This Gay Week 19: Global LGBTQ Rights, Christian Nationalism, and Queer Resistance

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/04/17

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.

In this wide-ranging conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Karel Bouley examine the global politics of LGBTQ rights, from Iran, India, and Russia to Christian nationalism in the United States and Britain. Bouley blends humour, outrage, and personal experience to argue that anti-LGBTQ campaigns are political tools rather than moral causes. At the same time, Jacobsen contributes international reporting and context from Ukraine. Together, they discuss media manipulation, generational change, religious rhetoric, digital harassment, and the human cost of state-backed prejudice. The exchange frames queer news not as abstract ideology but as a matter of dignity, safety, visibility, and solidarity across borders. 

Karel Bouley: All right, we are doing this Gay Week. We have Scott Jacobsen, a journalist reporting from Ukraine. We are going to discuss global developments affecting the LGBTQ community. There is so much happening in the world that it is difficult to focus on anything else, but here we are. All right, Scott, you sent some stories. How are you doing over there in Ukraine?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are doing well. There has been less bombing this week, which is always good. That may reflect a shift in strategy toward the Eastern Front. No one can read Vladimir Putin’s mind; it is a black box, but that seems to be the current indication. So there are fewer air raid alarms, and everyone is happy.

Bouley: Yes, I am happy if there are fewer air raid alarms. All right, let us get right to it. Ask me anything.

Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on a New York Post report in which President Trump has apparently been briefed that Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is probably gay, framed as intelligence in the context of Iran’s anti-LGBT repression?

Bouley: First of all, I want to know what being “probably gay” means. I have been gay for a long time, and I am certainly gay, so I am curious what “probably gay” means.

It sounds like conjecture. Is he gay? No one is going to say. If he came out, he would be thrown off a building. No one will say whether he is or is not. I am not sure why Trump would need to know that or how he would use it, since he tends to use everything to his advantage.

If he were to use it to have him deposed, removed, or executed for being against the system—remember, the Supreme Leader represents the ultimate authority in a theocracy. I am not sure whether they formally call it Sharia law there, but he is the ultimate religious leader. They could not have a gay Ayatollah, although I think it would be ironic.

The government consists of hardliners. We do not know where this wounded man is. We know he was injured. He is a wounded, presumably gay man. We do not know where he is, and that is likely intentional. If his location were known, he could be targeted.

We can assume he is surrounded by hardliners—people from his father’s circle, aligned with him, and possibly even more extreme. No one in that group would accept him being gay. If he is gay, he will not be the Supreme Leader. He would be killed or exiled. Alternatively, given current instability, they might ignore it to maintain continuity under the Khamenei name.

Trump would likely use this information against him. He is not pro-gay, despite claiming to be. He recently said he is very pro-gay and even referenced using the “gay national anthem,” like YMCA. That claim is misguided; culturally, many would point to “It’s Raining Men.” In any case, his record is anti-gay and anti-trans, and he would likely use this information to harm Iran’s leadership.

If he promoted this narrative within Iran, it could destabilize the leadership quickly. However, that creates a risk. Right now, they are dealing with a known figure. If he were removed, it could create a larger problem because no one knows who would succeed him.

Bouley: All right, we are going to talk more about global issues affecting the LGBTQ community with Scott Jacobsen, who is LGBTQ-adjacent and currently in Ukraine. We will be back right after this.

Jacobsen: We have a report from France 24 that the trans community has been alarmed as India moves to curb LGBTQ rights through a proposed amendment to transgender law. This has sparked fear and anger among LGBTQ groups, who warn that it could undo hard-won legal gains and remove the right to self-identify. The same fight, in a different country. What are your thoughts?

Bouley: It is odd that this is happening in India. While the country has historically been anti-LGBTQ, there have been some gains, particularly in larger cities, where there has been a visible trans community.

This may sound surprising, but that community has existed for a long time. Trans individuals—often people assigned male at birth who identify and live as women, with or without surgery—have even had established cultural recognition. In some ways, trans people in India have had an easier social position than gay men and women because of how society has perceived them.

That is why this shift is unusual. It suggests the influence of external political rhetoric, particularly anti-trans narratives emerging from the United States. It seems likely that individuals within India’s political system are adopting these views and promoting them.

Historically, trans and drag communities in India have been more tolerated than gay men and lesbians. So targeting them now appears out of character. At the same time, India has seen gradual progress on LGBTQ rights, including legal challenges related to same-sex marriage. These gains were hard fought, through courts and sustained activism.

There is a large LGBTQ population in India, as expected in a country of over a billion people. Many are working to bring the country toward more modern standards of equality. The current backlash, particularly against trans individuals, explains why there is significant concern.

Previously, while not fully accepted, trans communities were not systematically targeted. Authorities focused more on gay and lesbian spaces. Now that focus appears to be shifting. This raises the question: why now?

It may reflect a harder political line within the government, combined with imported anti-trans rhetoric. It appears that political actors are observing these narratives internationally and adopting them domestically.

India remains a deeply religious society, and discrimination is often tied to religious or cultural frameworks. Violence against LGBTQ individuals, including trans people, has occurred, as it has elsewhere. The difference is that some legal protections exist in places like the United States, whereas protections in India remain more limited.

Ultimately, this may be part of a broader political trend. Policies in India can shift over time, sometimes reversing within a few years. Whether this change will persist remains to be seen.

Bouley: It seems they are following a broader anti-trans political trend. While trans communities have historically been more tolerated than gay men or women, discrimination can emerge whenever political or religious conditions allow it.

Jacobsen: Turning to another case: The Barents Observer reports that a journalist in the Russian Federation has been fined for alleged “LGBT propaganda.” Journalist Olesia Krivtsova was fined 200,000 rubles for promoting LGBTQ issues in media or online platforms. This reflects an intensification of restrictions on even neutral or factual reporting about LGBTQ topics. What are your thoughts?

Bouley: My first instinct is that if you are a journalist covering LGBTQ issues in Russia, you should leave the country and report from abroad. Putin has made his position clear. He has zero tolerance for anything perceived as pro-gay. There have been instances where public figures were threatened with arrest for expressing pro-LGBTQ views. So, first, this is not surprising. Second, she is fortunate that the penalty is only a fine, given that harsher consequences are possible. Third, it highlights how a government can be at odds with segments of its population.

Younger Russians, based on polling, tend to have different priorities. LGBTQ issues are not central concerns for many of them. However, the government is dominated by older leadership, including Putin and his allies, who maintain strong anti-LGBTQ positions. There is a generational divide. For example, there have been spaces—particularly in the past—where LGBTQ communities gathered openly, suggesting that younger populations are not uniformly aligned with state policy.

Journalists inside Russia face a difficult situation. They know there is an audience interested in LGBTQ issues, and they understand the importance of reporting on them. At the same time, they are aware that doing so may result in fines, legal consequences, or worse. Journalism often involves reporting despite personal risk. If there is a story, it is told.

In Russia, even mentioning LGBTQ topics can be interpreted as “propaganda.” Simply referencing these issues, even in neutral reporting, can trigger penalties under current laws. Journalists understand the risks but continue their work regardless. Given the government’s clear stance, they cannot be surprised by the consequences, even if those consequences are unjust.

The broader regional context reinforces this hostility. In places like Chechnya, there have been severe reports of persecution against suspected gay individuals. This reflects a wider environment in which LGBTQ people face significant danger.

Journalists are aware of the government’s position. Even factual reporting—such as noting that LGBTQ individuals held a public event—can be interpreted as promoting prohibited content. Under the current regime, any discussion of LGBTQ topics may be treated as propaganda.

Jacobsen: A footnote in the same article notes that she was placed on Russia’s wanted list and arrested in absentia in 2022, with criminal proceedings launched. This has been ongoing. She is not in Russia; she is reporting from abroad.

Bouley: That is a smart decision.

Jacobsen: The charges included “justifying terrorism” and “discrediting the army.” She fled in 2023, evading security services while under house arrest. A very strategic move.

Bouley: Yes, she was careful. She probably disguised herself and left. Russian security services are not particularly effective. They operate under a rigid hierarchy, often following orders from authoritarian leadership, whether or not they agree with them.

Russia will face a turning point after Vladimir Putin dies. That moment will determine whether the country continues under hardline leadership or moves in a more progressive direction. If power transfers to another authoritarian figure—perhaps from the military—anti-LGBTQ policies may persist. However, if public sentiment begins to influence governance more directly, change is possible.

Russia has a population of approximately 143 million people. Statistically, that includes millions of LGBTQ individuals. The state can attempt to suppress or legislate against them, but they will remain part of society. Eventually, the country will have to reckon with that reality.

Change is most likely to occur as younger generations assume positions of influence. Across many countries, younger people tend to place less emphasis on sexual orientation as a defining issue. Their priorities often center on economic stability, housing, and long-term security. This generational shift has the potential to reshape social attitudes relatively quickly, even in countries such as Russia or China.

That said, there will always be factions that hold extreme views—nationalists, authoritarian sympathizers, and others. However, they do not represent the entirety of younger populations. A substantial portion of society is largely indifferent to LGBTQ issues in the sense that they do not see them as central political concerns.

LGBTQ communities are often targeted because they are visible and politically convenient to marginalize. As a result, even neutral reporting on these communities can provoke strong reactions from authorities. This is why it is important that journalists continue their work, even under difficult circumstances.

I am glad she is no longer in the country, and I hope she continues reporting. There is a clear need for that work. LGBTQ individuals in Russia need visibility, representation, and a sense of connection. Journalists play a critical role in providing that.

Jacobsen: Some people point to reports of religious revivalism in the United States.

Bouley: Yes—particularly Christian nationalism.

Jacobsen: Researcher Ryan Burge, a Christian professor who studies these trends, shows that across generations—from the Greatest Generation to Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z—the proportion of individuals identifying as having no religious affiliation increases consistently with each successive generation.

Bouley: Yes, it does, and I am glad about that. I have been an agnostic or atheist since about eighth grade. I read the Bible twice and questioned it immediately. I did not accept the idea that it was the literal word of God. Even if a god exists, that does not mean such a text was written by that being. So I reached that conclusion early, and I am glad that others are reaching similar conclusions now.

This trend is especially visible among younger generations. However, at the same time, Christian nationalism is gaining traction among some young people through organizations like Turning Point USA and similar campus-based groups. They are actively promoting these ideas, and it is concerning.

There is an ongoing tension around free speech. Some argue that all speech should be protected, while others believe certain forms of speech can be harmful to society. That balance has always been difficult to maintain.

We are also seeing cultural conflicts play out publicly. For example, parody and satire—long protected forms of expression—are being challenged by individuals and groups who feel targeted. However, parody remains legally protected.

More broadly, this reflects a recurring pattern: when individuals or groups challenge authority or push back against dominant narratives, those in power or those being criticized often claim victimhood. This dynamic is not limited to one country; it appears globally, including in discussions around LGBTQ rights.

There are numerous public incidents where initial narratives shift once additional evidence emerges, illustrating how quickly perceptions can be shaped and reshaped. This reinforces the importance of evidence and context in evaluating such events.

In debates around LGBTQ issues, a similar pattern appears. When LGBTQ individuals assert themselves or demand equal treatment, opposition groups sometimes frame themselves as victims. They often justify their position through religious or ideological reasoning, even when their actions marginalize others.

These dynamics highlight broader social tensions around identity, power, and cultural change. They also underscore how quickly narratives can be constructed and contested in public discourse.

Jacobsen: This pattern is also evident in the United Kingdom. Humanists UK, through its chief executive Andrew Copson, has challenged claims of a religious revival. A Bible Society report suggested such a revival, but critics argue that these claims lack strong empirical support.

In both the United States and the United Kingdom, some religious media and aligned influencers have promoted the idea of a resurgence in religiosity, often without robust evidence.

Bouley: I see this pattern repeatedly. We live in an era where facts are no longer required for claims to be presented as truth. Political figures do this regularly. Recently, there was an announcement suggesting a potential de-escalation involving Iran. Around that time, there were reports of significant financial activity in oil and stock futures markets, raising concerns about possible insider advantages. While some outlets have reported on these concerns, there is no confirmed evidence that specific individuals directly profited. Still, the sequence of events shows how narratives can influence markets.

More broadly, being gay, lesbian, or trans does not harm society. It does not affect economic conditions, fuel prices, or geopolitical conflicts. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not drivers of war, famine, or systemic instability. Yet, public discourse often treats them as if they are central problems.

This misdirection is global. In many places facing serious challenges—such as poverty, drought, or lack of infrastructure—attention is diverted toward LGBTQ issues instead of addressing fundamental needs. These narratives exaggerate the societal impact of LGBTQ people while ignoring more pressing concerns.

The claim that LGBTQ individuals harm society has been repeated for generations without evidence. If such harm were real, it would be observable. Human societies have always included LGBTQ individuals, and there is no credible evidence that their existence has caused societal collapse or major crises.

Despite this, LGBTQ communities are often portrayed as responsible for broader social problems. This portrayal benefits those promoting it. It can be used to mobilize political support, raise funds, and consolidate influence.

When examining claims of religious revival or cultural shifts, it is important to consider incentives. Organizations and movements may promote such narratives to gain visibility, resources, or political power. These claims are not always grounded in reliable data.

Religious arguments are also frequently invoked. However, interpretations vary widely. Some argue that religious teachings have been selectively interpreted or reframed over time. Others point out that historical texts do not address modern concepts of identity in the way they are discussed today.

Across different traditions—whether in Christianity, Islam, or Judaism—there are complex bodies of interpretation and commentary. These traditions are interconnected historically, but their teachings are often debated and reinterpreted in contemporary contexts.

Ultimately, narratives about LGBTQ people are often shaped less by evidence and more by social, political, or ideological goals. These narratives can be used to divide populations, reinforce authority, or redirect attention from other issues.

Claims of cultural or religious resurgence should be examined critically. When groups assert that their influence is growing, it is worth asking what purpose that claim serves and whether it aligns with empirical evidence.

Jacobsen: To your point about “there is no hate like Christian love,” I believe there is a quote—possibly apocryphal—attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche to the effect that it is not their love that prevents them from harming others, but the impotence of that love. A similar idea.

Bouley: I grow weary of it. I will be direct, and I mean this carefully. I do not care about “gay news” in the abstract. I do not care about Donald Trump, MAGA, or Vladimir Putin as individuals. I do not care about policies in isolation. What I care about are the people affected by them.

That is why I do this. I could pursue other things, but I stay with this work because I care about individuals—people in Russia, Uganda, or elsewhere who are directly impacted. Leaders come and go. Policies change. What remains constant is the effect on people’s lives.

I understand what it means to suffer discrimination for being gay, though others have endured far worse. History provides many examples. My concern is not the political cycle itself—laws being passed, repealed, and replaced—but the individuals caught within that cycle.

If discussing these issues helps someone feel less isolated, more informed, or more motivated, then it has value. If it changes a mind, encourages participation, or supports incremental progress, then it is worthwhile.

These patterns will likely persist. Even decades from now, the broader situation may not be entirely resolved. What matters is how these dynamics affect people and whether sharing these stories can provide support or encouragement.

For example, even small developments—such as limited recognition of same-sex marriages across parts of Europe—can have meaningful impact. If reporting on such changes helps someone remain hopeful or engaged, then it justifies the attention.

Otherwise, the underlying hostility will persist in various forms—whether directed at sexual orientation, nationality, or other identities. That broader pattern does not disappear, but individuals still need support within it.

I am also sorry about the recent Air Canada incident. Loss of life in such circumstances is tragic. Failures in systems such as air traffic control can have serious consequences, and those responsible must be held accountable. It is an unfortunate reminder of how systemic issues can lead to real human loss.

Jacobsen: Air Canada lost my luggage once.

Bouley: At least they did not collide with a fire truck.

Jacobsen: That is true.

Bouley: Was there any positive LGBTQ news in the United States this week? I tried to think of something, but there really was not much. Kansas has moved against transgender driver’s license gender markers. Overall, it has been a difficult week globally for LGBTQ people.

As long as Trump remains in power—and the duration is uncertain—we are likely to see a continued stream of negative developments, both in the United States and internationally. Political trends in the U.S. often influence other countries, and negative rhetoric can spread.

If there is a shift in political leadership, we may begin to see different outcomes. In France, for example, while the far right has gained ground in some smaller cities, larger urban areas have continued to support centrist and left-leaning parties. At the same time, there are broader signs of rightward political movement in countries such as Germany.

We appear to be in a pendulum phase, and currently, the movement is unfavorable for LGBTQ rights. Over time, it may shift again, but that process could take years. Progress is not guaranteed to be immediate, and it may require sustained effort before conditions improve.

Jacobsen: On a more unexpected note, someone pointed out a situation in Ukraine. Some LGBTQ individuals there, including organizers and public figures, have observed an unintended effect of the war. Certain ultra-nationalist groups—often composed of younger heterosexual men—are strongly supportive of military engagement and have gone to the front lines.

As a result, fewer of these individuals remain in cities. This has reduced some forms of harassment in urban areas. Previously, some of these groups would attend events like Kyiv Pride, photograph participants, share images online, and later use them to identify and harass individuals.

Bouley: That pattern is not unique to Ukraine. There is a growing trend globally where individuals target LGBTQ people through digital means. For example, some individuals use dating apps to identify LGBTQ users, arrange meetings under false pretenses, and then harass or assault them.

There are also cases where photos from these platforms are taken and shared in hostile online spaces to expose or target individuals. This creates a significant risk environment.

As a result, many users have adapted their behavior. On some platforms, people avoid posting identifiable photos. They may share images only after establishing some level of trust, or they use non-identifying pictures. This reflects a broader concern about privacy, safety, and potential retaliation.

These practices are not limited to one country; they are occurring in multiple regions. The combination of digital exposure and social hostility creates new vulnerabilities.

At a certain point, for some individuals, privacy becomes difficult to maintain due to the volume of images already available online. However, for many others, maintaining anonymity remains an important protective measure.

Jacobsen: The Kardashians—not the Star Trek ones, with a “K.” I remember when I was in the Canadian military, in the Navy, during basic training. I recall small, individualized instances of harassment. These are difficult to trace systematically because they often go unreported. People tend to think, “What is the point?”

Bouley: Exactly—what is the point? I have experienced many incidents myself that I never reported because I assumed nothing would come of it.

Jacobsen: It also happens within communities. There was an older man during training who made a remark—using a slur—that revealed a lot about his attitude. I am quoting for context, not endorsing the language. What stood out was the tone and intent. It left a strong impression on me.

Bouley: I understand that. I tend to respond differently. If someone uses that kind of language toward me, I treat it as a reflection of them rather than an insult. It says more about their mindset than anything else.

Jacobsen: That response comes from experience.

Bouley: Exactly. At a certain point, there is very little left that can surprise you. Repetition changes how you react. Context and delivery matter more than the words themselves.

Bouley: We will have to return to your military experience later—I am genuinely interested in hearing more about that.

Jacobsen: I would prefer to change the subject.

Bouley: Fair enough, but I am still curious.

Jacobsen: I have photos from that time.

Bouley: I can imagine.

Jacobsen: Speaking of cultural references, do you know the song “Grindin’”? It is by Clipse.

Bouley: I am not sure. Are there well-known Canadian rappers?

Jacobsen: Yes—Kardinal Offishall is one example.

Bouley: Interesting.

Jacobsen: There is a range of artists, though not all are widely recognized internationally.

Bouley: That makes sense.

Jacobsen: They have likely gone to Los Angeles and built their careers there. For example, k.d. lang and the electropop artist Peaches.

Bouley: Yes, k.d. lang—I forgot she was gay.

Jacobsen: There are also actors, such as Elliot Page.

Bouley: Right, Elliot transitioned.

Jacobsen: Yes, Elliot is Canadian as well.

Bouley: That makes sense—many Canadian artists become international stars. I was thinking more about artists who are widely known globally but whose origins are less recognized. For example, Anastacia is very popular in the UK and internationally, even though she is American. The same applies to Emeli Sandé—she is huge in the UK but far less known in the United States. Does Canada have a comparable figure—someone widely recognized elsewhere but less so domestically?

Jacobsen: You mentioned Graham Norton.

Bouley: Of course. He is well known internationally, though many Americans are less familiar with him.

Jacobsen: His talk show format is distinctive. He often hosts multiple guests at once, seated together, which creates a more conversational dynamic.

Bouley: The format evolved during COVID, and they kept some of those changes. What stands out most is the quality of the research behind the show.

Bouley: It is interesting—we discuss LGBTQ issues every week, and then I ask about Canadian LGBTQ pop stars.

Jacobsen: That may reflect Canada’s broader level of social acceptance.

Bouley: Or at least a different kind of cultural support. That was This Gay Week with Scott and me, coming from a different perspective—yours.

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.