Connect with us

Politics

Feds won’t enforce law barring gay veterans from spousal benefits

Holder notifies Boehner of change in Sept. 4 letter

Published

on

Eric Holder, United States Department of Justice, gay news, Washington Blade, LGBT Pride
Eric

Attorney General Eric Holder has notified Congress the DOJ won’t bar gay veterans from spousal benefits under Title 38. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Obama administration has determined that it will no longer enforce a portion of U.S. code governing veterans benefits to deny gay veterans benefits for their same-sex spouses.

In a letter dated Sept. 4, U.S. Attorney Eric Holder notifies U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) of the change in the way the Justice Department will enforce Title 38 of the U.S. code.

“[I]n light of subsequent developments and my recommendation, the President has directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcement of Sections 101(3) and 101(31) of Title 38,” Holder writes. “Decisions by the Executive Branch not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare. Nonetheless, for the reasons described below, the unique circumstances here warrant non-enforcement.”

The letter cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against the Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and the recent district court decision against Title 38 as part of the rationale to cease enforcement of portions of the law.

Some of the spousal benefits allocated under Title 38 are disability benefits, survivor benefits and joint burial at a veteranā€™s cemetery. Gay veterans were previously barred from receiving these benefits because Title 38 defined spouse in opposite-sex terms independently of DOMA.

Holder says in the letter the administration has reasoned that it couldn’t bar gay veterans from spousal benefits under Title 38 because the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA prohibits Congress from enacting laws prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

“Although the Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the Title 38 provisions in Windsor, the reasoning of the opinion strongly supports the conclusion that those provisions are unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment,” Holder writes.

Holder continues in the letter that enforcing of Title 38 to bar gay veterans from benefits would also have an adverse effect on veterans seeking protections for their families.

“[C]ontinued enforcement would likely have a tangible adverse effect on the families of veterans and, in some circumstances, active-duty service members and reservists, with respect to survival, health care, home loan, and other benefits,” Holder writes.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, affirmed that President Obama accepted Holder’s recommendation and directed his administration to no longer enforce Title 38 in a way that would deny benefits to gay veterans.

“This is an important step forward for the families of veterans and their ability to access survival, health care, home loan, and other benefits,” Inouye said. “As the Attorney Generalā€™s letter to Congress states, the circumstances of the situation demonstrate that this is the appropriate course of action.”

As Holder observes in his letter, Inouye said the Obama administration has discontinued enforcement of Title 38 after the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group withdrew from lawsuits challenging DOMA, including those challenging the veterans’ statute.

“Even the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has ceased to defend the constitutionality of those provisions of Title 38 in legal challenges,” Inouye said. “This announcement means gay and lesbian veterans who are legally married can better protect themselves and their children. The President believes that all couples who are legally married deserve respect and equal treatment under the law, and his Administration continues to work to implement the Supreme Courtā€™s Windsor ruling swiftly and smoothly.”

Boehner’s office didn’t respond to a request to comment on the letter.

The district court ruling that Holder cites in the letter was the result of a lawsuit filed against Title 38 by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Tracey Cooper-Harris, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who’s suffering from multiple sclerosis and seeking disability benefits for her spouse, Maggie.

Caren Short, staff attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said her organization is “thrilled” with the letter because it means Cooper-Harris and other gay veterans will begin to receive benefits.

“It’s great to know that the ruling in our case helped to convince the executive [branch] to no longer enforce Title 38 because it was discriminating against veterans and their spouses who have served and sacrificed just like every other veterans and every other veteran’s spouse,” Short said. “We’re extremely and are hopeful that benefits will start to flow as they should have been for our clients.”

A VA spokesperson said the department would work to act on the decision by the Obama administration “in a timely manner.”

ā€œVA is working closely with the Department of Justice to update its policies in a timely manner to ensure that the delivery and quality of Veteransā€™ earned benefits remain at the highest standards,” the spokesperson said. “Our commitment to provide all Veterans and their families with their earned care and benefits will continue to be our focus as VA implements the Presidentā€™s decision announced today.ā€

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said the decision from the administration was “great news.” She’s the sponsor of the Charlie Morgan Act, legislation that would have changed Title 38 to enable veterans benefits to flow to same-sex spouses.

“We are in the process of determining if additional legislation is still needed to provide full benefits for all of our veterans,” Shaheen said. “I believe every individual that serves in uniform is entitled to the benefits they’ve earned and I will keep working on this issue until we are certain that is the case.”

The decision marks the first time that the Obama administration has announced it’ll cease enforcement of a law other than DOMA as a result of the Windsor decision. All previous changes made on behalf of same-sex couples following the ruling ā€” such as the extension of tax benefits, offering active duty troops same-sex spousal benefits and allowing bi-national couples to apply for marriage-based I-130 green cards ā€” were the result of regulatory change after the ruling.

