Connect with us

National

HISTORIC: Senate approves ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal

Congress wraps up legislative action on ending gay ban

Published

on

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced

One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.

NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.

John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.

The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.

Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.

 “These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.

It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”

 The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question. 

A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit. 

While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.

 Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.   

“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.

 “Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says. 

Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”

 Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”

Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.

 “As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from  the Washington Blade. 

“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said. 

The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”

It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”

The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society. 

The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.

While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.

The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.

Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.

Continue Reading

Popular