National
Vote nears on Boy Scouts gay ban
National Council expected to weigh in next week
Zach Wahls is a leading voice against the Boy Scouts’ gay ban (Photo courtesy of Change.org)
All eyes will be on the Boy Scouts of America next week when members of the National Council vote on whether to partially lift a ban that LGBT advocates have sought to remove for at least a decade.
On May 23, 1,400 members of the National Council will gather at the National Annual Meeting in Dallas and take action on the pending resolution, which would allow all youths to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of sexual orientation.
However, the resolution leaves in place the rule prohibiting openly gay adults from participating as leaders in the Boy Scouts. Further, the proposal maintains youth adhere to a “duty to God” and behavior consistent with the highest level of good conduct.
Zach Wahls, a 21-year-old activist and Eagle Scout — who gained notoriety for speaking on behalf of his lesbian parents before the Iowa Legislature — is the leading voice for a group called Scouts for Equality that is urging the Boy Scouts to adopt the change.
“The resolution that the Scouts are voting on clearly is not fully adequate,” Wahls said. “It still sends, I think, potentially harmful messages to the youth — both gay and straight — about discrimination being OK. That being said, I think it’s absolutely a step in the right direction, which is going to get started going down their path of evolution, as it were. And we all kind of know where evolution goes.”
Wahls said Scouts for Equality for the last two-and-a-half months has been mobilizing grassroots supporters across the country to talk with parents, scout leaders and scout masters about support for changing the gay ban.
“That really can only happen within the scouting community,” Wahls said. “It was through those conversations our incredible grassroots volunteers on the ground that we were able to identify and have conversations indirectly with huge amounts of voting members.”
In February, amid heightened calls for the organization to end its gay ban, the Boy Scouts started a review process to consider the impact of a change. Part of the review consisted of a questionnaire sent to members asking them if they’re OK with certain hypothetical scenarios involving gay scouts and whether they support or oppose lifting the ban.
The decision to partially lift the gay ban in the Boy Scouts may be an attempt to mollify religious groups affiliated with the Boy Scouts. According to the organization’s website, seven in 10 units in the Boy Scouts are chartered to faith-based organizations.
In response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade, the Boy Scouts provided an organizational statement maintaining the issue of allowing openly gay scouts to participate in the organization is a complex one.
“Scouting’s review confirmed that this remains among the most complex and challenging issues facing the BSA and society today,” the response reads. “Even with the wide range of input, it is extremely difficult to accurately quantify the potential impact of maintaining or changing the current policy. While perspectives and opinions vary significantly, parents, adults in the Scouting community, and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.”
According to recent polls, a majority of the American public wants the Boy Scouts to lift its gay ban. A Washington Post/ABC News poll published on May 9 found that 63 percent back the idea of allowing gay youth to participate while 56 percent oppose the continued ban on participation from gay adults.
Asked whether he’s confident the resolution will be approved, Wahls replied, “As a Boy Scout, our motto is ‘Be Prepared.’ So we’re prepared for any kind of outcome, but we are feeling really, really good about where we are.”
But anti-gay activists are also at work urging the Boy Scouts to maintain its policy prohibiting out youths from participating. An organization called On My Honor is leading these efforts. It didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment.
Ending the gay ban in the Boy Scouts is a goal that the LGBT community has long pursued. In 2000, a case known as Dale v. Boy Scouts was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court by Evan Wolfson, now president of Freedom to Marry. He maintained New Jersey’s enforcement of its non-discrimination law to prohibit the Boy Scouts, as a place of accommodation, from banning gay scouts wasn’t a violation of the First Amendment. However, the court determined in a 5-4 decision that current policy for the organization was constitutional.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has emerged as one of the most high-profile voices in opposition to lifting the gay ban. Last week, as reported by Right Wing Watch, the former Republican presidential candidate appeared on a Family Research Council webcast urging the Boy Scouts to resist the “flavor of the month” by changing its policy.
“The fact is, this is a private organization,” Perry said. “Their values and principles have worked for a century now, and for pop culture to come in and try to tear that up because it just happens to be the flavor of the month, so to speak, and to tear apart one of the great organizations that have served millions of young men — to help them become men and become great fathers — that is just not appropriate.”
Wahls responded to Perry’s position by saying the Texas governor is entitled to his views, but they’re at odds with the American people.
“It’s a free country,” Wahls said. “Gov. Perry can offer his opinion. It doesn’t change the fact that a strong majority of Americans want to lift the ban, and keeping the ban in place is highly detrimental to the future of scouting.”
CORRECTION: An initial version of this article mischaracterized attorney Evan Wolfson’s attorney argument against the Boy Scouts gay ban in 2000. The Blade regrets the error.
