Connect with us

National

Gibbs unsure if ‘Don’t Ask’ report will influence military chiefs

White House spokesperson: Legislative action best way to end law

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he doesn't "want to presume" how the Pentagon "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" report will influence service chiefs.. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Monday said he’s unsure whether the results of the Pentagon study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will move the four service chiefs to support an end to the law as he suggested that unanimous support among the military leaders won’t be necessary for moving forward.

Asked by the Washington Blade whether President Obama anticipates that the service chiefs will favor repeal following the completion of the Pentagon report, Gibbs said he doesn’t “want to presume” where they would stand after the study is finished, noting the president hasn’t yet seen it.

“I think the service chiefs as I understand it are meeting with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the secretary as we get closer to this report coming out in order to discuss where they are based on that survey,” Gibbs said. “The president has not yet seen that survey, so I don’t want to presume whether based on those results that would change their opinions on it.”

Pressed to clarify whether the intent of the year-long study was to bring the military leaders such as the service chiefs on board with repeal, Gibbs hinted that “whether you have unanimous agreement or not” among the military leaders isn’t necessary to move forward.

“The president has known where people have stood on this policy for as long as he’s supported changing that policy,” Gibbs said. “So, I think it will be important to again view the attitudes and to use those attitudes to craft a pathway to implementing a changed legislative policy.”

Gibbs also implied that the president hasn’t recently spoken to the service chiefs about getting them to support repeal during the lame duck session of Congress as he noted Obama had previously spoken to them on this issue.

“I know the president has spoken previously with the service chiefs on this subject and expect that as this report is finalized and released that he’ll have an opportunity to speak directly with the chair, the vice-chair and the service chiefs as the process moves forward,” Gibbs said.

Obama has said — notably in January during the State of the Union address — that part of his effort in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is working with the military to make it happen. The Pentagon working group, established by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in February, was seen as part of this process.

The service chiefs have heretofore been against the legislative effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In May, the service chiefs of the Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps sent a joint letter to Congress urging lawmakers to wait for the Pentagon report — now set for release on Nov. 30 — before taking action.

But in an interview Saturday with the National Journal, Navy Chief of Staff. Adm. Gary Roughead reportedly praised the Pentagon report — and the surveys sent to 400,000 service members that were a component of that study — and said he’s “just trying to put it all in context.”

“I think the survey, without question, was the most expansive survey of the American military that’s ever been undertaken,” Roughead was quoted as saying. “I think the work that has been done is extraordinary.”

The Navy chief reportedly added that he’s “eager to see” where repeal “goes on the Hill.”

The last public statements of the Army and Air Force chiefs have them on the record as wanting to Congress to hold off before pursuing legislative action. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos last month took on the mantle as head of his service, and he has spoken out against repeal.

A number of U.S. senators have said they’re awaiting testimony from military service chiefs before making a decision on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In his defense of the law, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has emphasized that the service chiefs — in particular Amos — have asked Congress to hold off on legislative action. A spokesperson for Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) has recently said the senator is awaiting testimony from the service chiefs before making a decision on the issue.

Also during the news conference, Gibbs counted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal among the legislative items that Obama wants to see happen during the lame duck session of Congress and argued that legislative action is better than having the courts overturn the law. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has committed to a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the year’s end.

“There are issues around ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ that the president and, I think, many people believe are best dealt with through the legislative process and not through a legal system,” Gibbs said.

Gibbs maintained that overturning the gay ban through court order is “not likely to provide the Pentagon and others with a pathway” for implementing repeal and said “doing this legislatively” is the best way to end the law.

—————————-

A partial transcript of Gibbs’ remarks on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” follows:

Robert Gibbs [on the legislative agenda for lame duck]: … There are issues around “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that the president and, I think, many people believe are best dealt with through the legislative process and not through a legal system. …

National Public Radio: Has the president asked the Pentagon has the Pentagon to hurry up to Nov. 30 the report — it’s internal report —

Gibbs: I think the original date was Dec. 1. Obviously, the report is being released a day or so early in order to have some informed hearings on the survey and its results. I think those, hearings, if I’m not mistaken, start on the 1st.

But I think it’s important if you look at what others have said particularly — take for instance Secretary Gates — we know we can do this legislatively. The House has done this; the Senate can do this — do this legislatively, which provides an avenue to implement the policy. The court doing this is not likely to provide the Pentagon and others with a pathway for doing this, and I think in order to do this in a way that the president want to see that doing this legislatively is the best way to do this. …

Washington Blade: Robert, back on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the service chief of the Navy recently praised the Pentagon report and said he’s eager to see what happens with the Hill with regard to repeal. But the remaining three service chiefs — they’re all on the record as saying they want to wait for the report to come out before Congress takes action. Does the president that once the report comes out, the service chiefs will be on board in favor of repeal?

Robert Gibbs: I don’t — I think the service chiefs as I understand it are meeting with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the secretary as we get closer to this report coming out in order to discuss where they are based on that survey. The president has not yet seen that survey, so I don’t want to presume whether based on those results that would change their opinions on it. I think it’s best not to get too far down the road on commenting on that until we chance to personally see the substance.

Blade: But wasn’t that the purpose of the study, though? You’ve said the president has supported repeal since you’ve known him, and the president has said he wants to work with military leaders — in the State of the Union address — he said he wants to work with military leaders to get them on board with repeal. So, what the point of this report if not to get those service chiefs on [board]?

Gibbs: I’m not saying they won’t. I’m just saying — I think the original question you asked me is would that report change their mind. I haven’t seen the report, and the president hasn’t seen that report and neither of us have had an opportunity to talk with the chiefs. That’s not to say that it won’t; that’s not to say that — and quite frankly, that’s not to say whether or not — whether you have unanimous agreement or not that the policy — look, the president is going where people have stood on this policy for as long as he supported changing that policy. So, I think it will be important to again view the attitudes and to use those attitudes to craft a pathway to implementing a changed legislative policy.

That’s what the president has advocated through this process. Again, I can’t — we may have a better sense of that when we get an opportunity to talk to those who have seen the report and get a chance to look at that report ourselves.

Blade: Has the president had conversations directly with the service chiefs to get them in favor of legislative repeal during the lame duck session of Congress?

Gibbs: I know the president has spoken previously with the service chiefs on this subject and expect that as this report is finalized and released that he’ll have an opportunity to speak directly with the chair, the vice-chair and the service chiefs as the process moves forward.

Watch a video of the exchange here (via Think Progress):

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

Lambda Legal praises Biden-Harris administration’s finalized Title IX regulations

New rules to take effect Aug. 1

Published

on

U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona (Screen capture: AP/YouTube)

The Biden-Harris administration’s revised Title IX policy “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” Lambda Legal said in a statement praising the U.S. Department of Education’s issuance of the final rule on Friday.

Slated to take effect on Aug. 1, the new regulations constitute an expansion of the 1972 Title IX civil rights law, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding.

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County case, the department’s revised policy clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination as defined under the law.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said during a call with reporters on Thursday.

While the new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, the question is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.

The administration’s new policy also reverses some Trump-era Title IX rules governing how schools must respond to reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely seen as imbalanced in favor of the accused.

Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said during Thursday’s call that the department sought to strike a balance with respect to these issues, “reaffirming our longstanding commitment to fundamental fairness.”

“We applaud the Biden administration’s action to rescind the legally unsound, cruel, and dangerous sexual harassment and assault rule of the previous administration,” Lambda Legal Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project Director Sasha Buchert said in the group’s statement on Friday.

“Today’s rule instead appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity,” she said. “Schools must be places where students can learn and thrive free of harassment, discrimination, and other abuse.”

Continue Reading

Michigan

Mich. Democrats spar over LGBTQ-inclusive hate crimes law

Lawmakers disagree on just what kind of statute to pass

Published

on

Members of the Michigan House Democrats gather to celebrate Pride month in 2023 in the Capitol building. (Photo courtesy of Michigan House Democrats)

Michigan could soon become the latest state to pass an LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime law, but the state’s Democratic lawmakers disagree on just what kind of law they should pass.

Currently, Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation Act only offers limited protections to victims of crime motivated by their “race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.” Bills proposed by Democratic lawmakers expand the list to include “actual or perceived race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, physical or mental disability, age, national origin, or association or affiliation with any such individuals.” 

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have both advocated for a hate crime law, but house and senate Democrats have each passed different hate crimes packages, and Nessel has blasted both as being too weak.

Under the house proposal that passed last year (House Bill 4474), a first offense would be punishable with a $2,000 fine, up to two years in prison, or both. Penalties double for a second offense, and if a gun or other dangerous weapons is involved, the maximum penalty is six years in prison and a fine of $7,500. 

But that proposal stalled when it reached the senate, after far-right news outlets and Fox News reported misinformation that the bill only protected LGBTQ people and would make misgendering a trans person a crime. State Rep. Noah Arbit, the bill’s sponsor, was also made the subject of a recall effort, which ultimately failed.

