National
Frank: ‘Zero chance’ for LGBT bills next year
Gay congressman hopeful on ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal in lame duck
Gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who won re-election last week in one of his toughest challenges, said LGBT legislation would have no chance of passing in Congress under the Republican-controlled House next year.
In an interview Tuesday with the Washington Blade, Frank also said he was confident that the Senate, of which Democrats retained control, would join President Obama in blocking any anti-gay bills that conservative Republicans might introduce over the next two years.
“Next year there’s no chance of anything happening,” he said of pro-LGBT legislation. “There’s zero chance.”
He added, “It will be a status quo. They don’t have the votes to hurt us but we don’t have the votes to advance anything in the cause.”
Frank also said he was certain that Republicans would fail in an attempt to overturn D.C.’s same-sex marriage law.
“Do you think Barack Obama is going to sign a bill to repeal the D.C. marriage law,” he asked. “It won’t go through the Senate. There is no chance that could happen. None—zero.”
Frank noted that only five out of 179 House Republicans voted earlier this year to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“The Republicans have become much more anti-gay in their voting patterns,” he said. “There is zero chance of anything good happening with Republicans in control of the House.”
Frank said he was hopeful that the Senate would vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the congressional lame duck session over the next two weeks. The House passed a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal measure earlier this year as part of a defense authorization bill.
The Senate killed a similar defense authorization bill containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language in a filibuster organized by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Every Senate Republican voted against a cloture motion to break the filibuster.
Frank noted that a number of GOP senators cited the Senate bill’s inclusion of a controversial immigration provision known as the DREAM Act as their reason for voting against the bill, saying they otherwise would have supported repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
He said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told him he won’t insert the DREAM Act immigration language in the defense authorization bill when he brings it to the Senate floor in the lame duck session.
With the immigration language removed as an “excuse,” Frank said he’s hopeful that Republican senators who support repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will now join Democrats in supporting the overall defense bill to which repeal language will be attached. Among the GOP senators that repeal advocates hope will back the bill this time are Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snow, both from Maine.
In one of his first comments on a campaign ad by the conservative gay Republican group GOProud opposing him in his re-election race, Frank said the ad had little or no impact on the election.
He noted that his GOP opponent, Sean Bielat, opposes repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and is against “every other gay issue.”
“So I have no idea who these people are,” he said of the GOProud group. “And they have no influence whatsoever. The LGBT community in my district continues to be virtually unanimously supportive.”
The following is a transcript of the Blade’s interview with Rep. Frank, conducted on Nov. 8.
Rep. Barney Frank: I’ve been working today on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In fact, I think it’s time for people to hold the Republicans’ feet to the fire because we didn’t get any votes from them. Last time around, they had the excuse – some of them – that they didn’t want to vote because [Senate Majority Leader] Harry [Reid] was going to put the DREAM Act in there on immigration. He now says he’s not going to put the DREAM Act in there. He’s going to put that in some other place. So now the question is why do Republicans — Sen. Snow, Sen. Collins and Sen. Brown — what reason would they have for voting against the whole bill?
And I spoke today to Pete Rouse [the acting White House Chief of Staff] and to Sen. Reid and Sen. [Richard] Durbin [D-Ill.] and Sen. [Carl] Levin [D-Mich.], and they all agree. They want to pass the defense bill with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in it. They have two weeks. The question is whether Republicans filibuster it to death. But the Democrats are going to try very hard to do it. I think by the way, that’s why [Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates spoke out. I am sure, nobody’s told me this, but I’m sure the president said to Harry Reid, look, we’ve got to get this done. And Reid said fine, would it be helpful if I got some military support? And eventually Gates spoke out as he did.
Washington Blade: Your press person sent us a copy of your statement on that today.
Frank: I’ve spent — I made a lot of phone calls today. Plus, one fear was I saw, oh well, they’ll take ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ back out of the defense bill. It won’t pass in the House if they do that. I believe the speaker wouldn’t allow it to come up.
Blade: Do you mean next year?
Frank: No, [Rep. John] Boehner [R-Ohio, who will become Speaker of the House in January] is not who I was talking about. The thought was that the Republicans would say if they took ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ out of the [defense] bill this year in the lame duck session they would get it passed. And my answer is that’s not going to get them anywhere because we wouldn’t pass it in the House. We will not accept — there’s been some speculation about that — and the answer is no, the House—we’re going to tell the Senate that’s not going to work. And I don’t think the Senate is planning to do that. Harry is not planning to do that.
… ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal is in the defense authorization bill. What I just said was there was some suggestion that [Sen. John] McCain [R-Ariz.] would say strip that out and I’ll let you pass the defense bill. And the answer is that won’t work because the House won’t pass it. In other words, the Democratic leadership is thoroughly committed to getting ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repealed. The only question is — you know, Log Cabin says, oh, the Democrats couldn’t do it. Well they got us five Republican votes in the House … And no Republican votes in the Senate. The Democrats can’t do that all by ourselves without a single Republican supporter.
Blade: Did Harry Reid give an indication of when he might bring it up?
Frank: Right away — they only have two weeks. He’s committed to getting it done. He and I talked to the three — the Democratic leader, the Democratic whip, the Democratic committee chairman … They all agree they want to get it done. Unfortunately, if we have no Republican votes it can’t be done. So the question is will any Republicans and their supporters get us anything?
Blade: What’s the prospect of advancing LGBT-related bills next year, when the Republicans take charge of the House?
Frank: Next year there’s no chance of anything happening. There’s zero chance. We got five Republican votes out of 179 to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ The Republicans have become much more anti-gay in their voting patterns. There is zero chance of anything good happening with Republicans in control of the House.
Blade: Have you heard of anything about a Log Cabin supported gay-related tax reform bill? They won’t give us any details but the head of Log Cabin says that’s the first thing they’re going to work on next year and he thinks they might get Republican support.
Frank: If they’re suggesting that there will be Republican support for recognition of same-sex marriage that’s a lie and they know it. There’s no chance of that.
Blade: I asked them about that and he wouldn’t give me details but —
Frank: Yes, the Log Cabin club would like to make it easier for taxing – they would like to reduce taxes for rich people. I understand that. But there will be no help for gay people. Now for some of them, I think their income is skewed pretty high anyway. So they’ll feel good about it. But, no, there is zero chance that the Republicans will do anything that would recognize same-sex couples.
Blade: What about ENDA? He did say they would try to move ENDA.
Frank: There is zero chance of them doing anything on ENDA — zero.
Blade: Then the next step is whether the Republican majority or some Republicans will try to harm gay people such as attempting to repeal D.C.’s same-sex marriage law.
Frank: They can’t. That would take the president and the Senate … Do you think Barack Obama is going to sign a bill to repeal the D.C. marriage law? It won’t go through the Senate. There is no chance that could happen. None, zero.
Blade: So essentially it’s going to be a standstill?
Frank: It will be a status quo. The one thing we have a chance for is ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal in this lame duck session. And we can get that if we get any Republican cooperation. … On the other hand, they don’t have the votes to hurt us but we don’t have the votes to advance anything in the cause.
Blade: What’s your prediction on Nancy Pelosi’s decision to run for the Democratic leadership post as House Minority Leader?
Frank: Oh, she’ll win.
Blade: Your press spokesperson said you are supporting her.
Frank: I’m supporting her. I think she’ll win. … And from the LGBT standpoint, nobody’s going to get elected to any Democratic [leadership] office who isn’t 100 percent supportive.
Blade: In terms of your re-election campaign, did the ad attacking you from the conservative gay Republican group GOProud have any impact?
Frank: I don’t think anybody knew about it. Can you answer a question?
Blade: Yes.
Frank: What is it they are proud of? Does anybody know?
Blade: I guess they say they’re proud of being Republicans.
Frank: You guess? My [opponent, Republican Sean Bielat] was against repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ He did not take a single pro-gay position.
Blade: Their ad said they supported him because you were ‘catty.’
Frank: It means that these are people who have no interest in advancing gay causes, and I have no idea what it means. He’s a guy who’s against ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal, against every other gay issue and ran an ad in the YouTube, which I never saw, which two newspaper editorials condemned as anti-gay — two separate newspapers have condemned it as anti-gay. So I have no idea who these people are. And they have no influence whatsoever. The LGBT community in my district continues to be virtually unanimously supportive.
Blade: How do you feel about your role on the House Financial Services Committee under Republican leadership? [Frank will lose his position as chair of the highly influential committee in the GOP-controlled House in January.]
Frank: I believe we will be able to defend the financial regulation reform. Of all the issues, that was the one where we are on the most popular side. If they try to undo the consumer protection or other stuff, we’ll be able to block them.
Blade: And are you going to serve as the ranking minority member on the committee?
Frank: Yes.
Blade: Will the Democrats be reshuffling committee chairs in the new Congress?
Frank: Well everybody that’s returning will stay. Obviously there are some vacancies.
Blade: Concerning the health care reform law, do you think that will stay intact?
Frank: They can’t change it legislatively. They may try to un-fund it. That will be what they will try to do. Thank you.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Minimal version of ‘Streetcar Named Desire’ heading to Dupont Underground
Comings & Goings
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Police mental health struggles gain growing attention
Cuba under pressure and without answers
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
Vance speaks at Orbán rally in Hungary
