Politics
Log Cabin asks Hunter to abandon ‘Don’t Ask’ amendment
Cooper says measure would add ‘unnecessary and unwanted certification’ to repeal process
The head of the National Log Cabin Republicans on Tuesday asked Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) to abandon plans to introduce an amendment that could disrupt repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin’s executive director, says in a letter dated May 10 that Hunter shouldn’t introduce his amendment on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because it would complicate efforts for a repeal process that is already proceeding smoothly.
“Please do not road block the repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] by introducing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which would add an unnecessary and unwanted certification measure to a clear, comprehensive and thus-far successful certification process,” Cooper writes.
On Monday, Hunter announced he would introduce an amendment to the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill on Wednesday during the House Armed Services Committee markup of the legislation to expand the certification requirement needed for repeal to include the four military service chiefs.
The repeal legislation signed into law in December provides for an implementation of open service in the U.S. military after 60 pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hunter’s amendment would expand the certification requirement to include the Army chief of staff, the Air Force chief of staff, the chief of naval operations and the Marine Corps commandant.
Cooper invokes the shared military service that he shares with Hunter, a Marine Corps veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, while asking the lawmaker not to introduce any amendment that could derail “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“As a current captain in the United States Army Reserve, I will attest that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT) does nothing to benefit the mission of the United States military,” Cooper writes. “By forcing servicemembers to hide or lie about their sexual orientation, [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] undermines servicemembers’ responsibility under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Dishonesty is also inherently counter to the long held Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage.”
Cooper says repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” removes “the risk of blackmail” for service members who feel they have to keep their sexual orientation a secret to remain in the armed forces. Additionally, Cooper says the cost of the military’s gay ban has negative financial impact and cites numbers from the Government Accountability Office and the Palm Center Blue Ribbon Commission finding that the U.S. government incurs an estimated cost of $22,000 to $43,000 for discharged service member.
“To put it in military nomenclature, [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is a ‘No Go,’” Cooper writes. “Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and implementation of open service will make our nation stronger by improving military recruitment, retention and readiness.”
Joe Kasper, a Hunter spokesperson, said in response to the letter that Hunter’s amendment isn’t intended to derail “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and Cooper should agree that implementation of open service should be “smooth and efficient.”
“If Mr. Hunter wanted to offer an amendment to derail the repeal, he would have done exactly that,” Kasper said. “What’s needed is a process that examines every possible issue, big and small. Rushing to implement the repeal, the same way it was enacted, will only complicate things. So it’s important that the service chiefs weigh in, absent the political influence of the chairman, the secretary and the president.”
In addition to sending the letter to Hunter, Cooper told the Washington Blade his organization contacted each Republican member on the House Armed Services Committee to urge them against roadblocking “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal with harmful amendments that would add “an unnecessary and unwanted measure to a clear, comprehensive and thus-far successful certification process.”
Also, Cooper said the coalition of groups who worked to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” intend to send out another letter later Tuesday to all members of the House Armed Services Committee calling on the lawmakers to pass defense authorization bill free of any anti-gay amendments.
The full text of Cooper’s letter follows:
Dear Representative Hunter:
As a fellow combat veteran, a fellow Republican and a current reserve officer, I am grateful that you and your colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee are committed to the readiness and sustainability of our military. A veteran yourself, you especially appreciate that proper training and equipping are necessary to achieve victory as well as mitigate battlefield threats to servicemembers. During the Bush Administration, I even had to the honor of traveling with many of your committee peers, including your father, into kinetic environments to highlight the efforts and the needs of our war fighters and diplomats.
However, as a current Captain in the United States Army Reserve, I will attest that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT) does nothing to benefit the mission of the United States military. By forcing servicemembers to hide or lie about their sexual orientation, DADT undermines servicemembers’ responsibility under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Dishonesty is also inherently counter to the long held Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. Even worse, dishonesty is a security threat. Repealing DADT not only removes the specter of discharge, it also removes the risk of blackmail and compromising national security. Where being gay or lesbian were once grounds for punitive personnel actions or dismissal, the CIA, FBI, State Department, the Defense Department on the civilian side, and defense contractors no longer take into account sexual orientation for reasons of dismissal. United States policy on this matter should be consistent in preferring honesty for the sake of security.
Further, Department of Defense implementation of repeal will likely be a force multiplier for the retention and recruitment of much needed personnel and resources to succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other missions around the globe. For 17 years, the United States has unnecessarily lost valuable human and financial capital to DADT. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Palm Center Blue Ribbon Commission, the government incurs costs of an estimated $22,000 to $43,000 per discharged servicemember. These estimates do not even account for the tremendous loss of expertise as well as the tax payer revenue expended training and equipping discharged members. Such waste is senseless and must end.
DADT is unconstitutional. DADT is a threat to military integrity and readiness. DADT is a threat to national security. DADT is a waste of taxpayer dollars. DADT is discriminatory. DADT is un-American. To put it in military nomenclature, DADT is a ‘No Go.’ Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and implementation of open service will make our nation stronger by improving military recruitment, retention and readiness. Please do not road block the repeal of DADT by introducing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which would add an unnecessary and unwanted certification measure to a clear, comprehensive and thus-far successful certification process.
Respectfully,
R. Clarke Cooper
Executive Director
Politics
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.
“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”
“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.
Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.
In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.
In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.
In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.
Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.
Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.
He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.
This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.
In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.
The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.
The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication.
Congress
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.
The bipartisan vote was 212-217.
The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.
Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”
“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.
Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.
“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.
According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).
The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.
The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.
The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203.
Congress
Lindsey Graham has passed away. Do LGBTQ people have a right to celebrate his death?
SC senator opposed marriage equality, despite speculation over sexual orientation
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 16.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | On Sunday, the office of Lindsey Graham reported that the Republican senator and Trump ally from South Carolina died “from a brief and sudden illness.” The office said that the preliminary cause of death was a rupture of his aorta due to a hardening of his arteries.
Since then, many folks in the LGBTQ community, including a large number of Uncloseted followers, have — for better or worse — celebrated the senator’s death. When we posted the news on our Instagram page on Sunday, our followers commented:
- “Maybe he rest in hell”—this one got 194 likes.
- “She made sure to wait until Pride was over.”
- “And just like that the world is a better place.”
These responses are fueled by allegations that the senator lived as a closeted gay man while supporting policies that would roll back LGBTQ rights. In 2006, he voted in support of a constitutional amendment that would have restricted marriage to only being between one man and one woman. After gay marriage became legal across the U.S. in 2015, he said “I am a proud defender of traditional marriage.” And in 2022, he told CNN he would oppose the Respect for Marriage Act and later reiterated that states should decide the issue of marriage.
Outside the Washington rumor mill, there wasn’t much evidence that Graham could be gay until 2020, when adult video performer Sean Harding wrote on Twitter that “There is a homophobic republican senator who is no better than Trump who keeps passing legislation that is damaging to the lgbt and minority communities. Every sex worker I know has been hired by this man. Wondering if enough of us spoke out if that could get him out of office?”
Harding followed up with another post, writing “If you’d be willing to stand with me against LG please let me know,” and, “So far I have two individuals who would be willing to go public and support my claims. Anyone else?”
A few days later, another anonymous sex worker came forward and made similar allegations.
But after that, there was silence, with some believing these sex workers were slapped with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). And while at least one lawyer took to Twitter saying that he’d “be more than happy to read the NDAs and look for loopholes. For free!” nobody else came forward.
That is until earlier this week, when author Jesse James Rose posted to her Instagram that Graham had paid her for sex work prior to her gender transition. Rose wrote that “Most of you know him as the homophobic senator from South Carolina but to me he will always be the man who paid a twinky pre-transition college student a fat stack of cash to do unspeakable things to him in a hotel room while he wore red lingerie.”
This dynamic has created a complicated question for LGBTQ people: Is it appropriate to posthumously celebrate the death of a man who railed against our community and used his position of power to make our lives less equitable and less safe? Is it even more fair to criticize him if he was living a secret queer life?
Or should we go high and give his track record on LGBTQ issues a positive spin now that he’s no longer with us?
In a time where social media feels like a breeding ground for angertainment, I’ll admit that the immediacy of the response to his death at first felt intense.
At the same time, I knew I didn’t want to send thoughts or prayers to a man who tried to rip my rights away.
If the alleged NDAs that Graham handed his sex workers were legitimate, they likely evaporated after his death. So now really may be the first time people can speak their truth and offer an accurate window into the absurd hypocrisy between Graham’s public and private life.
For that, I think it’s fair game to speak candidly about the story he may have worked hard to muzzle while he was here.
Suzanne Goode is not good for Rehoboth Beach
Continue to engage in community after Pride month
Doug Ollivant to face Eugene Vindman in Va. 7th Congressional District
LGBTQ advocates optimistic about D.C.’s expected new mayor
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Should I divorce my catty gay friend group?
PHOTOS: Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade
Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade draws hundreds of thousands
Reggie White relishing first season as artistic director of Woolly Mammoth
