National
House panel adopts anti-gay amendments in defense bill
Amendments reaffirm DOMA, could disrupt ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
Rep. Duncan Hunter introduced an amendment that could disrupt 'Don't Ask' repeal (Blade photo by Michael Key)
A House defense committee approved on Wednesday a series of anti-gay amendments as part of major Pentagon budget legislation aimed at disrupting the process for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and at demonstrating support for the Defense of Marriage Act.
The most high-profile amendment came from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who introduced a measure that would expand the certification requirement needed for repeal to include input from the four military service chiefs. The Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee voted 33-27 in favor of adopting the measure as part of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill.
The vote in favor of the Hunter amendment was mostly along party lines, although Reps. Todd Platts (R-Pa.) and Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) voted against the measure. Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) was the sole Democrat to vote in favor of the measure.
The repeal legislation signed into law in December allows for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after 60 days 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 input from the uniform chiefs of staff for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
Hunter, a Marine Corps veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, billed the amendment as a means to ensure the uniform military leaders — which he described “the ones that are actually responsible for the men and women under their care” — are able to express their opinion before moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“Right now as it stands, the only folks that have to sign on to this are the president, who has never been to war or in ground combat, Adm. [Mike] Mullen, who, with all due respect to him, has never been to ground combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, and Secretary Gates, a political appointee, who is a very fine gentleman, but has never been in ground combat in Iraq or Afghanistan,” Hunter said. “I, and others in this room, have more combat experience than the people who would sign off on the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.'”
Hunter emphasized his amendment would require the service chiefs to issue certification only based on their belief that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal wouldn’t harm morale and unit cohesion for combat arms units under their jurisdiction. According to the Pentagon survey published in November, these units are the most skeptical about whether open service would cause a disruption in the U.S. military.
Involving the military service chiefs in the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal certification process could disrupt or delay open service in the U.S. military because some uniform leaders of the military — notably Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos — expressed opposition to passing repeal legislation last year. Amos has since said the Marine Corps would work to implement open service.
Despite the concerns that were expressed last year, each of the service chiefs testified in April that the process for enacting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal has been proceeding smoothly. Some service chiefs — including Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead — have said they oppose any effort to expand the certification requirement and they believe the defense secretary would adequately represent their views in the certification process.
Many Republican committee members voiced support for the Hunter amendment as they expressed opposition to implementing open service in the U.S. military.
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said he supported the amendment because the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had already backed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal before Congress acted to end the military’s gay ban.
“I always felt the deck was stacked when the three people who were supposed to sign off on it, agreed to and had all been on record ahead of time saying what their preference was,” Lamborn said. “This broadens it, and, I think, adds more objectivity to the whole matter, and I think that that’s really good thing.”
Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-Miss.) said he opposes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal because he hasn’t encountered one American or U.S. service member who wants an end to the anti-gay law. Despite his remarks, polls found that around 80 percent of Americans favored ending the military’s gay ban at the time Congress repealed the statute.
Palazzo added he had a visit earlier today from about 85 veterans of World War II and said he believes they’d be displeased with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“I don’t think that they would look upon this as progress,” Palazzo said. “I don’t think they’d look at this as the sacrifices they made for our families, for our country, for our allies, future generations of Americans — to see their military go down in flames by implementing [an end] to the DADT policy. Our men and women in uniform deserve better.”
Rep. Adam Smith (Blade photo by Michael Key)
But Democrats on the committee defended repeal of the law that Congress passed last year and said the current repeal process is working well.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said the Hunter amendment troubled him because it suggests the president and the defense officials identified in the repeal law aren’t capable of making critical defense decisions.
“It’s a very, very dangerous thing to say that the president of the United States, the commander in chief; the secretary of defense; and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are somehow not quite qualified to make important military decisions,” Smith said. “These are the same people that decide whether or not we go to war. They made a decision on whether or not to kill Osama bin Laden.”
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) directly responded to the view expressed by Palazzo that World War II veterans would be unhappy with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“Let’s not fool ourselves,” Pingree said. “Some of those soldiers were gay as well, and many of them took a long time to admit to that, or come out on that, but they’ve all been courageous in doing so and I think that they can’t be characterized as a generation that doesn’t want to see this change in the military.”
Although the committee adopted the amendment as part of defense authorization, passing such a provision into law would be challenging because the Senate would have to agree to it during conference negotiations and Obama would have to sign the measure.
Further, defense officials have testified that certification could happen mid-summer, and the final version of the defense authorization will likely not reach the president’s desk until after that time, rendering Hunter’s provision useless.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, expressed skepticism that the adoption of the Hunter amendment would impair the U.S. military’s ability to move toward open service.
“Despite the passage of this amendment within the ever-hostile House Armed Services Committee, it is highly unlikely that such an amendment would ever pass the Senate and be signed by the president,” Nicholson said. “The offering of this amendment was a shameful and embarrassing waste of time. The service chiefs have unequivocally said that they do not want this extra burden forced upon them, so if Congress really values their advice on this issue they should take it and forget this unnecessary and unwanted amendment.”
