National
Gay advocate a leading voice on gun control
Glaze serves as director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Following a wave of horrific gun violence across the country, the nation is engaged in intense debate over gun control as President Obama on Wednesday issued a series of proposals to address the issue. One advocate who’s no stranger to working on behalf of the LGBT community is among those leading the call for action on gun control.
Mark Glaze, 42, has a variety of issues in his portfolio as a principal of the D.C.-based political affairs firm the Raben Group, including campaign finance reform, government ethics as well as LGBT issues — but also serves as director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the largest gun violence prevention group in the country.
In an interview with the Washington Blade, Glaze, who’s gay, said the country is “at a tipping point” in the wake of shootings like the one last month at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six school officials were killed, and is ready to embrace the kinds of protections that “we get the chance to pass once in a generation.”
“The mass shootings are happening more and more rapidly, and they’re becoming more and more deadly,” Glaze said. “The Newtown shooting was the second biggest mass shooting in U.S. history after Virginia Tech in 2007. And, you know, the kids who were shot and murdered were my son’s age, and it was right before Christmas. So, I think that combination of things has just got the public and the president ready to say, ‘Enough is enough, let’s finally get this right.'”
Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been in the spotlight in recent weeks amid intense media interest in gun control. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg serves as co-chair of the group along with Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. More than 800 mayors are members of the coalition, and this week, the organization passed one million grassroots supporters.
As for Glaze himself, he’s been widely featured in the mainstream media lately, including in the New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press and Politico. He’s also set for appearances on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” the PBS Newshour and an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan.
Glaze, who in 2010 was hired by the Human Rights Campaign to push for Senate legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” enters the gun control debate after robust work on LGBT issues — an area of focus that he said he still continues to pursue. Glaze has assisted in work for Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, an organization co-chaired by Bloomberg.
Glaze also has personal experience with guns and hunted when he was young. Growing up in the ranching town of Parlin, Colo., Glaze’s father was a gun dealer and he was raised in a house that was attached to a general store selling guns.
“My dad is like most gun dealers,” Glaze said. “He thinks that law-abiding people should have to take background checks, so everybody should have to take background checks. And gun dealers don’t like that guns get a terrible reputation because unlicensed sellers are handing guns out to people with criminal records. It gives the entire industry a bad name.”
Obama unveils gun control proposals
On Wednesday, President Obama unveiled in the South Court Auditorium of the White House a package of proposals developed by Vice President Joseph Biden’s task force to reduce gun violence, including an assault weapons ban, a measure to ban high-capacity magazine clips, and an effort to close loopholes in the country’s background check system.
“And in the days ahead, I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality,” Obama said. “Because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.”
Joining Obama as he unveiled the proposal were Biden as well as children from around the country who wrote him letters in the wake of the Newtown tragedy expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents. Afterward, Obama signed 23 executive orders to address gun violence.
Glaze said he and other members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns met twice with administration officials — including one meeting that was attended by Biden himself — to lay out the case for gun control.
For Glaze, passing legislation that will close the loophole that currently allows individuals to buy guns without background checks from unlicensed private sellers will be a priority among other initiatives Obama enumerated as part of his proposals.
“Only licensed gun dealers have to give background checks, but almost 50 percent of gun sales in any given year are conducted by unlicensed private sellers,” Glaze said. “They do it online, at gun shows or out of the trunk of a car — and federal law doesn’t require those sellers to give background checks. So, it’s like creating two lines at the airport: one for people who want to go through security and get a background check, the other for people who feel they don’t need to pass a background check.”
In the Newtown tragedy, Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster XM-15 to shoot his victims. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has said she will introduce legislation to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons, while Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is planning a less sweeping proposal to ban the sale of magazine clips.
While Mayors Against Illegal Guns supports such proposals, Glaze said those weapons account for a small percentage of gun violence despite media attention to these shootings.
“Basically the assault weapons ban is important, but only two to 10 percent of firearms fatalities in any given year are connected to assault rifles,” Glaze said. “Thirty-three people are murdered with guns in the United States every day, and the majority of those murders were committed with handguns.”
Glaze also emphasized the potential for President Obama to take executive action to allow for greater enforcement of gun control laws already on the books. One such action — which was not taken among the 23 executive orders signed by Obama on Wednesday — would be for Obama to instruct the Justice Department to increase prosecution of dangerous people who are declined when they try to buy a gun at a licensed dealer.
