A gay couple from the U.S. is among the four people found dead in a mass grave in Mexico last month.

The Associated Press reported Zafar Mawani and Guillermo Hidalgo Ortiz disappeared on May 20. The couple was last seen in Mexico City’s Isidro Fabela neighborhood.

Media reports indicate Mawani and Hidalgo lived in Mexico and Chicago. They note the couple had traveled to Mexico City to care for Mawani’s sick mother. NBC Chicago reported investigators found “unusual withdrawals from the couple’s bank accounts” after they disappeared.

The AP notes Mexican authorities on June 25 confirmed Mawani and Hidalgo were among the four people found in the mass grave in La Marquesa National Park, which is roughly 20 miles southwest of Mexico City, on June 17.

Mexican media reports indicate a female former police officer who allegedly led a kidnapping and robbery gang is among the five people who have been arrested in connection with the couple’s murder.

“We are grateful beyond words to everyone who tried to help bring Zafar home to us — investigators on the ground, our core strategy and support team, authorities in both countries, generous volunteer organizations, as well as friends and loved ones who stepped forward to help without being asked,” said Mawani’s family in a statement.

Kidnappings are common in Mexico.

The AP notes more than 135,000 people are currently missing in the country “as a product of criminal violence,” with 977 people reported to have disappeared in May. Members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in February set fire to cars and buses in Puerto Vallarta, a resort city in Jalisco state that is a popular destination for LGBTQ tourists from the U.S., after Mexican forces killed its powerful leader.

It is not clear whether Mawani and Hidalgo were specifically targeted because of their sexual orientation.

More than 100,000 people participated in the 26th Pride March in Santiago, Chile, one of the largest demonstrations by the LGBTQ movement in the South American country, on June 27. 

The event, organized by the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation and Fundación Iguales, proceeded along the Alameda, the capital’s main avenue, with flags, signs, and slogans in support of equality, against a backdrop of concern among organizations regarding the direction of President José Antonio Kast’s administration.

The march was preceded by speeches in Plaza Baquedano and included the participation of human rights organizations, families, activists, victims of discrimination, and representatives from various embassies. This year, the parade was also led by LGBTQ seniors from the group Años Rosados, part of Acción Gay, as a gesture of historical remembrance for those who lived through decades when publicly expressing one’s sexual orientation or gender identity could mean persecution, imprisonment, or social exclusion.

“This march demonstrates that the fight for equality is still alive and will not be pushed back into the closet,” said Movilh spokesperson Javiera Zúñiga. “We march with remembrance, with pride, and with the conviction that Chile cannot roll back the rights we have won.” 

During the event, the organizations called upon the Chilean government to move forward with a comprehensive reform of the Zamudio Law — the anti-discrimination law in effect since 2012 — as well as to introduce penalties for hate speech and strengthen protections for LGBTQ people in education, health care, the workplace, and public spaces.

Movilh founder Rolando Jiménez noted that Chile between 1991 and 2022 made significant strides toward equality and nondiscrimination. He warned, however, that this progress has begun to lose momentum in recent years and that, under the current administration, the signs have become increasingly concerning.

“For decades, Chile forged a path of progress, with laws and public policies that expanded rights. Today we are marching because there are attacks aimed at weakening those protections and preventing further progress,” Jiménez stated.

The march took place place in a country that, in recent years, has established a robust legal framework for sexual and gender diversity. Chile has had a Civil Union Agreement since 2015, a transgender rights law since 2018, and marriage equality since 2022. For these organizations, this legal framework explains why recent decisions by the executive branch and Congress are viewed as signs of regression, not merely as administrative debates.

One of the main points of concern arose in March, when the Kast administration shortly after the new president took office decided not to endorse an Organization of American States’ LGBTQ rights declaration. The decision marked a departure from the stance taken by previous administrations and was interpreted by civil society organizations as a sign of a weakening of Chile’s foreign policy on human rights.

The Foreign Affairs Ministry, however, has maintained that Chile remains committed to promoting and protecting human rights without discrimination, and that the decision stemmed from differences regarding the document’s wording. That explanation has not fully dispelled the doubts of these organizations, which, during the march, demanded that the executive branch take a clear and consistent public stance.

One hundred days into the Kast administration, Fundación Iguales also presented the findings of its LGBTQ+ Radar, an ongoing monitoring initiative of government, legislative, and administrative measures that impact the rights of LGBTQ people in Chile. 

According to the organization, of the nine measures recorded so far, five have been rated as unfavorable, three remain under evaluation, and only one has been considered favorable.

Among the adverse measures, Fundación Iguales identifies actions that, in its view, involve hostility, restriction, or elimination of previously existing public policies or safeguards. In this category, it includes the repeal of Circular 781, which protected LGBTQ students in educational institutions; Chile’s decision to abstain from the OAS LGBTQ declaration; the elimination of the section on diversity from the national household survey; the discontinuation of the inclusion training program for public officials; and alignment with the U.S. to restrict the definition of gender at the U.N.

The monitoring also includes three measures currently under evaluation whose final impact has not yet been determined: the National Human Rights Plan, the regulations on access to justice, and the regulations for the Adoption Law. In contrast, the only favorable measure identified so far is the enactment of the School Coexistence Law, which the foundation considers an action that expands or protects rights.

Fundación Iguales states that the LGBTQ+ Radar is updated in real time and that each measure includes its source, date, and the responsible institution. For the organization, the assessment of Kast’s first 100 days confirms that the signals from the executive branch are not isolated incidents but part of a pattern that must be monitored by civil society and the international community.

Another controversial move took place in the education sector. The Superintendency of Education repealed circulars related to school coexistence and internal regulations, including provisions addressing gender identity and nondiscrimination. However, a few days before the march, the Comptroller General’s Office upheld the legality of Circular 812, which protects the rights of trans students in the school system, rejecting the attempt to declare that regulation illegal.

For Fundación Iguales, this ruling was a significant signal amid an adverse political climate. 

“The fact that organized groups have tried to eliminate this circular speaks volumes about the times we are living in. We celebrate that the Comptroller’s Office has clarified the matter, and we will remain vigilant to prevent setbacks,” said María José Cumplido, the organization’s executive director.

The debate also reached Congress. 

The Chamber of Deputies amid Pride month approved a draft resolution calling on Kast to eliminate the use of inclusive language in public services. The initiative, backed by right-wing sectors, called for the repeal of administrative acts promoting these forms of communication and for a ban on what it defined as “grammatical distortions” based on gender, ethnicity, or other identity classifications.

For LGBTQ organizations, the measure is ideological in nature and fails to recognize that inclusive language has not been a widespread imposition, but rather a tool used in certain contexts to name historically excluded groups. At the march, this point was one of the most frequently cited examples of the new political climate that has taken hold under the Kast administration.

Despite this situation, the organizations also highlighted a positive institutional development: Senate President Paulina Núñez of Renovación Nacional, a more moderate right-wing ruling party, pledged in May to push for reform of the Zamudio Law and to serve as a bridge with the executive branch to advance the modernization of anti-discrimination legislation. The reform is currently stalled in Congress, despite years of criticism from human rights organizations regarding its limited effectiveness.

“The commitment to move forward with reforming the Zamudio Law is good news, because Chile needs effective anti-discrimination legislation, with real tools to protect victims and combat hate speech,” Movilh representatives stated.

The march culminated with a cultural event in Plaza Los Héroes, but the political message was clear from the start: the organizations not only celebrated the progress made but also warned that these rights require constant defense.

For the organizing groups, the country continues to have a strong legal foundation regarding sexual and gender diversity, but it faces a period of uncertainty under a conservative government that, in its first months, has sent mixed signals about the continuity of those commitments.

Chile already has legislation in place regarding gender identity, civil unions, and marriage equality. For this reason, the organizations believe that the setbacks they have observed are not merely symbolic but could undermine the safeguards that form part of the democratic framework the country has built over the past decades.

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 Washington 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.