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.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
