Connect with us

National

2011 to bring new marriage fights across U.S.

R.I., Md. best bets for progress, while N.C., Ind. face bans

Published

on

Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, shown here at a meeting with LGBT supporters, backs same-sex marriage rights. (Photo courtesy of Chafee’s office)

With “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed, the issue of marriage returns to center stage in 2011 as many states are poised to enact same-sex marriage or civil unions legislation — or pursue measures that would repeal or block such rights for gay couples.

With new governors or changes to their state legislatures, Rhode Island, Maryland and New York could advance same-sex marriage legislation as soon as this year.

But changes in the political dynamic after the 2010 elections also mean that marriage rights could be repealed in New Hampshire and amendments banning same-sex marriage could go forward in North Carolina, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

Meanwhile, legislation to enact civil unions could advance in Hawaii and Delaware.

Rhode Island is among the states that could see early action in passing a same-sex marriage bill.

Newly seated Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I), who supports same-sex marriage, has replaced Gov. Donald Carcieri (R), who opposed gay nuptials.

In his inauguration address, Chafee encouraged the Rhode Island General Assembly “quickly consider and adopt” a same-sex marriage bill to send to his desk.

“When marriage equality is the law in Rhode Island, we honor our forefathers who risked their lives and fortune in the pursuit of human equality,” he said.

Same-sex marriage bills were introduced in both chambers of the Rhode Island General Assembly last week. House Speaker Gordon Fox, who’s gay, supports the passage of a marriage bill through his chamber.

Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said she thinks the marriage bill will come before the House Judiciary Committee before the end of January.

“So we’ll be holding hearings, and then, we’ll be looking at, of course, the committee vote and the floor vote as soon as possible,” she said.

Karen Loewy, senior staff attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the prospects for passing a marriage bill in Rhode Island are “really fantastic” and called Chafee an “active supporter” of the legislation.

“It was part of his inaugural address,” she said. “He’s really committed to getting a marriage bill passed.”

The Senate isn’t expected to take action on the marriage bill until the House finishes action on the measure. The legislative session ends in June, so the marriage bill would have to reach the governor’s desk by that time.

Kushnir said the biggest challenge in passing a marriage bill in Rhode Island is ensuring that lawmakers address the legislation as they take on other issues facing the state.

“There are really important issues also — the economy, jobs and the budget — that are before the legislature,” Kushnir said. “But you know what? Everyone knows that passing marriage equality and treating everybody equal here in Rhode Island does very well for all of those issues.”

Loewy said passage in the Senate remains “a stronger challenge,” but support should exist in the chamber to pass a marriage bill.

“Even there, I think, you’ve got folks who are ready to understand how important this is for same-sex couples in Rhode Island,” she said.

LGBT rights supporters are also optimistic about the chances of a same-sex marriage bill passing in Maryland, where the configuration of the Senate for the first time provides a path for passage.

Last month, a majority of members who support same-sex marriage were named to Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, ensuring for the first time that a same-sex marriage measure would clear the panel and reach the Senate floor for a vote. Up until now, the committee has blocked the marriage bill, even though the chamber was in Democratic control.

Sen. Richard Madaleno of Montgomery Country, who’s gay, last week expressed confidence about passage of the marriage bill.

“I have never been so optimistic about getting this done,” he said. “Today at lunch I sat quietly by myself with a list of the members of the new Senate going over again and again in my head where the votes are, and I’m feeling really good right now both for the floor vote and the cloture vote.”

The bill is being introduced by Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D-Dist. 17) and Del. Keiffer Mitchell (D-Dist. 44). The Senate version will be advanced by Majority Leader Rob Garagiola (D-Dist. 15) and Madaleno.

Supporters in the Senate believe they have the 24 votes needed to pass the marriage bill on an up or down vote but are less certain about whether they have the 29 votes needed to invoke cloture and stop an expected filibuster by same-sex marriage opponents.

Another obstacle could be a referendum on the marriage law. Nearly all observers of the General Assembly expect opponents to initiate petitions to call for a referendum, which would stop the bills from taking effect until after voters decide on the issue.

