Connect with us

National

Lawsuit challenges ‘Don’t Ask’ separation pay

ACLU files class-action litigation

Published

on

Mike Almy, a former Air Force officer, is among those who received half separation pay as a result of his discharge under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." (Blade photo by Michael Key)

A new lawsuit filed over the halved separation pay given to some U.S. service members discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is raising questions about why the Defense Department hasn’t taken action to resolve the issue.

Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of New Mexico filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims over administration policy cutting in half the severance pay that discharged troops who serve for at least six years in the armed forces would normally receive if they were separated for a reason other than homosexual conduct.

The policy was implemented in 1991, two years before Congress enacted the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute, and could be changed by implementing new regulations without action from lawmakers or the courts.

Joshua Block, staff attorney for the ACLU’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender project, said his organization filed the class action lawsuit, known as Collins v. United States, as a result of this severance pay inequity.

“Basically, if you’re discharged under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ [and serve for at least six years], under the policy there’s virtually no way you can qualify for full separation pay,” Block said.

The issue only affects service members separated under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” who received honorable discharges and who have served for at least six years because only under those conditions do troops qualify for severance pay.

Further, because of the statute of limitations, the lawsuit would only affect service members who’ve been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” within the last six years.

Block said the litigation was brought on behalf of all service members involuntarily discharged in the past six years and estimated that at least 100 discharged service members will qualify as part of the class of plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The lead plaintiff in the litigation is Richard Collins, a former staff sergeant who was in the Air Force for nine years before he was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“After nine years of honorable service, it’s not fair that I should be deprived of the same benefits given to other dedicated service members who are adjusting to civilian life,” Collins said in a statement.

Another discharged service member who was affected by the pay inequity is Mike Almy, a gay former Air Force communications officer who testified earlier this year before the Senate about being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2006.

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous,” Almy said. “It’s pouring salt on the wound. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is horrendous enough as it is already. And then, when gays are thrown out the door, they’re even discriminated against once again in the severance pay that they receive.”

Almy said he received separation pay of $40,000 upon his discharge from the Air Force when he would otherwise have been entitled to $80,000.

The lawsuit was filed after the ACLU engaged with the Defense Department in November 2009 to change the policy in efforts that were ultimately unsuccessful. Correspondence had continued until as recently as August, when the ACLU threatened to sue the Pentagon over the lack of action.

Block said he’s hopeful the Pentagon would drop the policy as a result of the lawsuit and pay discharged troops they compensation they would normally receive.

“From our perspective, the litigation shouldn’t have been necessary in the first place, so we obviously hope that the government will do the right thing and pay these people the separation pay that they earned,” he said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said SLDN and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force identified the issue more than a year ago as something that the administration could resolve with a policy change.

“In this case, [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates has the authority to stop this practice, and he should,” Sarvis said. “Not only should they stop it, we’ll also be seeking — as we have in the past — restitution on their back pay.”

Although the lawsuit has been filed, Sarvis noted “litigation is always protracted” and said the lawsuit could take years to resolve. Consequently, Sarvis said SLDN plans to continue pressing Gates to change the policy administratively and was set this week to meet with Pentagon officials to discuss the matter.

But why does the adminstration continue the policy when President Obama has said he wants to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the issue could be resolved with a stroke of a pen?

Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement that department policy authorizes half separation payments to members who are “not fully qualified to continue to serve” and who are being involuntarily separated under honorable conditions.

“Currently, members being discharged for [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] … receive half separation pay, because the law says they are not qualified to continue in service,” she added.

Almy said he has “no idea” why the Pentagon continues this policy and said the rationale for upholding the policy is similarly unknown to others.

“From the personnel people that I’ve been able to talk to at the Pentagon, no one really knows what the reason for that was,” Almy said.

Block also said he’s unsure why the adminstration hasn’t changed this policy as he noted the administration has a stated goal of wanting to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” through legislative action.

“They have to get that through Congress, and we understand they’re working on that, but this was a regulation that was passed before ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ even came into existence,” Block said. “The administration can get rid of it anytime it wants without needing congressional approval to do so.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

LGBTQ Catholic groups slam Trump over pope criticism

‘Moral truth and compassion always overcome ignorant hate’

Published

on

Pope Leo XIV (Photo via Vatican News/X)

LGBTQ Catholic groups have sharply criticized President Donald Trump over his criticisms of Pope Leo XIV.

Leo on April 13 told reporters while traveling to Algeria that he had “no fear of the Trump administration” after the president described him as “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy” in response to his opposition to the Iran war. (Trump on the same day posted to Truth Social an image that appeared to show him as Jesus Christ. He removed it on April 13 amid backlash from religious leaders.)

Vice President JD Vance, who is Catholic, during a Fox News Channel interview on the same day said “in some cases, it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of what’s going on with the Catholic church, and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy.” Vance on April 14 once again discussed Leo during an appearance at a Turning Point USA event in Athens, Ga., saying he should “be careful when he talks about matters of theology.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni; former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Miguel Díaz; and Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are among those who have criticized Trump over his comments. The president, for his part, has said he will not apologize to Leo.

“The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants,” said Leo on Thursday at a cathedral in Bamenda, Cameroon.

Francis DeBernardo is the executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based LGBTQ Catholic organization. He told the Washington Blade on Thursday that Trump’s comments about Leo “are one more example of the ridiculous hubris of this leader (Trump) whose entire record shows that he is nothing more than a middle-school bully.”

“LGBTQ+ adults were often bullied as children, and they have learned the lesson that bullies act when they feel frightened or threatened,” said DeBernardo. “But secular power does not threaten the Vicar of Christ, and Pope Leo’s response illustrates this truth perfectly.”

DeBernardo added Trump “is obviously frightened that Pope Leo, an American, has more power and influence than the president on the world stage.” 

“Like most Trumpian bullying, this strategy will backfire,” DeBernardo told the Blade. “Moral truth and compassion always overcome ignorant hate. Trump’s actions are not an example of his power, but of his impotence.”

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, an LGBTQ Catholic organization, echoed DeBernardo.

“He [Trump] has demonstrated throughout both presidencies that he doesn’t understand the basic concepts of any faith system that is founded on the dignity of human beings, the importance of common good,” Duddy-Burke told the Blade on Thursday during a telephone interview. “It’s just appalling.”

Duddy-Burke praised Leo and the American cardinals who have publicly criticized Trump.

“The pope’s popularity — given how much more respect Pope Leo has than the man sitting in the White House — is a blow to his ego,” Duddy-Burke told the Blade. “That seems to be a sore sport for him.”

“It’s such an imperialistic world view,” she added.

Leo ‘is the real peacemaker’

The College of Cardinals last May elected Leo to succeed Pope Francis after his death.

Leo, who was born in Chicago, is the first American pope. He was the bishop of the Diocese of Chiclayo in Peru from 2015-2023.

Francis made him a cardinal in 2023.

Juan Carlos Cruz — a gay Chilean man and clergy sex abuse survivor who Francis appointed to the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors — has traveled to Ukraine several times with Dominican Sister Lucía Caram since Russia launched its war against the country in 2022. Cruz on Thursday responded to Trump’s criticism of Leo in a text message he sent to the Blade from Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital.

“I am in Ukraine under many attacks,” said Cruz. “Trump is an asshole and has zero right to criticize the Pope who is the real peacemaker.”

Continue Reading

Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Act advances in Tenn.

Bill would limit protests, protects speakers opposing ‘transgender’ identities

Published

on

Charlie Kirk photographed at the 2024 Republican National Convention. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Tennessee legislature has passed Senate Bill 1741 / House Bill 1476, dubbed the “Charlie Kirk Act,” which, if signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, would reshape how public colleges and universities regulate speech on campus.

The measure targets all public higher education institutions and requires them to adopt a “free expression” policy modeled on the University of Chicago’s framework. That framework emphasizes that universities should not shield students from controversial or offensive ideas and requires state schools to formally embrace institutional neutrality — meaning they do not publicly take a stance on political or social issues.

Under the legislation, publicly funded schools cannot disinvite or cancel invited speakers based on their viewpoints or in response to protests from students or faculty. Student organizations, however — like Turning Point USA, an American nonprofit that advocates for conservative politics on high school, college, and university campuses, founded by Charlie Kirk, and often lack widely represented liberal counterparts — would retain broad authority to bring speakers to campus regardless of controversy.

The law includes broad protections for individuals and organizations expressing religious or ideological beliefs, including opposition to abortion, homosexuality, or transgender identity, regardless of whether those views are rooted in religious or secular beliefs. It further prohibits public institutions from retaliating against faculty for protected speech or scholarly work.

The bill, which has been hailed by supporters as an effort to “preserve campus free speech,” ironically also limits protest activity. Shouting down speakers, blocking sightlines, staging disruptive walkouts, or physically preventing entry to events are now considered “substantial interference” under the legislation, making those who engage in such actions subject to discipline.

Some of those disciplinary consequences include probation, suspension, and even expulsion for students, while faculty who protest in ways deemed to violate the policy could face unpaid suspensions and termination after repeated violations.

Supporters of the bill argue it strengthens free expression on campus. State Rep. Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood), the bill’s sponsor, said it reinforces a commitment to “civil and robust” debate at public universities.

“The Charlie Kirk Act creates critical safeguards for students and faculty and renews the idea that our higher education institutions should be centers of intellectual debate,” Bulso told Fox 17. “This legislation honors the legacy of Charlie Kirk by promoting thoughtful engagement and defending religious freedom.”

Critics, including Democratic lawmakers, have raised concerns that the legislation effectively elevates certain ideological viewpoints — particularly those tied to religious objections to LGBTQ identities — while exposing students and faculty to punishment for protest or dissent.

“It’s ironic that this body is talking about free speech when we had professors in Tennessee schools expelled and suspended when they did not mourn the death of Charlie Kirk — when they said that his statements were problematic and that the way he died did not redeem the way he lived,” state Rep. Justin Jones (D-Nashville) told WKRN.

Kirk, the right-wing activist and founder of Turning Point USA, for whom the bill is named, was assassinated in September 2025 at a public event at Utah Valley University. His legacy and rhetoric remain deeply polarizing, particularly among LGBTQ advocates, who have cited his history of anti-LGBTQ statements in opposing his campus appearances.

The bill now heads to Lee’s desk for his signature.

Continue Reading

National

Demonstrators disrupt OMB director hearing over PEPFAR

Capitol Police arrested five protesters

Published

on

Office of Management and Budget Directer Russell Vought, seated on right, attends a House Budget Committee hearing on April 15, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A group of protesters interrupted Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought during his testimony before Congress on Wednesday.

Vought was at the Cannon House Office Building to give testimony to the House Budget Committee.

Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) began the hearing by touting what he described as economic accomplishments of the Trump-Vance administration’s economic accomplishments. Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) disputed those claims in his opening statement.

Boyle went on to admonish Vought for not attending a committee hearing in the previous year.

Vought, the “Project 2025” architect, was invited to speak after Arrington and Boyle made their statements.

OMB Director Russell Vought testifies at the U.S. House Budget Committee on April 15, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Shortly after Vought began reading his statement, Housing Works CEO Charles King stood up in the gallery and began shouting, “PEPFAR saves lives: spend the money!”

The U.S. Capitol Police moved quickly to escort King from the room. Other activists began chanting with King as they unfolded signs bearing a picture of Vought’s face and statements such as, “Vought’s cuts kill people with AIDS,” and “Protect PEPFAR from Vought.”

The group of HIV/AIDS activists included independent activists, former U.S. Agency for International Development and PEPFAR staff, members of Health GAP, Housing Works, and the Treatment Action Group. Six activists were escorted from the hearing and the U.S. Capitol Police detained five of them.

Housing Works CEO Charles King is escorted from House Budget Committee budget hearing by the U.S. Capitol Police on April 15, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The HIV/AIDS treatment activists protested at the hearing in response to the dismantling of global health programs, including PEPFAR, a federally-funded program credited with saving millions of lives from HIV/AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

“Russell Vought is directly responsible for illegally withholding Congressionally appropriated funds for PEPFAR and related global health initiative,” King said in a statement provided to the Washington Blade. “These funding disruptions have already contributed to preventable deaths and threaten to reverse decades of progress in the fight against HIV worldwide. Enough is enough. Congress must ensure Vought stops this deadly sabotage.”

Continue Reading

Popular