The White House
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Country’s anti-LGBTQ record a reported barrier
Richard Grenell, President Donald Trump’s special envoy for “special missions,” is making it known that he is interested in the Russian ambassadorship.
According to reporting by the Daily Mail, Grenell has “floated” his interest in the role to coworkers, but issues surrounding the former German ambassador’s sexuality have made securing the position more difficult.
“He had an interest in the job — or at least he floated the idea to select colleagues. But Putin’s regime is extremely anti–LGBTQ, so I’m sure they didn’t take that thought too seriously,” one source close to Grenell told the Daily Mail. “That would never happen anyway.”
Grenell has long been one of Trump’s closest allies and was the first openly gay person to hold a Cabinet-level position. He was ousted last month as acting director of the Kennedy Center, a position he had held since Trump reestablished the board to be composed of his political supporters in 2025.
In addition to leading the nation’s cultural arts center, Grenell previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Germany from 2018 to 2020, and as the special presidential envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations from 2019 to 2021. He was also a State Department spokesperson to the U.N. under the George W. Bush administration and a Fox News contributor.
Russia has a longstanding history of being anti-LGBTQ.
In 2013, the country passed a law banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors. In December 2022, Putin signed legislation expanding the ban, making it illegal to promote same-sex relationships or suggest that non-heterosexual orientations are “normal” for people of any age, widening censorship across media and public life.
The Russian courts have also supported the restriction of LGBTQ identity in the country. In November 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court granted a request from the Justice Ministry to outlaw the “international LGBT movement” as “extremist,” allowing authorities to criminalize advocacy and potentially prosecute individuals for expressions of LGBTQ+ identity or support.
In addition to LGBTQ rights issues, the war between Russia and Ukraine has become a global concern. Ukraine, which was part of the former Soviet Union, includes the territory known as Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. The annexation remains a major point of international dispute over sovereignty. Since 2022, Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine has escalated the conflict, drawing global attention and sanctions while straining U.S.-Russia relations.
The U.S. has spent $188 billion in total related to the war in Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Russian ambassadorship seems to be a difficult role to fill, according to additional information presented by the Daily Mail. With Trump already being seen as relatively positive by Russian President Vladimir Putin, and with close ties to members of his Cabinet and family — like son-in-law Jared Kushner — the ambassadorship is complicated and viewed as less critical than in previous administrations.
“There is no rush to fill that role because it has now been deemed unnecessary,” another source told the U.K.-based publication.
Bob Foresman, a seasoned businessman with decades-long ties to the Kremlin, was reportedly once the frontrunner, according to the Daily Mail. Foresman served as vice chair of UBS Investment Bank and Deputy Chairman of Renaissance Capital between 2006 and 2009, and earlier led investment banking for Russia at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein from 1997 to 2000.
“This is a pattern, especially in the Trump administration — special envoys big–footing the ambassadors,” a source told the Daily Mail. “It is shocking that we are already in April and we don’t have an ambassador to one of the most important countries in the world.”
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Iran
LGBTQ groups condemn Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization
Ceasefire announced less than two hours before Tuesday deadline
The Council for Global Equality is among the groups that condemned President Donald Trump on Tuesday over his latest threats against Iran.
Trump in a Truth Social post said “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Tehran did not reach an agreement with the U.S. by 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday.
Iran is among the handful of countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death.
Israel and the U.S. on Feb. 28 launched airstrikes against Iran.
One of them killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran in response launched missiles and drones against Israel and other countries that include Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus.
Gas prices in the U.S. and around the world continue to increase because the war has essentially closed the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s crude oil passes.
Trump less than 90 minutes before his deadline announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran that Pakistan helped broker.
“We the undersigned human rights, humanitarian, civil liberties, faith-based and environmental organizations, think tanks and experts are deeply alarmed by President Trump’s threat regarding Iran that ‘a whole civilization will die tonight’ if his demands are not met. Such language describes a grave atrocity if carried out,” reads the statement that the Council for Global Equality more than 200 other organizations and human rights experts signed. “A threat to wipe out ‘a whole civilization’ may amount to a threat of genocide. Genocide is a crime defined by the Genocide Convention and by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as committing one or more of several acts ‘with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, racial or religious groups as such.'”
The statement states “the law is clear that civilians must not be targeted, and they must also be protected from indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.”
“Strikes on civilian infrastructure — such as the recent attack on a bridge and the attacks President Trump is repeatedly threatening to carry out to destroy power plants — have devastating consequences for the civilian population and environment,” it reads.
“We urge all parties to respect international law,” adds the statement. “Those responsible for atrocities, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, can and must be held accountable.”
The Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, MADRE, and the Robert and Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center are among the other groups that signed the letter.
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Log Cabin Republicans to honor Scott Presler
Cuba bajo presión y sin respuestas
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
