Frank Kameny, one of Mattachine’s founders, died last month, just prior to the organization’s 50th anniversary. The city staged a farewell for Kameny last week a the Carnegie Library. (Washington Blade file photo by Doug Hinckle)

Records kept by the late gay rights pioneer Frank Kameny show that Kameny and fellow activist and native Washingtonian Jack Nichols co-founded the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C., on Nov. 15, 1961 as the city’s — and nation’s — first homosexual civil rights organization.

Kameny, then 36, and Nichols, 23, were joined by at least three others on that day at the group’s first official meeting, held in the Harvard Street, N.W., apartment of Earl Aiken, one of the group’s first members, according to information obtained by D.C.’s Rainbow History Project.

LGBT activists and Kameny’s friends and colleagues in D.C. and across the nation are scheduled to gather in Washington at the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill next Tuesday, Nov. 15, for a memorial service celebrating Kameny’s life and legacy. The gay rights leader died at his home in Washington on Oct. 11. Organizers say the gathering will also commemorate the 50th anniversary of Kameny and his gay rights colleagues’ founding of the Mattachine Society of Washington.

The Rainbow History Project reports that an example of the hostile climate the fledgling group was to face in its first few years of existence in the early 1960s surfaced three months before its official launch, when Kameny organized a preliminary meeting to discuss the need for forming a homosexual rights group.

When Kameny and others sat down at the start of that meeting, held at the Hay Adams Hotel on Aug. 1, 1961, Kameny quickly discovered the gathering had been infiltrated by Louis Fouchette, the head of the Perversion Section of the D.C. Police Department’s Morals Division.

“Fouchette was identified, exposed, and left the meeting,” Rainbow History Project reports in one of its papers on the Mattachine Society of Washington.

Kameny told the Blade years later that he and others attending the August 1961 meeting viewed Fouchette’s visit, and the fact that he learned of plans to form a gay group before it even held its first meeting, as a chilling reminder of the work that lay ahead for the group.

In part because Mattachine’s organizers knew that discovery by authorities, including police, of someone’s status as a gay person would almost certainly lead to the loss of their job, the group adopted a bylaw making it mandatory that all members except Kameny use a pseudonym to identify themselves publicly. The pseudonyms would also be used on Mattachine’s membership list.

Among those complying with this requirement were Mattachine members Nichols, who later went on to become an accomplished author, journalist and out gay activist; Robert King, Lilli Vincenz, Paul Kuntzler, Eva Freund; Ron Balin; and Jon Swanson, according to Rainbow History’s reports on the group.

Each of them played a key role in Mattachine Society of Washington’s groundbreaking work, including the group’s first-ever homosexual rights protest demonstrations in the 1960s at the White House, Pentagon, Civil Service Commission and other government buildings.

Kuntzler later co-founded the D.C. Gay Activist Alliance, which later became the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, and the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, two of D.C.’s leading LGBT advocacy organizations that continue to operate today.

Back in 1961, Kameny chose to use his real name in connection with the Mattachine Society of Washington because he already suffered what he believed to be the irreversible consequences surrounding his firing in 1958 from his job as a civilian astronomer at the U.S. Army Map Service after authorities discovered he was gay.

“He knew he was essentially blacklisted for life in his profession as an astronomer, where, at the time, everybody knew each other in that profession,” said author and Kameny biographer David Carter. “So he had nothing to lose.”

Carter, who interviewed Kameny extensively during the past several years, said Kameny told him he chose to be one of the few “out” gays at the time following his unsuccessful but highly acclaimed appeal of his firing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kameny wrote his own brief to the high court as a document known as a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which asked the court to take on his case. In 1961, the Supreme Court denied his petition and upheld a lower court decision that refused to back a Kameny lawsuit seeking to force the U.S. Civil Service Commission to overturn his firing.

The lawsuit and his petition to the Supreme Court marked the first known time a gay person had challenged the U.S. government policy of refusing to hire and automatically firing gay people from federal government employment in any capacity or position.

Kameny’s 61-page Supreme Court petition, which is now part of the Kameny Papers collection at the Library of Congress, is viewed today by historians as the first comprehensive gay rights manifesto in the United States.

Carter, who is writing Kameny’s biography, said the Supreme Court petition became the founding principles used by Mattachine Society of Washington to carry out its work calling for equality and non-discrimination for homosexuals in employment and a wide range of other areas.

Origin of ‘Mattachine’ name

Local activists commemorate the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Mattachine Society on Nov. 15, 1986. (Blade archive photo by Doug Hinckle)

There were other Mattachine Society groups created by gays in other cities beginning in Los Angeles in 1950. But nearly all of them acted as clandestine groups seeking to promote a better understanding of homosexuals, with most agreeing with the then prevailing view by psychiatric professionals that homosexuality was a mental disorder.

The Mattachine name was first adopted in 1950 by pioneering gay rights activist Harry Hay, the lead founder that year in Los Angeles of the first such group. Hay said he took the name from a French medieval and renaissance group known as Société Mattachine, which operated within the royal court as court-jester type figures wearing masks to conceal their identity. In some cases the Mattachines were believed to have been given liberty to speak frankly to the ruling monarch on matters that others were forbidden to discuss.

Carter said Kameny favored using another name for the Washington group that boldly used the word homosexual in its title. He said Kameny told him he was outvoted by the other members, who thought “Mattachine” was a name widely recognized within the nation’s homophile movement.

While insisting on adopting Mattachine Society as its name, Carter and others familiar with the group said the members agreed to Kameny’s request that it remain independent of other Mattachine Society groups, with whose philosophy and tactics Kameny disagreed.

None of the other Mattachine Society groups, including those located in L.A., San Francisco, and New York, took on the role of a civil rights and civil liberties organization like the Mattachine Society of Washington did.

“They certainly were the first to take that position,” said Carter, in discussing Mattachine Society of Washington’s activist, civil rights stance. “And the second unique thing about them is their attitude or strategy. They took a militant approach toward achieving that goal, an unapologetic approach,” he said.

“It is time that a strong initiative be taken to obtain for the homosexual minority – a minority in no way different, as such, from other of our national minority groups – the same rights, provided in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, as are guaranteed to all other citizens,” the Mattachine Society of Washington said in an August 1962 statement.

“These include the rights to the pursuit of happiness and to equality of opportunity; the right, as human beings, to develop and achieve their full potential and dignity; and the right, as citizens, to be allowed to make their maximum contribution to the society in which they live – rights which Federal policy and practice now deny,” the statement says.

In what Carter and others following the LGBT rights movement say was a first of its kind development, the group launched a four-point campaign in 1962 calling for repeal of the U.S. Civil Service Commission’s policy barring gay employees, which it called unconstitutional; an end to the U.S. military ban on gay service members; an end to the federal government policy of denying security clearances for gays; and the repeal of state sodomy laws that made it illegal for consenting adults of the same sex to engage in private sexual relations.

Kuntzler said the group went one step further by taking what others in the homophile movement at the time considered a radical action. Following a heated debate among its members at an April 1965 meeting, Mattachine Society of Washington adopted a formal resolution declaring that homosexuality was not a mental disorder.

The resolution, introduced by Kameny, opened the way for the group to begin a national campaign to pressure the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual as a disorder.

Kuntzler said he recalls members voted 27 to 5 to approve the resolution, with the group’s then president, Bob Belanger among those who voted against it.

“The Mattachine Society of Washington takes the position that in the absence of valid evidence to the contrary, homosexuality is not a sickness, disturbance or other pathology in any sense but is merely a preference, orientation, or propensity on par with and not different in kind from heterosexuality,” the resolution states.

Kuntzler also recalled that the group got an unexpected flurry of publicity in the summer of 1963 when then U.S. Rep. John Dowdy (D-Texas), who chaired the House committee overseeing D.C. affairs, called a public hearing on a bill he introduced to curtail the activities of the Mattachine Society of Washington.

The Washington Post reported in an Aug. 10, 1963 story that Dowdy became outraged when he learned that a D.C. government agency had granted Mattachine a license to solicit charitable contributions in the city as a fundraising tool. The Post story said Dowdy’s bill called for overturning the city’s approval of the group’s charitable solicitation license and called for barring the city from approving any future license to any organization whose existence threatened to harm “the health, welfare and morals” of the city.

Kameny drew widespread media coverage when he testified at the hearing in opposition to the bill and challenged Dowdy’s assumptions that homosexuality was a “perversion” harmful to society. A representative of the D.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union also testified against the bill, saying it was unconstitutional because it would infringe on Mattachine’s First Amendment right of freedom of expression.

Kuntzler said that much to Dowdy’s horror, the testimony by Kameny and the ACLU official resonated with the public and media, prompting a Post editorial opposing the bill and calling Dowdy a “moralist.”

The bill eventually died in committee. The brouhaha surrounding its introduction and the hearing helped to boost the Mattachine Society’s message of equality and non-discrimination for gay people, Kameny and other members of the group concluded at the time.

The Mattachine Society of Washington became less active following the Stonewall riots in New York in 1969, which was considered a momentous development in the gay rights movement that led to the creation of a plethora of other gay groups, including D.C.’s short-lived Gay Liberation Front.

According to Kuntzler, nearly all of Mattachine’s small corps of remaining members devoted their time and energy in 1971 to Kameny’s historic run as the nation’s first known openly gay candidate for Congress. Kameny became one of five candidates competing for the newly created non-voting delegate seat in the House of Representatives to represent D.C. in Congress.

Mattachine members, among other things, organized a first-of-its-kind “gay” questionnaire for each of the candidates running in the race, asking them to state their views on gay-related issues, including whether they would support legislation to ban discrimination against homosexuals in employment.

All but Kameny ignored the questionnaire, Kuntzler said. But he said the questionnaire and the election-related work performed by Mattachine members laid the groundwork for the type of gay rights work assumed by the Gay Activists Alliance, which formed as the recognized successor to Mattachine Society of Washington immediately following Kameny’s run for Congress.

Kameny finished fourth in the election, receiving 1,888 votes or 11 percent of the total, Kuntzler recalls. In a development that surprised many and delighted LGBT activists, Kameny finished ahead of the Rev. Douglas Moore, the fifth place candidate who denounced homosexuality and gays as being “immoral” and a threat to the community.

“It was a very nice place to be,” said lesbian activist Lilli Vincenz, who said she joined Mattachine Society of Washington in 1962 after being discharged from the Women’s Army Corps, or WACs, on grounds of homosexuality. “I was glad to be a part of it.”

Vincenz was among many of the group’s early members who went on to successful professional careers in the D.C. area while they continued to participate in the LGBT rights movement. All of them switched to using their real names.

Eva Freund, who, like Vincenz and Mattachine member Nancy Tucker, became among the group’s first female members, continued to participate in LGBT-related causes. She currently serves as president of a D.C.-area information technology services company.

Vincenz received a doctorate degree in psychology and operated a therapist practice specializing in helping lesbian and gay clients. Kuntzler became an advertising executive for a non-profit association and his longtime domestic partner, Steven Miller, who also participated in Mattachine activities, became the owner of a successful court reporting business.

Tucker and Vincenz also became coordinators of a Mattachine newsletter project that led them to found an independent gay newspaper in the city in October of 1969 called the Gay Blade, which later evolved into the Washington Blade.

House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon (Blade file photo by Joey Diguglielmo)

The leading House Republican on defense issues has threatened to kill passage of annual defense policy legislation if it lacks language blocking military chaplains from performing same-sex weddings.

House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said Friday in a taped interview on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” that he’d rather see no version of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill passed at all rather one that doesn’t prevent chaplains from marrying gay couples, according to the The Hill newspaper.

“This was one of the concerns that we had – that we were rushing this, to eliminate this, before we had fully prepared things, and DOMA is the law of the land,” McKeon said, referencing the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Pentagon issued guidance allowing chaplains to perform same-sex weddings, if they so choose, and allowing the use of base facilities for these ceremonies.

The House in May approved a version of the defense bill that would rollback the Pentagon guidance by prohibiting chaplains or base facilities from being involved in same-sex weddings. The provision was adopted in committee as an amendment by Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo.)

The measure also contains language reaffirming the Defense Department must abide by DOMA. The language was also adopted in committee as an amendment by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.)

The Senate Armed Services Committee in June left out these provisions in its version of the defense bill, but the full measure has yet to reach the Senate floor.

McKeon also reportedly said he’d rather see Congress fail to pass a defense measure for the first time in a half-century if he had to give in on a provision in the Senate bill effectively banning many terrorism suspects from obtaining trials in civilian court.

McKeon reportedly said he hopes the Senate will come to the side of the House on the marriage and detainee issues.

Specifically on marriage, McKeon reportedly said, “I’m hopeful that the Senate will look at those votes and will understand our feelings on this issue.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, chastised McKeon for saying he’d put the Pentagon budget at risk over the ability of chaplains to perform same-sex marriages.

“It’s nothing short of shameful that the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, charged with protecting and authorizing funding for our nation’s service members at war, would be willing to put at risk the equipment and supplies they need in order to advance his own narrow, social agenda,” Sarvis said.

If the full Senate passes the measure as approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the marriage issues would have to be hammered out between the House and Senate in conference committee.

In a news conference last month, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) pledged to work against the anti-gay provisions from being part of the defense bill when asked about the issue by The Advocate.

“We will fight against those amendments and do everything we can to make sure that they don’t appear either in the Senate bill or on the floor,” as well as in conference committee for the bill, Levin said.

The Pentagon guidance allowing chaplains to officiate over same-sex weddings has become a rallying cry for social conservatives seeking unseat President Obama during the 2012 election.

During the 2011 Value Voters Summit, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum mischaracterized the guidance by saying the Obama administration “instructed” chaplains to perform these same-sex weddings when in fact they have option to do so.

Santorum added this decision from Obama is “worse than” his decision to abandon defense of DOMA in court.

“He has instructed his military chaplains to marry people, in direct contravention — marry gays and lesbians in direct contravention to the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as between a man and a woman,” Santorum said. “So not only did the president not defend the law, he has now instructed people in the military to break the law.

LGBT advocates have said allowing military chaplains to marry same-sex couples is consistent with DOMA because the anti-gay law makes no mention of couples that chaplains are able to marry.

Former Army Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, who came under fire last year for speaking out against open service and asking people to call on Congress to reject “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, also decried the guidance during the summit.

“What kind of position is this to put chaplains in to have to make that kind of decision inside this unit?” Mixon said. “It is unfair to our service members to put them in that kind of position whether it would be a violation of their religious beliefs of their moral conscience. We owe our service members more than that, and we need to work to provide that guidance and oversight to each and every one of our service members.”

Rep. Buck McKeon (Blade file photo by Joey Diguglielmo)

Senior Republicans on a House defense committee are seeking to delay the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the basis that Congress hasn’t had an adequate opportunity to review the regulatory changes resulting from the end of the policy — a request the Pentagon has rebuffed.

House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee Chair Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) write in a Sept. 12 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — which is set for Tuesday — should be placed on hold because information on the new policy hasn’t been sufficiently available to Congress and the public.

Panetta — along with President Obama and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen — certified the U.S. military was ready for open service on July 22, starting the 60-day period for when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be removed from the books.

McKeon and Wilson contend they have requested, but not obtained, copies of the revised regulations that will take effect upon the end of the military’s gay ban.

“This failure to meet the committee’s requests leads us to conclude that decisions on the policies and regulations to implement repeal are not complete and that your certification and those of the others were inaccurate,” the Republicans write.

Additionally, McKeon and Wilson decry what they say is the lack of public availability of the new regulations resulting from the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The Republicans contend this lack of availability harms service members, including gay and lesbian troops.

“We find it unconscionable that the policies and regulations that provide the guidelines and procedures to be used by service members and their leaders to implement repeal, as well as to protect the interests of all service members, including gay and lesbian members, remain unpublished,” the Republicans write.

Finally, McKeon and Wilson also say the time isn’t now for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal because certain regulatory changes needed for implementation will have to undergo a review and comment period before they can be effective and this period is not scheduled to begin until Tuesday.

“The need for review and comment before these regulations and policies can be effective directly contravenes the July 22 certifications,” the Republicans write. “The Department is not ready to implement the repeal because all the policies and regulations necessary for the transition are not yet final.”

Consequently, the Republicans urge Panetta to hold off on ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” until after Tuesday and these issues are addressed.

“We believe it is essential that you take immediate action to delay the implementation of repeal until such time that the review and comment period is completed, that DOD has incorporated the changes suggested during that comment period, and that the appropriate regulations needed to implement repeal have been distributed to and are understood by the leaders and key personnel in the field,” McKeon and Wilson write.

But the Defense Department is disputing these assertions and says an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will take place as planned on Tuesday.

“The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will occur, in accordance with the law and after a rigorous certification process, on Sept. 20,” a Pentagon spokesperson said. “Senior Department of Defense officials have advised Congress of changes to regulations and policies associated with repeal. We take that obligation seriously.”

The spokesperson said top Defense Department officials, including the Pentagon’s general counsel, have already met with House Armed Services Committee staff and shared the proposed revisions to the regulations and new policies that will be issued.

Since legislation was signed in December to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” more than 2 million troops have participated in training to prepare for open service and what is expected in a post-repeal environment.

A senior defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the military service secretaries, service chiefs, and combatant commanders submitted their recommendations months ago, and none suggested repeal be postponed.

LGBT advocates were quick to condemn the Republican letter as a last-ditch attempt to stall the inevitable end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the GOP letter is “another example of the hardcore opposition attempting to delay or undo ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal.”

“I expect they will continue to look for openings to deny gay and lesbian service members the same rights and dignity as their straight counterparts,” Sarvis said.

Further, Sarvis said McKeon and Wilson are “simply wrong” in their assertion that new regulations haven’t been prepared within an appropriate manner.

“The statute only requires that the new regulations be prepared – not issued – before certification,” Sarvis said.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the letter a “desperate move by extremist House members” to continue discrimination against gay service members.

“Wide majorities of Americans support allowing gay and lesbians to serve openly,” Solmonese said. “It is time to finally end this discriminatory law, and moves to stall will be seen by Americans for what they are – homophobic attempts to prevent the military from continuing down the path of full equality.”

NOTE: This article has been updated.

Mark Bingham, pictured here with partner Paul Holm, helped prevent United Flight 93 from reaching D.C. Those passengers are widely credited with saving the U.S. Capitol or White House on Sept. 11, 2001. (Blade file photo)

Ross Levi, executive director of New York’s LGBT advocacy group Empire State Pride Agenda, worked in the group’s lower Manhattan office in a different staff position at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

In what he describes as the first horrifying hours following the crash of two hijacked jetliners into both World Trade Center towers, causing them to collapse, Levi said the ESPA staff joined other New Yorkers in helping survivors and victims any way they could.

“We opened the doors to our offices, which were on 12th Street at the time, to people as they were fleeing the World Trade Center site and coming downtown,” he said. “Many of them came right by our offices and so people were coming in just to use the bathroom and get some water and make phone calls,” he said.

“And in that way we were just a member of the New York family that had to go through this horrible event,” Levi said.

But Levi and other LGBT activists observing the Sept. 11 events as they unfolded said they quickly discovered within a week of the attacks that same-sex partners of those killed, injured or missing in the World Trade Center collapse faced additional hurdles in obtaining government and private sector assistance.

He said ESPA first became aware that same-sex partner survivors were being treated differently when the city and private relief agencies like the Red Cross set up an emergency station on a pier along New York’s Hudson River where people could go to find a family member missing and as yet unaccounted for in the World Trade Center carnage.

“Literally [gay] people had to go there, turn around, go back home and get some paperwork that spouses didn’t have to get to prove a relationship existed,” Levi said. “You were nervous and scared and sad and then you had to go through that. And worse, other people turned them away, even with the paperwork, saying sorry you’re not a family according to our guidelines.”

Activists reflecting on the Sept. 11 tragedy this week said New York City and New York State officials quickly recognized the inequities faced by same-sex partner survivors and took steps to change polices and laws to correct the situation. The changes began to take place, activists, said, following news media reports of the loss of individual LGBT people at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon just outside Washington, which was hit by a third hijacked plane.

“It had such an impact because the loss was about death and relationships,” said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, an LGBT litigation group, in a 2006 interview with the Blade at the time of the 5th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“The grief and loss was the same between heterosexual and same-sex couples, and a perception of this seemed to come through to much of the public,” Pizer said.

Among the victims widely reported on by the media was Mark Bingham, a gay public relations executive and avid rugby player from San Francisco, who was one of the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into the countryside in Pennsylvania.

Bingham’s mother said she spoke to him by cell phone after his hijacked plane was believed to be heading toward Washington, D.C. for another terrorist attack. She said she believes her son was part of a small group of passengers believed to have attempted to wrestle control of the plane from the hijackers.

Authorities have speculated that passengers such as Bingham and others most likely intervened to prevent the hijackers from crashing the jetliner into a building in Washington, such as the Capitol or the White House.

Bingham was among the 9/11 victims portrayed in the Hollywood film “United 93.”

American Airlines pilot David Charlebois, who was gay, served as co-pilot onboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked it and crashed it into the Pentagon. (Blade file photo)

Another of the victims widely reported in the media was American Airlines pilot David Charlebois, who was gay and an active member of the National Gay Pilots Association. Charlebois was serving as first officer, or co-pilot, onboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the Boeing 757 jetliner and crashed it into the Pentagon.

All of its crew and passengers perished along with dozens of Pentagon employees working in the part of the building struck by the plane.

Charlebois’ surviving partner of 14 years, Tom Hay, was treated with respect and honor by American Airlines’ top brass and colleagues when more than a dozen uniformed company pilots and flight attendants attended Charlebois’ funeral mass at St. Matthews Cathedral in downtown D.C.

“It was a time when all Americans did come together with a single, united focus,” said David Smith, vice president of programs for the Human Rights Campaign and the national LGBT advocacy group’s media spokesperson at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“And there were extraordinary acts of kindness and recognition that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with, i.e., our families need to be protected,” Smith said. “But it also really brought into stark reality how the lack of recognition of our families causes real pain and at times almost insurmountable challenges that families that are protected by law through marriage don’t have to experience.”

Levi said ESPA was pleased when, in response to requests by LGBT advocacy groups and media reports, then GOP Gov. George Pataki issued an executive order in October 2001 that included surviving partners of gay and lesbian victims of the World Trade Center attacks in receiving full spousal benefits from the state’s Crime Victims Board.

“The order marks the first official step taken by any level of government in the nation to address the inequities faced by gay and lesbian survivors of the terrorist attacks in obtaining benefits,” ESPA said in a statement at the time.

The New York State Legislature soon followed suit by passing three separate bills that included same-sex partner survivors in various state benefits to be allocated to 9/11 survivors and their families. One provided state worker’s compensation benefits to domestic partners of 9/11 victims.

Another bill approved by the legislature enabled same-sex partners and their children to be eligible for a newly created World Trade Center Memorial Scholarship Program. A third bill passed by the legislature called on the federal government to include same-sex partners in federal relief programs for 9/11 survivors.

A short time later, the Red Cross responded to requests by ESPA, HRC, Lambda Legal and other LGBT groups by opening up its disaster relief programs to same-sex partner survivors. Activists called the action historic and noted it resulted in badly needed relief for LGBT victims of Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans and the Gulf Coast several years later.

On the federal level, President George W. Bush and Republican members of Congress joined Democrats in approving a massive, $7 billion Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund. Officials said the program was aimed at providing a viable alternative to thousands of individual wrongful death lawsuits that likely would have emerged against airline companies and the company that operated the World Trade Center if such a fund were not created.

But LGBT advocacy groups once again discovered that the relief funds would likely be out of reach for surviving same-sex partners of 9/11 victims. Among other things, the fund’s administrator, attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who had worked for the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), said rules for who is eligible for receiving as much as $1.3 million in compensation payments would have to be linked to state probate laws and rules.

At the time, no state probate law recognized same-sex relationships, even if they were made legal on the local level by a city or county domestic partnership ordinance.

ESPA, HRC, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups said they worked hard to lobby the U.S. Justice Department, which had jurisdiction over the compensation fund program, to take administrative steps to include same-sex couples survivors in the program.

At the time, Feinberg told the Blade that while he was concerned about the plight of surviving domestic partners of the Sept. 11 victims, it was not feasible to include specific domestic partner provisions in the relief fund’s regulations.

“If I get in the middle of that fight and try and trump local probate law in a particular case, I’ll be up to my neck in lawsuits,” he said. “I’m not saying they’re not entitled,” he said. “I’m not saying they are entitled.”

Smith of HRC said at least two of about 22 known LGBT partner survivors in the Sept. 11 attacks did receive compensation from the fund. Smith said the compensation payments came about, however, when surviving blood relatives chose not to challenge the same-sex partners’ application for the compensation.

In a separate development, HRC, ESPA, Lambda Legal and other LGBT advocacy groups created the September 11 Gay & Lesbian Family Fund to provide some relief to surviving partners who were ineligible for help from the federal relief fund program.

In a May 2006 announcement, ESPA said the known surviving partners of gay or lesbian victims of 9/11 had received nearly $17,315 each from the new Gay & Lesbian Family Fund. ESPA said at the time that the groups raised a total of $378,812 for the fund, with only $11,193, or 2.9 percent, being spent on administrative costs.

“The Family Fund was established in December [2001] to help offset the discrimination gay and lesbian partners faced in obtaining benefits automatically afforded to surviving spouses, including Social Security and Workers Compensation survivor benefits, and compensation under the Federal 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund,” the ESPA statement said.

“I don’t think there is one of us who were of remembering age who lives their life the same on Sept. 11 at 8 o’clock in the morning as we did at 10 o’clock in the morning on that day,” said Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs for the Center for American Progress, and who served as HRC’s political director in 2001.

“And my hope is it’s changed us to respect our diversity, to honor our humanity,” she said. “I don’t know if we’ve embraced those lessons but in this 10th year anniversary if we don’t remember that we need to honor our diversity and our humanity we will not have learned from the tragedy of Sept. 11.”

Another of the widely reported 9/11 victims was Father Mychal Judge, a gay Catholic priest and beloved New York Fire Department chaplain. Judge was killed when struck by falling debris next to the World Trade Center while he was performing last rites for a dying firefighter. His sexual orientation, while not widely known until after his death, was confirmed by New York Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, who told New York magazine that Judge confided to him that he was both gay and celebate.

In 2002, Congress honored Judge by using his name for the landmark Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers Benefit Act. The law marked the first time the federal government had extended an equal benefit for same-sex couples, in this case allowing domestic partners of public safety officers killed in the line of duty to obtain a federal death benefit.

Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to sign two LGBT bills into law. (Photo courtesy of Wikipedia)

Calif. Gov. Brown to sign 2 pro-LGBT bills

SACRAMENTO — Two major LGBT bills are headed to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk for signature. The first, ‘Seth’s Law,’ is an anti-bullying bill that would establish anti-harassment policies and programs at all California schools meeting specific criteria.

A second bill would mandate California colleges collect sexual orientation and gender identity data, and designate staff to address the needs of LGBT students on campus, according to Equality California. The law would also require public colleges and universities to include a policy on harassment and intimidation as part of its student code of conduct.

‘Seth’s Law’ is named for Seth Walsh, a California teen who hanged himself after being tormented by anti-gay bullying last year. Both bills are expected to be signed into law.

White House honors Trevor Project, GLSEN

WASHINGTON — Two LGBT non-profits were honored by the White House in a ceremony last week as ‘Champions of Change.’

The Obama administration initiative honors Americans combating some of society’s biggest problems. The Trevor Project, which works to stop LGBT teen suicide and challenge bullying in schools and in sports was honored along with the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, which works in schools to educate the public on the needs and challenges of LGBT youth.

GLSEN Executive Director Eliza Byard and Trevor Project interim Executive Director and C.E.O. David McFarland received the award on behalf of each of their organizations.

Pentagon to allow gay, lesbian magazine on bases

WASHINGTON — According to the Washington Post, OutServe the magazine will go on sale Sept. 20 at U.S. military bases with the Pentagon’s blessing.

The magazine — which is targeted specifically to enlisted lesbians and gays — is published by the gay and lesbian active duty service members organization that launched last year with the help of social networks, like Facebook. The organization boasts nearly 4,000 members.

Mistrial declared in Lawrence King murder trial

LOS ANGELES — A mistrial was declared after a jury was unable to reach a verdict in the trial of the 17-year-old teen accused of murdering 15-year-old Lawrence King in February 2008.

The heavily scrutinized trial of Brandon McInerney had to be moved to Los Angeles due to the media attention surrounding the shooting of the young gay student, according to news blog FireDogLake. During the eight weeks of testimony, the jury heard from nearly 100 witnesses, with the defense leaning heavily on what is known as the “gay panic defense,” in which a defendant claims he or she acted in a state of violent temporary insanity because of “homosexual panic.”

McInerney brought a gun to school and shot the victim in the back of the head twice at point blank range allegedly after King began wearing makeup to school. McInerney apparently also warned a friend he would be committing the act the day before.

Man ‘curb stomped’ outside Salt Lake City club

SALT LAKE CITY — A gay 20-year-old Salt Lake City man spent four days hospitalized, lost six teeth, and suffered a broken jaw as the result of a brutal attack that included what is called a “curb stomp” outside of a Salt Lake City club.

According to Q Salt Lake magazine, Dane Hall was leaving Club Sound, which is gay themed on Friday nights, when he was attacked by four men wearing red shouting anti-gay slurs. After repeated punches and kicks, one of the assailants positioned Hall’s open mouth on the street curb, and kicked the back of his head, knocking out the teeth, while the others kicked Hall in the abdomen. The assailants stole $40 and Hall’s identification.

A similar attack occurred at the same spot in April, but calls made from the cell phone stolen in that incident did not lead the police to the assailants. Both cases remain open.

A fund to cover Hall’s $30,000 in medical expenses has been set up at a local bank, and both Club Sound and a neighboring bar are holding benefits to raise money for Hall’s medical bills.

Douglas Wilson, the Defense Department's assistant secretary for public affairs. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

For the first openly gay assistant secretary at the Pentagon, helping to advance “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal implementation has been a personally rewarding experience.

In an exclusive interview with the Washington Blade, Douglas Wilson, the Defense Department’s assistant secretary for public affairs, said Tuesday his role in bringing about the change has had particular significance for him because of his admiration for the nation’s armed forces.

“It’s meant a lot to me personally because it’s been an opportunity to help realize change in an institution that I respect tremendously,” Wilson said.

The process leading to gays serving openly in the U.S. military, Wilson said, has been important to him because he knows there are people in uniform who feel they “couldn’t be whole” as they served under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“I know what it’s like to feel like you’re not a whole person,” he said. “This is why as the process of repeal took place, and then the process of certification took place, that was something that personally I kept upper-most in my mind. An institution that has done so much for people, that has produced so many outstanding people, that has done so much for the country itself could understand and recognize how important it is to be a whole person.”

Wilson, whom the Senate confirmed in February 2010 to a senior position at the Pentagon, serves as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. His duties include being a principal adviser to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on public information and community relations.

It’s not the Tuczon, Ariz., native’s first job at the Defense Department. Under former defense chief William Cohen during the Clinton administration, Wilson, 60, was a deputy assistant secretary for public affairs, and later principal deputy assistant under public affairs.

Wilson has had numerous other roles in government service and in work for non-profit organizations. Previously, he served as executive vice president of the Howard Gilman Foundation, where he oversaw the development and implementation of the organization’s domestic and international policy programs at its White Oak conservation center.

But in addition to his current duties at the Pentagon, Wilson had a direct role in bringing about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal because he served on the executive committee for the Repeal Implementation Team.

“I’ve never seen myself as either a gay community leader or poster boy,” Wilson said. “I’ve always seen myself as a person with a whole lot of different components to me as an individual, and being gay is one of them.”

The culmination of that work took place when President Obama, Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen certified that the U.S. military is ready for open service. Under the repeal law signed in December, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be off the books 60 days after certification — so the law will officially come to an end on Sept. 20.

In the Blade interview, Wilson discussed a variety of topics including what the lifting of the military’s gay ban means to him as well as implications for service members in the future. His partner of 16 years is an educator.

His piece of advice for gay service members after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the off the books? Feel confident and believe you can be whoever you want to be.

“The military cliche, slogan is ‘be all that you can be,’” Wilson said. “Never has this been so true as it’ll be on Sept. 20 for thousands of people.”

Wilson had few words about potential partner benefits that could be offered to gay service members upon repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because he’s “not a specialist on benefits.” Pentagon officials have said they intend to examine the possibility of extending certain benefits to gay service members — although the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits major benefits like housing and health insurance from going to service members.

“I wouldn’t want to speculate because I think all of these are on the table and I think there is a true determination here to do the right thing and to follow the law,” Wilson said.

Additionally, Wilson addressed the possibility of an executive order barring discrimination against troops based on sexual orientation and gender identity. LGBT advocates have called for the order because no non-discrimination rule will be put in place for the military even after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is lifted, but the Pentagon officials have said they don’t believe such an order is necessary.

Wilson said channels are already in place for gay service members to make complaints about discrimination while enabling the Pentagon to keep its policies sexual orientation-neutral. Still, Wilson left the door open for further discussion on a non-discrimination order.

“People here are aware that there are different views on this issue,” Wilson said. “I expect that discussion on this issue is going to continue but that is the rationale.”

The transcript of the interview between the Washington Blade and Wilson follows:

Washington Blade: You were involved in the Repeal Implementation Team as the Pentagon made its way toward certification. As an openly gay man, what did that role mean for you personally?

Doug Wilson: I was a member of the executive committee of the RIT, and I’ve also have been here as the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs since February of 2010, and I think I’m the first openly gay assistant secretary in the Pentagon’s history. It’s meant a lot to me personally because it’s been an opportunity to help realize change in an institution that I respect tremendously.

I served here in the late ’90s under [former Defense Secretary] Bill Cohen, and I had never in a million years thought that I would be working at the Pentagon. It was a transformational experience for me. I met the most outstanding people in uniform, and civilians as well. But the people I met in uniform were absolutely remarkable people. The things they were required to do and did, the sacrifices that they made — it made a huge impression on me.

It also made an impression on me that there were men and women in uniform who couldn’t be whole. And I know what it’s like to feel like you’re not a whole person. This is why as the process of repeal took place, and then the process of certification took place, that was something that personally I kept upper-most in my mind. An institution that has done so much for people, that has produced so many outstanding people, that has done so much for the country itself — could understand and recognize how important it is to be a whole person.

It has demonstrated that when it came to the integration of the armed forces. It has demonstrated that when it came to the role of women in combat. And I knew that it could demonstrate that when it came to allowing gay and lesbian men and women to be whole and equal.

Blade: But have you ever found it challenging or felt out of place working for a department that — had you been working on the uniform side — until recently would have forced you out of your job because of your sexual orientation?

Wilson: Yes. I have been well aware that as a political appointee and as a civilian that I was able to do things that my counterparts in uniform were not able to do.

I’ve never seen myself as either a gay community leader or poster boy. I’ve always seen myself as a person with a whole lot of different components to me as an individual, and being gay is one of them. The thing that mattered the most to me was the folks in uniform would be able to be that. To be recognized as that — that being gay or lesbian is a component of who they are. It was always uncomfortable that there was that gap.

Blade: Do you feel like you’ve experienced any sort of anti-gay bias or discrimination while working at the Pentagon?

Wilson: No. Even when I was here in the late ’90s and I was quite close to secretary and Mrs. Cohen. They knew my sexual orientation, they extended their hands and welcomed me and at social events welcomed me and my partner. That meant a tremendous amount to me.

I felt the same way being here as an assistant secretary for public affairs, particularly within the office that I had, which consists of a large number of military as well as civilian, political appointees — all of whom know that I’m openly gay, all of whom have been nothing but supportive. It’s not been a factor … it’s a part of who I am, and that’s how I’ve been treated.

Blade: Are there any openly gay figures in government who’ve inspired you to be out?

Wilson: I don’t know that there’s been anybody who’s inspired me to be openly gay. I think that there are figures in government who are friends, who I’m proud to call colleagues — people like John Berry, people like Eric Fanning, who used to work for me at [Business Executives for National Security], is now here with the Navy. … I work with a large number of men and women in this government who are openly gay and lesbian. Certainly on the Hill, there’s an even larger number who are.

I think the thing that — we’re all extremely different people. But I think the approach is similar, that this is a component of who we are. I don’t think John Berry looks at himself as the gay director of [the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.] I think he looks at himself as the director of OPM, and he’s a gay man. That’s how I approach what I’m doing here.

As I say, everybody has their own path in life that they follow, and whether you’re gay or straight how you come to be who you are is your own path. For me, it’s wanting to be accepted for everything that I am in terms of the whole person that I am.

It took a long time to get here because I grew up in the ’50s and ’60s when it was a very, very different time, and it’s been a long time coming, and I’m really proud of who I am. I’m proud of this institution. I’m proud of this administration, and mostly I’m proud of the literally thousands of people who are going to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that I’ve been able to advantage of earlier.

Blade: Did you know Pete Williams, the openly gay former Defense Department spokesperson?

Wilson: Yes I did. He was not openly gay. He was not open when he was here.

Blade: But he has since come out.

Wilson: I believe he has. You’ll have to ask him. I mean, I can’t speak for him. It’s very well known, but you’ll have to ask him how he wants to be characterized, but I feel very confident in saying I’m the first openly gay assistant secretary in any capacity here.

Blade: What was going through your head when certification was happening last week? Were you reflecting on anything personally?

Wilson: Yes. I was reflecting on the process that it took to get to this place in terms of repeal. In December of last year, it was kind of a crucible. And there were points during that month when people thought this ultimately was not going to happen, including very senior people here. And I never did believe that it wasn’t going to happen.

I thought that we really had reached a tipping point in December when [Sen.] Susan Collins stood on the floor after that vote on the [fiscal year 2011 defense] authorization [bill], and, within a couple of hours, she and [Sen. Joseph] Lieberman were back down there talking to [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid, and they were going to offer this bill.

At that point, I thought this is not dead. I didn’t see how it could die. I thought there were so many chances to kill it, and it wouldn’t die. And I really thought that this was going to happen in December because I thought too many people could not look themselves in the face, look themselves in the mirror and say — with a report that showed what it showed, that attitudes in the United States being what they were — that they were the ones to be the anachronism. I won some money as a result of that.

Blade: You won some money? How is that?

Wilson: I bet it would happen.

Blade: How much did you win?

Wilson: Let’s put it this way. I won enough for a round of drinks for a few people at JR.’s if I had gone.

Blade: Some conservatives have criticized the decision to certify repeal at this time. Chairman Buck McKeon of the House Armed Services Committee called certification the culmination a “flawed repeal assessment and adoption process” and said he’s disappointed Obama didn’t address “concerns expressed by military service chiefs.” What’s your response to that?

Wilson: Everybody has their own opinion with regards to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and it would inappropriate for me wearing the hat that I wear to make any particular comments on any particular person’s point of view.

I would just say that I thought that the Comprehensive Working Group Report truly reinforced the fact that in the military — as well as outside the military — views have changed considerably and that this is not something that is being forced, that this is something that is evolving.

I personally knew that we had reached this point when I saw some of the outreach sessions that were conducted during the report. I can tell you an anecdote. You’ll never be able to fit this into the story, but I will if you don’t mind.

Blade: Go ahead.

Wilson: When I was at Ft. Hood, and after the outreach sessions, we went to see a tank at a tank crew. The purpose of it was to show how close quarters were in a tank and how difficult it would be for gay and straight troops to serve together.

So, we saw the tank, and at the end, the tank crew lined up in front of the tank, and people said to us, “Do you have any questions?” And I said, “You all have served together several years.” And they said, “Yes, we’ve been together a long time.” I said, “What happens if ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is repealed and one of you told the other four that he was gay? What would you do?”

And person by person — the first person said, “Well, my brother’s gay, so it doesn’t matter.” The second person said, “Well, you know, I have so many friends who are gay from high school. It doesn’t matter.” To each person, it didn’t matter. And the final person said, “What matters to me is if this thing is burning, I want someone to be able to pull me out, and I don’t care what their [sexual] orientation is.”

That’s when I knew. That’s when I knew. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. That’s my opinion.

Blade: Do you have any advice for gay service members in this period after certification but before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is off the books?

Wilson: I would say this has been a lengthy process. The length of it has been frustrating for some people. I understand both the frustration and the need for the process because this a very large institution and cultural change does not turn on a dime, but the evolution of the cultural change that has brought us to this point means that we don’t need to spike the football, what we need to do is understand that a lot of people have spent a lot of effort who are not gay to help us to get to this point.

I would say there are 60 days left because that is part of the legislation and we’ve come this far. Let us reach the end.

Blade: What about after that time? When “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is off the books, what advice would you have for them?

Wilson: Feel confident in yourself, believe in yourself that you can be whoever you want to be. This is the statement that you are a whole person, that your sexual orientation is a part of who you are and it is not a limiting factor to who you can be. Take pride in that.

The military cliche, slogan is “be all that you can be.” Never has this been so true as it’ll be on Sept. 20 for thousands of people.

Blade: Now that recruiters are soon going to be able to take on openly gay people, do you foresee some kind of special outreach or advertising to the LGBT community to search for talent in the armed forces?

Wilson: Here’s what’s very interesting right now about the recruiting process, and that is, for a variety of reasons, all of the services are more than meeting their goals. It’s harder, rather than easier, to get into the services because of that. So, I guess I would say it’s important to make clear that everybody’s welcome, and it’s important to make clear to everybody that their talents are needed. It’s also important to understand that the openings are going to be limited, so you want the best, and the best include both gay and straight individuals.

Blade: But could you see, for example, an ad in the Washington Blade asking for people to enlist?

Wilson: Sure. Let’s put it this way. When the circumstances warrant that we need more people, then I can see an ad in the Washington Post, in the Washington Blade, in the Washington Times, and in the Washington Examiner.

Blade: Pentagon officials have said the issue of benefits for gay service members is going to be examined in the 60-day period before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is off the books. Which benefits do you think we’ll most likely see?

Wilson: I don’t know the answer to that. And I wouldn’t want to speculate because I think all of these are on the table and I think there is a true determination here to do the right thing and to follow the law.

The Pentagon has been put in a very interesting position by the courts over the past six months, and each step along the way, they have followed the law whatever the law is at that time. With regard to benefits, I think they want to look at each and every issue, they want to be able to determine it based on the law, whatever the law is now, whatever the law will be in 2012 or 2013 or 2014 — that will apply as well. So, I guess I would just say that nothing is off the table, but I wouldn’t want to advance guess the process.

Blade: Just to clarify … some of the major spousal benefits — housing and health insurance — those are prohibited from going to gay service members because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Do you see any possible workaround to offering those benefits to gay service members even with DOMA in place?

Wilson: I have to be honest with you, Chris. This is an area where I couldn’t give you the best answer because I’m not the specialist on benefits; I’m just not. All I would say is there is certainly a recognition here by the Repeal Implementation Team — both military and civilian — of the benefits that are extended to those in uniform, of the ones that for the moment, are not or cannot be because of the law, and people are looking at all of those.

Blade: One issue affecting gay service members has led to an ACLU lawsuit — the half separation pay that many service members face if they’ve been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It’s my understanding this could be changed administratively. Will the Pentagon make this change after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is off the books?

Wilson: Again, I don’t know the answer. I’m being very honest with you. I don’t know the answer to the question; I wouldn’t speculate about the answer to the question. The only thing I would say is I’m well aware that that is an issue that is going to be raised.

Blade: I think I’m going to get the same answer here, but I’ll ask anyway. Another issue that is facing discharged service members is recoupment costs. Some who have been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are required to pay back bonuses they’ve received or grants they received for ROTC tuition —

Wilson: You would get the same answer. … None of these issues or concerns are secrets or surprises to people. The people here are aware of all of them. The one thing — you asked me about my impressions of this team — one of the things that has most impressed me about this repeal implementation team is the degree to which the people who are leading it, particularly the people like [Marine Corps Maj.] Gen. Steve Hummer and [Virginia] “Vee” Penrod. … These are truly outstanding humans. These are people who want to do the right thing. I do not sense a prejudiced bone in their body.

Blade: The issue of non-discrimination is still a concern. There have been some calls for the president to issue an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. There’s been some talk in the briefings that we don’t need to have this executive order. Why is that?

Wilson: The position that has been articulated is because there are channels. There are channels for raising these complaints, and the approach has been — on as any many issues as you possibly can do — to not have to change the policy if the policy already is sexual orientation neutral. And that’s the view here that this policy is sexual orientation neutral. People here are aware that are different views on this issue. I expect that discussion on this issue on this issue is going to continue but that is the rationale.

Blade: There’s also been concern that openly transgender people are still unable to serve in the U.S. military. Do you think that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal will open the door to open trans service?

Wilson: I don’t know the answer to that. I honestly don’t know the answer to that. I guess my own personal opinion is I think the issue of benefits is going to be the first issue after the 60 days, the most immediate issue of the set of the issues that are going to be addressed. The continuing issue of benefits, I think those are going to be addressed in the 60-day period and beyond. So, I think if I had to guess what are going to be the most near-term topics of discussion, it’ll be some of the benefits issues that you raised.

Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness Clifford Stanley (Blade photo by Michael Key)

A top Pentagon official issued a moratorium on discharges under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Friday in the wake of a federal appellate court decision barring enforcement of the anti-gay law.

In a letter dated July 8, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness Clifford Stanley writes that the military service secretaries must comply with an injunction against enforcing military’s gay ban that was reinstated Wednesday by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The institution of this moratorium was first reported by the Army Times.

“The reinstatement of that injunction … is effective immediately,” Stanley writes. “The secretaries of the military departments shall ensure immediate compliance with the injunction and this memorandum.”

An injunction on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” had already been put in place last year by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips after she determined the law was unconstitutional in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. However, the moratorium against enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” lasted only eight days. The Ninth Circuit placed a stay on the injunction in November upon request from the U.S. government.

The decision of the Ninth Circuit panel on Wednesday reverses that decision and allows gay service members to serve in the U.S. military without fear of dismissal. Additionally, openly gay people will be allowed to enlist in the armed forces.

“It remains the policy of the Department of Defense not to ask service members or applicants about their sexual orientation, to treat all members with dignity and respect, and to ensure maintenance of good order and discipline,” Stanley writes. “Further, because the injunction is once again in effect, the department will process applications for enlistment or appointment without regard to sexual orientation.”

The Obama administration can appeal the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision to either the full Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. In response via email to a Washington Blade question on whether a decision has been made on whether or not to appeal, Pentagon spokesperson Cynthia Smith replied, “We are studying the ruling with the Department of Justice.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization welcomes the temporary suspension of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges, but wants further action from the Pentagon.

“We urge the Pentagon to go further by suspending all investigations of service members that are currently ongoing, and confirm that the Department of Defense and Department of Justice are not preparing to appeal the court’s ruling,” Sarvis said. “It’s imperative for service members, gay and straight, who have been living with ambiguity for far too long as this process has languished unnecessarily. The time for clarity and finality is long overdue.”

Expulsions under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have been few in number since the Pentagon instituted new guidance in October raising the discharge authority to the military service secretaries “in coordination” with the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness and the Pentagon general counsel. Four discharges have reportedly taken place since the October guidance was put in place.

The injunction comes after legislation was signed in December allowing for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Under the repeal law, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be off the books after 60 days pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Pentagon has instituted training for troops on handling open service, but certification hasn’t yet happened.

Smith said the Pentagon still plans certification for ending for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and said implementation “is proceeding smoothly, is well underway, and certification is just weeks away.”

Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness Clifford Stanley (Blade photo by Michael Key)

A Republican-controlled House Armed Services subcommittee on Friday is set to hold a hearing to oversee the implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

The witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing — slated to begin at 9:30 am at Room 2212 of the Rayburn House Office Building — are top Pentagon officials. Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness Clifford Stanley, who’s charged with overseeing repeal of the military’s gay ban at the Pentagon, and Vice Adm. William Gortney, director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to testify.

According to the committee website, the title of the hearing is “Review of the Implementation Plans for the Repeal of Law and Policies Governing Service by Openly Gay and Lesbian Service Members.”

The House Armed Services personnel subcommittee, which will hold the hearing, is chaired by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who’s renowned for shouting “You Lie!” to President Obama during the 2010 State of the Union address. Wilson was a vocal opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal last year and cast a “no” against ending the military’s gay ban.

The House Armed Services Committee didn’t immediately respond to the Washington Blade’s request to provide details about the hearing or explain its purpose.

Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokesperson, said during the hearing Stanley will “provide an update on the progress of training efforts and policy revisions supporting ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] repeal implementation.”

The hearing apparently has the endorsement of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). Asked via e-mail whether the speaker supports the hearing to oversee “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal implementation, Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesperson, replied, “That seems to be appropriate.”

Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), chided Republicans for scheduling this hearing after Congress completed action to repeal the anti-gay law last year.

“This issue has been resolved in the Congress and in the minds of the American people,” Hammill said. “The American people want action on jobs not more ideologically driven social policy from right wing Republicans.”

But R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, said he backs congressional oversight to monitor the process of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“As a current Army Reserve officer, I strongly support the congressional oversight on the measured progress of the Pentagon’s [repeal implementation team],” Cooper said. “In my capacity as an officer, I have already provided input to the [repeal implementation team] as well as several Republican members of the [House Armed Services Committee] and [Senate Armed Services Committee].”

According to Cooper, a full House Armed Services Committee hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is scheduled for April 7. The Washington Blade couldn’t immediately confirm with the committee that an additional hearing has been set for that day.

“Both [House Armed Services Committee] hearings provide the necessary transparency and accountability for Department of Defense leadership, training and implementation of open service and open recruitment,” Cooper said.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said his organization supports the routine practice of congressional oversight, but added the purpose of the House hearing is “rather transparent.”

“Some House Republicans, including and especially the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, would like nothing more than to derail the Defense Department’s thus-far successful planning for repeal implementation, or at least slow it down considerably,” Nicholson said. “This cadre of reactionaries needs to understand once and for all that this issue is settled and no more time or taxpayer money should be wasted trying to take us backwards on this.”

President Obama in December signed legislation that would allow for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but the gay ban will remain in effect until 60 days pass after the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the military is ready for open service. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he won’t issue certification until the training for open service is implemented throughout for the military.

The Pentagon on Friday officially unveiled an implementation plan for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that focuses on policy, education and training and communication as the way forward in lifting the military’s gay ban.

In a redacted memorandum dated Feb. 10, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness Clifford Stanley provides the military service secretaries with the repeal plan and pledges to work with them to “solidify the format of progress updates as well as the frequency of leadership meets.”

The four-page memo states that the secretaries have until March 1 to provide their first progress update to Stanley.

Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates tasked Stanley with devising a plan by Feb. 4 to “facilitate the timely and orderly realization” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

The plan breaks down the path for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal into four stages: pre-repeal, certification, implementation and sustainment.

In the pre-repeal phase, activities include Tier 1 and Tier 2 level training of military leadership and reporting to Obama administration officials on the progress of implementation. For example, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness must have a monthly meeting and report to the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the status of repeal.

To reach the certification phase, the Repeal Implementation Team must provide appropriate documentation to the defense secretary and chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and provide their recommendation to the president.

President Obama signed legislation allowing for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal on Dec. 22, but the new law won’t take effect until the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the military is ready. Additionally, after certification takes place, a 60-day waiting period must pass before the ban is formally lifted.

Notably, the plan states the previously mentioned idea that Tier 3 training, education of the total force, can be completed after the certification for repeal is issued.

For the implementation phase, Tier 3 training will be completed and the Repeal Implementation Team will provide progress reports every two months to Pentagon leaders.

The sustainment phase involves making policy changes as needed and refining the education and training process.

Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokesperson, said the Defense Department intends to issue commanders in the field with the education and training tools on the post-repeal environment.

“The training materials were developed based upon the [Pentagon working group's] Support Plan for Implementation (SIP), and packaged in such a way to facilitate low bandwidth and non-traditional training settings and include power point slides with narration, scripts, FAQs, vignettes, policy documents, etc.,” she said.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the repeal implementation plan “lays out a comprehensive and deliberate path forward for implementing this policy change throughout the force.”

“In typical military fashion, the plan is quite thorough and some steps may seem unnecessary or redundant, but overall we believe this plan continues to show a good faith effort on the part of the Department of Defense to swiftly move forward with training, certification, and repeal,” Nicholson said.

Download a copy of the Pentagon plan here.

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness Clifford Stanley and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright (Blade photo by Michael Key).

Top Pentagon officials on Friday gave assurances that the U.S. armed forces would implement “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal swiftly and that training need not be instituted throughout the entirety of the military before an end to the gay ban is certified. 

During a news conference, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness Clifford Stanley and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright briefed reporters on Pentagon plans for moving ahead with open service. 

Cartwright noted that ending the gay ban doesn’t require “100 percent of the people to be trained” and said troops in the Reserves and National Guard may not receive the new education before going forward. 

“We’re going to try to get as a high percentage of the units as quickly as we can — and that will be our focus initially — because that’s the way we manage deployments,” Cartwright said. “But it doesn’t require 100 percent of the people, and we’re going to have some challenges with Guard and Reserve that are not on active duty right now, finding them, getting to them, etc.” 

In a statement, Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he concurs with Cartwright’s assessment that training need not be instituted throughout the entire military before going ahead. 

“I agree with General Cartwright that all of the troops, from top to bottom, do not need to undergo a comprehensive training and educational program before there is certification,” Sarvis said. “The training and education plan need only be in place. The fact is education and training around open service can be accomplished in the first and second quarter of this year.” 

During the news conference Stanley echoed comments made earlier this month by Gates and said he envisions the implementation of repeal being a three-step process. The first step would be changing policies and regulations; the second, issuing new training; and the third, educating the actual force. 

“As we do that, and we’re doing it expeditiously,” Stanley said. ”We’re doing it quickly in terms of the first parts of that.” 

Stanley said the military services will start the training in February, but noted each service is going to approach training differently. 

Cartwright similarly said the military service chiefs feel the best way to move forward with repeal is move as quickly as possible — even as he acknowledged that process of educating 2.2 million in the U.S. military means “we’re probably going to have some discovery as we go.” 

“The service chiefs — the one key activity that has probably common to all of the meetings has been feeling that moving along expeditiously is better than dragging it out,” Cartwright said. “We’ve learned that from other services, other nations that have moved down this path.” 

Cartwright said the Pentagon has instituted a “feedback mechanism” in which the service chiefs would meet every two weeks to discuss changes and concerns as the implementation process moves forward. 

In a statement, Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the speed with which the Pentagon is moving with implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is “promising.” 

“We will continue to monitor this process and communicate any concerns that arise to the military leadership as the process unfolds, but overall we are pleased with the Pentagon’s good faith effort to move with deliberate speed to end this chapter in our history,” Nicholson said. 

In a memo issued Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates tasked Stanley with producing for implementing repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal no later than Feb. 4. Also on Friday, Stanley issued policy guidance to the military services directing them to identify regulations that would be affected by repeal of ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and to draft changes to conform to an end to the law. 

“We expect to see essentially not a lot of changes in the policy, but there definitely needs to be policy clarification,” Stanley said. 

President Obama signed legislation allowing for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal on Dec. 22, but the gay ban won’t be off the books until he, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the military is prepared. After certification takes place, an additional 60-day waiting period must pass before gays can serve openly. 

In his State of the Union address, Obama committed to implementing open service in the military this year. Gates has said he wants to implement new training before moving forward. 

Asked whether there’s a target date for when certification will take place, Stanley declined offer a specific time and said the conditions on the ground will “dictate how fast we go.” 

“To even imply that we have a target to do it by this date would be a misnomer,” Stanley said. “In essence, we’re going to move responsibly, quickly, but deliberately as we go through the process.” 

Despite Obama’s commitment to make repeal happen by the year’s end, Cartwright said the military reserves the right to withhold certification for longer if a service chief hasan objection or if an unforeseen issue arises. 

“If there’s an outstanding issue that we just didn’t anticipate, we certainly would reserve the right for that service chief, one, to have a voice in it, and two, to potentially … delaying activity,” Cartwright said. 

Until certification takes place, Stanley said gay service members could still be discharged under current law. He added he’s heard “nothing about” a moratorium from within the Pentagon that would prevent discharges until that time, despite calls from lawmakers and activists to issue such an order. 

In October, the Pentagon issued new regulations raising the discharge authority under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which seem to have brought expulsions to a halt. 

One lingering concern is whether the benefits that gay service members will receive will be on par with the benefits afforded to their straight counterparts. 

Stanley’s guidance states that the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the U.S. military from affording many benefits to same-sex partners of service members, but other benefits, such as death benefits, would still be available. 

During the news conference, Stanley said the Pentagon plans no policy changes for benefits, but added leadership still may look at “emerging things” that may come forward as open service is implemented. 

“There could be some things we aren’t anticipating,” Stanley said. “That’s why this is not so locked in and concrete. We’re saying, ‘Right now, no policy changes dealing with benefits.” But there could be something we don’t know about and that’s what aperture kind of remains slightly open.” 

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Stanley’s memo was too limited in proposing new benefits and protections for gay troops. 

“While this implementation plan is a step in the right direction, it is critical that the Department address benefits issues and non-discrimination protections so that all service members are treated equally,” Solmonese said. 

The HRC statement says that greater parity in benefits could be accomplished by revising regulations to add same-sex partners to the definitions of “dependent,” “family member,” or other similar terms in military regulations. 

Further, HRC asserts that the Military Equal Opportunity program could be amended so gay servicemembers have a way to address discrimination complaints. 

“Equalizing benefits and non-discrimination programs will ensure that gay, lesbian and bisexual service not be seen as different from their colleagues but rather on an level playing field,” Solmonese said. 

Richard Socarides, president of the watchdog group Equality Matters, said he was disappointed non-discrimination protections by way of executive order or regulatory change weren’t mentioned during the news conference as a way to move forward. 

“For implementation to succeed, the President must set a clear non-discrimination rule as President Truman did in 1948 when he desegregated the armed forces,” Socarides said. “That is the kind of leadership we need today. 

Asked during the news conference what legal recourse gay service members would have if they faced discrimination, Stanley said the military code or principles already troops from being treated unfairly. 

“The remedies you have are the remedies that already exist,” Stanley said. “There’s no need to create new remedies for that.” 

Cartwright added service members have the right to speak to a superior officer if they feel they are being treated unfairly. 

“We make sure that an individual has a way to remedy, even if they’re not sure that this was a law or a policy that was broken,” Cartwright said. 

Pressed on whether a service members could assert discrimination based on sexual orientation to a superior officer, Cartwright said he would defer comment to a lawyer on the “exact right language” in addressing the issue. 

Download Stanley’s guidance here.