Connect with us

Politics

Log Cabin asks Hunter to abandon ‘Don’t Ask’ amendment

Cooper says measure would add ‘unnecessary and unwanted certification’ to repeal process

Published

on

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

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage

Roughly 1.8 million LGBTQ Americans rely on Medicaid

Published

on

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The “Big, Beautiful Bill” heads to President Donald Trump’s desk following the vote by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday, which saw two nays from GOP members and unified opposition from the entire Democratic caucus.

To partially offset the cost of tax breaks that disproportionately favor the wealthy, the bill contains massive cuts to Medicaid and social safety net programs like food assistance for the poor while adding a projected $3.3 billion to the deficit.

Policy wise, the signature legislation of Trump’s second term rolls back clean energy tax credits passed under the Biden-Harris administration while beefing up funding for defense and border security.

Roughly 13 percent of LGBTQ adults in the U.S., about 1.8 million people, rely on Medicaid as their primary health insurer, compared to seven percent of non-LGBTQ adults, according to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute think tank on sexual orientation and gender identities.

In total, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts will cause more than 10 million Americans to lose their coverage under Medicaid and anywhere from three to five million to lose their care under Affordable Care Act marketplace plans.

A number of Republicans in the House and Senate opposed the bill reasoning that they might face political consequences for taking away access to healthcare for, particularly, low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid. Poorer voters flocked to Trump in last year’s presidential election, exit polls show.

A provision that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation — reportedly after the first trans member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and the first lesbian U.S. senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), shored up unified opposition to the proposal among Congressional Democrats.

Continue Reading

Congress

Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor

One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”

Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.

Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.

To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.

A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).

Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”

Continue Reading

Congress

House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms

Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move

Published

on

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.

Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.

The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).

The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”

“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.

They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”

“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.

Continue Reading

Popular