Connect with us

National

YEAR IN REVIEW: ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal is year’s top story

Rollercoaster fight ends with Obama’s signature

Published

on

The passage of legislation to end the 17-year-old ban on service by open gays in the U.S. military after a year-long fight makes the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” saga the story of the year for 2010.

Throughout the course of the year, supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal endured a rollercoaster ride during which many observers predicted efforts to lift the military’s gay ban would end in failure.

In January, President Obama set up the path for repeal in his State of the Union address.

“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” Obama said. “It’s the right thing to do.”

Efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” got a significant boost in February during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen announced that he personally supports the service of openly gay people in the U.S. military.

“It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen said. “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

Mullen’s support for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is seen by many as the lynchpin that ultimately led to repeal of the law because he is an authoritative voice in the military and was seen as outside the influence of LGBT advocates.

During the same hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled plans to establish a Pentagon working group study of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that would determine the best way to implement repeal of the law should Congress should take action. Gates appointed Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, and Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe, as co-chairs of the working group, and directed them to produce a study by Dec. 1.

At the same hearing, U.S. senators opposed to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal expressed consternation over plans to move forward and Mullen’s declared support for allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he was “deeply disappointed” by Gates’ statement and the defense secretary’s plans to move forward with a study to determine how to implement repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as opposed to whether it should be repealed.

As the study on implementing an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was underway, those seeking to end the law made plans to pass a repeal of the law as part of major defense budget legislation pending before Congress as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. In 1993, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was enacted into law as part of the defense authorization bill and LGBT advocates believed attaching a measure as part of defense spending legislation would bolster chances for success of repeal.

But the path to passage of repeal encountered a significant roadblock in April when Gates wrote a letter to Congress saying he’s “strongly opposed” to any legislative change to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the Pentagon study is complete.

Many thought Gates had doomed any chances for legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But repeal advocates came forth with a compromise measure that would institute an end to the law only after the Pentagon report was finished and the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the U.S. military is ready.

The White House and Pentagon issued statements saying pursuing legislation after the Pentagon study is complete would be the ideal way to address repeal, but that they could support the proposed compromise legislation.

In May, the House attached the repeal measure as part of the defense authorization bill as an amendment by a vote of 234-194 before approving the legislation as a whole. On the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee did the same to its version of the bill before reporting it out to the Senate floor.

On the House floor, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), an Iraq war veteran and the sponsor of repeal legislation, urged his colleagues to approve an end to the military’s gay ban.

Following the votes, the prospects for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal seemed bright. But the efforts to move forward with the legislation were stymied as the Senate didn’t take up the measure for months. In July, McCain objected to a motion to proceed to the defense authorization bill upon lawmakers’ return from August recess.

In September, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) file cloture to proceed on the defense authorization bill regardless of the objections from any other senator.

At first, many LGBT advocates were confident that 60 votes were present in the U.S. Senate to proceed to defense legislation over McCain’s objection. But this support began to crumble away as many U.S. senators said they disapproved of the limited number of amendments that would be allowed.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted for the repeal amendment in committee, was among those expressing discontent over the procedural conditions for the defense authorization.

The motion to proceed on the defense authorization bill failed 56-43, four votes short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed with the legislation. Reid pledged to bring up the legislation again, but the bill’s fate was uncertain.

When Republicans took control of the House in the November elections, it became clear that Congress needed to act before the end of the year.

With the legislative route to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in limbo, another route to end the military’s gay ban opened up in September when a California federal court ruled that the law was unconstitutional in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States.

In October, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips affirmed her earlier ruling by issuing an injunction enjoining the U.S. government from the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The U.S. Justice Department appealed the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and asked for a stay in the injunction, arguing that the Pentagon needs time to implement a repeal of the law.

On Oct. 21, the Ninth Circuit granted the stay in the injunction, ending the eight-day period in which gays could serve openly in the U.S. military.

But the court action put increased pressure on Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the year was out. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs maintained Congress should repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislatively before the courts strike down the statute to provide the Pentagon more wiggle-room with implementation.

Efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” received another significant boost on Nov. 30 when the Pentagon finally released its study and found that repeal could be implemented with low risk to the armed forces over the long term.

The 256-page report included the results of survey sent out to 400,000 service members regarding openly gay people in the U.S. military. Of the more than 115,000 who responded, 70 percent said they believed repeal would have a positive, mixed or no effect on a unit’s ability to get the job done.

Hopes were high that with the Pentagon report, the Senate would be able to move forward with the defense authorization and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. But those hopes were dashed on Dec. 9 when a motion to proceed on the defense authorization bill failed 57-40.

Immediately following the vote, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Collins called a news conference and announced they would introduce stand-alone “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation — a move seen by many as a “Hail Mary” pass to make repeal happen before the end of the year.

With limited time remaining in the lame duck session, the U.S. House on Dec. 15 approved “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” yet again as a standalone measure by a vote 250-175. The move enabled the House to send the legislation to the Senate as “privileged” bill, shaving off the first 30 hours of debate that would have otherwise been needed in the Senate.

After the Senate approved the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, repeal advocates became optimistic that 60 votes were present to support the legislation as Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) signaled they would support repeal.

On Dec. 18, repeal advocates finally cleared the last major hurdle for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when the Senate invoked cloture on the legislation by a vote of 63-33. On the same day, the Senate agreed to final passage of the bill by a vote of 65-31.

LGBT advocates heralded the Senate vote — the first time Congress has approved a pro-gay bill as a standalone measure — as an unprecedented accomplishment for LGBT Americans.

President Obama brought to a close on Dec. 22 the legislative journey to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when he signed the repeal legislation into law.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.

The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”

The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.

Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.

The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.

Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.

“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.

The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.

While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.

“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”

He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.

“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”

“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”

Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.

“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”

She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.

“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”

Continue Reading

National

Results from key Tuesday primary races

Published

on

Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener (Photo courtesy of Scott Wiener)

State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election. 

The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump. 

In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.

In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.

In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.  

The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple. 

Continue Reading

National

White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting

‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’

Published

on

The scene inside April’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner after shots rang out. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.

Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.

“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members. 

She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing. 

Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.  

This post will be updated as more details are announced.

Continue Reading

Popular