National
House votes again to repeal ‘Don’t Ask’
Will the Senate follow suit before time is up?
The U.S. House today approved by a 75-vote margin a measure that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as eyes shift once again to the Senate to see if the chamber will act to lift the military’s gay ban.
The measure to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” passed by a vote of 250-175 after more than an hour of floor debate in which lawmakers engaged in often passionate discourse both in favor and in opposition to the 1993 law.
After lawmakers cast their votes, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the longest-serving openly gay lawmaker, banged the gavel at the podium and declared the final vote tally for the legislation.
During debate, those who spoke in favor of the repeal said lifting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would end a discriminatory policy, while opponents of repeal said open service would jeopardize military effectiveness.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” represented an opportunity to “close the door on a fundamental unfairness in our nation.”
“Repealing the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy will honor the service and sacrifice of all who dedicated their lives to protecting the American people,” she said.
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), the sponsor of repeal legislation in the House, said the vote for repeal was necessary to protect U.S. service members in the battlefield.
“Our troops are the best of the best, and they deserve a Congress that puts their safety — and our collective national security — over rigid partisan interests and a close-minded ideology,” Murphy said.
The Pennsylvania lawmaker noted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen has said open service should be implemented to protect the integrity of the U.S. military.
“Well, this is also about the integrity of this institution — of this Congress,” Murphy said. “This vote is about whether we’re going to continue telling people willing to die for our freedoms that they need to lie in order to do so.”
The vote marks the second time this year that the House has approved a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal bill. In May, the chamber passed a repeal measure on the floor as an amendment to the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill by a vote of 234-194. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”-inclusive defense legislation failed to pass in the Senate.
Opposition this time around came from many Republicans, including Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), who said the vote on repeal represented an attempt fto impose a “social agenda” on the U.S. military during wartime as operations continue in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Akin blamed House leadership for failing to pass a defense authorization bill — which he called an “eclipse of reason” because it has consistently passed in Congress for the past 48 years — and said Congress should pass funds for troops through the defense legislation before moving to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, was also critical of Pelosi for bringing the repeal measure to the floor at this time and said the timing wasn’t right Congress to act on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“The speaker has decided once more to subvert regular order … and bring to the floor [a measure] to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” McKeon said.
Among other things, McKeon was critical of how the House was holding a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before House committees had heard testimony on the Pentagon report on lifting the gay ban. Two days of hearings have already taken place earlier this month in the Senate on the report.
In response to Republicans’ assertions, Frank disputed that proper procedure hasn’t been followed on moving to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and noted that Republicans were responsible for filibustering the defense authorization bill in the Senate.
Frank noted the repeal measure had already passed in May by the full House and the Senate Armed Services Committee and said the notion that the committees of jurisdiction have been deprived on the issue was “delusional.”
“We’ve gone through triple regular order,” he said.
Among the 175 who voted against the repeal measure were 15 members of the Democratic caucus. They include House Armed Services Committee Chair Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), as well as Reps. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.).
Republicans who voted in favor of passing the legislation tallied out at 15 — which was 10 more Republicans than those who voted in May in favor of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” amendment.
Among the Republicans voting for repeal for the first time were Reps. Mary Bono Mack (D-Calif.), David Dreier (R-Calif.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.).
Passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the House first enables the chamber to send the legislation to the Senate as as “privileged” legislation.
The maneuver means the Senate won’t need 60 votes for the motion to proceed on the legislation, taking off the 30 hours of waiting time that would have been necessary were cloture filed on the measure. That’s significant as time is running out in the lame duck session.
Still, even though the first round 60 votes for the motion to proceed won’t be necessary, 60 votes would still be necessary in the Senate to move to final passage of the bill. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) this week pledged commitment to a stand-alone Senate repeal bill.
In a statement, President Obama praised the House for approving — with what he called “bipartisan support” —the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation.
“Moving forward with the repeal is not only the right thing to do, it will also give our military the clarity and certainty it deserves,” Obama said. “We must ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally by their country.”
Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokeperson, also said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is “pleased” the House has approved a standalone “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal measure.
“He encourages the Senate to pass the legislation this session, enabling the Department of Defense to carefully and responsibly manage a change in this policy instead of risking an abrupt change resulting from a decision in the courts,” Morrell said.
LGBT rights groups heralded the House passage of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and encouraged the Senate to follow suit to pass the legislation and send it to Obama’s desk.
Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, commended the House for approving the measure to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“Today the U.S. House of Representatives said, for the second time, what military leaders, the majority of our troops and 80 percent of the American public have been saying all along — the only thing that matters on the battlefield is the ability to do the job.” Solmonese said.
Solmonese was referring to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published Wednesday, which found that 77 percent of Americans support allowing openly gay people to serve in the armed forces.
The director of the OutServe, a group for gay active duty service members, also praised the House vote and called on the Senate to act.
“Our ability to live and work with integrity and honesty is on the line,” said the director, who goes by the acronym J.D Smith. “It now falls to the Senate to follow the House’s example and the Pentagon report’s recommendations, and right the wrong that is being done to thousands of us currently serving.”
Will the Senate act before year’s end?
Now that the House has passed the measure, eyes will turn again to the Senate to see if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will schedule a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and if 60 votes are present in the chamber for passage.
Anxiety over whether the Senate will address “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as the limited time remaining the legislative session dwindles continues to be a concern for those who are working to end the military’s gay ban.
In a statement to the Blade, Regan Lachapelle, a Reid spokesperson, said the majority leader intends to introduce the legislation sometime before the end of the year, but didn’t offer further details on when the Senate would take up the legislation.
Moving to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal seemed unlikely this week. After finishing work on extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, the Senate proceeded to debate on the START Treaty, a nuclear arms reduction agreement.
The Senate, for the remainder of the week, was expected to tag between debate on the treaty and a continuing resolution for funding for the U.S. government.
One LGBT rights advocate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said opposition to these measures from Republicans could sap away time that would be needed to address “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“Both bills have hit procedural/political/substantive snags with Republican senators threatening to have them read out loud,” the activist said. “Whether or not this is a ploy to run out the clock is not known.”
After the START Treaty and the continuing resolution, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal would remain on the legislative calendar as well as passage of the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill, and legislation to provide benefits to workers who helped at Ground Zero during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
“There is no word on when or in what order those bills would be considered,” the activist said. “There is no commitment from Senator Reid to bring [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] to the floor but the privileged message from the House creates momentum and pressure for its consideration prior to adjournment.”
In a news conference on Tuesday, Reid had threatened to keep the Senate in session until Jan. 4 to take up measures such as the DREAM Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“Christmas is a week from Saturday,” Reid said. “I understand that. But I hope the Republicans understand it also, because we are going to complete our work, no matter how long it takes, in this Congress. We have to do the work of the American people.”
But the advocate said this pledge from Reid “is largely useless” because senators whose votes would be needed for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would still leave before the session is over.
“He would likely lose senators like [Blanche] Lincoln and [Evan] Bayh who are not returning,” the advocate said. “If the Senate does not work this weekend, they will largely be done.”
Following the House vote, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD.) said during a news conference he doesn’t know when Reid will schedule the vote — even as he acknowledged that talks between House and Senate leadership have taken place.
“I have had conversations with Sen. Reid which indicated that we were going to take this action, and so he anticipated this action,” Hoyer said.
Despite these anxieties, other signs show that sufficient support exists to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if the legislation moves to the Senate floor.
Multiple sources have told the Blade that 60 votes are present in the Senate to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” now that other legislative items such tax cuts have cleared the table.
At the news conference, Hoyer said he’s spoken many senators about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which has led him to believe that sufficient support exists for passage repeal.
“I’ve also had conversations with a number of members of the United States Senate — Republican members,” Hoyer said. “My belief is that there are the requisite number of votes in the United States both to effect cloture and passage of the legislation.”
Several Republicans senators — such as Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Lisa Murkowki (R-Alaska) — have come out in favor of repeal following the release of the Pentagon report.
On Wednesday, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) added her name to the list of senators who have come out in favor of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“After careful analysis of the comprehensive report compiled by the Department of Defense and thorough consideration of the testimony provided by the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service chiefs, I support repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law,” Snowe said in a statement.
National
Madonna roundup: Reviews, sales, and love for ‘Danceteria’
Pop legend’s new album ‘Confessions II’ earning raves
Madonna isn’t just back, she’s ubiquitous.
From a Times Square takeover to Graham Norton’s couch, the pop legend is busy promoting her new album, “Confessions II,” a sequel to 2005’s “Confessions on a Dance Floor,” that is earning rave reviews.
“Madonna’s back in peak form with a fresh and honest dance record that’s not only her best in 20 years, but a genuinely vital addition to her canon,” says Pitchfork.
“Facing grief and loss has made Madonna’s music deeper than it’s been in 20 years, but also more alive,” the Guardian proclaims.
“If everyone in the club is a work of art, as ‘Danceteria’ says, then to live loudly is to make an indelible mark,” according to Vulture.
The album features upbeat dance productions along with some melancholic views on death and loss. On the song “Betrayal,” she reflects on the recent death of her stepmother Joan, singing, “You’ll never take my mother’s place … you betrayed me, you enslaved me.”
On “L.E.S. Girl,” she revisits her early days living on the Lower East Side and struggling to pay the rent. “Bizarre” seems to reference her failed 1980s marriage to actor Sean Penn. “Test” is a duet with daughter Lola Leon, in which she sings, “I wish I knew / The pain I’ve caused / My butterfly / Was always being watched.”
But the emotional high point of the album comes on “Fragile,” which she wrote about the death of her brother Christopher. The two were close early in Madonna’s career and he designed sets for early tours, including “Blonde Ambition.” But they had a falling out after her marriage to Guy Ritchie and he wrote a scathing tell-all book about his sister that led to years of estrangement. The two reconciled after Christopher’s cancer diagnosis and shortly before he died in 2024 at age 63. She sings, “Late last night I was fast asleep/You came to me in a dream/You said, ‘Don’t forget about me/Don’t forget to be happy.’”
Death emerges again but in a much more upbeat context in “Danceteria,” an ode to the iconic New York nightclub that has emerged as a gay favorite single and seems destined to be the song of the summer in queer nightlife. She recounts her pre-fame days trying to convince a DJ to play her first single “Everybody” at the club and name checks Jean-Michel Basquiat, Keith Haring, best friend Debi Mazar, and DJ Mark Kamins on the track.
Streaming numbers and sales are strong for the new album with projected first week sales of 100,000 ensuring a No.1 debut in the U.S.
U.S. Federal Courts
Three overlooked court rulings limited White House anti-trans policies
Supreme Court narrowed trans rights, advocates saw victories in other decisions
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. continues to dominate headlines about transgender rights, three recent federal court cases produced significant rulings that limited or temporarily blocked Trump-Vance administration policies attacking trans Americans.
Talbott v. USA
Trump issued Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, 2025, banning trans people from serving in the military. The following day, GLAD Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the ban on behalf of six active-duty service members and two individuals seeking to enlist. The organizations argue the policy violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
The plaintiffs sought a nationwide preliminary injunction — a temporary block on enforcement of the executive order while the litigation continued. The district court granted that injunction and later rejected the Trump-Vance administration’s request to dissolve it, temporarily protecting trans service members from being discharged solely because of their gender identity.
That protection, however, was short-lived. In Shilling v. Trump, the Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s injunction, allowing the military to begin enforcing the trans service ban while litigation continued. The U.S. Air Force subsequently required trans service members facing involuntary separation proceedings to appear in uniforms and grooming standards corresponding to their sex assigned at birth and, in some cases, used their deadnames during those proceedings.
Despite that setback, the plaintiffs secured two significant legal victories during Pride month.
On June 1, a federal appeals court blocked the discharge of the trans service members involved in Talbott. Then, on June 30, a federal district court certified the case as a class action on behalf of all currently serving trans service members. That means future rulings in the case will apply not only to the original six plaintiffs but to all active-duty trans military personnel covered by the class.
The case remains ongoing, but class certification significantly strengthens the ability to protect trans service members as the litigation continues. Currently, there are 28 plaintiffs in total, including the two still attempting to enlist.
Z.A. v. Blanche
In Z.A. v. Blanche (formerly Z.A. v. Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an emergency order one day before a federal grand jury subpoena was set to be enforced on July 2. The order blocked the Department of Justice from obtaining confidential medical records belonging to California families whose children receive gender-affirming care.
The ruling relied in part on protections established under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the 1996 federal law governing the privacy and security of medical records.
The decision represented a significant check on the administration’s efforts to obtain sensitive patient information, protecting the privacy of trans patients and their families while the legal challenge proceeds.
Doe v. Blanche
Doe v. Blanche, which remains ongoing, challenges Trump’s executive order, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. Under policies implementing that order, many trans women in federal custody would be housed in men’s prisons.
A federal district court in D.C. granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a Bureau of Prisons policy that would require incarcerated trans women to be housed in men’s facilities regardless of individualized safety assessments or the risk of sexual assault.
The Bureau of Prisons policy also conflicts with the goals of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), enacted by Congress in 2003 to address sexual abuse in correctional facilities through standards, research, funding, and prevention measures. Federal data has consistently shown that trans people in custody experience sexual assault at dramatically higher rates than the general prison population.
Commentary
When a church fears the rainbow
Puerto Rico pastor objected to Pride symbols outside congregation
There are moments when an incident stops being merely a local story and begins to reveal something much deeper. What happened on June 28 outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico, belongs in that category.
I do not know who painted the rainbow colors on the asphalt and on a roadside guardrail. I do not know what motivated them, and it is not my place to justify their actions. If someone believes a law was broken, there are authorities and legal mechanisms to address that. That is not the point of this reflection.
The point is the words that followed.
Hours after those colors appeared, Pastor Jorge J. Santiago Reyes went live on social media. He said he felt threatened. He described what happened as a physical attack against his church. He appeared angry and disappointed. He called those who painted the rainbow “cowards” and “charlatans.” He expressed frustration with the support that, according to him, the municipal government of Comerío has shown toward the LGBTQ community, and with those who support posts related to that community. He repeated several times that the people responsible had “crossed the line.” He ended his message by saying, “These charlatans have to be stopped.”
As I listened to his words, I stopped thinking about the paint.
I began thinking about fear.
There is one phrase the pastor repeated again and again: “They crossed the line.” Yet he never explained what that line was. If he was referring to a possible violation of the law, that is for the authorities to determine. If he meant respect for property, there are also procedures to deal with that. But when that line remains undefined and the message begins to associate a rainbow with a threat, the question changes. It is no longer only about a guardrail or a road. It becomes a question about what boundary, in the pastor’s view, was actually crossed.
Paint can be erased.
A brush can cover the asphalt and return a guardrail to its original color.
What does not disappear so easily is the meaning of those colors.
And perhaps that is where the real conflict begins.
It is significant that this happened precisely on June 28, the day when the LGBTQ community remembers a history marked by exclusion, violence, and the struggle for dignity. What represents memory, hope, and the possibility of living without hiding for millions of people was presented by others as a threat.
I do not know why someone painted that rainbow. I do not need to know in order to ask whether those were the words society should expect from a pastor.
A religious leader may feel hurt, frustrated, or angry. What he cannot forget is the responsibility that comes with every public expression. His words do not end when a livestream ends. They move beyond the space of his church, reach people who may never share his faith, and help shape the way others see those who think differently. When a pastor calls other people “charlatans” and “cowards,” says they “have to be stopped,” and turns a rainbow into evidence of an attack, he is no longer speaking only from frustration. He begins to build a discourse that can feed rejection toward a community far larger than the people responsible for that act.
There was another moment in the livestream that caught my attention. The pastor reminded viewers how much he has served Comerío, how much he has accompanied his community, and how much he has worked for it. I have no reason to question that service. I am sure many people can testify to the good he has done.
That is precisely why it was difficult to hear.
Pastoral vocation is not about reminding a town of everything one has done for it when conflict appears. Service does not lose its value when it goes unrecognized; it loses something when it becomes an argument to claim a moral position from which to speak down to others. A person who serves does so because that is the nature of the calling, not because that service grants authority to discredit those who think differently.
As a pastor, that part of the message left me deeply uneasy. Not because I expect ministers of God to be perfect. We are not. But because our words carry weight, we are called to speak with greater responsibility. Some expressions build bridges. Others raise walls. Some words invite encounter. Others end up justifying rejection.
The paint will disappear. A brush will be enough to cover the asphalt and return the guardrail to its original color.
The words will not disappear as easily.
They will remain recorded in a video, shared again and again on social media, and remembered by those who heard them. They will remain long after the last trace of paint has been erased.
When this episode is remembered, it probably will not be because of the rainbow that appeared outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico.
It will be because of the words a pastor chose to use when speaking about it.
And that difference changes everything.
