Connect with us

Politics

Marine Corps leader responds to ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal questions

Published

on

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway (photo courtesy marines.mil)

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway responded on Tuesday to media questions repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and offered mixed responses.

On one hand, Conway said the Marine Corps will “lead” in implementing repeal should the law change, but also said an “overwhelming number” of Marines wouldn’t want to room with someone who’s openly gay.

Conway’s remarks are notable because he’s reportedly the service chief who had most strongly come out against repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in private discussions.

In a statement, Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, praised Conway for saying the Marine Corps would lead in the implementation of repeal.

“Commandant Conway’s words are powerful,” Belkin said. “He has not been supportive of this change but he has now made clear that once the law is changed, the Marine Corps will set the pace for implementation of open service without delay.”

The transcript of his remarks on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is below:

Q: The Marine Corps in the next few years is going to be facing some big changes on two fronts.  One would be the discussion about the role that the Marines play in future warfare, and then also the changes to personnel policy under — if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is lifted.  So what advice would you like to leave your successors, considering that these changes will probably take place long after you’re gone?  What would you like to say on those two fronts?

A: In terms of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” you know, we will obey the law.  We’re anxious to see that the survey indicates when it’s made public towards the end of the year. But I caution our Marines and our Marine leadership:  If the law changes we pride our Corps in leading the services in many, many things, and we’re going to have to lead in this too.  There will be a hundred issues out there that we have to solve, if the law changes, in terms of how we do business, and we cannot be seen as dragging our feet or some way delaying implementation.  We’ve got a war to fight. We need to, if the law changes, implement and get on with it.

Q: General, I wanted to pick up on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” As you know, the Senate’s going to pick it up next month as part of the authorization bill.  And you’ve told the Hill that you think the current policy works and that you would never ask Marines to room with a homosexual if we can avoid it.  You’ve been followed by other Marine generals — Jack Sheehan, Peter Pace, Carl Mundy — in opposing a change in the policy.

And also, if you look at the polls done by Military Times, the Marines seem to oppose any change in policy by a fairly significant margin.

And I want you to focus on:  What is it about the Marines that they — they oppose this change in policy, repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell?” You’ve been in the Corps for over forty years.  You get out there and talk to Marines.  What is it that the Marines oppose about this — more so than the other services?

A: Well, that’s a tough question to answer, Tom, because I’m not as familiar with the other services as I am my own Corps.  So any comparison or contrast is difficult.

But we recruit a certain type of young American, pretty macho guy or gal, that is willing to go fight and perhaps die for their country. That’s about the only difference that I see between the other services.  I mean, they recruit from a great strain of young Americans as well.  They all come from the same areas and that type of thing.

So I can only think that, as we look at our mission, how we are forced to live in close proximity aboard ship, in the field for long periods of time and that type of thing, that the average Marine out there, and by the way, my own surveys indicate that it’s not age dependent, it’s not rank dependent, it’s not where you’re from; it’s, as you highlight, pretty uniformly not endorsed as the ideal way ahead.  But I just think all those things have impact on the Marines. And we’d just assume not see it change.  But again, we will follow the law, whatever the law prescribes.

Q: As far as living in tight quarters, is that the issue you hear mostly when you talk to Marines out in the field?

A: Well, see, we, unlike the other services, we have consciously, for decades now, billeted by twos.  So if the law changes, we start out with a problem in terms of how to address that. And I’ve spoken publicly some about that in the past.

You know, we’ll deal with it.  I do not believe there’s money out there to build another requirement for BEQs, to allow every Marine to have a room by his or herself.  So how we deal with the billeting problem is going to one of that myriad of issues that we’ll have to face.

Q: How would you deal with it?

A: I don’t know. I don’t know.

We sometimes ask Marines, you know, what is — what is their preference.  And I can tell you that an overwhelming majority would like not to be roomed with a person who is openly homosexual.

Some do not object and perhaps — you know, perhaps a voluntary basis might be the best way to start, without violating anybody’s sense of moral concern or perception on the part of their mates.

I don’t know. We’re not there yet. And it’s one of those hypotheticals at this point that we have to consider but we won’t have to deal with until the law changes, if it does.

Q: I want to take you back to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  You said something that I’d like to ask you what you meant, with precision.  You talked about — when you said that, you know, some Marines are skeptical of all this, you talked about the — and your words were ‘the moral perception that Marines have of people serving in the Marine Corps who are openly gay.’  What do you mean by moral perception?

A:  Barbara, we have some people that are very religious.  And I think in some instances — I couldn’t begin to give you a percentage, but I think in some instances we will have people that say that homosexuality is wrong, and they simply do not want to room with a person of that persuasion because it would go against their religious beliefs.  So that’s my belief about some percentage of Marines in our Corps.

Q: And what do you — if that is the case, and the law changes, as a senior commander, then — it’s a volunteer force. Should those people leave?

Should accommodations be made?  What do you — what do you do about that?

A:  Yeah.  Well, I think, as a commander, you try to satisfy the requirements of all your Marines.  And if the law changes and we have homosexual Marines, we’ll be as concerned about their rights, their privileges, their morale as we will Marines who feel differently about that whole paradigm.

So commanders — local commanders will be required to assist us in making sure that every Marine is provided for and is focused on the fight at hand.

[h/t] advocate.com

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

House passes reconciliation with gender-affirming care funding ban

‘Big Beautiful Bill’ now heads to the Senate

Published

on

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael. Key)

The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday voted 215-214 for passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” reconciliation package, which includes provisions that would prohibit the use of federal funds to support gender-affirming care.

But for an 11th hour revision of the bill late Wednesday night by conservative lawmakers, Medicaid and CHIP would have been restricted only from covering treatments and interventions administered to patients younger than 18.

The legislation would also drop requirements that some health insurers must cover gender-affirming care as an “essential health benefit” and force states that currently mandate such coverage to find it independently. Plans could still offer coverage for transgender care but without the EHB classification patients will likely pay higher out of pocket costs.

To offset the cost of extending tax cuts from 2017 that disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans, the reconciliation bill contains significant cuts to spending for federal programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The Human Rights Campaign criticized House Republicans in a press release and statement by the group’s president, Kelley Robinson:

“People in this country want policies and solutions that make life better and expand access to the American Dream. Instead, anti-equality lawmakers voted to give  handouts to billionaires built on the backs of hardworking people — with devastating consequences for the LGBTQ+ community.

“If the cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP or resources like Planned Parenthood clinics weren’t devastating enough, House Republicans added a last minute provision that expands its attacks on access to best practice health care to transgender adults.

“This cruel addition shows their priorities have never been about lowering costs or expanding health care access–but in targeting people simply for who they are. These lawmakers have abandoned their constituents, and as they head back to their districts, know this: they will hear from us.”

Senate Republicans are expected to pass the bill with the budget reconciliation process, which would allow them to bypass the filibuster and clear the spending package with a simple majority vote.

Changes are expected as the bill will be reviewed and amended by committees, particularly the Finance Committee, and then brought to the floor for debate — though modifications are expected to focus on Medicaid reductions and debate over state and local tax deductions.

Continue Reading

Congress

Gerry Connolly dies at 75 after battle with esophageal cancer

Va. congressman fought for LGBTQ rights

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) speaks at a Barack Obama rally on Oct. 19, 2012. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democratic U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia died on Wednesday, according to a statement from his family.

The 75-year-old lawmaker, who served in Congress since 2009, announced last month that he will not seek reelection and would step down from his role as the top Democrat on the powerful U.S. House Oversight Committee because his esophageal cancer had returned.

“We were fortunate to share Gerry with Northern Virginia for nearly 40 years because that was his joy, his purpose, and his passion,” his family said in their statement. “His absence will leave a hole in our hearts, but we are proud that his life’s work will endure for future generations.”

“He looked out for the disadvantaged and voiceless. He always stood up for what is right and just,” they said.

Connolly was memorialized in statements from colleagues and friends including House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), former President Joe Biden, and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).

Several highlighted Connolly’s fierce advocacy on behalf of federal workers, who are well represented in his northern Virginia congressional district.

The congressman also supported LGBTQ rights throughout his life and career.

When running for the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in 1994, he fought the removal of Washington Blade newspapers from libraries. When running in 2008 for the U.S. house seat vacated by Tom Davis, a Republican, Connolly campaigned against the amendment to Virginia’s constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state.

In Congress, he supported the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality, the Biden-Harris administration’s rescission of the anti-trans military ban, and the designation within the State Department of a special LGBTQ rights envoy. The congressman also was an original cosponsor of the Equality Act and co-sponsored legislation to repeal parts of the Defense of Marriage Act.


 

Continue Reading

Congress

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances

Judiciary Committee markup slated for Wednesday morning

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)’s “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which would criminalize guideline-directed gender affirming health care for minors, will advance to markup in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning.

Doctors and providers who administer medical treatments for gender dysphoria to patients younger than 18, including hormones and puberty blockers, would be subject to Class 3 felony charges punishable by up to 10 years in prison if the legislation is enacted.

LGBTQ advocates warn conservative lawmakers want to go after families who travel out of state to obtain medical care for their transgender kids that is banned or restricted in the places where they reside, using legislation like Greene’s to expand federal jurisdiction over these decisions. They also point to the medically inaccurate way in which the bill characterizes evidence-based interventions delineated in standards of care for trans and gender diverse youth as “mutilation” or “chemical castration.”

Days into his second term, President Donald Trump signed “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” an executive order declaring that the U.S. would not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit” medical treatments and interventions intended for this purpose.

Greene, who has introduced the bill in years past, noted the president’s endorsement of her bill during his address to the joint session of Congress in March when he said “I want Congress to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body.”

Continue Reading

Popular