National
Questions persist about gay cruise arrests
Some call for ships to bypass anti-gay ports


Roseau, Saint George Dominica, the island nation where two gay cruise passengers were arrested for indecent exposure. (Photo by Gail F. via Flickr)
After authorities in Dominica arrested two gay men aboard an Atlantis cruise, some are questioning why a gay cruise would visit a nation that criminalizes gay sex.
Just days into the Atlantis-sponsored Caribbean cruise, Palm Springs couple Dennis Mayer and John Hart were called to guest relations on the Celebrity ship Summit and arrested for allegedly having sex on their balcony, according to several accounts, bringing to an abrupt end their vacation, and marking the beginning of a legal drama.
Representatives from Atlantis Events did not respond to several attempts by the Blade to discuss the incident, however the company’s president, Rich Campbell, posted a statement addressing the controversy on the Atlantis Events Facebook page on March 22.
“Please understand that the complaint and subsequent arrests had nothing to do with the guests’ sexual orientation, nor was any ‘anti-gay’ law invoked,” the statement said, despite the fact that a charge of “buggery” was dropped by authorities and reduced to indecent exposure. “These guests were engaged in behavior that is inappropriate in any port of call, or major city for that matter.”
But in interviews after returning home, both Mayer and Hart said they were not having sex but were “partially clothed” on their balcony. They pleaded guilty to indecent exposure and paid a $900 fine. They claimed that their treatment in Dominica was frightening.
“I know what it really does feel like now to be hated, hated by a country,” Mayer told Palm Springs NBC affiliate, KMIR. He said hundreds of locals lined up to taunt the couple as they were “paraded” through town, while the local media “fanned the flames” of gay hatred. “They did try to make an example out of us.”
“It was scary,” Hart said.
Mayer told the AP that a law enforcement officer told the couple after a four-hour interrogation that they were “being arrested for being gay,” and that the officer threatened to take them to a medical facility to have them examined for proof of homosexual behavior.
Campbell’s Facebook post asserts that both Celebrity Cruises and Atlantis Events left representatives with Mayer and Hart for the remainder of their ordeal, and that their safety was monitored by the U.S. Embassy in Barbados.
“If they were having sex or were naked on the balcony on the ship in the middle of the port, they’re subject to the laws of Dominica, just as they would be if they were in the port of Fort Lauderdale,” Charlie Rounds, managing director of Brand g Vacations, which plans trips to gay-friendly destinations for smaller groups, told the Blade. “If that is what happened it certainly seems reasonable that the local authorities would stop the behavior.”
However, Rounds — a veteran of the gay travel industry and former co-owner of RSVP Vacations — said he’s never heard of anyone getting arrested for being seen naked on the balcony of a cruise ship before.
“Most ships are so big — and there’s nothing around them in the ports — that the possibility of actually seeing somebody even if they were naked, is relatively small globally,” Rounds told the Blade. “There are just not that many ports … where somebody could actually see you. The sides of the ship are higher than the actual buildings.”
Rounds was part of the Atlantis Events team from 2007-2010 as president of RSVP Vacations after Campbell’s company purchased RSVP, and says he believes Campbell’s claim that the couples’ sexual orientation was likely not a factor.
“I have been to Dominica. In my mind, I would say that this has very little to do with their being gay,” Rounds said, adding that a heterosexual couple would likely have been arrested as well in Dominica. “Rich Campbell never lied to these people… when they signed up for the cruise, they knew where they were going.”
In the aftermath of the arrests, some have questioned why gay-oriented travel companies plan trips to countries with anti-gay laws on the books.
“Many countries and municipalities that gay men visit and live in have antiquated laws on their books,” Campbell told Fox News. “These statutes don’t pose a concern to us in planning a tourist visit.”
Although Brand g Vacations says they focus on gay-friendly destinations, Rounds noted that the determination is difficult to make, as defining “anti-gay” and “gay-friendly” can be subjective.
“For example, Ecuador has full equality in its constitution for gay and lesbian people, but in the past six months, it’s been revealed there’s been an attempted reprogramming of lesbians in Ecuador,” Rounds said.
Atlantis plans a Baltic cruise in late July that includes a stop in St. Petersburg, Russia — a city that just outlawed “gay propaganda,” and expressions of gay identity.
RSVP’s president told the Blade that he has no plans to reroute a June Mediterranean cruise with a planned stop in Casablanca, Morocco, where sodomy is criminalized.
“It’s really not that simple at this point, there are a lot more factors to it than just simply being able to say ‘we want to go somewhere else,’” Jeff Gundvaldson, president of RSVP Vacations said, noting that specific requirements for visiting a non-European Union port complicate the matter. “We have to consider the charter of the ship.”
“Certainly we have our guests’ security foremost,” Gundvaldson said. He added that RSVP will do its due diligence of “checking out” the port in advance, as is standard practice.
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
-
The Vatican12 hours ago
American cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features18 hours ago
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court2 days ago
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved