By Ann Rostow—
What Dreams May Come?
As usual, I’ve been procrastinating, clicking on ten random internet links for every one GLBT news headline. I mean, can you blame me?
“Australian man dies doing backflip to celebrate new life with partner.” “German Shepherd has a hilarious reaction to seeing a goat for the first time.” “Nurse who downed at least 15 tequila shots wins lawsuit against cruise line.” Compare those siren songs with an article on “Amending the Codes of Administrative Liability” in Belarus.
The German Shepherd link did not allow me to see a video, and the intoxicated nurse won $300,000 after falling down into the crew quarters by claiming that the bartenders should have cut her off. I didn’t read about the dead Australian because it sounded depressing, but, of course, I have the details about the new law, signed by Belarus President Alyaksandr Lukashenka on April 15. Among other things, it outlaws “the dissemination of information in any form aimed at forming in citizens the idea that homosexual relations, gender reassignment, childlessness, or the acceptance of pedophilia are attractive.”
There was one clickbait headline that gave me pause. From The New York Post: “The Big Sleep: Study reveals what you dream about just before you die.” I had the vague fear that just knowing about the death dream would make me have the dream itself. And then, even if I didn’t die at once, I’d still think about it. After all, this was an official “study,” according to the Post’s headline writers.
I shouldn’t have worried. According to researchers from Azienda USL-IRCCS iReggio Emilia, many people on the brink of death dream about (wait for it) a bright light, a tunnel, departed loved ones, or soothing symbols such as a “white horse galloping along the shoreline.” According to the 239 hospice and palliative care professionals who discussed their observations with the, um, scientists, some other dying people dreamt of frightening images; for example, (the Post described) “a monster with the face of their mother dragging them down.”
In other words, there’s no particular thing you dream about when you die and the Post has lured us into a faux study with a misleading headline. Team leader Elisa Rabitti admitted that many patients hesitate to report their dreams, which still “lack a clear cultural and clinical understanding.” I’ll say! This whole nothingburger was published in the journal Death Studies, a monthly academic journal out of England.
My wife is now suggesting we sign up for the Carnival cruise and select the “Cheers!” drinks package enjoyed by Diana Sanders, the nurse from Vacaville, who just walked away with that hefty jury award. I suspect, however, that Carnival is no longer offering the “Cheers!” promotion, which allowed each participant to consume 15 drinks every 24 hours. And, if they are, we’d probably have to sign many pages of documents taking full legal responsibility for any drunken mishaps, which would defeat the whole plan.
SCOTUS Screws Us Again
Moving right along, I only gave you a cursory account of the High Court’s ruling on conversion therapy in my last column and I feel remiss. And, yes, I can hear you. “Ann, we’ve heard enough about conversion therapy and bad rulings from the Supreme Court. Give it a rest and tell us more about the death dreams!”
Sorry, everyone, but I was bothered by the concurring votes from Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, and I didn’t leave myself the time or space to delve into why. The main opinion, as I’m sure you remember, insisted that a Colorado law against talk therapy aimed at dissuading people from being gay was a violation of Free Speech and was therefore subject to strict scrutiny—a level of review that the vast majority of laws will fail.
Justice Jackson disagreed, and read her dissent from the bench. When speech is incidental to a behavior regulated by the state, it does not merit full constitutional protections. Speech is a large part of any medical or therapeutic practice, for example, and these professions are certainly subject to limitations under state or federal law.
Then came Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, who joined Justice Gorsuch and company in the 8–1 ruling, albeit with a different rationale. Kagan’s concurrence objected to the law because it singled out a particular viewpoint for disfavor, in this case, the view that being gay is changeable and undesirable. By implication, if the law had also banned therapy that supported gay people, Kagan and Sotomayor would not have objected.
Really? Since when is the question of whether one should change one’s sexual orientation a neutral matter of debate? Fine, change if you want, but a therapist who is actively hostile to gay kids and makes them feel demeaned does not just have “one way of looking at things” or “a matter of opinion.” Conversion therapy has been proven to harm kids, and adults, for that matter, and that’s why Colorado and many other states have banned it. What’s next? If we’re told to quit smoking do pulmonologists also have to remind us that cigarettes can be fun and look really cool in movies from the 1920s? I suppose Kagan and Sotomayor had some long-term strategic idea in mind when they constructed their concurrence, but they seem to have ceded a key principle of gay equality in the process.
The War on Trans Troops
Here’s a confession: Since the earlier stages of the whirlwind attacks on gay and trans Americans that began a year ago January, I’ve become confused about the two main transgender military lawsuits: one in Washington state and one in the District of Columbia. The San Francisco Bay Times legal department has been unable to help me sort things out because they themselves are perplexed. Plus, they’re never around. One member has been immersed in the new interpretation of the Federalist Papers, another one is “tired,” and the third is on an Olivia cruise. The district court judges in both the West Coast case and the East Coast case (Shilling and Talbott, respectively) put a hold on Trump and Hegseth, forbidding them from dismissing transgender troops while their hateful policy was under review. While the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction in Shilling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently put an end to the injunction in Talbott. Meanwhile, last May, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s injunction in Shilling and allowed Hegseth to have his way. Got all that? You may remember the moron’s triumphant text: “Trans is OUT at the DOD.” Honestly, I don’t remember whether it was a text or exactly what he said; I just remember his belligerent idiocy.
At present, not only is Hegseth allowed to fire transgender troops, but also, he is in the process of doing so, informing the Talbott court that two of its 30 plaintiffs have been given letters of dismissal. Our lawyers in that case have asked the court for class action status, and have just filed papers to that effect. As for the Shilling case, it is once again pending at the Ninth Circuit, and I have asked my attorney colleagues to review the situation once Parker gets back from Roatán.
Bring Back the Iron Curtain
I’m not happy about the tedious GLBT stories on my list from eastern Europe. You remember the horrible law in Belarus? I’m also seeing eleven GLBT activists in Turkey on trial and possibly facing years in jail for posting something gay friendly on social media. I should do a deeper dive and find out exactly what they showed, but I don’t want to. And just listen to the first paragraph of this other thing on my list:
“The Oktyabrsky District Court in Saratov has fined the local news agency SaratovBusinessConsulting 500,000 roubles under a ruling regarding ‘LGBT propaganda’ on the internet, stemming from a review of the TV series Heated Rivalry. The court’s press service confirmed this to Mediazona.”
I guess you’re only allowed to release negative reviews of Heated Rivalry, which I tried to watch but stopped. I just wasn’t in the mood and I thought the first episode dragged. That said, I know it’s supposed to be a fantastic show, so I will watch it at some point with a better attitude.
You know, if we don’t take back Congress and start reversing some of the grotesque government abuses we’ve seen in red states and in the Trump administration, one of these days there’s going to be a lesbian reporter in Norway or Canada writing about a $10,000 fine for the San Francisco Bay Times and a three-year prison term for yours truly after I write that Heated Rivalry is a “joyful delight … not to be missed.” And she’ll think it’s funny!
In good news here at home, the government has given up trying to remove the rainbow flag from the Stonewall National Monument in New York. After the National Park Service removed it for whatever Orwellian reasons, advocates raised another rainbow banner on the same pole and sued. That suit was quickly settled and the pride flag will be on permanent display.
And, speaking of rainbow flags, California’s Philz Coffee has done an about face after the supposedly gay-friendly business announced it would take down the rainbow flags from its outlets as part of an “inclusive” no flags policy. As I’m sure you noticed, the flags are back and CEO Mahesh Sadarangani is apologizing to his Bay Area customers.
“I made a mistake and I am sincerely sorry,” said Sadarangani last week. “The Pride flag is a symbol of safety and belonging for people who don’t always find that in the world, and that is not something I want to take away from anyone who walks into a Philz.”
May the Force Be With Us
In more dispiriting news, on April 4, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice announced the formation of the “Title IX Special Investigations Team,” a suspiciously titled gang of Trumpy henchmen who will “protect students, and especially female athletes, from the pernicious effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities.”
It’s not at all clear from the joint press release what exactly this “SIT,” as they’re calling it, will do and under what authority. I suppose they will report trans-friendly schools to one or both of these cabinet departments and trigger some kind of threat or fine or lawsuit or something. Title IX, as you know, outlaws sex discrimination in public schools and colleges.
And speaking of Trumpy thugs, the administration’s budget proposal for 2027 includes extra cash for the FBI’s counter intelligence efforts, including money to fight people with extreme views on “migration, race, and gender,” and those who oppose “traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” Those aren’t terrorists. Those are regular people, and the language here is right out of Belarus.
Check out reporter Ken Klippenstein’s April 5 Substack where the intrepid newshound looked inside the budget plans to unearth funding for a new center devoted to hunting down “domestic terrorists” like us. “If your political views are practically anything other than MAGA,” writes Klippenstein, “you’re on notice, courtesy of the FBI.”
Speaking of domestic terrorists, did any of you see the bodycam video of a 60-something woman wearing an inflatable penis costume at last October’s No Kings rally, and holding a sign that said: “No Dick Tator?” Police officer Andrew Babb of Fairhope, Alabama, seemed to be under the impression that Renae Gamble’s outfit was illegal. He demanded to know how he would explain the sight to his kids, and reminded Gamble she was in a family-friendly town. When Gamble didn’t react to his threats, he threw her to the ground and smushed her—still inside the penis suit—into his patrol car. She was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, and giving a false name to law enforcement after telling Babb her name was “Auntie Fa.”
On April 15, a municipal judge dismissed all charges against Gamble, but also let the officer off the hook, saying there might have been enough cause to arrest Gamble, but not to convict her. Gamble’s attorney said they are considering a countersuit against the police department.
Go get ‘em, Auntie. Make them pay. By the way, at the last No Kings Day, Gamble wore an inflatable eggplant.
arostow@aol.com
GLBT Fortnight in Review
Published on April 23, 2026
Recent Comments