rejected the request. She ruled that the requirement of being unmarried "cannot immediately be interpreted as unconstitutional and invalid." But Nakamura acknowledged that it forces people to choose between divorcing and changing their gender or accepting the disadvantages of having different social and legal genders while being married. According to the judgment, the requirement is in place to avoid same-sex marriage, which is not recognized under current Japanese law. "Although everyone's idea of happiness is different, the court's decision seems out of touch with the times," said Chiro, who is in her 40s. "I really can't understand it." Nakamura's ruling follows precedent from 2020, when the Supreme Court refused to grant a petition for gender reassignment to a married couple. It decided the requirement was constitutional and based on "considerations such as the potential for disrupting the current marriage order, in which marriage is recognized only between heterosexuals." That decision has not been overturned. Japan is the only Group of Seven country that has not legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions. The Kyoto Family Court ruling was a setback after several legal victories by those trying to change the law on gender dysphoria and the legality of same-sex marriage. Since the 2023 Supreme Court decision, family courts have permitted gender reassignment even when a person has not undergone surgical sterilization. According to the top court, there were at least 54 such cases in 2024. As for the requirement about the appearance of genital organs, the Hiroshima High Court ruled in July 2024 that there is "suspicion of unconstitutionality." Lawsuits demanding the legalization of same-sex marriage have been filed by people in Sapporo, Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka. In March 2021, the Sapporo District Court ruled that the current law not recognizing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Following the Sapporo ruling, the district court decisions on the constitutionality of the law were divided, but by March of this year, all five high courts had ruled it unconstitutional. Yasuhiko Watanabe, a professor of family law at Meiji University's School of Law, pointed out that Germany abolished its unmarried requirement for gender change in 2008 and passed same-sex marriage legislation in 2017. "Japan should move forward with eliminating the requirements of the special law," said Watanabe. "However, we must expand the counseling system in schools, workplaces, and specialized institutions and establish a framework to support those involved." On April 1, Miki filed an appeal with the Osaka High Court against the Kyoto Family Court's decision. Chiro, who is attracted to men and has not changed her sexual orientation from heterosexual to homosexual, says she will cherish her life with Miki, even if Miki's gender transition is eventually recognized by law. Miki and Chiro said the concepts of family and happiness are different for each person, and they will continue to fight what they regard as an unjust law. "As long as Miki remains someone that I care about, I want to continue to share my time with her," Chiro said. © KYODO

Philippine court says Sara Duterte impeachment unlawful
Philippine court says Sara Duterte impeachment unlawful

Japan Times

time2 days ago

  • Japan Times

Philippine court says Sara Duterte impeachment unlawful

The Philippines' Supreme Court on Friday said the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte is unconstitutional, in a stunning victory for the embattled politician and rival of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The top court said the complaint didn't comply with the constitutional rule that only one impeachment proceeding may be initiated against the same official within one year. Duterte was awaiting a trial in the country's Senate that could lead to barring her from public office if convicted. Her legal team welcomed the decision, saying it has "once again upheld the rule of law and reinforced the constitutional limits against abuse of the impeachment process.' The court said in a statement that the Senate "could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings,' which suggests that the trial can't go ahead when Congress opens next week. In a separate statement, a spokesperson for the Senate said the chamber is "duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court.' The vice president was impeached in February by the House of Representatives on accusations that include plotting to assassinate Marcos and misusing public funds. She denies allegations of wrongdoing. "The articles of impeachment, which was the fourth complaint, violated the one-year period ban because there were three complaints that were ahead of it,' court spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting told reporters. The court added in a statement that a new impeachment complaint can be filed starting Feb. 6 next year and "is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her.' The court statement said the decision was unanimous. Judges appointed by former President Rodrigo Duterte, the vice president's father, dominate the high court. It's unlikely that another impeachment complaint will be filed again, said Bob Herrera-Lim, managing director of risk consultancy Teneo. "The narrative that emerged from the midterms is that the Duterte family still has significant political support, and that voters may have tired of the battle between the Marcos and Duterte families as being the focus of politics,' he said. Marcos is set to deliver an annual State of the Nation Address on Monday before lawmakers during the opening of the 20th Congress. "We call on everyone to respect the Supreme Court and place their trust in our institutions,' Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro said.

Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from U.S. Supreme Court
Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from U.S. Supreme Court

Japan Times

time3 days ago

  • Japan Times

Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from U.S. Supreme Court

Even as an uproar over files relating to Jeffrey Epstein engulfs President Donald Trump and Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to wade into the controversy and decide whether to hear a bid by an associate of the late financier and convicted sex offender to overturn her criminal conviction. The justices, now on their summer recess, are expected in late September to consider whether to take up an appeal by British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after being found guilty in 2021 by a jury in New York of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. Maxwell's lawyers have told the Supreme Court that her conviction was invalid because a non-prosecution and plea agreement that federal prosecutors had made with Epstein in Florida in 2007 also shielded his associates and should have barred her criminal prosecution in New York. Her lawyers have a Monday deadline for filing their final written brief in their appeal to the court. Some legal experts see merit in Maxwell's claim, noting that it touches on an unsettled matter of U.S. law that has divided some of the nation's regional federal appeals courts, known as circuit courts. Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said there is a chance that the Supreme Court takes up the case, and noted the disagreement among appeals courts. Such a split among circuit courts can be a factor when the nation's top judicial body considers whether or not to hear a case. "The question of whether a plea agreement from one U.S. Attorney's Office binds other federal prosecution as a whole is a serious issue that has split the circuits," Epner said. While uncommon, "there have been several cases presenting the issue over the years," Epner added. Trump's Justice Department appeared to acknowledge the circuit split in a brief filed to the justices this month, but urged them to reject the appeal. Any disparity among lower court rulings "is of limited importance," Solicitor-General D. John Sauer wrote in the brief, "because the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under the control of the parties to the agreement." If the Supreme Court opts to grant Maxwell's appeal, it would hear arguments during its new term that begins in October, with a ruling then expected by the end of next June. Trump and his administration have been facing mounting pressure from his supporters to release additional information about the Justice Department's investigation into Epstein, who hanged himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell, an autopsy concluded, while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer to Trump, met with Maxwell in Florida on Thursday in what her lawyer called "a very productive day." The administration reversed course this month on its pledge to release more documents about Epstein, prompting fury among some of Trump's most loyal followers. The Epstein case has long been the subject of conspiracy theories, considering his rich and powerful friends and the circumstances of his death. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term in office. Whether the court would want to take on such a case that represents a political landmine is an open question. The justices hear relatively few cases — about 70 out of more than 4,000 appeals filed at the court each year — and have broad discretion to choose which ones will be on their docket. At least four of the justices must agree in order for the court to take up a case. Maxwell's appeal focuses on a deal Epstein struck in 2007 to avoid federal prosecution in part by pleading guilty to state criminal offenses in Florida of soliciting prostitution and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution. Epstein then served 13 months in a minimum-security state facility. In 2019, during Trump's first term as president, the U.S. Justice Department charged Epstein in Manhattan with sex trafficking of minors. Epstein pleaded not guilty, but died by suicide before the trial at age 66. Maxwell was arrested in 2020 and convicted the following year after being accused by federal prosecutors of recruiting and grooming girls to have sexual encounters with Epstein between 1994 and 2004. Maxwell failed to convince a trial judge and the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out her conviction based on the 2007 non-prosecution agreement, which stated that "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Maxwell's lawyer David Markus said that in its reference to co-conspirators, the Epstein agreement had no geographic limit on where the non-prosecution agreement could be enforced. "If the government can promise one thing and deliver another — and courts let it happen — that erodes the integrity of the justice system," Markus said. "This isn't just about Ghislaine Maxwell. It's about whether the government is held to its word," Markus said. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has urged the Supreme Court to hear Maxwell's appeal given the prevalence of plea agreements in the U.S. criminal justice system and to ensure that the government keeps its promises. The group represents thousands of private lawyers, public defenders, law professors and judges nationwide. It said in a filing to the justices that the lack of a geographic limitation means "no part of the Department of Justice may institute criminal charges against any co-conspirator in any district." Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal law, said it was unusual for the U.S. attorney in Florida to include protection for co-conspirators in the agreement to not prosecute Epstein. That peculiarity might be reason enough for the Supreme Court to avoid the matter, Richman said, as it renders the case a poor vehicle for resolving whether pleas in one court district bind actions in all other court districts. "There were many strange things about this deal," Richman said, which will cut against the Supreme Court's interest in taking up Maxwell's appeal. Richman said he hoped the political fallout would not play into the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear Maxwell's appeal. If it does, Richman said, taking up the case could allow Maxwell to avoid cooperating with the government and dodge responsibility. "A decision that would allow Maxwell to protect herself probably would not be something they would be interested in," Richman said of the Supreme Court justices.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store