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.”
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Cuban lawmakers to consider simplifying process for trans people to change IDs
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