In New York, supporters of same-sex marriage are looking to the state legislature to approve a bill extending marriage rights to gay couples that would be sent to newly seated Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) desk for his signature.

As in previous years, a marriage bill is expected to be able pass again in the State Assembly, where Democrats have retained control of the chamber, but the situation is different in the Senate, where Republicans have regained control after the election.

Still, Republican Leader Dean Skelos suggested prior to the election that if Republicans regain power in the Senate, he would allow a vote on same-sex marriage to come, even though — like all GOP senators — he previously voted against the marriage bill.

“Let me just say, when we win back the majority, there is legislation that I believe all of you interested in, that I believe should be voted on again,” Skelos said in October. “We’re not going to stifle discussion. We are not going to stifle votes. And it is truly my belief that people should be allowed to vote their consciences.”

Even if the legislation comes up for a vote in the Senate, the prospects for passage are uncertain. When the bill previously came up for a vote late in 2009, the measure failed 24-38.

Two lawmakers who support same-sex marriage were elected to the Senate since the last vote on the legislation, but that change is far from the 32 votes needed to pass a bill in the Senate.

Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, said the “political dynamic remains very promising” for passing a same-sex marriage bill as well as a transgender civil rights bill in New York.

“The phrase that I’ve been using is that there’s a clear and credible path to victory in the not distant future,” Levi said.

Asked whether passage would be likely in the next two years given the makeup of the legislature, Levi replied, “For me, it’s not talking about timeline, it’s about the work we have to do to make sure that we can have a successful vote as soon as we can.”

Dan Pinello, a gay government professor at the City University of New York, said he’s not optimistic about passage of a marriage bill in the legislature over the course of the next two years.

“[Skelos] has said a few things suggesting that [he would bring the bill to a vote], but that’s not a guarantee,” Pinello said. “So, yeah, he could bring it up for a vote, but that’s no guarantee it’s going to pass. I just don’t see it happening, sadly.”

Pinello said the next opportunity to advance same-sex marriage could be in 2013 as a result of the redistricting this year. He said political power should shift from upstate to downstate, which would give Democrats a majority in the Senate.

“Upstate tends to be Republican and downstate tends to be Democratic, so it’s likely even though Republicans will be redrawing the Senate district lines, there’s no way they can still maintain a majority, given the demographic shifts the Census will reveal,” Pinello said.

Repealing marriage in N.H.?

While several states are poised to advance marriage rights, other places could see a rollback of relationship recognition for same-sex couples.

The most prominent of those states is New Hampshire, where opponents of same-sex marriage may have the political power to repeal the marriage law enacted in 2009.

Gov. John Lynch (D), who signed the marriage bill into law, is expected to veto the bill should it come to his desk. But after the election, Republicans now have a super majority in both chambers of the legislature and could override his veto.

Four bills have already been introduced in the legislature to repeal the marriage law.

State Rep. Leo Pepino (R), who introduced one of the bills, said he thinks there is support to repeal the marriage law, according to the Nashau Telegraph.

“I think we have the votes [to repeal],” Pepino said. “We have a lot of really good conservatives and a good conservative doesn’t believe in gay marriage. … It’s a matter of ethics.”

GLAD’s Loewy said the chances of repealing the marriage law in New Hampshire are “hard to quantify,” adding she doesn’t know whether the votes are present to take such action.

“The LGBT community in New Hampshire is very much gearing up for a fight to protect marriage the best way we know how: by talking to legislators about how taking away marriage is going to hurt their families and their kids,” Loewy said.

Loewy added she’s hoping that New Hampshire won’t go down the path of repealing the law and would instead pursue “issues like jobs and the economy that everybody knows is the priority.”

“I think, like I said, the community has a lot of work to do, but, I think, it’s absolutely fair to expect and hope that that’s not the path that New Hampshire’s going to go down,” she said.

