Connect with us

National

Lieberman confident about 60 votes for ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal

Conn. senator says he’s received assurances from Collins, Lugar

Published

on

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) is optimistic about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal in lame duck. (Blade photo by Michael Key).

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) on Thursday expressed confidence about having the necessary 60 votes to move forward with legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal — provided certain conditions are met with the amendment process on the Senate floor.

“I am confident that we have more than 60 votes prepared to take up the defense authorization bill with the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ if only there will be a guarantee of a fair and open amendment process,” Lieberman said during a news conference. “In other words, whether we’ll take enough time to do it.”

Lieberman makes the remarks after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Wednesday he’s committed to bringing to the floor in the lame duck session the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill, which contains language that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The legislation would likely come up after Dec. 1, when a Pentagon working group is due to deliver a report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on implementing repeal.

Lieberman said he’s received assurances from GOP senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) as well as “others privately” that they would be open to moving forward with defense legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal provided there’s an “open amendment process” in bringing the bill to the floor.

A previous attempt in September at bringing the defense authorization bill to the floor failed when a united GOP caucus — led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — successfully filibustered the motion to proceed.

Many senators, including Collins and Lugar, who supported a repeal amendment in committee, said they were voting “no” because of limited amendments that senators would be allowed to submit for the legislation.

In September, Reid said he was permitting three amendments to the defense authorization bill: one to strip the bill of its repeal provision, one to address the “secret holds” that senators can place on presidential nominations and another to amend the defense legislation with the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill.

Asked during the conference what he perceived as more open amendment process the next time around, Lieberman the exact terms are up for negotiation.

“It’s hard to put a number on it now,” Lieberman said. “That’s what I hope is going to be negotiated. Of course, we’ll do our best to encourage Sen. Reid to reach out to allow and somewhat larger number.”

Lieberman said the two items that are up for negotiation are the number of amendments to be allowed and the time for debate on those amendments.

Reid has since said the DREAM Act would come to the Senate floor during lame duck as a standalone piece of legislation.

Following the news conference, Lieberman said the removal of the DREAM Act as an amendment to the defense authorization bill would “practically speaking” help with building support for moving forward with the military budget legislation.

But Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who present at the conference, said opposition to the defense authorization bill and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is actually for reasons other than “how many amendments are we going to do, or long we’re going to debate.”

“This is about those who oppose this policy wanting to kill it and taking every opportunity they can and using the Senate rules to try and do that,” Shaheen said. “That’s exactly what’s going on here.”

Lieberman also maintained the Senate would have enough time to tackle “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as it addresses other priorities, such as a nuclear arms reduction treaty and the extension of tax cuts.

“We’re just before Thanksgiving,” Lieberman said. “We’ve been told early on that we’d be here at least three weeks. That’s a lot of time into December, so we’ll be here at least until the week before Christmas. It’s just a question of how hard we’re prepared to work to get these things done. They’re all important.”

Lieberman said President Obama “has been active” on this issue and has been in communication with Reid as well as Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on moving forward with the defense authorization bill with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“I think he’ll, in my opinion, do everything he can to see that we get this done by the end of this year,” Lieberman said.

The news conference on Thursday was a hot spot for senators who advocate for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Among the 13 lawmakers who made an appearance were Sens. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) who recently took his seat after winning election in November.

Udall said Congress needs to take action to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year because further delay could it “could be years” for repeal to happen.

“We’ve reached an unprecedented level of gridlock here in the Senate when legislation that funds our troops provides for our national security and makes sure that we lead the world in the 21st century is blocked from even coming to the floor for debate,” Udall said. “We ought to welcome the debate — we have an idea of how that debate will turn out — but we’re going to have that opportunity to have this vote on the floor if we have courage and are steadfast.”

The senators joked among themselves that they would work through Christmas Eve — or for Lieberman, who’s Jewish, the eighth day of Hanukkah — to finish the effort in repealing”Don’t Ask, Don’t  Tell.”

Sen. Roland Burris, known as a strong voice for repeal during his tenure in the Senate, said he thinks ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be an important victory, but noted the vote in the Senate “may come too late” for show his support.

Because he was appointed to his position in the Senate in 2009, Burris is required by Illinois state law to give up his seat to Republican Senator-elect Mark Kirk during the lame duck session of Congress and may even leave the U.S. Senate this week.