In a letter to Congress last year,Ā Holder previously indicated that the Obama administration believes laws barring gay veterans from spousal benefits are unconstitutional and the administration wouldn’t defend them against legal challenges in court. Still, at the time, the administration kept enforcing the laws. That’s changed after the court rulings.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said the decision to no longer enforce Title 38 to bar gay veterans from benefits was the right course of action from the Obama administration.

“As the Court said in Windsor, our Constitution does not permit the federal government to single out some married couples for unfair treatment, and todayā€™s announcement from the Justice Department rests solidly on that principle,” Cole-Schwartz said. “For the brave men and women of our armed forces and their spouses to be denied benefits as veterans would be an insult to their service.”

One question that remains in the aftermath of this letter is whether the Obama administration will also interpret the ruling against DOMA to provide spousal benefits to legally married gay veterans applying for benefits in a state that doesn’t recognize their union. A portion of Title 38 unaddressed in the letter looks to the state of residence, not the state of celebration, in determining whether a same-sex marriage is valid.

Brian Fallon, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the issue remains “under review” within the Obama administration.

“The Justice Department will continue to work with the VA on figuring out how to go forward on that issue,” Fallon said. “But in the meantime, today’s decision means that if you’re a same-sex married couple in a state that recognizes your marriage, the VA will no longer deprive you of veterans’ benefits.”

Cole-Schwartz called for further guidance from the Obama administration on whether spousal benefits will flow to veterans who have legal same-sex marriages, but live in states that don’t recognize their union.

“The Obama administration is doing right by our veterans and faithfully executing the Supreme Courtā€™s opinion and we look forward to guidance as to how the VA will treat veterans and their spouses living in states that do not recognize their marriages,” Cole-Schwartz said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

After Biden signs TikTok ban its CEO vows federal court battle

ā€œRest assured, we arenā€™t going anywhere,ā€ CEO said

Published

on

TikTok mobile phone app. (Screenshot/YouTube)

President Joe Biden signed an appropriations bill into law on Wednesday that provides multi-billion dollar funding and military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan after months of delay and Congressional infighting.

A separate bill Biden signed within the aid package contained a bipartisan provision that will ban the popular social media app TikTok from the United States if its Chinese parent company ByteDance does not sell off the American subsidiary.

Reacting, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew said Wednesday that the Culver City, Calif.-based company would go to court to try to remain online in the U.S.

In a video posted on the company’s social media accounts, Chew denounced the potential ban: ā€œMake no mistake, this is a ban, a ban of TikTok and a ban on you and your voice,ā€ Chew said. ā€œRest assured, we arenā€™t going anywhere. We are confident and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts and the constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail,ā€ he added.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre adamantly denied during a press briefing on Wednesday that the bill constitutes a ban, reiterating the administration’s hope that TikTok will be purchased by a third-party buyer and referencing media reports about the many firms that are interested.

Chew has repeatedly testified in both the House and Senate regarding ByteDance’s ability to mine personal data of its 170 million plus American subscribers, maintaining that user data is secure and not shared with either ByteDance nor agencies of the Chinese government. The testimony failed to assuage lawmakers’ doubts.

In an email, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who doesn’t support a blanket ban of the app, told the Washington Blade:

ā€œAs the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I have long worked to safeguard Americansā€™ freedoms and security both at home and abroad. The Chinese Communist Partyā€™s ability to exploit private user data and to manipulate public opinion through TikTok present serious national security concerns. For that reason, I believe that divestiture presents the best option to preserve access to the platform, while ameliorating these risks. I do not support a ban on TikTok while there are other less restrictive means available, and this legislation will give the administration the leverage and authority to require divestiture.ā€

A spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) told the Blade: ā€œSenator Padilla believes we can support speech and creativity while also protecting data privacy and security. TikTokā€™s relationship to the Chinese Communist Party poses significant data privacy concerns. He will continue working with the Biden-Harris administration and his colleagues in Congress to safeguard Americansā€™ data privacy and foster continued innovation.ā€

The law, which givesĀ ByteDance 270 days to divest TikTokā€™s U.S. assets, expires with a January 19, 2025 deadline for a sale. The date is one day before Biden’s term is set to expire, although he could extend the deadline by three months if he determines ByteDance is making progress or the transaction faces uncertainty in a federal court.

Former President Donald Trump’s executive order in 2020, which sought to ban TikTok and Chinese-owned WeChat, a unit of Beijing-based Tencent, in the U.S., was blocked by federal courts.

TikTok has previously fought efforts to ban its widely popular app by the state of Montana last year, in a case that saw a federal judge in Helena block that state ban, citing free-speech grounds.

The South China Morning Post reported this week that the four-year battle over TikTok is a significant front in a war over the internet and technology between Washington and Beijing. Last week, Apple said China had ordered it to remove Meta Platformsā€™s WhatsApp and Threads from its App Store in China over Chinese national security concerns.

A spokesperson for the ACLU told the Blade in a statement that “banning or requiring divestiture of TikTok would set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms.”

LGBTQ TikToker usersĀ are alarmed, fearing that a ban will represent the disruption of networks of support and activism. However, queer social media influencers who operate on multiple platforms expressed some doubts as to long term impact.

Los Angeles Blade contributor Chris Stanley told the Blade:

“It might affect us slightly, because TikTok is so easy to go viral on. Which obviously means more brand deals, etc. However they also suppress and shadow ban LGBTQ creators frequently. But we will definitely be focusing our energy more on other platforms with this uncertainty going forward. Lucky for us, we arenā€™t one trick ponies and have multiple other platforms built.”

Brooklyn, N.Y.,-based gay social media creator and influencer Artem Bezrukavenko told the Blade:

“For smart creators it wonā€™t because they have multiple platforms. For people who put all their livelihood yes. Like people who do livestreams,” he said adding: “Personally Iā€™m happy it gets banned or American company will own it so they will be less homophobic to us.”

TikTokā€™s LGBTQ following has generally positive experiences although there have been widely reported instances of users, notably transgender users, seemingly targeted by the platformā€™s algorithms and having their accounts banned or repeatedly suspended.

Of greater concern is the staggering rise in anti-LGBTQ violenceĀ and threats on the platform prompting LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, in its annual Social Media Safety Index, to give TikTok a failing score on LGBTQ safety.

Additional reporting by Christopher Kane

Continue Reading

Politics

Smithsonian staff concerned about future of LGBTQ programming amid GOP scrutiny

Secretary Lonnie Bunch says ‘LGBTQ+ content is welcome’

Published

on

Lonnie G. Bunch III, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, appears before a Dec. 2023 hearing of the U.S. Committee on House Administration (Screen capture: Forbes/YouTube)

Staff at the Smithsonian Institution are concerned about the future of LGBTQ programming as several events featuring a drag performer were cancelled or postponed following scrutiny by House Republicans, according to emails reviewed by the Washington Post.

In December, Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III appeared before a hearing led by GOP members of the Committee on House Administration, who flagged concerns about the Smithsonian’s involvement in “the Left’s indoctrination of our children.”

Under questioning from U.S. Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.), Bunch said he was “surprised” to learn the Smithsonian had hosted six drag events over the past three years, telling the lawmakers “It’s not appropriateĀ to expose children” to these performances.

Collaborations with drag artist Pattie Gonia in December, January, and March were subsequently postponed or cancelled, the Post reported on Saturday, adding that a Smithsonian spokesperson blamed ā€œbudgetary constraints and other resource issuesā€ and the museums are still developing programming for Pride month in June.

ā€œI, along with all senior leaders, take seriously the concerns expressed by staff and will continue to do so,ā€ Bunch said in a statement to the paper. ā€œAs we have reiterated, LGBTQ+ content is welcome at the Smithsonian.ā€

The secretary sent an email on Friday expressing plans to meet with leaders of the Smithsonian Pride Alliance, one of the two groups that detailed their concerns to him following December’s hearing.

Bunch told the Pride Alliance in January that with his response to Bice’s question, his intention was to “immediately stress that the Smithsonian does not expose children to inappropriate content.”

“A hearing setting does not give you ample time to expand,ā€ he said, adding that with more time he would have spoken “more broadly about the merits and goals of our programming and content development and how we equip parents to make choices about what content their children experience.ā€

Continue Reading

Politics

Survey finds support for Biden among LGBTQ adults persists despite misgivings

Data for Progress previewed the results exclusively with the Blade

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A new survey by Data for Progress found LGBTQ adults overwhelmingly favor President Joe Biden and Democrats over his 2024 rival former President Donald Trump and Republicans, but responses to other questions may signal potential headwinds for Biden’s reelection campaign.

The organization shared the findings of its poll, which included 873 respondents from across the country including an oversample of transgender adults, exclusively with the Washington Blade on Thursday.

Despite the clear margin of support for the president, with only 22 percent of respondents reporting that they have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of Trump, answers were more mixed when it came to assessments of Biden’s performance over the past four years and his party’s record of protecting queer and trans Americans.

Forty-five percent of respondents said the Biden-Harris administration has performed better than they expected, while 47 percent said the administration’s record has been worse than they anticipated. A greater margin of trans adults in the survey ā€” 52 vs. 37 percent ā€” said their expectations were not met.

Seventy precent of all LGBTQ respondents and 81 percent of those who identify as trans said the Democratic Party should be doing more for queer and trans folks, while just 24 percent of all survey participants and 17 percent of trans participants agreed the party is already doing enough.

With respect to the issues respondents care about the most when deciding between the candidates on their ballots, LGBTQ issues were second only to the economy, eclipsing other considerations like abortion and threats to democracy.

These answers may reflect heightened fear and anxiety among LGBTQ adults as a consequence of the dramatic uptick over the past few years in rhetorical, legislative, and violent bias-motivated attacks against the community, especially targeting queer and trans folks.

The survey found that while LGBTQ adults are highly motivated to vote in November, there are signs of ennui. For example, enthusiasm was substantially lower among those aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 39 compared with adults 40 and older. And a plurality of younger LGBTQ respondents said they believe that neither of the country’s two major political parties care about them.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular