Connect with us

National

Choi slams DOMA hearing witnesses as ‘exclusively white and privileged’

No person of color or bi-national couples set to testify before Senate

Published

on

Dan Choi (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The gay activist known for chaining himself to the White House in protest over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” isn’t happy with the witness selection for an upcoming Senate hearing on the Defense of Marriage Act.

Dan Choi, an Iraq war veteran who was discharged under the military’s gay ban, said in a statement to the Washington Blade on Sunday that the scheduled witnesses for the Senate Judiciary Committee are “exclusively white and privileged.”

“Marriage equality is a matter of civil rights, steeped in the language and moral lessons of the historic American struggle for inclusion and equality,” Choi said. “That the panel of gay witnesses is exclusively white and privileged brings shameful discredit to the true character of our broad community and inclusive civil rights movement.”

Each of the three witnesses slated to testify on Wednesday who are in or were in same-sex marriages are white. Additionally, the two prominent LGBT advocates who are set to testify — Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese and Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson — are white. No person of color is scheduled to testify at the hearing.

Neither the Senate Judiciary Committee nor Freedom to Marry replied to a request to comment on Choi’s remarks. HRC declined to comment.

While each of the scheduled witnesses are white, at least one is enduring significant hardship, according to a committee notice published last week.

Among the witnesses is Ron Wallen, an Indio, Calif. resident, who married Tom Carrollo in 2008 after being together for 55 years. After Carrollo died in March of cancer, Wallen’s income was compromised because DOMA prohibits him from receiving his spouse’s Social Security payment. According to the hearing notice, Wallen is unable to make payments on his family home and is faced with selling the residence after recently losing his spouse.

Choi is also pushing on online petition on Change.org targeting HRC for the selection of the witnesses. In addition to criticizing the witness selection for being all white, the petition, organized by Oregon-based activist Ian Finkenbinder, also decries the lack of representation of bi-national same-sex couples at the hearing. As of Sunday, at least 100 people signed the online petition.

“Neglecting people of color and binational couples in the discussion on marriage equality is an outrage,” the petition states. “Their powerful stories need to be heard, and I have signed this petition in order to demand the HRC include ALL LGBT Americans in this debate.”

HRC isn’t responsible the selection of witnesses for the DOMA hearing. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the committee, decides in consultation with outside groups which witnesses will present testimony.

Still, DOMA’s impact on bi-national same-sex couples has been one of the most high-profile ways in which the law discriminates against LGBT people. Under DOMA, U.S. citizens in same-sex marriages with foreign nationals cannot sponsor the spouses for residency in the United States. In the some cases, gay foreign nationals wed to Americans could be deported.

But one group focused on immigration issues isn’t expressing concern about the lack of representation of bi-national same-sex couples at the hearing.

Christopher Edwards, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said Leahy is a “huge champion” of UAFA and bi-national families and maintained Immigration Equality has “a very positive relationship with him and his office.”

“There are a large number of issues related to DOMA that not all of them could be or should be represented,” Edwards said. “We at Immigration Equality are fully supportive of the witness list for the hearing, and we know our couples and families will benefit from the hearing and the testimony of the witnesses chosen.”

In 2009, Leahy held a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing specifically dedicated to the hardships faced by bi-national same-sex couples and the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States.

At the time, Shirley Tan, a Philippines native and lesbian Pacifica, Calif., resident, testified on how she was arrested in January 2009 by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and threatened with deportation from her partner for nearly 25 years.

Moreover, the Courage Campaign, a grassroots organization that works on progressive issues, has scheduled a bi-national same-sex couple to appear on Tuesday at a news conference promoting DOMA repeal.

Robert Koehl, a 60-year-old U.S citizen, will be present with his partner of 15 years, Stylianos Manolakakis, a Greek national. Manolakakis’ request to renew his visitor’s visa was denied shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

“Our lawyer advised us not to marry because she said it might raise red flags,” Koehl said a written statement. “So, we’re waiting. As long as DOMA is in the books, there is no way our marriage would be recognized. But if DOMA got repealed, we would get married the following day.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.

The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”

The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.

Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.

The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.

Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.

“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.

The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.

While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.

“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “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 also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.

“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,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”

“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.”

Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.

“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 also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans 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.”

Continue Reading

National

Results from key Tuesday primary races

Published

on

Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener (Photo courtesy of Scott Wiener)

State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election. 

The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump. 

In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.

In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.

In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.  

The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple. 

Continue Reading

National

White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting

‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’

Published

on

The scene inside April’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner after shots rang out. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.

Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.

“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members. 

She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing. 

Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.  

This post will be updated as more details are announced.

Continue Reading

Popular