“As a black American, I know what it means to go through discrimination and unfairness, and there’s no way in the world we can have a strong military and deny those persons who are gay and lesbian … an opportunity to serve their country,” Burris said. “I support that wholeheartedly and am just sorry that I may not be here to cast the vote.”

It remains to be seen how Kirk would vote on the legislation in Burris’ stead. As a U.S. House member, Kirk voted against a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal amendment in May that came to the House floor.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went a step further than other senators at the news conference when she said she believes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional. Some repeal advocates have been asking for President Obama to declare the law unconstitutional so he could discontinue enforcement of the law.

“I’m not a lawyer, but I believe in my heart of hearts that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is unconstitutional,” Feinstein said. “As a matter of fact, a federal district court has found that that, in fact, is the case, and it’s simple because it treats the same case of people differently.”

Still, not every member of the U.S. Senate is on board with repeal. Asked during the news conference whether he had spoken to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about getting him to support an end to the law, Lieberman said he has had such conversations, but he has had “no success” in converting the Arizona senator.

Among those present at the news conference were advocates working for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” including Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs for the Center for American Progress, and Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a gay Air Force pilot who’s served in the military for 19 years, was also present at the conference and told his story about how he’s now facing potential discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“Right now, my ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is somewhere in the Pentagon, and I am fighting back in federal court with SLDN and my legal team to stay in the Air Force,” he said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

Lambda Legal praises Biden-Harris administration’s finalized Title IX regulations

New rules to take effect Aug. 1

Published

on

U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona (Screen capture: AP/YouTube)

The Biden-Harris administration’s revised Title IX policy “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” Lambda Legal said in a statement praising the U.S. Department of Education’s issuance of the final rule on Friday.

Slated to take effect on Aug. 1, the new regulations constitute an expansion of the 1972 Title IX civil rights law, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding.

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County case, the department’s revised policy clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination as defined under the law.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said during a call with reporters on Thursday.

While the new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, the question is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.

The administration’s new policy also reverses some Trump-era Title IX rules governing how schools must respond to reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely seen as imbalanced in favor of the accused.

Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said during Thursday’s call that the department sought to strike a balance with respect to these issues, “reaffirming our longstanding commitment to fundamental fairness.”

“We applaud the Biden administration’s action to rescind the legally unsound, cruel, and dangerous sexual harassment and assault rule of the previous administration,” Lambda Legal Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project Director Sasha Buchert said in the group’s statement on Friday.

“Today’s rule instead appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity,” she said. “Schools must be places where students can learn and thrive free of harassment, discrimination, and other abuse.”

Continue Reading

Michigan

Mich. Democrats spar over LGBTQ-inclusive hate crimes law

Lawmakers disagree on just what kind of statute to pass

Published

on

Members of the Michigan House Democrats gather to celebrate Pride month in 2023 in the Capitol building. (Photo courtesy of Michigan House Democrats)

Michigan could soon become the latest state to pass an LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime law, but the state’s Democratic lawmakers disagree on just what kind of law they should pass.

Currently, Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation Act only offers limited protections to victims of crime motivated by their “race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.” Bills proposed by Democratic lawmakers expand the list to include “actual or perceived race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, physical or mental disability, age, national origin, or association or affiliation with any such individuals.” 

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have both advocated for a hate crime law, but house and senate Democrats have each passed different hate crimes packages, and Nessel has blasted both as being too weak.

Under the house proposal that passed last year (House Bill 4474), a first offense would be punishable with a $2,000 fine, up to two years in prison, or both. Penalties double for a second offense, and if a gun or other dangerous weapons is involved, the maximum penalty is six years in prison and a fine of $7,500. 

But that proposal stalled when it reached the senate, after far-right news outlets and Fox News reported misinformation that the bill only protected LGBTQ people and would make misgendering a trans person a crime. State Rep. Noah Arbit, the bill’s sponsor, was also made the subject of a recall effort, which ultimately failed.

Arbit submitted a new version of the bill (House Bill 5288) that added sections clarifying that misgendering a person, “intentionally or unintentionally” is not a hate crime, although the latest version (House Bill 5400) of the bill omits this language.

That bill has since stalled in a house committee, in part because the Democrats lost their house majority last November, when two Democratic representatives resigned after being elected mayors. The Democrats regained their house majority last night by winning two special elections.

Meanwhile, the senate passed a different package of hate crime bills sponsored by state Sen. Sylvia Santana (Senate Bill 600) in March that includes much lighter sentences, as well as a clause ensuring that misgendering a person is not a hate crime. 

Under the senate bill, if the first offense is only a threat, it would be a misdemeanor punishable by one year in prison and up to $1,000 fine. A subsequent offense or first violent hate crime, including stalking, would be a felony that attracts double the punishment.

Multiple calls and emails from the Washington Blade to both Arbit and Santana requesting comment on the bills for this story went unanswered.

The attorney general’s office sent a statement to the Blade supporting stronger hate crime legislation.

“As a career prosecutor, [Nessel] has seen firsthand how the state’s weak Ethnic Intimidation Act (not updated since the late 1980’s) does not allow for meaningful law enforcement and court intervention before threats become violent and deadly, nor does it consider significant bases for bias.  It is our hope that the legislature will pass robust, much-needed updates to this statute,” the statement says.

But Nessel, who has herself been the victim of racially motivated threats, has also blasted all of the bills presented by Democrats as not going far enough.

“Two years is nothing … Why not just give them a parking ticket?” Nessel told Bridge Michigan.

Nessel blames a bizarre alliance far-right and far-left forces that have doomed tougher laws.

“You have this confluence of forces on the far right … this insistence that the First Amendment protects this language, or that the Second Amendment protects the ability to possess firearms under almost any and all circumstances,” Nessel said. “But then you also have the far left that argues basically no one should go to jail or prison for any offense ever.”

The legislature did manage to pass an “institutional desecration” law last year that penalizes hate-motivated vandalism to churches, schools, museums, and community centers, and is LGBTQ-inclusive.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Justice, reported hate crime incidents have been skyrocketing, with attacks motivated by sexual orientation surging by 70 percent from 2020 to 2022, the last year for which data is available. 

Twenty-two states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime laws. Another 11 states have hate crime laws that include protections for “sexual orientation” but not “gender identity.”

Michigan Democrats have advanced several key LGBTQ rights priorities since they took unified control of the legislature in 2023. A long-stalled comprehensive anti-discrimination law was passed last year, as did a conversion therapy ban. Last month the legislature updated family law to make surrogacy easier for all couples, including same-sex couples. 

A bill to ban the “gay panic” defense has passed the state house and was due for a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday.

Continue Reading

Indiana

Drag queen announces run for mayor of Ind. city

Branden Blaettne seeking Fort Wayne’s top office

Published

on

Branden Blaettner being interviewed by a local television station during last year’s Pride month. (WANE screenshot)

In a Facebook post Tuesday, a local drag personality announced he was running for the office of mayor once held by the late Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry, who died last month just a few months into his fifth term.

Henry was recently diagnosed with late-stage stomach cancer and experienced an emergency that landed him in hospice care. He died shortly after.

WPTA, a local television station, reported that Fort Wayne resident Branden Blaettne, whose drag name is Della Licious, confirmed he filed paperwork to be one of the candidates seeking to finish out the fifth term of the late mayor.

Blaettner, who is a community organizer, told WPTA he doesn’t want to “get Fort Wayne back on track,” but rather keep the momentum started by Henry going while giving a platform to the disenfranchised groups in the community. Blaettner said he doesn’t think his local fame as a drag queen will hold him back.

“It’s easy to have a platform when you wear platform heels,” Blaettner told WPTA. “The status quo has left a lot of people out in the cold — both figuratively and literally,” Blaettner added.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported that state Rep. Phil GiaQuinta, who has led the Indiana House Democratic caucus since 2018, has added his name to a growing list of Fort Wayne politicos who want to be the city’s next mayor. A caucus of precinct committee persons will choose the new mayor.

According to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, the deadline for residents to file candidacy was 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday. A town hall with the candidates is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday at Franklin School Park. The caucus is set for 10:30 a.m. on April 20 at the Lincoln Financial Event Center at Parkview Field.

At least six candidates so far have announced they will run in the caucus. They include Branden Blaettne, GiaQuinta, City Councilwoman Michelle Chambers, City Councilwoman Sharon Tucker, former city- and county-council candidate Palermo Galindo, and 2023 Democratic primary mayoral candidate Jorge Fernandez.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular