National
Senate panel leaves out anti-gay provisions in defense bill
Bill lacks language on ‘Don’t Ask,’ DOMA found in House measure
Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
A Senate defense panel late Thursday approved major Pentagon budget legislation lacking anti-gay provisions found in the House version of the bill, although questions remain on whether amendments related to same-sex marriage or “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” could come up on the Senate floor.
Additionally, the Senate version of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill has language repealing Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice — the long-standing military law classifying consensual sodomy for both gay and straight service members as a crime.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal advocates praised the Senate Armed Services Committee for excluding from its legislation the anti-gay language found in the House bill. The committee approved the defense legislation — which provides for a pay raise for troops and funding for defense programs — by unanimous vote on Thursday.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.), a leading proponent last year of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, touted the committee’s passage of the legislation in a statement.
“For the 50th consecutive year, the committee has reported out a bill that supports the men and women of the armed forces and their families and provides them with the resources, training, and equipment they need to accomplish their missions,” Levin said. “In this time of fiscal problems for our nation, I am pleased that we were able to support our troops and their families while finding savings of more than $6 billion.”
Unlike the Senate bill, the House version of the legislation contains language — introduced as an amendment by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) — that would expand the certification needed for repeal to include input from the four military service chiefs. Such language could potentially delay the process for implementing open service, which, under the repeal law signed in December, would come about after 60 days pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Additionally, the House version of the defense authorization bill, passed May 26, has language reaffirming that the Defense of Marriage Act applies to Defense Department policies and regulations as well as language prohibiting same-sex marriage ceremonies from taking place on military bases or military chaplains from presiding over these ceremonies.
During a conference call with media outlets on Friday, Levin said no member of the Senate Armed Services Committee even made an attempt to amend the defense authorization bill with measures related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or the Defense of Marriage Act.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the decision of panel members not to even introduce any anti-gay amendments during consideration of the legislation demonstrates the committee has “remained focused on serious military issues and has refused to waste time and taxpayer money trying to delay or stop the repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law.”
“This just goes to show that this debate is settled and that Congress needs to focus on the serious issues of the day instead of being distracted by Congressman Duncan Hunter’s circus sideshow over in the House,” Nicholson said.
Still, even though the Senate Armed Services Committee excluded these anti-gay amendments from the defense bill, they could still emerge as floor amendments when the legislation comes before the full Senate.
With Democrats retaining 53 seats in the Senate, the passage of these anti-gay amendments on the Senate floor would be unlikely. However, opponents of open service and same-sex marriage may want to submit these measure on the floor to force all members of the Senate to go on the record on the issues.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he’s unaware of any plans to offer anti-gay amendments to the defense authorization bill on the Senate floor.
“However, we are most encouraged by Chairman Levin’s commitment to oppose them,” Sarvis said. “We think a majority on [Senate Armed Services Committee] share the chairman’s opposition, and, hopefully, a majority in the Senate too.”
Advocates are hoping the anti-gay language in the House bill would be stripped from the defense legislation during conference negotiations before it reaches the president’s desk. The White House has said the president opposes these provisions in the House version of the defense authorization bill, but has stopped short of saying he’d veto the legislation over this language.
While the Senate bill contains no anti-gay language, the legislation has a provision that would repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which makes sodomy an offense under military law. The Senate committee included in the repeal language in its version of the defense authorization measure because the Defense Department requested it as a legislative proposal.
Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal praised the committee for including a repeal of the sodomy ban in the defense legislation. Nicholson said the move would lead to a more modern military.
“By proactively acting to remove Article 125 from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Senate Armed Services Committee has also reaffirmed that it is committed to modernizing the U.S. military and its personnel policies, and to removing outdated provisions that have long been viewed as unnecessary and even ridiculous by military commanders on the ground,” Nicholson said.
Sarvis said the decision to repeal the sodomy ban is is “timely and welcomed” and noted an end to ban was among the recommendations of the Pentagon working group report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” issued in November.
“After a decade of discussions with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and specific recommendations to the Hill, we welcome the Senate Armed Services Committee’s decision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) relating to sodomy,” Sarvis said.
Despite the praise for the inclusion of language to repeal the sodomy ban, the statute has rarely been enforced in recent years for private, consensual sex. Experts have earlier told the Washington Blade that nearly all Article 125 prosecutions in recent years have involved additional infractions and violations, such as allegations of rape or sexual harassment or of sexual activity between an officer and a lower-ranking enlisted person.
The House version of the defense legislation doesn’t contain this language because the House Armed Services Committee ignored the request from the Pentagon to change the law. Sarvis expressed optimism that the repeal language for the sodomy ban would remain intact in the legislation following conference discussions between the House and Senate.
“Hopefully, the House conferees will recognize that these recommendations also come from a group of distinguished legal scholars from the military, private practice, and academia who felt strongly about the need for updates to the UCMJ,” Sarvis said. “These much needed changes will be to the benefit of all service members, straight and gay.”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