Mo Baxley, executive director of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, said the Granite State has never taken away the rights of its citizen, but that is what some anti-gay lawmakers are proposing to do.

“The married gay and lesbian couples here have in no way impacted anybody else’s marriage,” she said. “Let’s move on. Marriage has been debated to death here and the priority right now is the economy and the budget.”

Other states are prepared to advance constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriage.

One such state is North Carolina, where Republicans swept into power in both the House and Senate following the November elections.

Ian Palmquist, executive director of Equality North Carolina, said his organization is “fully expecting” that a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions will advance this year.

“I think there’s a chance of blocking it, but it’s a very tight vote at the moment,” he said.

Palmquist said he’s getting mixed signals on when the vote would come up and said it could be anytime between February and July.

In North Carolina, passing a constitutional amendment requires a third-fifths vote of approval from both chambers of the state legislature followed by a majority of voters at the ballot box.

Palmquist said the measure could be on the ballot in 2011, but he expects it would come to voters in 2012. Such a move would enable conservatives to turn out their base during a presidential election year.

“It would definitely be a challenge to defeat it at the ballot,” Palmquist said. “There is majority support in North Carolina for some form of relationship recognition. We certainly would use that to try to stop this kind of amendment from moving forward.”

Another state where LGBT rights supporters are anticipating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions is Indiana.

In previous years, advocates had been able to block the amendment in the House because Democrats held a narrow majority in the chamber, but the situation has changed now that Republicans took control of the House and expanded their control of the Senate following the November elections.

Don Sherfick, legislative chair for Indiana Equality, said the prospects for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage passing this year are good in Indiana.

“I guess I would be less than honest if I were to say that things were looking rosy for continuing to unequivocally being able to fight such a thing coming through,” he said.

Anticipating hearings in either the House or Senate or both chambers within six weeks, Sherfick said Indiana Equality is mounting a public relations and lobbying campaign to try to block the amendment.

“People will at least know what they’re doing and we’ll set our sights on fighting it in the next legislature,” he said.

Bil Browning, an Indiana native and editor of the Bilerico Project, said he’s 99.9 percent certain that the Indiana Legislature would pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

“The two things they wanted to do most and first and foremost was a bill that would require a woman to have a sonogram three days before any planned abortion — in the hopes that she’ll see it and not want to have the abortion — and a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage,” Browning said.

For a constitutional amendment to pass in Indiana, it must pass the state legislature twice — a first time and then again after an election — before the measure comes before voters. If the legislature passed an amendment this year, the soonest it could get to voters is 2014.

Browning said gay rights supporters can hope for a change in the makeup of the legislature after the next election as a way to block the amendment from final passage.

“Two years from now, if we can retake the Indiana House it’s probably dead, but for at least passing this session, I’d say [the chances] are 99.9 percent,” he said.

Browning said one factor working in advocates’ favor in Indiana is that all the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the state previously testified before the legislature against the amendment.

Additionally, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), who has called for a “truce” on social issues, is widely considered to be thinking about a run for president and may want to steer clear of marriage prior to 2012. Still, the amendment wouldn’t require his signature for passage.

A similar situation can be found in Pennsylvania, where Republicans took control of the House and retained control of the Senate.

Malcolm Lazin, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Equality Forum, said passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is “of concern” because of new Republican control of the House.

“We were able to successfully block it in the past because the House was controlled by the Democrats,” Lazin said. “That dynamic has now changed. In addition, there is now a Republican governor of Pennsylvania.”

As in Indiana, for a constitutional amendment to pass in Pennsylvania, the measure has to be approved by a majority vote in both chambers of the legislature — once and then again after an election — before going to voters as a ballot measure.

Ted Martin, executive director of Equality Pennsylvania, predicted that the amendment would be introduced in both the House and Senate, but was skeptical of lawmakers’ ability to push it through the legislature.

Martin said the likelihood of the measure passing in the House committee is high, but its passage on the House floor is less certain. For the Senate, which has been controlled by Republicans for more than two decades, Martin said he doubts the measure would make it through committee.

“The Senate, in the past, has always taken a less active tone about it,” Martin said. “They’ve become much more libertarian in their view. Just to remember, we were able to block this in committee three times before.”

Hawaii, Del. to take up civil unions

As many states take on the marriage issue — either to advance gay nuptials or ban them — two other states are prepared to enact civil unions early in 2011.

In Hawaii, LGBT advocates are ready to advance a civil unions bill that newly seated Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) has pledged to sign.

Last summer, a civil unions bill in the Aloha State was vetoed by former Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, but with her gone, gay rights supporters see a clear path toward passing the legislation.

Alan Spector, co-chair of Equality Hawaii, said he expects that the civil unions bill will easily pass the legislature to reach Abercrombie’s desk soon after the session starts on Jan. 19.

“With the November 2010 election behind us, and a new governor and new leadership, we’re pretty confident that we will pass the bill early in 2011,” Spector said.

Spector estimated that the legislation would be introduced in the third week of January and ideally would make it to the governor’s desk by March.

“The process can go as quickly as a month or it can take the whole session — or it can on into 2012,” Spector said. “It all depends on what happens, but we’re pretty optimistic that it’s going to go quickly this year.”

Advocates are pursuing civil unions in Hawaii instead of marriage because in 1998, voters approved a constitutional amendment granting the legislature the power to ban same-sex marriage, which lawmakers then pursued.

Similarly, LGBT advocates in Delaware are ready to advance legislation this year that would enact civil unions in the First State.

Peter Schott, political vice president of Delaware Stonewall Democrats, said the “atmosphere is probably better than it’s been in a few years” for passing civil unions in the state.

“We have formed a coalition, which a number of elected officials are on — civic leaders,” Schott said.

LGBT rights supporters know they have the votes in the House, Schott said, but questions about passage in the Senate remain because leadership could refer the legislation to an unfavorable committee.

Schott said supporters of civil unions in Delaware want to pass the legislation this year so it doesn’t come up during the 2012 election season.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals

Directive adopted during meeting in Baltimore.

Published

on

A 2024 Baltimore Pride participant carries a poster in support of gender-affirming health care. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this week adopted a directive that bans Catholic hospitals from offering gender-affirming care to their patients.

Since ‘creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift,’ we have a duty ‘to protect our humanity,’ which means first of all, ‘accepting it and respecting it as it was created,’” reads the directive the USCCB adopted during their meeting that is taking place this week in Baltimore.

The Washington Blade obtained a copy of it on Thursday.

“In order to respect the nature of the human person as a unity of body and soul, Catholic health care services must not provide or permit medical interventions, whether surgical, hormonal, or genetic, that aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function,” reads the directive. “This includes, for example, some forms of genetic engineering whose purpose is not medical treatment, as well as interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics of a human body.)”

“In accord with the mission of Catholic health care, which includes serving those who are vulnerable, Catholic health care services and providers ‘must employ all appropriate resources to mitigate the suffering of those who experience gender incongruence or gender dysphoria’ and to provide for the full range of their health care needs, employing only those means that respect the fundamental order of the human body,” it adds.

The Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2024 condemned gender-affirming surgeries and “gender theory.” The USCCB directive comes against the backdrop of the Trump-Vance administration’s continued attacks against the trans community.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical interventions for minors.

Media reports earlier this month indicated the Trump-Vance administration will seek to prohibit Medicaid reimbursement for medical care to trans minors, and ban reimbursement through the Children’s Health Insurance Program for patients under 19. NPR also reported the White House is considering blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors.

“The directives adopted by the USCCB will harm, not benefit transgender persons,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based LGBTQ Catholic organization, in a statement. “In a church called to synodal listening and dialogue, it is embarrassing, even shameful, that the bishops failed to consult transgender people, who have found that gender-affirming medical care has enhanced their lives and their relationship with God.” 

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Federal government reopens

Shutdown lasted 43 days.

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bill that reopens the federal government.

Six Democrats — U.S. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Adam Gray (D-Calif.), Don Davis (D-N.C.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) — voted for the funding bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two Republicans — Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.) — opposed it.

The 43-day shutdown is over after eight Democratic senators gave in to Republicans’ push to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act. According to CNBC, the average ACA recipient could see premiums more than double in 2026, and about one in 10 enrollees could lose a premium tax credit altogether.

These eight senators — U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) — sided with Republicans to pass legislation reopening the government for a set number of days. They emphasized that their primary goal was to reopen the government, with discussions about ACA tax credits to continue afterward.

None of the senators who supported the deal are up for reelection.

King said on Sunday night that the Senate deal represents “a victory” because it gives Democrats “an opportunity” to extend ACA tax credits, now that Senate Republican leaders have agreed to hold a vote on the issue in December. (The House has not made any similar commitment.)

The government’s reopening also brought a win for Democrats’ other priorities: Arizona Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in after a record-breaking delay in swearing in, eventually becoming the 218th signer of a discharge petition to release the Epstein files.

This story is being updated as more information becomes available.

Continue Reading

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Serving America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day

Advocates sue to reverse Trump ban while service members cope with new struggles

Published

on

Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott (Photo courtesy of Talbott)

President Trump signed EO 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, directing the Department of Defense (DoD) to adopt policies that would prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.

The Trump-Vance administration’s policy shift redefines the qualifications for military service, asserting that transgender people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the DoD, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.

On Jan. 28, 2025, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) filed Talbott v. Trump, a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. Originally filed on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals seeking enlistment, the case has since grown to include 12 additional plaintiffs.

The Washington Blade spoke exclusively with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott, U.S. Army, a plaintiff in the case, and with Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law, who is leading the litigation.

For Talbott, serving in the military has been a lifelong aspiration, one he pursued despite the barriers posed by discriminatory policies.

“Being transgender posed quite the obstacle to me achieving that dream,” Talbott told the Blade. “Not because it [being trans] had any bearing on my ability to become a soldier and meet the requirements of a United States soldier, but simply because of the policy changes that we’ve been facing as transgender service members throughout the course of the past decade… My being transgender had nothing to do with anything that I was doing as a soldier.”

This drive was fueled by early life experiences, including the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which shaped his desire to protect his country.

“Even for an eight-year-old kid, [9/11] has a tremendous amount of impact… I remember thinking, you know, this is a terrible thing. Me, and when I grow up, I want to make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” he said. “I’ve still tried to gear my life in a way that I can be preparing myself to eventually help accomplish that mission of keeping America safe from anything like that ever happening again.”

The attacks inspired countless Americans to enlist; according to the New York City government, 181,510 joined active duty and 72,908 enlisted in the reserves in the year following 9/11. Although Talbott was too young to serve at the time, the events deeply influenced his educational and career path.

“For me, [9/11] just kind of helped shape my future and set me on the path that I’m currently on today,” he added. “It ignited my passion for the field, and it’s something that you know, I’ve carried with me into my adult life, into my professional life, and that I hope to have a career in the future.”

Talbott holds a master’s degree in criminology with a focus on counterterrorism and global security, and while completing his degree, he gained practical experience working with the Transportation Security Administration.

Despite the public scrutiny surrounding the lawsuit and the ongoing uncertainty of his military future, Talbott remains grounded in the values that define military service.

“Being so public about my involvement with this lawsuit grants me the very unique opportunity to continue to exemplify those values,” Talbott said. “I’m in a very privileged spot where I can speak relatively openly about this experience and what I’m doing. It’s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery.”

The ban has created significant uncertainty for transgender service members, who now face the possibility of separation solely because of their gender identity.

“With this ban… we are all [trans military members] on track to be separated from the military. So it’s such a great deal of uncertainty… I’m stuck waiting, not knowing what tomorrow might bring. I could receive a phone call any day stating that the separation process has been initiated.”

While the Department of Defense specifies that most service members will receive an honorable discharge, the policy allows for a lower characterization if a review deems it warranted. Compensation and benefits differ depending on whether service members opt for voluntary or involuntary separation. Voluntary separation comes with full separation pay and no obligation to repay bonuses, while involuntary separation carries lower pay, potential repayment of bonuses, and uncertain success in discharge review processes.

Healthcare coverage through TRICARE continues for 180 days post-discharge, but reduced benefits, including VA eligibility, remain a concern. Those with 18–20 years of service may qualify for early retirement, though even this is not guaranteed under the policy.

Talbott emphasized the personal and professional toll of the ban, reflecting on the fairness and capability of transgender service members.

“Quite frankly, the evidence that we have at hand points in the complete opposite direction… there are no documented cases that I’m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender… Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.”

“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals… those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody … military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”

Talbott also highlighted the unique discipline, dedication, and value of diversity that transgender service members bring—especially in identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others think or say. That, he explained, was part of his journey of self-discovery and a key reason he wants to continue serving despite harsh words of disapproval from the men leading the executive branch.

“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through… This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today… my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”

He sees that as an asset rather than a liability. By having a more diverse, well-rounded group of people, the military can view challenges from perspectives that would otherwise be overlooked. That ability to look at things in a fresh way, he explained, can transform a good service member into a great one.

“I think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is… We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of… and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.”

Beyond operational effectiveness, Talbott emphasized the social impact of visibility and leadership within the ranks. Fellow soldiers often approached him for guidance, seeing him as a trusted resource because of his transgender status.

“I can think of several instances in which I have been approached by fellow soldiers… I feel like you are a person I can come to if I have a problem with X, Y or Z… some people take my transgender status and designate me as a safe person, so to speak.”

With the arrival of Veterans Day, the Blade asked what he wishes the public knew about the sacrifices of transgender service members. His answer was modest.

“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that… We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”

Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, also spoke with the Blade and outlined the legal and human consequences of the ban. This is not Levi’s first time challenging the executive branch on transgender rights; she led the legal fight against the first Trump administration’s military ban in both Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.

Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible.

“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”

She highlighted procedural abuses and punitive measures embedded in the policy compared to the 2017 ban.

“In the first round the military allowed transgender people to continue to serve… In this round the military policy purge seeks to purge every transgender person from military service, and it also proposes to do it in a very cruel and brutal way, which is to put people through a process… traditionally reserved for kicking people out of the military who engaged in misconduct.”

Levi cited multiple examples of discrimination, including the revocation of authorized retirements and administrative barriers to hearings.

She also explained that the administration’s cost argument is flawed, as removing and replacing transgender service members is more expensive than retaining them.

“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost… it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people… than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”

On legal grounds, Levi noted the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause.

“The Equal Protection Clause prevents laws that are intended to harm a group of people… The doctrine is rooted in animus, which means a bare desire to harm a group is not even a legitimate governmental justification.”

When asked what she wishes people knew about Talbott and other targeted transgender military members, Levi emphasized their extraordinary service.

“The plaintiffs that I represent are extraordinary… They have 260 years of committed service to this country… I have confidence that ultimately, this baseless ban should not be able to legally survive.”

Other organizations have weighed in on Talbott v. Trump and similar lawsuits targeting transgender service members.

Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson criticized the ban’s impact on military readiness and highlighted the counterintuitive nature of removing some of the country’s most qualified service members.

“Transgender servicemembers serve their country valiantly, with the same commitment, the same adherence to military standards and the same love of country as any of their counterparts,” Robinson said. “This ban by the Trump administration, which has already stripped transgender servicemembers of their jobs, is cruel, unpatriotic, and compromises the unity and quality of our armed forces.”

Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Sasha Buchert echoed the legal and moral imperative to reverse the policy.

“Every day this discriminatory ban remains in effect, qualified patriots face the threat of being kicked out of the military,” she said. “The evidence is overwhelming that this policy is driven by animus rather than military necessity… We are confident the court will see through this discriminatory ban and restore the injunction that should never have been lifted.”

Continue Reading

Popular