Connect with us

National

Wash. court rules to reinstate lesbian officer

Decision finds Witt’s presence doesn’t undermine unit cohesion

Published

on

A federal court in Washington State on Friday ruled that a lesbian Air Force officer discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be reinstated into the U.S. armed forces because the government cannot prove that her presence in the military undermined unit cohesion.

In the case of Witt v. Air Force, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton determined that Maj. Margaret Witt, who was discharged in 2006 after serving in the Air Force for 19 years as a flight nurse, should be allowed back into the military “at the earliest possible moment.”

“The Court concludes that [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’], when applied to Major Margaret Witt, does not further the government’s interest in promoting military readiness, unit morale and cohesion,” the decision states.

Leighton rules that Witt’s expulsion under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

In a statement provided by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented her in the lawsuit, Witt said she’s “thrilled” with the decision and she “appreciate[s] the Court’s belief in the professionalism of the military.”

“Many people forget that the U.S. military is the most diverse workforce in the world — we are extremely versed in adaption,” Witt said. “Thousands of men and women who are gay and lesbian honorably serve this country in our military. Wounded personnel never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me.”

Unlike the decision recently reached by a California federal court in the case of Log Cabin v. United States, the decision in the Witt case doesn’t overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The order is strictly applied to Witt and only allows her to return to her duties in the Air Force.

The U.S. Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to Blade’s request for comment on the ruling or whether the Obama administration would appeal the decision to a higher court.

In 2008, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court in Washington, overturning an earlier decision by the court. The appellate court ordered the lower court to determine whether the U.S. military could prove Witt’s presence in the Air Force harmed unit cohesion before discharging her.

In six days of testimony that took place earlier this month, several witnesses spoke in favor of Witt and her performance in the Air Force. The decision on Friday states that the evidence presented showed Witt was an “exemplary officer.”

“Major Witt’s approach to the fact-finding mission of this Court was to present testimony of members and former members of her unit … who testified persuasively that serving with Margaret Witt and other known or suspected gay and lesbian service members did not adversely affect unit morale and cohesion,” the decision states. “To the contrary, it was Major Witt’s suspension and ultimate discharge that caused a loss of morale throughout the squadron.”

Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, said the court’s decision isn’t surprising considering the level of scrutiny mandated by the Ninth Circuit.

He added the decision sets “a really good precedent for potential other discharges” that would require the government, at least in the Ninth Circuit, to continue the burden of showing that discharging a service member under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is in the best interest of unit cohesion and morale.

NeJaime said the Obama administration could appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit, but added he thinks an appeal is unlikely because the order only applies to one person.

“The Justice Department is in a difficult position, and you would think that since this only applies to Maj. Witt, it might make sense not to see this any further and just let things end here, which, I think, is probably what we’re going to see happen,” NeJaime said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup

Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited

Published

on

(Photo by fifg/Bigstock)

More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.

“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23.  “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”

“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”

The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.

The full advisory can be read here.

Continue Reading

State Department

Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records

April 20 memo outlined anti-transgender rule

Published

on

(Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

Democracy Forward on Tuesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records on the State Department’s new bathroom policy.

A memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms” that the State Department issued on April 20 notes employees can no longer use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal, a conservative news website that first reported on the memo. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”

President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”

Democracy Forward’s FOIA request that the Washington Blade exclusively obtained on Tuesday is specifically seeking a copy of the memo that details the State Department’s new bathroom policy. Democracy Forward has also requested “all” memo-specific communications between the State Department’s Bureau of Global Public Affairs and the Daily Signal from April 1-21.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill

Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.

Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.

The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is House Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.

The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.

It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”

LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission to use a child’s preferred gender identity, as it raises issues of at-home safety — especially if the home is not LGBTQ-affirming — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.

A follow-up bill, HB 2617, proposed by Owens, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, prevents the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition from President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168, making that an enshrined definition in law of sex rather than just by executive order. There is also a bill making its way through the senate with the same text— Senate Bill 2251.

Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.

David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.

“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”

This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.

The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.

Continue Reading

Popular