This Gay Week 18: LGBTQ Rights, Pedro Pascal Rumors, and the Global Politics of Backlash

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/04/10

Karel Bouley is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and the music industry. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Karel Bouley discuss celebrity rumor culture, anti-LGBTQ violence, and the uneven politics of queer rights across the United States, Russia, Ghana, Senegal, and Poland. Bouley distinguishes confirmed facts from speculation, using the Pedro Pascal rumors and the Blaze Bernstein murder case to stress evidentiary caution. The conversation then examines Democratic and Republican records on LGBTQ issues, anti-trans legislation, transnational “family values” advocacy, and the interplay between law and public opinion. They conclude by considering the social roots of anti-LGBTQ attitudes, including religion, politics, education, masculinity norms, and shifting gender representation in public life over time globally.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hey, Karel, what time is it? 

Karel Bouley: Today! Apparently, I have to re-follow him because I started a new account.

Jacobsen: He is probably about half a foot taller. He is 30.

Bouley: I am working with Carter. I am doing it now so I do not forget. Follow. I have missed you, Carter. Let us start with good gay news. There are rumors that Pedro Pascal is dating a man, and a lot of people are excited about that, but it does not appear to have been publicly confirmed by Pascal himself. Recent coverage has linked him romantically to Rafael Olarra, an art director and Luke Evans’s former partner.

Jacobsen: Tell me more about this whole situation. It is no longer a situationship.

Bouley: What I love about how Pedro Pascal is handling this is that he is not publicly addressing it. He is not making a statement about it. Recent reports have focused on public appearances with Rafael Olarra, and the general tone has been that neither man is turning it into a formal public announcement. So, at minimum, it is more accurate to say there have been dating rumors and public speculation rather than a confirmed relationship announcement.

Last night, I watched a true-crime show about a case from Orange County. The killing happened in January 2018, and the long-delayed trial began in 2024 after years of postponements. The victim was Blaze Bernstein, a 19-year-old University of Pennsylvania student who was gay and Jewish. Prosecutors said he was lured to a park by Samuel Woodward, a former classmate tied to the neo-Nazi Atomwaffen Division. In July 2024, Woodward was convicted of first-degree murder with a hate-crime enhancement, and later that year he was sentenced to life without parole.

I sat there thinking: this was not ancient history. This was Orange County, California, not some distant place people stereotypically imagine as less safe for gay people. A young man was murdered in the United States in a case prosecutors framed as anti-LGBTQ hate violence. That part is sadly real. What is less certain is any precise reconstruction of the final interaction between the two men unless one is quoting trial evidence directly, so it is safer not to overstate the details of what happened immediately before the stabbing.

And we are not talking only about international homophobia or transphobia. In Kansas, a 2026 law triggered litigation after it invalidated many transgender residents’ driver’s licenses and authorized lawsuits over restroom use in government buildings. In Tennessee, there has been a recent bill proposal that critics say could create a public registry of people receiving gender-affirming care, though describing it simply as “printing the names of every trans person in the state” is broader than what has been publicly reported. In Alabama, the better-supported claim is that the state has enacted restrictions requiring bathroom use in certain contexts according to “biological sex,” rather than saying there is a clearly established general jail penalty for all such conduct statewide.

So yes, there is a painful reminder here: anti-LGBTQ hostility is not just “over there.” It is present in the United States too. I would, however, phrase the trend line more carefully. There is strong evidence of escalating legal and political attacks on transgender rights in many U.S. jurisdictions, and Trump’s second administration has already taken executive actions rolling back federal recognition and protections for trans people. But saying this has “everything to do” with Trump worldwide is too absolute. It is more accurate to say his administrations have emboldened or amplified anti-LGBTQ political actors in the U.S., and that those signals can have broader international effects.

Jacobsen: How have Democratic and Republican administrations been for LGBTQ people, generally speaking?

Bouley: Bill Clinton was often described as a pro-gay president, but his record is mixed. During his administration, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (1993) barred openly gay people from military service, and the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) defined marriage at the federal level as between a man and a woman. Clinton later stated that he regretted signing both measures.

The effects of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have been explored in various cultural portrayals of that era, including stories set around the Iraq War period.

Barack Obama’s record is also mixed but more positive overall. His administration supported the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2010, and he publicly endorsed same-sex marriage in 2012. However, the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide came through the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), not direct legislation from Congress. Broader social acceptance did increase during this period, though many legal changes were driven by the courts rather than Congress alone.

You mentioned a case in Dagestan. Russia has laws banning so-called “LGBT propaganda,” which have been used to fine businesses for distributing books with LGBTQ themes, including works like Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness. Reports indicate that bookstores in regions such as Dagestan have faced penalties under these laws.

At the same time, restrictions on LGBTQ-related materials are not limited to Russia. In parts of the United States, there have been efforts to remove or restrict certain books with LGBTQ themes from school libraries, though this varies widely by state and district and is often contested.

Globally, similar patterns appear elsewhere. In Ghana, for example, the proposed Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill has been widely criticized by human rights organizations for potentially criminalizing LGBTQ identities and advocacy. The bill has been introduced more than once and remains a subject of ongoing political debate.

Jacobsen: The implication is that LGBTQ people cannot have families either.

Bouley: No, and apparently we do not come from families either—we are jokingly imagined as being grown in laboratories, like cultivated meat.

Jacobsen: That is right. Canadians are humorously said to be born out of an ice hole, fully equipped with a hockey stick, helmet, and skates, before skating off into the distance with a puck.

Bouley: In Ghana, since around 2021, LGBTQ people have faced increasing pressure, including reports of arrests, the closure of community spaces, and hostile media coverage from some outlets. Ghana has also hosted regional conferences focused on “family values,” including the African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty. Some reporting and advocacy groups have noted connections between such events and certain U.S.-based conservative or “pro-family” organizations, though the extent and nature of those ties vary and are often debated.

We have discussed similar dynamics before. In some cases, activists and researchers have documented collaboration between local groups in African countries and international advocacy organizations, including from the United States, in promoting legislation affecting LGBTQ rights. However, attributing specific actions to particular individuals or organizations requires careful sourcing and should not be overstated without clear evidence.

We also discussed Senegal previously. There have been reports that international advocacy networks, including some based in the United States, have supported or influenced local campaigns around LGBTQ-related legislation.

Jacobsen: So what I would add as a footnote is that there appears to be a broader pattern, documented by some researchers, of transnational advocacy networks—often framed around “family values”—engaging with policy debates in parts of Africa.

Bouley: Right, although the claim that LGBTQ people do not form families is clearly inaccurate. Many LGBTQ individuals have families and children.

So, while international stories often show countries shifting toward more restrictive policies, it is more accurate to say that these changes can involve a mix of domestic political dynamics and, in some cases, external advocacy or funding influences, rather than assuming a single external cause in every instance.

Jacobsen: And that is where that stands.

Bouley: That is the larger point. Hatred can attract significant funding, while poverty relief and homelessness services often struggle for comparable resources. That contrast is frequently noted in political and advocacy debates.

So, some cautiously positive news: Poland has not historically been among the most LGBTQ-friendly countries in Europe, particularly in terms of legal recognition and political rhetoric. As a member of the European Union, Poland is bound by EU law, including principles of non-discrimination.

In recent years, rulings from the European Court of Justice have required EU member states to recognize same-sex spouses for specific legal purposes, such as residency rights, when those marriages were lawfully performed in another EU country. Poland has complied in limited contexts, particularly regarding freedom of movement within the EU. However, Poland still does not recognize same-sex marriage domestically, nor does it provide full marriage equality under its national law.

So, while recognition of same-sex spouses from other EU countries for certain administrative purposes may seem narrow, it represents a meaningful legal step within the EU framework. It primarily benefits EU citizens moving between member states, rather than extending full recognition to marriages from outside the EU, such as those performed in the United States.

In the United States, there is evidence of a relationship between legal recognition and public acceptance of same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, and public support has increased over time. However, that shift began prior to the ruling and continued afterward, so it is more accurate to describe the relationship between policy and public opinion as mutually reinforcing rather than strictly one-directional.

Historically, similar dynamics can be seen in civil rights developments. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia established legal precedents that influenced social norms, even though public attitudes were already shifting in some segments of society.

So, when reporting on incremental policy changes in places like Poland, it is reasonable to view them as part of a broader interaction between law and culture. Even limited legal recognition can contribute to gradual normalization, though the process is neither uniform nor guaranteed.

Jacobsen: That is a useful intermediate analysis. It may not be obvious at first, but when you think it through, the downstream effects of policy change become clearer. The question I would want a deeper analysis of—though we do not have time today—is this: if support is around 80 percent, what defines the remaining 20 percent, and what characteristics do they share?

Bouley: It is not a simple, single-factor answer. Research generally points to a combination of religion, political ideology, age, geography, and levels of education as correlates of opposition to LGBTQ rights.

Religious belief can be one factor. Some individuals interpret religious texts in ways that lead them to oppose same-sex marriage or LGBTQ inclusion, while others within the same traditions interpret those texts more inclusively. So religion is not monolithic; it varies widely across denominations and individuals.

Political identity is another major factor. In the United States, attitudes toward LGBTQ rights often align with partisan affiliation, with more conservative voters tending to be less supportive. Media ecosystems can reinforce these views, especially when misinformation circulates, though it is important not to generalize all audiences or assume uniform beliefs within any group.

Education and exposure also play a role. Studies have shown that people with higher levels of education, or those who personally know LGBTQ individuals, tend to be more supportive of LGBTQ rights. However, this is a correlation, not an absolute rule, and exceptions exist in every direction.

It is also worth noting that public opinion has shifted significantly over time. Support for same-sex marriage in the United States has increased from minority support in the early 2000s to a clear majority today. That shift reflects a combination of legal changes, generational replacement, increased visibility, and broader cultural change.

So, rather than a single explanation, the more accurate picture is a cluster of influences—religious interpretation, political identity, media consumption, education, and personal experience—that together shape attitudes.

Jacobsen: If I may add a gender equality note: as we are aware, the current generations include the most educated population of girls and women in history. Following from that, as representation for women increases across society, we may begin to see broader social changes. The key question is how those changes will unfold.

Bouley: Women are often found, in survey research, to be more supportive of LGBTQ rights than men. That aligns with broader trends in public opinion data, although individual views vary.

There has also long been a cultural association between gay men and straight women in popular discourse, though the language historically used to describe that relationship is now considered outdated or offensive. A more accurate way to frame it is that social networks and shared experiences can foster mutual support.

As for attitudes among straight men, some researchers suggest that discomfort can stem from rigid gender norms or anxieties about masculinity, rather than the idea that gay men are inherently interested in them. These are social perceptions, not realities, and they vary widely across individuals and cultures.

Regarding media portrayals, it is true that some storytelling has relied on stereotypes—such as depicting gay or bisexual men as secretly pining for straight friends. Critics often argue that these narratives are reductive and do not reflect the diversity of real relationships.

On the biological point: it is more accurate to say that all human embryos begin with undifferentiated reproductive structures. Early in development, these structures can develop along typically male or female pathways depending on genetic and hormonal factors. It is not accurate to say that all embryos “start as female,” but rather that they begin in a common developmental stage before differentiation.

All right, I have to get to a homeowners’ association meeting. Have a great day, and we will do this again next Friday. Thank you for adjusting the time.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.