National
Lieberman says ‘Don’t Ask’ to return after election
Conn. senator says he received assurances from leadership about future repeal effort


U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman said 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will come back if it's unsuccessful today. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he’s received assurances from Democratic leadership that major defense legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal would come again after Election Day if cloture isn’t invoked Tuesday.
“If for some reason, we don’t get the 60 votes to proceed, this ain’t over,” Lieberman said. “We’re going to come back into session in November or December. I spoke to Sen. Reid today. He’s very clear and strong that he’s going to bring this bill to the floor in November or December.”
Lieberman said he’s “not optimistic” about the upcoming cloture vote. Still, he urged other senators to come on board today and said the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill is a “critical piece of legislation.”
“The fact that our colleagues would be having on the Senate floor this debate about to vote to proceed to take up the National Defense Authorization Act, to me, is unbelievable,” Lieberman said.
Lieberman said moving forward with the defense legislation should be a “no-brainer” because of the funding provided in the bill for U.S. service members.
He also defended the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language in the bill and said he doesn’t think opponents of repeal have the votes to strip it out if the legislation comes to the floor.
“I don’t believe that the opponents of the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ have enough votes to take that repeal out of this legislation,” he said. “Maybe that’s why they’re fighting so hard to stop this legislation from coming up.”
Provided all 59 Democrats vote in favor of moving forward with the defense legislation, at least one Republican vote is necessary to reach the 60-vote threshold to end the filibuster on the legislation.
However, GOP leaders are reportedly telling its caucus to vote against cloture because of limitations on amendments that Democratic leadership will allow on the floor.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said three amendments would be allowed on the defense authorization bill: a measure stripping the legislation of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language; a measure attaching the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill, to the legislation; and a measure addressing the “secret holds” senators can place on presidential nominees.
During a news conference, Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) also said the Republicans would be at fault if cloture isn’t invoked on the defense authorization bill on Tuesday.
“What would be unprecedented is if Republicans block the Senate from passing the defense authorization bill for the first time since 1952,” Durbin said.
Asked by the Blade about what Democratic leadership is doing to negotiate with Republicans over the cloture vote, Durbin replied, “We’re trying.”
Durbin said the initial three amendments would come up on the defense authorization bill first, which would be followed by a “discussion as to what further amendments would be considered.”
“I don’t think Sen. Reid has ruled that out,” Durbin said. “What he has said is that the first three amendments are the first amendments. … Beyond that, Sen. Reid would be open for negotiation for a unanimous consent request.”
Pressed on whether he thinks any GOP senators would vote for cloture on Tuesday as a result of negotiations with Republicans, Durbin replied, “I don’t know at this point.”
Lieberman expressed confidence in Reid’s negotiations on the legislation. Asked by the Blade whether he thinks Reid is doing everything he can to bring Republicans on board for the cloture vote, the senator replied, “I do.”
The Connecticut senator said finishing work on the defense authorization bill would require another cloture vote and Republicans would have the opportunity to offer amendments before that motion to proceed.
“If, for some reason, Sen. Reid decides to bring the defense bill to a final vote before any other amendments are put in, our Republican colleagues — and I would guess, some Democrats — would not vote for cloture at that point,” Lieberman said. “So, they have the final say.”
During a news conference, Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign president, praised Reid for leading the way on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“I can think of no elected official who has the tenacity, and, quite frankly, the quiet determination of Sen. Reid,” Solmonese said. “His tremendous leadership is the reason that we are here today going to this historic vote. And it is his resolve and his persistence that will be the reason that I am confident that we ultimately succeed in repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.'”
Chances for a successful vote for cloture seemed to fade when Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) issued a statement that he was reluctant to support a vote for cloture on the defense authorization bill.
“If the Democrats are serious about getting this bill passed, Leader Reid should sit down with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and work out the amendment process,” Voinovich said. “Unless that is done, I will not support cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill.”
Regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, Voinovich said it would be “logical” to wait for the Pentagon working group to complete its study on implementing repeal, which is due Dec. 1.
“At this point there is no reason to rush to judgment for political expediency until we hear from our military leaders as to whether they think it is a good idea to change this policy,” he said. “I will carefully study this determination when it is completed.”
Also present at the news conference to promote “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal was Eric Alva, who’s gay and the first U.S. service member wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Mike Almy, a gay former Air Force communications officer discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was also at the conference and said he was representing the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
In a related development, the White House today issued a Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate version of the bill approving of provisions in the legislation and calling for its passage.
The statements are intended to provide guidance to members of Congress on how to vote and how to handle major pieces of legislation.
According to a copy of the statement obtained in advance by the Blade, the Obama administration “supports Senate passage of S. 3454, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.”
“The Administration appreciates the Senate Armed Services Committee’s continued support of our national defense, including, among other things, its support for the Department’s topline budget requests for both the base budget requests for both the base budget and for overseas contingency operations,” the statement reads.
The statement makes special note of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language in the legislation under the heading, “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces.”
“The Administration supports section 591 as it would allow for completion of the Comprehensive Review, enable the Department of Defense to assess the results of the review, and ensure that the implementation of the repeal is consistent with the standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention,” the statements reads.
The White House adds the repeal provision “recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions.”
The statement also makes note that the Senate version of the defense authorization doesn’t have funding for the alternative engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a next-generation military aircraft.
The House version of the defense authorization bill provides for $485 million in funds for the second engine for the aircraft. The White House has issued a veto threat over the defense authorization bill as a result of this provision.
U.S. Federal Courts
Judge temporarily blocks executive orders targeting LGBTQ, HIV groups
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in federal court

A federal judge on Monday blocked the enforcement of three of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that would have threatened to defund nonprofit organizations providing health care and services for LGBTQ people and those living with HIV.
The preliminary injunction was awarded by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a case, San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal and eight other organizations.
Implementation of the executive orders — two aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion along with one targeting the transgender community — will be halted pending the outcome of the litigation challenging them.
“This is a critical win — not only for the nine organizations we represent, but for LGBTQ communities and people living with HIV across the country,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project director and senior counsel on the case.
“The court blocked anti-equity and anti-LGBTQ executive orders that seek to erase transgender people from public life, dismantle DEI efforts, and silence nonprofits delivering life-saving services,” Abrigo said. “Today’s ruling acknowledges the immense harm these policies inflict on these organizations and the people they serve and stops Trump’s orders in their tracks.”
Tigar wrote, in his 52-page decision, “While the Executive requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the constitution.”
“And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous,” he said.
Without the preliminary injunction, the judge wrote, “Plaintiffs face the imminent loss of federal funding critical to their ability to provide lifesaving healthcare and support services to marginalized LGBTQ populations,” a loss that “not only threatens the survival of critical programs but also forces plaintiffs to choose between their constitutional rights and their continued existence.”
The organizations in the lawsuit are located in California (San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Los Angeles LGBT Center, GLBT Historical Society, and San Francisco Community Health Center), Arizona (Prisma Community Care), New York (The NYC LGBT Community Center), Pennsylvania (Bradbury-Sullivan Community Center), Maryland (Baltimore Safe Haven), and Wisconsin (FORGE).
U.S. Supreme Court
Activists rally for Andry Hernández Romero in front of Supreme Court
Gay asylum seeker ‘forcibly deported’ to El Salvador, described as political prisoner

More than 200 people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday and demanded the Trump-Vance administration return to the U.S. a gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who it “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador.
Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based organization that represents Andry Hernández Romero, is among those who spoke alongside U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Human Rights Campaign Campaigns and Communications Vice President Jonathan Lovitz. Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark, Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, and Tim Miller are among those who also participated in the rally.
“Andry is a son, a brother. He’s an actor, a makeup artist,” said Toczylowski. “He is a gay man who fled Venezuela because it was not safe for him to live there as his authentic self.”
(Video by Michael K. Lavers)
The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The Trump-Vance administration subsequently “forcibly removed” Hernández and hundreds of other Venezuelans to El Salvador.
Toczylowski said she believes Hernández remains at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT. Toczylowski also disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.
“Andry fled persecution in Venezuela and came to the U.S. to seek protection. He has no criminal history. He is not a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. Yet because of his crown tattoos, we believe at this moment that he sits in a torture prison, a gulag, in El Salvador,” said Toczylowski. “I say we believe because we have not had any proof of life for him since the day he was put on a U.S. government-funded plane and forcibly disappeared to El Salvador.”
“Andry is not alone,” she added.
Takano noted the federal government sent his parents, grandparents, and other Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II under the Alien Enemies Act. The gay California Democrat also described Hernández as “a political prisoner, denied basic rights under a law that should have stayed in the past.”
“He is not a case number,” said Takano. “He is a person.”
Hernández had been pursuing his asylum case while at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.
A hearing had been scheduled to take place on May 30, but an immigration judge the day before dismissed his case. Immigrant Defenders Law Center has said it will appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the Justice Department oversees.
“We will not stop fighting for Andry, and I know neither will you,” said Toczylowski.
Friday’s rally took place hours after Attorney General Pam Bondi said Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump-Vance administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador, had returned to the U.S. Abrego will face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee.
National
A husband’s story: Michael Carroll reflects on life with Edmund White
Iconic author died this week; ‘no sunnier human in the world’

Unlike most gay men of my generation, I’ve only been to Fire Island twice. Even so, the memory of my first visit has never left me. The scenery was lovely, and the boys were sublime — but what stood out wasn’t the beach or the parties. It was a quiet afternoon spent sipping gin and tonics in a mid-century modern cottage tucked away from the sand and sun.
Despite Fire Island’s reputation for hedonism, our meeting was more accident than escapade. Michael Carroll — a Facebook friend I’d chatted with but never met — mentioned that he and his husband, Ed, would be there that weekend, too. We agreed to meet for a drink. On a whim, I checked his profile and froze. Ed was author Edmund White.
I packed a signed copy of Carroll’s “Little Reef” and a dog-eared hardback of “A Boy’s Own Story,” its spine nearly broken from rereads. I was excited to meet both men and talk about writing, even briefly.
Yesterday, I woke to the news that Ed had passed away. Ironically, my first thought was of Michael.
This week, tributes to Edmund White are everywhere — rightly celebrating his towering legacy as a novelist, essayist, and cultural icon. I’ve read all of his books, and I could never do justice to the scope of a career that defined and chronicled queer life for more than half a century. I’ll leave that to better-prepared journalists.
But in those many memorials, I’ve noticed something missing. When Michael Carroll is mentioned, it’s usually just a passing reference: “White’s partner of thirty years, twenty-five years his junior.” And yet, in the brief time I spent with this couple on Fire Island, it was clear to me that Michael was more than a footnote — he was Ed’s anchor, editor, companion, and champion. He was the one who knew his husband best.
They met in 1995 after Michael wrote Ed a fan letter to tell him he was coming to Paris. “He’d lost the great love of his life a year before,” Michael told me. “In one way, I filled a space. Understand, I worshiped this man and still do.”
When I asked whether there was a version of Ed only he knew, Michael answered without hesitation: “No sunnier human in the world, obvious to us and to people who’ve only just or never met him. No dark side. Psychology had helped erase that, I think, or buffed it smooth.”
Despite the age difference and divergent career arcs, their relationship was intellectually and emotionally symbiotic. “He made me want to be elegant and brainy; I didn’t quite reach that, so it led me to a slightly pastel minimalism,” Michael said. “He made me question my received ideas. He set me free to have sex with whoever I wanted. He vouchsafed my moods when they didn’t wobble off axis. Ultimately, I encouraged him to write more minimalistically, keep up the emotional complexity, and sleep with anyone he wanted to — partly because I wanted to do that too.”
Fully open, it was a committed relationship that defied conventional categories. Ed once described it as “probably like an 18th-century marriage in France.” Michael elaborated: “It means marriage with strong emotion — or at least a tolerance for one another — but no sex; sex with others. I think.”
That freedom, though, was always anchored in deep devotion and care — and a mutual understanding that went far beyond art, philosophy, or sex. “He believed in freedom and desire,” Michael said, “and the two’s relationship.”
When I asked what all the essays and articles hadn’t yet captured, Michael paused. “Maybe that his writing was tightly knotted, but that his true personality was vulnerable, and that he had the defense mechanisms of cheer and optimism to conceal that vulnerability. But it was in his eyes.”
The moment that captured who Ed was to him came at the end. “When he was dying, his second-to-last sentence (garbled then repeated) was, ‘Don’t forget to pay Merci,’ the cleaning lady coming the next day. We had had a rough day, and I was popping off like a coach or dad about getting angry at his weakness and pushing through it. He took it almost like a pack mule.”
Edmund White’s work shaped generations — it gave us language for desire, shame, wit, and liberation. But what lingers just as powerfully is the extraordinary life Ed lived with a man who saw him not only as a literary giant but as a real person: sunny, complex, vulnerable, generous.
In the end, Ed’s final words to his husband weren’t about his books or his legacy. They were about care, decency, and love. “You’re good,” he told Michael—a benediction, a farewell, maybe even a thank-you.
And now, as the world celebrates the prolific writer and cultural icon Edmund White, it feels just as important to remember the man and the person who knew him best. Not just the story but the characters who stayed to see it through to the end.
-
Photos4 days ago
PHOTOS: WorldPride Boat Parade
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days ago
Activists rally for Andry Hernández Romero in front of Supreme Court
-
Real Estate3 days ago
The best U.S. cities for LGBTQ homebuyers in 2025
-
World Pride 20253 days ago
LGBTQ voices echo from the Lincoln Memorial at International Rally for Freedom