National
HISTORIC: Senate approves ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
Congress wraps up legislative action on ending gay ban
Sen. Harry Reid, along with other Democrats, voted for cloture on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation (Blade photo by Michael Key).
In a historic action, the U.S. Senate on Saturday passed legislation that would end the 17-year-old law prohibiting open gays from serving in the U.S. military.
Early in the day, the Senate voted 63-33 to invoke cloture on the legislation that would end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to move it to the floor. Later in the afternoon, the chamer approved the legislation by a vote of 65-31, effectively sending the measure to President Obama’s desk.
Clearing the 60-vote threshold needed to invoke cloture was the last significant hurdle for the bill on its path to passage and enactment into law.
For the cloture vote, six Republicans voted in the affirmative. They include Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), an original co-sponsor of the bill, as well as Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Scott Brown (R-Mass) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Each had indicated prior to the vote that they support the bill when it came to the floor.
Additional GOP support for the legislation came from Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Three Republicans didn’t vote: Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
Following the cloture vote, Voinovich told reporters he voted in the affirmative because he believes the U.S. military should accept Americans who are qualified to serve.
“If people are not qualified to be in service because of their sexual orientation, then we ought to say, ‘You can’t get in,'” he said. “But if we know that they are qualified, then we ought not to have them lying [about] who they are [under] ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ It just is inconsistent with common sense.”
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of the repeal legislation, told the Washington Blade following the vote that he wasn’t suprised by Kirk or Voinovich’s votes because they privately assured him they would vote in the affirmative earlier in the week.
“For their own reasons, they didn’t want to announce it, but they were true to their word — God bless them,” Lieberman said. “So, six Republicans was great.”
Lieberman praised the bipartisan nature with which the Senate passed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in a conversation with reporters following the vote.
“There’s been a lot of difficult times in the last couple years because it’s so partisan to get anything done.,” Lieberman said. “Here we are coming together — and it was bipartisan. We wouldn’t have done it without the Republicans and we got something really good passed, so I feel good about it.”
For the vote for final passage, two Republicans switched their “no” votes on cloture to “yes”: Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.).
On the Democratic side, all members who were present voted in favor of cloture and final passage, but Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) didn’t vote at either time.
Earlier this month, Manchin voted against the motion to proceed on major defense legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language. His office didn’t immediately respond to Blade’s request to comment on why he was absent.
Gay rights supporters were concerned that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) would vote “no,” but he voted in the affirmative both for cloture and final passage along with nearly all of his Democratic colleagues.
The Senate invoked cloture to proceed with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation after a vote failed on moving forward with the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill, 55-41.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the cloture vote shows that Congress has “recognized that all men and women have the right to openly serve their country.”
Solmonese also noted that the Senate was able to move “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation past its most significant hurdle after many observers believed efforts to pass repeal this year were dead.
“Plenty of people had already planned the funeral for this legislation,” Solmonese said. “Today, we pulled out a victory from what was almost certain defeat just a few days ago.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, called the vote a “historic step forward for this country” and said it “will very likely be a life-changing moment for gay and lesbian troops.”
“While we still have a long road ahead, including a final passage vote, the certification process, and a yet-to-be-determined implementation period, those who defend our freedom while living in fear for their careers will finally breathe a sigh of relief tonight, and those who have fallen victim to this policy in years past will finally begin to see true closure and redemption on the horizon,” Nicholson said.
The U.S. House earlier this week approved identical legislation, so when the Senate votes to approve final passage of the bill, the bill will head to President Obama’s desk.
Following the cloture vote, Lt. Col Victor Fehrenbach, an Air Force pilot who’s facing discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” told the Washington Blade he was “overwhelmed” that the Senate finally took action to end the military’s gay ban.
“I didn’t think it was going to happen to be honest with you — at least not for a few years,” Fehrenbach said. “As soon as I heard my senator vote — Sen. Voinovich — I knew that we were over the 61 mark and I was pretty emotional over a while there.”
Fehrenbach said he felt “overwhelming happiness” not just for himself but for the estimated 66,000 other gay people serving in the armed forces.
