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.
Federal Government
RFK Jr.’s HHS report pushes therapy, not medical interventions, for trans youth
‘Discredited junk science’ — GLAAD
A 409-page report released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services challenges the ethics of medical interventions for youth experiencing gender dysphoria, the treatments that are often collectively called gender-affirming care, instead advocating for psychotherapy alone.
The document comes in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order barring the federal government from supporting gender transitions for anyone younger than 19.
“Our duty is to protect our nation’s children — not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions,” National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said in a statement. “We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.”
While the report does not constitute clinical guidance, its findings nevertheless conflict with not just the recommendations of LGBTQ advocacy groups but also those issued by organizations with relevant expertise in science and medicine.
The American Medical Association, for instance, notes that “empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression.”
Gender-affirming care for transgender youth under standards widely used in the U.S. includes supportive talk therapy along with — in some but not all cases — puberty blockers or hormone treatment.
“The suggestion that someone’s authentic self and who they are can be ‘changed’ is discredited junk science,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement. “This so-called guidance is grossly misleading and in direct contrast to the recommendation of every leading health authority in the world. This report amounts to nothing more than forcing the same discredited idea of conversion therapy that ripped families apart and harmed gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people for decades.”
GLAAD further notes that the “government has not released the names of those involved in consulting or authoring this report.”
Janelle Perez, executive director of LPAC, said, “For decades, every major medical association–including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics–have affirmed that medical care is the only safe and effective treatment for transgender youth experiencing gender dysphoria.
“This report is simply promoting conversion therapy by a different name – and the American people know better. We know that conversion therapy isn’t actually therapy – it isolates and harms kids, scapegoats parents, and divides families through blame and rejection. These tactics have been used against gay kids for decades, and now the same people want to use them against transgender youth and their families.
“The end result here will be a devastating denial of essential health care for transgender youth, replaced by a dangerous practice that every major U.S. medical and mental health association agree promotes anxiety, depression, and increased risk of suicidal thoughts and attempts.
“Like being gay or lesbian, being transgender is not a choice, and no amount of pressure can force someone to change who they are. We also know that 98% of people who receive transition-related health care continue to receive that health care throughout their lifetime. Trans health care is health care.”
“Today’s report seeks to erase decades of research and learning, replacing it with propaganda. The claims in today’s report would rip health care away from kids and take decision-making out of the hands of parents,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. “It promotes the same kind of conversion therapy long used to shame LGBTQ+ people into hating themselves for being unable to change something they can’t change.”
“Like being gay or lesbian, being transgender is not a choice—it’s rooted in biology and genetics,” Minter said. “No amount or talk or pressure will change that.”
Human Rights Campaign Chief of Staff Jay Brown released a statement: “Trans people are who we are. We’re born this way. And we deserve to live our best lives and have a fair shot and equal opportunity at living a good life.
“This report misrepresents the science that has led all mainstream American medical and mental health professionals to declare healthcare for transgender youth to be best practice and instead follows a script predetermined not by experts but by Sec. Kennedy and anti-equality politicians.”
The White House
Trump nominates Mike Waltz to become next UN ambassador
Former Fla. congressman had been national security advisor
President Donald Trump on Thursday announced he will nominate Mike Waltz to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Waltz, a former Florida congressman, had been the national security advisor.
Trump announced the nomination amid reports that Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, were going to leave the administration after Waltz in March added a journalist to a Signal chat in which he, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and other officials discussed plans to attack Houthi rebels in Yemen.
“I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States ambassador to the United Nations,” said Trump in a Truth Social post that announced Waltz’s nomination. “From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role.”
Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as interim national security advisor, “while continuing his strong leadership at the State Department.”
“Together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to make America, and the world, safe again,” said Trump.
Trump shortly after his election nominated U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Trump in March withdrew her nomination in order to ensure Republicans maintained their narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
U.S. Federal Courts
Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy
Two of seven plaintiffs live in Md.
Lambda Legal on April 25 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people who are challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy.
The lawsuit, which Lambda Legal filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, alleges the policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers “has caused and is causing grave and immediate harm to transgender people like plaintiffs, in violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection.”
Two of the seven plaintiffs — Jill Tran and Peter Poe — live in Maryland. The State Department, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the federal government are defendants.
“The discriminatory passport policy exposes transgender U.S. citizens to harassment, abuse, and discrimination, in some cases endangering them abroad or preventing them from traveling, by forcing them to use identification documents that share private information against their wishes,” said Lambda Legal in a press release.
Zander Schlacter, a New York-based textile artist and designer, is the lead plaintiff.
The lawsuit notes he legally changed his name and gender in New York.
Schlacter less than a week before President Donald Trump’s inauguration “sent an expedited application to update his legal name on his passport, using form DS-5504.”
Trump once he took office signed an executive order that banned the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers. The lawsuit notes Schlacter received his new passport in February.
“The passport has his correct legal name, but now has an incorrect sex marker of ‘F’ or ‘female,'” notes the lawsuit. “Mr. Schlacter also received a letter from the State Department notifying him that ‘the date of birth, place of birth, name, or sex was corrected on your passport application,’ with ‘sex’ circled in red. The stated reason was ‘to correct your information to show your biological sex at birth.'”
“I, like many transgender people, experience fear of harassment or violence when moving through public spaces, especially where a photo ID is required,” said Schlacter in the press release that announced the lawsuit. “My safety is further at risk because of my inaccurate passport. I am unwilling to subject myself and my family to the threat of harassment and discrimination at the hands of border officials or anyone who views my passport.”
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.
Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an “X” gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.
Lambda Legal represented Zzyym.
The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.
Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January. Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.
A federal judge in Boston earlier this month issued a preliminary injunction against the executive order. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.
PDAB: A mysterious acronym that could affect your health
I make more money than my partner and getting resentful
D.C. liquor board extends drinking hours for WorldPride
PHOTOS: Victory Fund National Champagne Brunch
Executive director of LGBTQ Catholic group to travel to Rome for conclave
TRAITOR: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has blood on his hands
Potential Pope Francis successor views homosexuality as an ‘abomination’
Jacob Elordi rides high in ‘On Swift Horses’
Liberal Party wins Canadian election
