- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- March 2009
- October 2006
- July 2002
America's Leading Gay News Source
-

White House Pride reception set for June 13
-

Puerto Rico House approves non-discrimination bill
-

Lesbian EEOC commissioner re-nominated for 2nd term
-

Obama praises Boy Scouts, but hopes for more change
-

Boy Scouts of America vote to partially end gay ban
-

Lesbian elected to AAPA board
-

Summer sex and alcohol
House OKs defense bill with anti-gay provisions
The U.S. House on Friday passed major defense budget legislation aimed at authorizing funds for the Pentagon that was inclusive of language restricting LGBT rights.
By a vote of 299-120, the Republican-controlled House approved its version of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill. The $642 billion package aims to provide funding for military programs and pay for service members, but includes anti-gay provisions that were adopted by the House Armed Services Committee during its markup of the legislation.
One provision in the bill, the “conscience protections,” is for military personnel and chaplains who object to homosexuality. Under the language, service members could harass gay colleagues and chaplains could discriminate against service members by religion, gender, sexual orientation or race.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he’s “disappointed” the language was included in the legislation passed by the House.
“The fact of the matter is, there are already in place adequate protections for chaplains and service members in this area,” Sarvis said. “This language weakens implementation of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal, which Americans support and which our nation’s military leaders have said is being implementing smoothly.”
Another provision in the bill would prohibit same-sex couples from holding marriage ceremonies on Defense Department property. The Pentagon has previously issued guidance saying such facilities should be available on a sexual orientation neutral basis.
Sarvis also objected to this language in the legislation.
“This is yet another attempt by a few opponents of military equality who are looking to turn the clock back on progress and relegate gay and lesbian service members to second-class status,” Sarvis said.
The White House Office of Management & Budget issued a Statement of Administration Policy earlier this week objecting to the anti-gay provisions, calling language barring same-sex couples from marrying on military bases “potentially unconstitutional.” The White House issued a veto threat on the legislation based on certain provision in the bill, included provisions related to the detention of detainees, but stopped short of explicitly stating the anti-gay language merited a veto.
The Senate has yet to take action on its version of defense authorization legislation for the upcoming fiscal year. Next week, the Senate Armed Forces Committee will begin its markup. Differences between the House and Senate versions will be addressed in conference committee later this year.
Similar anti-gay language was included last year in the previous House version of the defense authorization bill. The language was ultimately removed in conference committee before each chamber voted again to approve the final version of the legislation.
CORRECTION: An initial version of this article incorrectly stated service members could opt out working gay colleagues under the “conscience protections” in the legislation. The Blade regrets the error.
Tagged with Homepage Headlines, U.S. House
We welcome your thoughtful, respectful comments. Please read our 'Terms of Service' page for more information about community expectations.
Comments from new visitors, flagged users, or those containing questionable language are automatically held for moderation and may not appear immediately.

view print edition
If a service member wants to opt out of duty with a gay member let them. It’s no big deal and would benefit all involved in the situation. I wouldn’t want to work with an anti-gay service member breathing down my neck.
[Translate]
Laura, it is a very big deal. It promotes the continuance of bigotry and gives it legitimacy. It also gives credence to the pernicious idea that religion trumps the constitution. You may be comfortable being second class but I don’t accept that designation.
[Translate]
These crotchety old farts in the service are afraid of us. I was in the Army and they’re scared. They come from farms in Kansas where they think they’ll turn to a pillar of salt if they have same sex. My god they’re ignorant as rocks. I just ignored them and found my family that was very tight we all just laughed at them. You can lead a horse to water but they’ll choke if you make them drink. In other words, let them find out that we aren’t the boogie man in their own time. I wound up with some extremely close straight friends and the others, well they would never come around. In combat I’m afraid they’d commit murder under the wrong circumstances.
I’m not second class because someone else thinks that. No one can legislate my standing in society, no one!
[Translate]