“I’ll still be in limbo, but I know now that I’ll be able to retire in October, so it’s a great feeling to know that this is coming to end — that there is a light at the end of the tunnel,” he said.
In a statement White House Press Secretary Robert Gates confirmed Obama intends to sign the legislation passed by the Senate into law.
“As the president has long said, ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military, will strengthen our national security while upholding the basic equality on which this nation was founded,” Gibbs said. “The president looks forward to signing the bill into law.”
Gates called on to stop discharges
Now that legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is complete, increased attention is being placed on the Obama administration to issue an executive order barring further discharges until repeal is implemented.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, renewed his call for such an order during a news conference after the Senate invoked cloture on the legislation.
“During this limbo interim period, I respectfully call upon the secretary of defense — Secretary Gates — to use his existing authority to suspend all investigations and all discharges until the law is finally repealed,” Sarvis said.
The SLDN head said such a move is necessary from the Obama administration because the legislation still has to make its way to the Obama desk, the president and Pentagon leaders have to certify that repeal can happen and a 60-day waiting process has to take place.
Gay advocates — including Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese — have been calling on President Obama to issue an order stopping discharges since the start of his administration.
At the news conference, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he supports the idea of Gates issues an order to suspend discharges as the repeal legislation heads to the president’s desk.
Senate Armed Services Committtee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) also told reporters following the conference he favors such a move from Gates.
In a statement, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he wouldn’t issue such an order until he can certify that the U.S. military is ready for repeal.
“It is therefore important that our men and women in uniform understand that while today’s historic vote means that this policy will change, the implementation and certification process will take an additional period of time,” Gates said. “In the meantime, the current law and policy will remain in effect.”
A White House spokesperson didn’t respond on short notice to comment on the matter.
In October, Gates issued new guidance limiting the discharge authority for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the militaries service secretaries in cooperation with the Pentagon’s general counsel and the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness. According to the Associated Press, since that time, no discharges have taken place under the law.
Senators debate gay ban
Prior to the votes, senators on the floor spoke out passionately both in favor and against repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Opponents of repeal said the timing wasn’t right for Congress to act on ending the law as the U.S. military engaged in operations overseas, while those advocating for an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” said all able bodies — including gay service members — were needed to confront these threats.
Levin disputed the assertions of those who would call supporting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal a partisan vote and noted polls showing an “overwhelming majority” supports ending the law.
“I’m not here for partisan reasons,” Levin said. “I’m here because men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are gay and lesbian have died for this country, because gay and lesbian men and women wearing the uniform of this country have their lives on the line right now in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places for this country.”
Levin also noted that a provision in the legislation mandates that repeal won’t take effect until the president, defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for repeal.
“Secretary Gates has assured everybody that he is not going to certify that the military is ready for repeal until he is satisfied with the advice of the service chiefs that we had, in fact, mitigated, if not eliminated to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness to unit cohesion and effectiveness,” Levin said.
But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said while repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” may lead to “high-fives all over the liberal bastions of America,” an end of the statute would threaten military recruitment and battle effectiveness.
“We are doing great damage, and could possibly, and probably — as the commandant of the Marine Corps said, and I’ve been told literally thousands of members of the military — harm the battle effectiveness, which is so vital to the support, to the survival of our young men and women in the military,” McCain said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an opponent of repeal, invoked Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos suggestion earlier this week that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal could be a “distraction” that would lead to the loss of Marines’ lives on the battlefield.
“Some will say this is a civil rights issue of time,” Graham said. “The day has come. We need to move forward as a nation. The Marine Corps does not have that view.”
Graham railed against the decision of Senate leadership to prohibit senators from offering any amendments to the legislation.
“To those senators who will take the floor today and announce this as a major advancement of civil rights in America, please let it be said that you’re doing it in a fashion that those who have a different view cannot offer one amendment,” Graham said. “Does that matter? Apparently not.”
Reid had “filled the tree” prior to the vote to prohibit any senators from offering amendments to the legislation. Amending the bill would have sent the bill back to the House and could have killed the measure.
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.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
