Connect with us

National

‘Don’t Ask’ repeal a non-issue for Marines in training

Service conducts training session to prepare for open service

Published

on

Gunnery Sgt. Anthony Taylor conducts 'Don't Ask' repeal training for Marines (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Uneventful.

That’s the word that might best describe the impact of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal on the U.S. armed forces based on briefings held this week to prepare service members for the post-repeal military.

On a warm, sunny spring day earlier this week, Marines stationed at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Va., take a break from their day-long training in sharpshooting and physical conditioning — which the service has practiced and perfected for its nearly 236 years of existence — to engage in something completely new: preparation to serve alongside openly gay, lesbian and bisexual troops.

Prior to start of the briefing, scheduled to begin on Monday at 1300 hours, Marines dressed in their summer camouflage gear begin settling into a briefing room at the barracks to prepare for the training. One Marine patiently awaits the training while reading the Quantico Sentry. Another Marine entering the room smacks his comrade on the shoulder with a notepad before taking a seat.

Standing in the back, this reporter — clad in a bright magenta dress shirt — wilts in the  sun-baked room, which is overheated thanks to a malfunctioning air conditioner. One Marine responds, “This is nothing! Try taking a tour in Iraq!”

The start of the training is delayed for 15 minutes — unusual in the military, which almost always follows its schedules with precision — to ensure that as many Marines as possible can sign up to participate. The Marine Corps is set to finish training for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal by June 1.

Col. Jay Johnson, commander of the Marine Corps’ Headquarters and Service Battalion, begins the briefing by greeting his Marines with “Good afternoon,” a salutation they repeat in unison. All Marines present are part of the battalion, which comprises more than 3,200 service members and is the largest battalion in the service.

Johnson stands before his audience displaying a slide presentation with four bulletpoints: leadership, professionalism, discipline and respect. The commander has a simple message: The key to handling “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is for Marines to continue to treat one another respectfully.

“We don’t need anybody to remind us about that,” Johnson says. “We do that every day. We do that out of San Diego or Paris Island — the transfer over to civilian to Marine — we understand about treating each other with dignity and respect.”

Even under the change, Johnson maintains that no one will pry into the sexual orientation or relationships of Marines while they’re in the service — nor will anyone attempt to alter their personal views or religious beliefs.

“Sexual orientation — that’s personal, that’s private,” Johnson says. “Nobody’s going to get in and starting asking you about these kinds of things.”

A video plays from Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos and Sgt. Maj. Carlton Kent instructing Marines on how to prepare for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. When Congress considered repeal legislation last year, Amos was among those who opposed it — going so far as to say open service could prove a distraction that might cost Marines’ lives on the battlefield. But in February he issued guidance saying the Marine Corps would work to implement repeal.

“I want to be clear to all Marines, we will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new law,” Amos says. “It’s important that we value the diversity of background, culture and skills that all Marines bring to the service of our nation. As we implement repeal, I want leaders at all levels to reemphasize the importance of maintaining dignity and respect for one another throughout our force.”

The Marines watch silently as their top uniformed commander instructs them on his expectations of them during the transition to open service.

Gunnery Sgt. Anthony Taylor (Blade photo by Michael Key)

After the video is complete, Gunnery Sgt. Anthony Taylor, who’s set to handle the briefing, kicks off the training with his own words of wisdom. He’s been handling the training session since repeal implementation for two months and has already conducted four briefings.

“Like I said earlier, 235 years we’ve been doing this,” Taylor said. “The implementation of this new policy — nothing will change. As Marines, you’re first and foremost a rifleman — first and foremost. Nothing will change. I want everybody to take that away along with leadership, professionalism, dignity and respect.”

The slideshow begins detailing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and that repeal states that open service will be implemented after 60 days pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

What does this mean for the Marine Corps? The female voice states that Marines are responsible for executing the change “in a manner consistent with readiness, unit cohesion while treating all Marines and sailors with dignity and respect.”

Another recorded male voice states, “Gay, lesbian or bisexual orientation in the military is no longer a disqualifying factor for entering military service. Marines and sailors are no longer subject to administrative separation on the basis of lawful homosexual conduct.”

Still, the voice states that the Marines will continue to be evaluated on their own merit in the post-repeal military and that sexual misconduct — for either gay or straight Marines — will be a violation of the rules.

“It remains the policy of the Marine Corps to evaluate all Marines on the basis of their individual merit, fitness and capability,” the voice states. “Sexual misconduct, regardless of sexual orientation, that violates that standards of rule, regulation, policy or law will still be considered grounds for administrative or legal action to include possible discharge.”

Taylor interrupts the briefing to pose a question: What happens if two Marines object to sharing a room with someone they believe to be gay and want to live elsewhere? Unlike the other military services, the Marine Corps has for decades focused on housing designed for two Marines.

“They know he’s gay, or think he’s gay, but due to the fact that he dresses a certain way — his mannerisms, the way he fluffs his hands up in the air or anything else of that nature,” Taylor says, “they request to move out of that room. Do you think that’s right, No. 1, to request to move out of that room if the only lead they can go on is that they assume that [he’s] gay? Do they have the right? And two, the company commander, does he have that moral right to make the request happen?”

A Marine in the audience stands and responds that the move may only be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as if the Marine believed to be gay has engaged in lewd activity or other actions in violation of conduct rules.

“That’s the question I was looking for,” Taylor says. “That could be classified as discrimination. Again, we’re going into a whole other avenue — possibly a [Military Equal Opportunity] complaint.”

Additional slides state that the same-sex partners of gay service members may be eligible for designation as emergency contacts or life insurance beneficiaries. Still, the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, blocks other benefits such as co-location in military housing or survivor benefits.

Taylor asks the audience if anyone has heard of DOMA. One Marine staff sergeant belts out, “It means that marriage is one man, one woman!” — perhaps the most overt anti-gay remark of the briefing.

“Exactly,” Taylor responds. “Right now, the Department of Defense recognizes that marriage is between one man and one woman, heterosexual. It does not recognize same-sex homes.”

But Taylor poses the hypothetical question: If a Marine with a same-sex partner and three children deploys to Afghanistan, can the same-sex partner receive obligations for the children?

The same Marine who answered the question about billeting responds, “Can the same-sex partner have access to the commissary or the [Post Exchange]? Yes, he can. But that’s only as long as what he’s buying is for your children.”

“You’ve been doing your reading,” Taylor says in response to the Marine.

The closing slide features a female voice restating that the main mission of the Marine Corps as a war-fighting service remains the same as it has been for nearly 236 years.

“We cannot allow these few changes to divert our focus from our warfighting mission, readiness and unit cohesion,” the voice states. “We will continue to treat all Marines with dignity and respect while demanding that all [have] exemplary behavior in keeping with our traditions and faithful service.”

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, is among those observing the briefing and, afterwards, says participants may have been muted because media outlets were in the room covering the session.

“I think there might have been a number of more questions asked,” Nicholson says. “It wasn’t silent … but I think it’s just to be expected. The people in attendance are a little nervous and they’re in front of strangers. They may not feel as comfortable asking a question that may be perceived in a certain way, or that may be recorded or taken down.”

Still, Nicholson says the training presents views of gays and lesbians to a conservative audience that may not have otherwise been exposed to them.

“People from Oklahoma, Alabama and Mississippi would never have exposure to people talking about gay couples being normal and maybe having kids and living together in housing,” Nicholson says. “I think we’re going to see a … long-term benefit because it’s unprecedented. It really is showing the normal side of the gay community to a lot of people who wouldn’t normally be exposed to it.”

Following the briefing, Marines who attended say the training was helpful and that proceeding toward open service should be no problem for the Marine Corps.

Marine Lance Corp. Christina Monti (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Lance Cpl. Christina Monti, 22, says she was interested in all the steps the Marine Corps is taking to make sure the entire service is prepared for repeal.

“I think that it’s not going to be much of a change at all,” she says. “I think that we adapt and overcome. We don’t discriminate against anyone — race, gender, sexual orientation. So, it shouldn’t be any different.”

Sgt. Jonathan Garrigues, 27, says the briefing helped to put all Marines “at ease” during the transition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and serving alongside openly gay service members will be “not a big deal.”

“I’m a combat veteran as well,” Garrigues says. “I don’t think that it’s going to make any difference. Especially [with] the polls and everything saying homosexuals are — gays and lesbians are already serving with us, so their ability to be open [and] to be comfortable with who they are. I don’t think that’s going to be any kind of impact whatsoever.”

Capt. Stewart Coles, 27, says he thinks the briefing was “absolutely helpful” and laid out “very plainly” the Marine Corps’ plan for allowing open gay service.

“It, of course, laid out some of those basic things,” Coles says. “For instance, no matter what happens, without regard to [sexual] orientation, gender, race anything like that, it goes back to discipline and respect. Those are always the most important things.”

Asked about his personal views on serving with openly gay Marines, Coles says, “If I or any Marine had personal concerns, then, once again, that’s — orientation is a personal and private matter, just as any belief. We’re not expected to change any of our beliefs. What we’re expected to do is follow our orders and treat each other with dignity and respect.”

One remark that a Marine shouted at this reporter perhaps best sums up the ease of transition to permitting gay service members to serve openly alongside their straight counterparts.

“Hey! I have that magenta shirt at home!” the Marine says.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits

Administration criticizes National Museum of American History

Published

on

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum is expected to install warning signs outside the National Museum of American History warning visitors of supposedly anti-American content. (Photo courtesy of the Office of the Governor of North Dakota)

The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.

According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”

Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.

Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.

“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.

The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.

The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.

The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”

The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.

It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”

Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”

On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.

In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.

House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”

In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.

Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.

“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.

Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.

It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.

An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)

Continue Reading

National

Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups

Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs

Published

on

The Trump administration will discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations that provide HIV prevention services. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.

 News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.

Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.

Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.

Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.

A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.

 Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.

“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.” 

Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.  

 Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.

“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,”  Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.

Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.

In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.  

 “Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.

It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end. 

“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.

“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes. 

Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.

Continue Reading

National

At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers

Published

on

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

Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.

By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.

They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”

Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.

In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”

That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.

After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.

At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.

“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.

Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.

All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.

The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.

I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.

In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.

It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.

Continue Reading

Popular