Hunter’s amendment was one of three anti-gay amendments the House Armed Services Committee approved on Wednesday as part of the defense authorization bill. Other measures affirmed the panel’s commitment to DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The DOMA-related amendments were apparently inspired by Navy guidance on same-sex marriage that was made public this week.The guidance, which is dated April 13 and signed by Chief of Navy Chaplains Rear Adm. Mark Tidd, indicated military bases could be used for same-sex marriage ceremonies in states where such unions are legal and that Navy chaplains can officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies if they so choose.
However, following an outcry from conservatives, the Navy rescinded the guidance and said further legal review on the issue was necessary.
Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) introduced an amendment mandating that marriage ceremonies on military installations must comply with DOMA and that chaplains can only officiate in their official capacity over such ceremonies if they comply with the anti-gay law.
The committee adopted the amendment as part of the Pentagon budget legislation by a vote of 38-23. Republican members of the panel were unanimous in their support for the measure. Reps. McIntyre, Larry Kissell (D-N.C.) and Mark Critz (D-Pa.) joined with the GOP to vote in favor of the amendment.
Akin said the amendment was necessary because he believes the recent Navy guidance demonstrates that the U.S. military was willing to skirt federal law.
“There is a federal law on the books and the military has decided they’re going to ignore that law,” Akin said. “That’s a very serious question. Does that mean that the law code on our books is an a la carte menu? Does that mean that the military can decide they’re going to change the rules of engagement and how they’re going to interrogate prisoners or [enforce] whatever particular law suits their fancy?”
Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), who opposed the amendment, said the Navy guidance was the result of the Pentagon looking at how the U.S. military would look after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“We asked them to deal with these issues and to speak specifically to them,” Davis said. “So, when a facility is made available to such events, individuals who meet all the requirements for use of those facilities should not be denied access to the facility because of sexual orientation.”
Davis added the amendment restricts the right of chaplains to exercise freely their religious beliefs if they want to officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies.
“Many chaplains represent faith traditions in which marriages between same-sex couples are celebrated and to prohibit them from doing so — to do that would be an attack on their rights with this amendment,” Davis said.
Although the Navy has said it will revisit the guidance, Davis said she’s confident the service will reach the same conclusion it had come to before.
Rep. Vicky Hartzler introduced an amendment to ensure DOD policies comply with DOMA (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Another amendment came from Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), whose measure restated that the definition of marriage under DOMA as a union between one man and one woman applies to Defense Department regulations and policies.
The panel adopted the measure as part of the defense authorization bill by a vote of 39-28. The Republican members of the panel were unanimous in their support. Reps. McIntyre, Kissell and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) as well as Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) joined the GOP to vote in favor of the measure.
Hartzler said the intention of the amendment was to reaffirm congressional support for DOMA and opposition to same-sex marriage.
“I think that this is a time for us in this Congress, the 112th Congress, to give our stance that we believe this is a wise policy and that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” she said.
But Smith, who opposed the measure, disputed the idea that the federal government should be involved in state regulation of marriage and questioned why the committee was taking up the issue when the panel’s area of jurisdiction is the U.S. military.
“I don’t think we need to be inserting into the Defense Authorization Act a Congress-wide view on how marriage should be defined, however we may feel,” Smith said.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, was particularly critical of what he said was invoking the more controversial debate over marriage in an attempt to derail “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“These adopted amendments to delay and derail repeal are a partisan political attempt to interject the same-sex marriage debate and other unrelated social issues into the NDAA where they have no place,” Sarvis said. “Make no mistake — these votes should be a wake-up call to supporters of open service that our work is not done. Our commitment to timely certification and repeal must be redoubled as we move to the House floor to defend the progress we have made to ensure that LGB patriots can defend and serve the country they love with honesty and integrity.”
Another anticipated anti-gay amendment didn’t see introduction before the committee on Wednesday. Palazzo was expected to introduce an amendment that would require conscience regulations for service members who have religious or moral objections to open service. His office didn’t immediately respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on why the measure wasn’t introduced.
After adopting the anti-gay amendments, the committee voted to report out the defense authorization bill to the floor by a vote of 60-1. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) was the sole panel member to vote against the legislation.
The Republican-controlled House will likely pass the defense authorization bill as a whole when the measure reaches the floor. A vote on the legislation could happen as soon as the week of May 23.
National
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
Directive adopted during meeting in Baltimore.
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.”
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.
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
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.”
New book highlights long history of LGBTQ oppression
In solid ‘Nuremberg,’ the Nazis are still the bad guys
PHOTOS: Whitman-Walker Gala
Activist hosts Diwali celebration in D.C.
Harford school board appeals state’s book ban decision to circuit court
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
Democratic Socialism won’t win the whole country
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
Salisbury, Md. rainbow crosswalk removed on Veterans Day
Gottmik and Violet Chachki are bringing drag excellence across the country with ‘The Knockout Tour’
-
Politics3 days agoPro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
-
Opinions3 days ago
Democratic Socialism won’t win the whole country
-
National3 days ago
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
-
Maryland4 days ago
Salisbury, Md. rainbow crosswalk removed on Veterans Day