“In 2009, 71,000 people who were prohibited gun purchasers — because they were felons, they were seriously mentally ill, they were domestic abusers — tried to buy guns by licensed dealers and were blocked,” Glaze said. “That’s a felony, trying to buy a gun when you’re a prohibited purchaser. But only 44 of those people were prosecuted. … Many of those people go on to buy guns somewhere else from an unlicensed dealer, where they don’t have to get a background check, and then they go on to commit crimes.”
Glaze also called on President Obama to make a recess appointment if Congress won’t take action to confirm a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — a position that has been vacant for six years. President Obama on Wednesday tapped B. Todd Jones to head the bureau. He’s been acting director since August 2011 while maintaining his position as U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota.
“It’s hard to imagine the Department of Homeland Security, or a Fortune 500 company, not have a CEO for six years,” Glaze said. “And the agency suffers as a result. The president should get it done himself if the Senate can’t do it.”
NRA scoffs at proposals
Resistance to Obama’s proposals has already emerged from the powerful National Rifle Association.
After the remarks in which Obama unveiled his proposals, the NRA issued a statement criticizing the approach the administration was taking on gun violence.
“We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America’s most valuable asset – our children,” the organization said. “Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.”
But Glaze dismissed the impact of the NRA, saying despite its money the group doesn’t have as much influence over lawmakers as some might think, noting the dismal performance of congressional candidates the organization backed on Election Day.
“The idea that the NRA can take away a congressman’s seat just because they support background checks is just a myth,” Glaze said. “It’s a very popular myth around Washington, but it’s a myth. If you look at how well the NRA has performed in the last five or six election cycles, the number of races where their participation made a dispositive impact can be counted on one hand.”
Glaze said the NRA had a “horrible year” in 2012 because it spent more money than ever before in a presidential election to defeat a president “who they say is trying to destroy the Second Amendment” and invested more than $100,000 in seven Senate races, while six of their candidates lost.
Despite his past work on LGBT issues and own identity as gay man, Glaze said he doesn’t think LGBT people are more inclined to support gun control efforts because concern is spread over a variety of demographics.
“Basically, every demographic — men, women, African-American, Hispanics, LGBT people — are all in basically the same place on gun issues,” Glaze said. “Basically, despite the politics that you hear in the media and see in Washington, there’s a broad consensus among real people on this issue for the first time in a generation.”
Glaze said he has no idea whether other LGBT organizations will get involved, although he noted that the Bohnett Foundation has been contributing funds to the effort, and gay Rep. David Cicilline has introduced his own legislation that would close the firesale loophole — in addition to being one of the founding members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns while still mayor of Providence, R.I.
Robert Raben, who’s also gay and head of the Raben Group, said Glaze’s role as principal at the organization gives him “the flexibility to spend all of his time on this signature and crucial effort” and to draw on its resources “as the campaign itself changes from messaging to organizing to legislative advocacy.”
“We are unbelievably proud of Mark’s leadership; he has enormous responsibility and meets it well, with vision and delivery,” Raben said. “That he is an openly gay man helping lead such an important effort is a tribute to his professionalism, and how the country and its understanding of our talent has changed.”
Federal Government
Texas Children’s Hospital reaches $10 million settlement with DOJ over gender-affirming care
Clinic specializing in detransition care will be established
The Justice Department announced May 15 that it has reached a settlement with Texas Children’s Hospital, one of the nation’s top pediatric hospitals.
Under the agreement, the hospital will pay more than $10 million in damages and civil penalties related to its provision of gender-affirming care and will establish a clinic specializing in detransition care.
The DOJ partnered with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office to resolve allegations that the hospital submitted false billings to public and private insurers to secure coverage for pediatric gender-affirming procedures. The department alleges the conduct violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the False Claims Act, and federal fraud and conspiracy laws.
The settlement was reached out of court, meaning neither party formally admitted wrongdoing. Both the DOJ and Texas Children’s Hospital denied liability.
“The Justice Department will use every weapon at its disposal to end the destructive and discredited practice of so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ for children,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a DOJ press release. “Today’s resolution protects vulnerable children, holds providers accountable, and ensures those harmed receive the care they need.”
The DOJ’s hardline stance on gender-affirming care sharply contrasts with the positions of major medical organizations, transgender healthcare advocates, and human rights groups, which broadly support gender-affirming care as an evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria.
Adrian Shanker, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Policy and Senior Advisor on LGBTQI+ Health Equity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under during the Biden-Harris administration, told the Washington Blade the settlement could have sweeping consequences for trans youth and healthcare providers nationwide.
“The Trump administration’s framing of gender-affirming care is wildly inaccurate, scientifically implausible, and frankly, just mean-spirited,” Shanker told the Blade. “What’s really clear is that the science hasn’t changed, the evidence hasn’t changed — it’s only the politics that have changed. Unfortunately, the people that lose out the most with a settlement like this one are the patients that are denied access to care where they live.”
According to Shanker, the agreement also requires Texas Children’s Hospital to revoke privileges for physicians involved in providing gender-affirming care, potentially limiting their ability to practice elsewhere.
“This is a weaponized Department of Justice doing absurd investigations against providers that are providing care within the established standard of care,” he said. “They’ve come up with an absurd remedy in their settlement to require a so-called ‘detransition clinic’ to open at Texas Children’s. It’s harmful to science, it’s harmful to trans people, and it’s harmful to the medical profession.”
Shanker argued the case reflects a broader politicization of trans healthcare.
“Every American should be concerned about the weaponized Department of Justice and their obsession with trans people and their access to care,” he said. “These hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, the providers of gender-affirming care, have done nothing wrong. They followed the standards of care that are well established and followed the mountain of evidence.”
Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, echoed those concerns.
“For Texas Children’s to capitulate to this pressure campaign of both Paxton and the Trump administration and end this care, and go after physicians who had been lawfully and faithfully taking care of their patients, it’s hard to see that as anything other than bending the knee in the face of political pressure,” Loewy told the Blade. “That’s not putting your mission above politics. Your mission is to provide health care for kids that need it.”
Loewy said the settlement reflects years of efforts by Paxton and the Trump-Vance administration to target gender-affirming care providers. Paxton has pursued investigations into providers across Texas since 2022 and supported a 2023 law banning gender-transition-related medical care for minors. Meanwhile, the Trump-Vance administration moved quickly in its second term to restrict trans healthcare access, including through Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”
“This is a perfect storm of Ken Paxton’s own mission to stigmatize and target trans young people and their healthcare in Texas with the Trump administration’s targeting of trans people and gender-affirming medical care,” Loewy said. “It is the two of them together. Without that, you wouldn’t have had this settlement.”
Loewy also emphasized that the settlement is part of a broader legal strategy targeting providers nationwide.
“You can’t view this one in isolation from all of the other administrative subpoenas that have been sent to hospitals or other kinds of medical providers that have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans adolescents,” she said. “It is all part and parcel of the same direct line from the executive orders that were issued in the first days of this Trump administration.”
“Every court that has considered those subpoenas has found them illegitimate and issued for an improper purpose, or at least narrowed them really dramatically,” she added. “Courts agree these hospitals didn’t do anything wrong. It’s the DOJ that has the problem here.”
Shanker also criticized the settlement’s requirement that the hospital establish a detransition clinic, arguing the move contradicts existing medical evidence.
“The irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the Trump administration is claiming that gender-affirming care lacks a scientific basis, and then is requiring the opening of a so-called detransition clinic, which certainly lacks a scientific basis,” Shanker said. “There’s less than a 1% regret rate when it comes to gender-affirming care. That’s lower than knee surgery, lower than bariatric surgery, lower than childbirth, lower than breast reconstruction, and lower than tattoos.”
Loewy was similarly blunt in her criticism.
“This is the most craven, political, ridiculous elevation of ideology over evidence,” she said. “They are creating a program built on an outcome that almost never happens. It is unprecedented and politically mandated rather than healthcare mandated.”
She said the settlement’s broader effect will be to intimidate providers and further marginalize trans people.
“The real effect here is to further stigmatize trans people and intimidate healthcare providers,” she said. “This is about sending a message nationwide that the DOJ is coming after the doctors. These are committed, faithful, law-abiding physicians and healthcare providers who just want to provide the healthcare their patients actually need.”
Both Loewy and Shanker warned that restricting access to gender-affirming care could deepen health disparities for trans people.
“We know that when transgender Americans lack the care that they need, we end up with higher rates of depression, higher rates of anxiety, higher rates of self-harm and suicidal ideation,” Shanker said. “We know that gender-affirming care is a medically appropriate, scientifically grounded form of care that resolves these challenges and leads us toward health equity. It’s unfortunate that the Trump administration has politicized not only transgender medicine, but the very basis of public health.”
Shanker said the restrictions are already prompting some trans people to relocate in search of care.
“We’re already seeing medical refugees leave states that have restricted access to care to move to states where it’s still available,” he said. “Frankly, we’ve already seen some trans people go to other countries to receive care or maintain access to care.”
Loewy said the DOJ’s recent subpoenas targeting hospitals, including those issued to NYU Langone Health in New York, suggest the administration is escalating its legal strategy.
“We’ve seen the DOJ escalate this by convening a grand jury and issuing grand jury subpoenas to hospitals,” she said. “That is going to be the next front in this fight.”
In addition to , there has been as large increase in anti-trans legislation in the past few years — with 126 federal pieces of legislation introduced this year and 26 state level policies passed across the country.
Still, Loewy pointed to recent court victories as evidence that challenges to these policies can succeed.
“Just yesterday, a state court in Kansas struck down that state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care in one of the most meticulous recognitions of the medical consensus and the harm of denying care to trans young people,” she said. “When courts actually look at the science and the impacts on trans people, they still can rule the right way.”
Asked whether there is any optimism to be found amid the ongoing legal battles, Loewy said she continues to draw hope from advocates, families, and community organizers fighting back.
“The solidarity of the community is really what brings hope,” she said. “There are incredible lawyers, advocates, families, and organizations fighting every day to protect these kids and their privacy and safety. It is that community strength and collaborative effort that continues to give me hope.”
Commentary
‘Live Your Pride’ is much more than a slogan
Waves Ahead forced to cancel May 17 event in Puerto Rico
On May 5, I spoke by phone with Wilfred Labiosa, executive director of Waves Ahead, a Puerto Rico-based LGBTQ community organization that for years has provided mental health services, support programs, and safe spaces for vulnerable communities across the island. During our conversation, Labiosa confirmed every concern described in the organization’s public statement announcing the cancellation of “Live Your Pride,” an event scheduled for Sunday in the northwestern municipality of Isabela. But beyond the financial struggles and organizational challenges, what stayed with me most was the emotional weight behind his words. There was pain in his voice while describing what it means to watch spaces like these slowly disappear.
This was not simply the cancellation of a community event.
“Live Your Pride” had been envisioned as a celebration and affirming gathering for LGBTQ older adults and their allies in Puerto Rico. In a society where many LGBTQ elders spent decades hiding parts of themselves in order to survive, spaces like this carry enormous emotional and social significance. They become places where people can finally exist openly, without fear, apology, or shame.
That is why this cancellation matters far beyond Isabela.
What is happening in Puerto Rico cannot be separated from the broader political climate unfolding across the U.S. and its territories, where programs connected to diversity, inclusion, education, mental health, and LGBTQ visibility increasingly find themselves under political attack. These changes do not always arrive through dramatic announcements. More often, they happen quietly. Funding disappears. Community organizations weaken. Safe spaces become harder to sustain. Eventually, the absence itself begins to feel normal.
That normalization is dangerous.
For years, organizations like Waves Ahead have stepped into gaps left behind by institutions and governments, particularly in communities where LGBTQ people continue facing discrimination, social isolation, economic instability, and mental health struggles. Their work has never been limited to organizing events. It has involved accompanying people through loneliness, trauma, rejection, depression, aging, and survival itself.
“Live Your Pride” represented much more than entertainment. It represented visibility for LGBTQ older adults, many of whom survived decades of family rejection, religious exclusion, workplace discrimination, violence, and silence. These are individuals who came of age during years when living openly could cost someone employment, housing, relationships, or personal safety. Many learned to survive by making themselves invisible.
When spaces like this disappear, something deeply human is lost.
A gathering is canceled, yes, but so is an opportunity for healing, connection, recognition, and dignity. For many LGBTQ older adults, especially in smaller municipalities across Puerto Rico, these events are not secondary luxuries. They are reminders that their lives still matter in a society that too often treats aging and queer existence as disposable.
There are still political and religious sectors that portray the rainbow as some kind of ideological threat. But the rainbow does not erase anyone. It illuminates people and stories that society has often tried to ignore. It reflects the lives of young people forced out of their homes, transgender individuals targeted by violence, older adults aging in silence, and families that spent years defending their right to exist openly.
Perhaps that is precisely why the rainbow unsettles some people so deeply.
Its colors expose abandonment, hypocrisy, inequality, and fear. They force societies to confront realities that are easier to ignore than to address honestly. They reveal how fragile human dignity becomes when political agendas decide that certain communities are no longer worthy of protection, funding, or visibility.
The greatest concern here is not solely the cancellation of one event in one Puerto Rican town. The deeper concern is the message quietly taking shape behind decisions like these — the idea that some communities can wait, that some lives deserve fewer resources, and that safe spaces for vulnerable people are expendable during moments of political tension.
History has shown repeatedly how social regression begins. Rarely with one dramatic act. More often through exhaustion, silence, budget cuts, and the slow dismantling of organizations doing essential community work.
Even so, Waves Ahead made one thing clear in its statement. Although “Live Your Pride” has been canceled, the organization will continue providing mental health and community support services through its centers across Puerto Rico. That commitment matters because people do not survive on slogans alone. They survive because somewhere there are still open doors, trained professionals, supportive communities, and people willing to remain present when the world becomes colder and more hostile.
Puerto Rico should pay close attention to what this moment represents. No healthy society is built by weakening the organizations that care for vulnerable people. No government should feel comfortable watching community groups struggle to survive while attempting to provide services and compassion that public institutions themselves often fail to offer.
The rainbow has never been the problem.
The real problem is the discomfort created when its colors force society to confront the wounds, inequalities, and human realities that too many people would rather keep hidden.
Federal Government
Bureau of Prisons declines to reconsider transgender inmate policy
Democratic lawmakers raised concerns this week, lawsuit filed
Following a letter sent Monday by several Democratic senators raising concerns about the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ updated transgender inmate policy, the BOP responded to a request for comment from the Washington Blade, saying it does not plan to reverse the changes implemented earlier this year.
The policy was revised in 2025 to comply with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
In a statement to the Blade, BOP spokesperson Donald Murphy said the updated policy is rooted in medical guidance and data-driven decision making.
“The BOP implemented the February 2025 policy to ensure that inmates with gender dysphoria are properly diagnosed and treated consistent with best medical practices,” he said. “Unlike the prior administration’s one-size-fits-all approach, the BOP’s new policy ensures individualized assessments and treatments. And while the previous administration’s policies on treating inmates with gender dysphoria was driven by radical ideology, the BOP’s current policy is based on medical studies, medical expert opinions, state correctional policies, caselaw, and penological concerns. Absent court order, there are no plans to reconsider or revisit the policy.”
U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) signed the letter, arguing that the policy change fails to adequately prioritize the safety of trans inmates — protections they say are guaranteed under the Constitution.
This inquiry comes days after a federal lawsuit was filed against the Justice Department specifically on the concern that trans inmates are not receiving adequate care.
Earlier this month, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, a legal organization focused on LGBTQ rights since 1977, filed a lawsuit in District Court of the District of Columbia against the Trump-Vance administration in collaboration with GLAD Law, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, and Wardenski P.C.
The suit, filed on May 6, alleges the administration is “ignoring federal protections” designed to prevent sexual abuse of incarcerated trans people.
“Transgender people in prison are sexually abused or assaulted at nearly 10x the rate of the general prison population,” the press release announcing the lawsuit states, adding that federal legislation was enacted to address those risks.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Paulina Poe, is a trans woman currently incarcerated in a men’s facility. According to the complaint, she has been “propositioned, groped, sexually harassed, and assaulted” by male inmates and subjected to strip searches by male officers — circumstances the Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations were intended to prevent.
The lawsuit also argues that the policy changes violate constitutional protections and deny trans inmates medically necessary care.
“The Eighth Amendment requires prisons and jails to provide ‘adequate medical care’ to incarcerated people which includes adequate treatment for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria,” says the Transgender Law Center. “‘Adequate medical care’ should be delivered according to accepted medical standards, such as WPATH’s Standards of Care. Some courts have said that in some circumstances ‘adequate medical care’ for gender dysphoria includes providing gender-appropriate clothing and grooming supplies, and the ability to present yourself consistent with your gender identity.”
GLAD Law Staff Attorney Sarah Austin also issued a statement when the lawsuit was announced, saying those responsible for the policy changes — and the rollback of protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act — will be “held accountable for this egregious and lawless action.”
“The federal government’s unlawful attempt to roll back binding Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations is an especially dangerous step in its ongoing campaign to strip transgender people of legal protections,” Austin said. “The targeting of transgender incarcerated people is a deliberate choice to put vulnerable people in harm’s way simply because of who they are.”
The Justice Department has not responded to the Blade’s request for comment.