Arbit submitted a new version of the bill (House Bill 5288) that added sections clarifying that misgendering a person, “intentionally or unintentionally” is not a hate crime, although the latest version (House Bill 5400) of the bill omits this language.

That bill has since stalled in a house committee, in part because the Democrats lost their house majority last November, when two Democratic representatives resigned after being elected mayors. The Democrats regained their house majority last night by winning two special elections.

Meanwhile, the senate passed a different package of hate crime bills sponsored by state Sen. Sylvia Santana (Senate Bill 600) in March that includes much lighter sentences, as well as a clause ensuring that misgendering a person is not a hate crime. 

Under the senate bill, if the first offense is only a threat, it would be a misdemeanor punishable by one year in prison and up to $1,000 fine. A subsequent offense or first violent hate crime, including stalking, would be a felony that attracts double the punishment.

Multiple calls and emails from the Washington Blade to both Arbit and Santana requesting comment on the bills for this story went unanswered.

The attorney general’s office sent a statement to the Blade supporting stronger hate crime legislation.

“As a career prosecutor, [Nessel] has seen firsthand how the state’s weak Ethnic Intimidation Act (not updated since the late 1980’s) does not allow for meaningful law enforcement and court intervention before threats become violent and deadly, nor does it consider significant bases for bias.  It is our hope that the legislature will pass robust, much-needed updates to this statute,” the statement says.

But Nessel, who has herself been the victim of racially motivated threats, has also blasted all of the bills presented by Democrats as not going far enough.

“Two years is nothing … Why not just give them a parking ticket?” Nessel told Bridge Michigan.

Nessel blames a bizarre alliance far-right and far-left forces that have doomed tougher laws.

“You have this confluence of forces on the far right … this insistence that the First Amendment protects this language, or that the Second Amendment protects the ability to possess firearms under almost any and all circumstances,” Nessel said. “But then you also have the far left that argues basically no one should go to jail or prison for any offense ever.”

The legislature did manage to pass an “institutional desecration” law last year that penalizes hate-motivated vandalism to churches, schools, museums, and community centers, and is LGBTQ-inclusive.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Justice, reported hate crime incidents have been skyrocketing, with attacks motivated by sexual orientation surging by 70 percent from 2020 to 2022, the last year for which data is available. 

Twenty-two states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime laws. Another 11 states have hate crime laws that include protections for “sexual orientation” but not “gender identity.”

Michigan Democrats have advanced several key LGBTQ rights priorities since they took unified control of the legislature in 2023. A long-stalled comprehensive anti-discrimination law was passed last year, as did a conversion therapy ban. Last month the legislature updated family law to make surrogacy easier for all couples, including same-sex couples. 

A bill to ban the “gay panic” defense has passed the state house and was due for a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday.

Continue Reading

Indiana

Drag queen announces run for mayor of Ind. city

Branden Blaettne seeking Fort Wayne’s top office

Published

on

Branden Blaettner being interviewed by a local television station during last year’s Pride month. (WANE screenshot)

In a Facebook post Tuesday, a local drag personality announced he was running for the office of mayor once held by the late Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry, who died last month just a few months into his fifth term.

Henry was recently diagnosed with late-stage stomach cancer and experienced an emergency that landed him in hospice care. He died shortly after.

WPTA, a local television station, reported that Fort Wayne resident Branden Blaettne, whose drag name is Della Licious, confirmed he filed paperwork to be one of the candidates seeking to finish out the fifth term of the late mayor.

Blaettner, who is a community organizer, told WPTA he doesn’t want to “get Fort Wayne back on track,” but rather keep the momentum started by Henry going while giving a platform to the disenfranchised groups in the community. Blaettner said he doesn’t think his local fame as a drag queen will hold him back.

“It’s easy to have a platform when you wear platform heels,” Blaettner told WPTA. “The status quo has left a lot of people out in the cold — both figuratively and literally,” Blaettner added.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported that state Rep. Phil GiaQuinta, who has led the Indiana House Democratic caucus since 2018, has added his name to a growing list of Fort Wayne politicos who want to be the city’s next mayor. A caucus of precinct committee persons will choose the new mayor.

According to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, the deadline for residents to file candidacy was 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday. A town hall with the candidates is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday at Franklin School Park. The caucus is set for 10:30 a.m. on April 20 at the Lincoln Financial Event Center at Parkview Field.

At least six candidates so far have announced they will run in the caucus. They include Branden Blaettne, GiaQuinta, City Councilwoman Michelle Chambers, City Councilwoman Sharon Tucker, former city- and county-council candidate Palermo Galindo, and 2023 Democratic primary mayoral candidate Jorge Fernandez.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular