Politics
Veterans benefits for gay married couples still denied
Shinseki endorses passage of legislation to address issue

Tracey (left) & Maggie Cooper-Harris have sued to received veterans benefits that were denied under Title 38 (Blade file photo by Michael Key).
Gay married couples are still barred from receiving veterans spousal benefits at this time despite the court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act, according to a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs that was obtained Tuesday by the Washington Blade.
In a letter dated Aug. 14, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki says gay veterans are currently unable to receive the federal benefits of marriage because of Title 38, a portion of the U.S. code governing veterans benefits that defines spouse in opposite-sex terms independent of DOMA.
“Certain provisions in title 38, United States Code, define ‘spouse’ and ‘surviving spouse’ to refer only to a person of the opposite-sex,” the letter states. “Under these provisions, a same-sex marriage recognized by a State would not confer spousal status for purposes of eligibility of VA benefits. Although the title 38 definition of ‘spouse’ and ‘surviving spouse’ are similar to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provision at issue in United States v. Windsor, no court has yet held the title 38 definitions to be unconstitutional.”
Shinseki’s letter continues to say that the Department of Veterans Affairs is still working with the Department of Justice “to assess the impact of the Windsor decision on the continued constitutional viability” of Title 38’s and VA’s obligations with respect to those statutes.
An earlier version of this article said the Obama administration had made a determination in the wake of the DOMA decision that gay couples are ineligible for these benefits. Josh Taylor, a VA spokesperson, said the review is ongoing.
“No decisions on benefits have been made at this point,” Taylor said. “We’re working with DOJ to assess Title 38 after the ruling and no conclusions have been drawn from that yet.”
However, the letter does indicate that a gay couple that marries in one state, travels to another that doesn’t recognize the union won’t be able to receive veterans benefits if they apply for them there.
“You also inquired about VA’s ability to recognize a marriage based on its validity in the state of celebration, without regard to the laws of state of residence,” Shinseki says. “A same-sex spouse whose marriage to a Veteran was valid in the state where the parties resided at the time they entered the marriage would not meet the definition under [Title 38] for purposes of VA benefits.”
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said an update to the law is needed to ensure full equality even in the aftermath of the DOMA ruling.
“The end of section 3 of DOMA unfortunately does not mean all married same-sex couples are fully equal in the eyes of the federal government no matter where they live,” Cole-Schwartz said. “We believe there is more work the administration can do to faithfully interpret the Windsor ruling in an expansive manner but as we have said before, Congressional action is needed to ensure all married couples are treated equally in all ways.”
Some of the spousal benefits allocated under Title 38 are disability benefits, survivor benefits and joint burial at a veteran’s cemetery. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year that Title 38’s restriction of benefits to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional and the Obama administration won’t defend the law in court against challenges seeking benefits for same-sex couples.
As noted in the letter, lawsuits seeking to overturn Title 38’s prohibition on veterans benefits for same-sex spouses are Cooper-Harris v. United States, filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, McLaughlin v. Panetta, filed by the group now known as OutServe-SLDN, and Cardona v. Shinseki.
Shinseki’s letter was in response to an inquiry from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who made the Obama administration’s letter public on Tuesday. She’s the co-sponsor of the Charlie Morgan Act, a bill that would change U.S. code to ensure gay veterans in legal same-sex marriages can receive spousal benefits.
In a statement, Shaheen explains why the situation with Title 38 demonstrates the need for Congress to pass her legislation.
“We need to pass the Charlie Morgan Act to bring Department of Veteran Affairs benefits policy in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down DOMA,” Shaheen said. “I’m committed to making this happen. Every individual who serves in uniform deserves access to the benefits that they’ve earned and rightfully deserve. We can’t tolerate this type of discrimination, especially in the aftermath of a historic Supreme Court ruling that declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.”
There’s already been some movement on the bill. On July 24, the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs reported out the Charlie Morgan Act by voice vote to the Senate floor.
Jeremy Johnson, co-chair of the newly formed LGBT military group SPART*A, said the onus is on the Obama administration to work to change the law if that’s what’s necessary.
“The need for change has been identified,” Johnson said. “If Mr. Shinseki’s staff has determined it is not within his department’s legal authority to change policy in a way that reflects the spirit and intent of the Windsor decision, it is incumbent upon him, as the leader charged with ensuring all veterans receive equal opportunity for the care and benefits provided by the VA, to work with the President and call upon Congress to make the necessary change to the law without delay.”
Shinseki concludes the letter by saying the Obama administration supports passage of the Charlie Morgan Act and is prepared to enact changes to the law if required.
“VA supports enactment of your bill, S. 373, the Charlie Morgan Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013, to remove the requirement that a Veteran’s “spouse” or “surviving spouse” be a person of the opposite sex,” the letter states. “Should the title 38 spousal definitions be revised or determined to be unconstitutional, VA will be prepared to update its policies and systems in a timely manner and ensure that the delivery and quality of Veteran’s benefits remain at the highest standards.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article stated the VA had already made a determination that gay married veterans wouldn’t be able spousal benefits under Title 38. The Blade regrets the error.
2026 Midterm Elections
Annie Andrews denounces trans athletes after Trump targets her
President used anti-trans slur to describe SC Senate candidate
Days after President Donald Trump called Annie Andrews, the cisgender Democratic nominee for South Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat, an anti-transgender slur on social media, Andrews came out against transgender girls and women participating in sports.
Trump called Andrews a “trannie” on Truth Social while attempting to garner support for her opponent, U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.), the incumbent seeking reelection in South Carolina.
After the president’s use of the slur was widely reported, the incident provided an opportunity for Andrews to explain her position on the ongoing trans debate that has shaped political discourse in the 2020s, despite trans people making up only 1 percent of the U.S. population, according to the Williams Institute.
She used the opportunity to denounce trans rights and pointed out that, as a physician, she had never performed gender-affirming surgery on minors.
“I want you to hear me loud and clear: I don’t support biological men playing women’s sports, and I don’t support and haven’t ever performed gender surgery for minors,” Andrews said in a political ad.
Despite these recent developments, Andrews has previously voiced support for trans South Carolinians. In 2022, she posted on her X account, criticizing the Save Women’s Sports Act, which was signed into law by Republican Gov. Henry McMaster and restricts trans girls from participating on girls’ sports teams.
“This is shameful legislation that does nothing to protect or support women or children in SC. In fact, it is actively harmful. I will always support trans youth,” Andrews wrote in after the legislation passed.
The Washington Blade reached out to Andrew’s campaign about the comments, and asked if she supports trans rights but did not receive a response.
2026 Midterm Elections
On Republican Long Island, gay Democrat Chris Gallant bets on public service over politics
Chris Gallant sat down with the Blade ahead of his race for NY’s 1st congressional district.
New York’s Long Island, which is just 50 miles from the Stonewall Inn, is a reliably red enclave where President Trump won easily in 2024.
Chris Gallant, an openly gay Democrat running for New York’s 1st Congressional District, which includes Nassau and Suffolk counties, is trying to capitalize on what he sees as growing frustration with the Republican Party and its ability to deliver for everyday Americans.
The Blade sat down with Gallant to discuss his move from civil servant to the fight for public office, how he has been personally impacted by the changes from the Trump administration, and the recent release of photos from his past that have brought the national spotlight his way.
Gallant has a long record of public service that, on paper, would make him an unconventional but compelling candidate for a heavily Republican district. His résumé includes New York Army National Guard service that began when he was 17, multiple overseas deployments, including multiple tours in Kuwait, work as an FAA air traffic controller, union leadership and service as a volunteer firefighter.
That record of service is central to how Gallant describes himself — particularly as he navigates the unusual combination of being an openly gay candidate, a military veteran, and a Democrat running in a district where Republicans have historically held the advantage.
“My fiancé and I both serve in the military and we built our relationship through trust, timing, and a lot of miles between us,” his campaign website says, highlighting the idea of family values that has become a central part of winning the area. “I’ve been openly gay in the military since just after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ended, and I’ve learned to speak plainly, hold the line, and back up what I say. I’ve also learned how to listen — and how to bring people with very different views to the table and actually make progress.”
Gallant said that record, rather than his sexual orientation, is what should define his candidacy.
“I think who I am as a person is an asset,” he told the Blade when asked if his sexuality has played any role in his decision to run. “I’m not running because I’m gay. I’m running, and,’Oh, I’m gay.’ It’s part of my identity. It’s just a part of who I am. But it’s not necessarily on the table because that shouldn’t make a difference on how I’m going to respond in Congress or how I’m going to run into a burning building. I don’t think those things necessarily matter so much.”
For Gallant, the campaign is ultimately about something broader than identity politics. He said he is running because he wants to restore Americans’ confidence in a government that he says has become less about its people and more about the wealthy leaders in charge.
“I’ve always said that part of the reason why I am running for Congress is because I want to restore faith in our government,” he said. “We’re all drastically exhausted with what’s going on in this world, and particularly with Donald Trump being in office, [his] type of politics, and the way he works, essentially. When Biden got into office after Trump won, it was like the release of a pressure cooker… the pressure cooker is just even worse now this second time around.”
He also explained that his experience working inside the federal government has shaped how he believes Washington should approach its problems. Gallant pointed specifically to the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the size of government and the role of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), arguing that cutting government spending should not mean indiscriminate cuts.
“I understand that we as a nation need to save money, or at least fix the budget or balance it. We are getting further and further in debt … The budget is always a huge issue and something that we definitely 100% need to fix. But we need to do it with experts and, you know, attack these issues with a scalpel, not a chainsaw.”
The chainsaw Gallant mentioned is a clear reference to controversial Trump supporter Elon Musk, who announced he would be heading the highly politicized DOGE agency, where he, the first-ever trillionaire, brandished a shiny chainsaw symbolic of them cutting government spending with no regard for the impact on everyday Americans.
That philosophy, of scalpel over chainsaw, is also part of Gallant’s argument to voters who may be more accustomed to voting Republican. He does not present himself as a traditional politician, but rather as someone whose career outside politics could be an asset in Congress.
“I’m not a politician. This is my first foray into politics, and I think that’s what our politics need. We need fresh new faces, not career politicians. Someone who has brand new ideas, not tainted by politics. So I would say, give me the opportunity to prove myself, because, you know, until I actually get there and I can actually do a job, we won’t know.”
Gallant also shared signs that the political landscape on Long Island may be shifting. He pointed to gains Democrats made across the district last November and said economic concerns could further erode Republican support.
“Last November, in this district we [Democrats] gained 13 and 14 points across the district..And this district lost by 10 points last year. So even just in one year, you can tell that there’s a difference.”
The swapping of support from the Republican side to Democratic reflects the real concern voters have about the economy — impacted by the war in Iran, tariffs, and growing inflation.
“People are feeling it here in their pockets. The cost of living here on Long Island is already high, and things are just getting worse. There’s a lot of promises that were made with this administration that weren’t kept.”
Gallant said that frustration has directly translated into support from some voters who previously backed President Donald Trump.
“I know a lot of people who have voted for Donald Trump that have my lawn sign on their front lawn today. If that’s the change that they’re looking for, I’m going to provide it.”
But Gallant’s campaign has been complicated by a very different kind of political issue: the publication of photos from his past that have become a national story.
The photos, which include pictures of Gallant wearing various fetish gear for Mr. S Leather — including a harness and a collar — were shared with the New York Post.
Gallant has consistently rejected the idea that he should be ashamed of the images or that they undermine his qualifications for public office since their Sept. 13 publication. Instead, he has argued that his record of service should be considered alongside a private chapter of his life from 15 years ago.
“I mean, look, I’m totally not ashamed of who I am as a person. Those pictures were taken in my private life. I can still run into a burning building faster than most people. I can still fly a helicopter. And those are from 15 years ago, right? I built an entire life based around my commitment to the military and the Army National Guard.”
Rather than allowing the controversy to define him, Gallant said he hopes it can become part of a broader conversation about privacy and the consequences of living in a digital age — and indicated that this sort of scenario would become something semi-regular for those who grew up with technology.
“The reality is that we live in a digital age.This is what our generation is going to be stuck with. I laugh all the time because this is the reason why Congress and the Senate are about to die in their chairs. They didn’t have cameras and pictures and photos like that.”
“If I have to be the person to wave the banner now to fight and advocate for not only our community but anybody that could be put in this situation, that realizes now that we’re living in a digital age and this is what the future is going to be. It’s, you know, everything’s left online now.”
That argument extends beyond his own campaign. Gallant said he worries that the prospect of having a digital footprint scrutinized could discourage highly qualified and passionate potential public servants from seeking office.
“I understand that getting into public life means that the rest of your life becomes public. I get it, I do. But I also feel bad because there’s a lot of good people out there wanting to do a job in the public world, and they’re just afraid of what their digital footprint might have on them or might—what might exist because we’ve done things when we’re 12 or 15, or 20, or 30, or whatever.”
“I think living in this digital world, I would love to advocate for people to say, ‘How do we prevent some of these things from coming out into the public view so people can still maintain some kind of a private life?’”
For an openly gay candidate, the issue also carries a particular significance. Gallant said his experience has made him more interested in advocating for other LGBTQ people who may hesitate to enter public life because of what could eventually surface online.
His own LGBTQ policy priorities are relatively focused. He said adding further protections for same-sex marriage in federal law would be one of the issues he would want to pursue if elected, particularly as questions about the Supreme Court’s future approach to marriage equality continue to loom.
“My partner, who’s my fiancé, is currently deployed. We got engaged before he left in December because if the question came up to the Supreme Court– whether gay marriage was going to be a thing– we had to question whether, when he got back from deployment after Christmas this year, whether we were actually going to be able to legally get married.”
“I mean, these are questions that shouldn’t even be questions anymore. So if we can put something like [codifying same-sex marriage] into law, where it’s just not a Supreme Court decision and it can get overturned, like Roe v. Wade, then let’s do it.”
Gallant’s opponent, Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), is the two-term incumbent and has a mixed record on LGBTQ rights. LaLota has been vocal in his opposition to overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but he has also been outspoken in his opposition to transgender rights. He co-sponsored and voted for H.R. 28, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would restrict participation in women’s sports based on sex assigned at birth rather than gender identity.
Gallant, on the other hand, has few official positions on LGBTQ issues but assured the Blade that, if elected, he would become “an advocate, particularly for the LGBTQ community.”
He also said he believes same-sex marriage should be codified into law and that nondiscrimination protections should be expanded. “I would definitely be pushing no discrimination against anyone for any reason — and that should not have any place in any workplace — especially on the federal government level.”
For Gallant, however, LGBTQ rights are only one part of a broader platform centered on public service, affordability and restoring trust in government.
He repeatedly returned to the idea that a member of Congress should be accessible to the people they represent — something he believes his experience holding town halls and working directly with members of his community demonstrates.
“I always find that a record of service and showing up every day at work and in our communities is what’s going to be key and important. And I think that’s what a representative needs to do. As a representative you’re supposed to represent and work with the people that elect you to office. And so that’s what I’m going to make sure I start today.”
Current prediction markets give LaLota a significant advantage over his challenger, with the incumbent holding an 81 percent chance of winning compared with Gallant’s 19 percent.
2026 Midterm Elections
Trump uses anti-trans slur against Democratic Senate candidate
President mocked Annie Andrews
President Donald Trump used an anti-trans slur against Democratic South Carolina Senate candidate Annie Andrews on Monday as he sought to rally support for Republicans in the state’s Senate race.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump attacked Andrews three times, referring to her as “trannie” while promoting U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.)’s campaign.
Andrews is running against Graham for a Senate seat in the solidly Republican state.
Earlier this year, Graham was specially appointed to the seat following the death of her brother, Lindsey Graham, who represented South Carolina in the Senate from 2003 to 2026.
Andrews, the Democratic nominee from the state, is a pediatrician that lives in Charleston with her three children. She told NBC News that she will “work with anyone to put South Carolina first.”
“As a mom and a pediatrician, I’m in this race to fight for my patients, my three kids, and South Carolina,” Andrews said, adding that “lowering costs and making life better for families across our state is going to take all of us working together.”
Andrews used the attention from the president’s attack to emphasize what she described as a focus on policy issues rather than the culture wars that have dominated much of the political debate.
“If you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you,” she added.
Trump’s remarks have drawn criticism from leaders on both sides of the aisle.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned Trump’s words Monday night on social media, calling his attacks on Andrews “despicable.”
“Annie Andrews is a mom and pediatrician who’s always put her community first — and she’s exactly who South Carolina needs representing them in the Senate,” Schumer said on X.
Former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, also criticized the president’s attack on Andrews, urging voters to “reject politics based on division and hate.”
“This is abhorrent. Elections don’t have to be about cruelty and lies. South Carolina deserves better,” Beasley wrote Monday night on X.
South Carolina has not elected a Democratic senator in nearly three decades.
Andrews’s campaign website does not mention her positions on LGBTQ issues.
The Washington Blade reached out to Andrews’s campaign for comment on Trump’s attack and her positions on transgender rights but did not hear back by time of publication.
-
Obituary5 days agoU.S. int’l trade negotiator, consultant James Bedore dies at 82
-
Virginia5 days agoCampaign urges Virginia High School League to reverse stance on trans athletes
-
Opinions5 days agoTrump, Netanyahu, and Putin are all war criminals
-
Commentary5 days agoCenter Arts Gallery celebrates 10 years with reception, auction
