National
Legacy of 9/11
10 years later, assessing impact of attacks on rights of same-sex couples
Mark Bingham, pictured here with partner Paul Holm, helped prevent United Flight 93 from reaching D.C. Those passengers are widely credited with saving the U.S. Capitol or White House on Sept. 11, 2001. (Blade file photo)
Ross Levi, executive director of New York’s LGBT advocacy group Empire State Pride Agenda, worked in the group’s lower Manhattan office in a different staff position at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
In what he describes as the first horrifying hours following the crash of two hijacked jetliners into both World Trade Center towers, causing them to collapse, Levi said the ESPA staff joined other New Yorkers in helping survivors and victims any way they could.
“We opened the doors to our offices, which were on 12th Street at the time, to people as they were fleeing the World Trade Center site and coming downtown,” he said. “Many of them came right by our offices and so people were coming in just to use the bathroom and get some water and make phone calls,” he said.
“And in that way we were just a member of the New York family that had to go through this horrible event,” Levi said.
But Levi and other LGBT activists observing the Sept. 11 events as they unfolded said they quickly discovered within a week of the attacks that same-sex partners of those killed, injured or missing in the World Trade Center collapse faced additional hurdles in obtaining government and private sector assistance.
He said ESPA first became aware that same-sex partner survivors were being treated differently when the city and private relief agencies like the Red Cross set up an emergency station on a pier along New York’s Hudson River where people could go to find a family member missing and as yet unaccounted for in the World Trade Center carnage.
“Literally [gay] people had to go there, turn around, go back home and get some paperwork that spouses didn’t have to get to prove a relationship existed,” Levi said. “You were nervous and scared and sad and then you had to go through that. And worse, other people turned them away, even with the paperwork, saying sorry you’re not a family according to our guidelines.”
Activists reflecting on the Sept. 11 tragedy this week said New York City and New York State officials quickly recognized the inequities faced by same-sex partner survivors and took steps to change polices and laws to correct the situation. The changes began to take place, activists, said, following news media reports of the loss of individual LGBT people at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon just outside Washington, which was hit by a third hijacked plane.
“It had such an impact because the loss was about death and relationships,” said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, an LGBT litigation group, in a 2006 interview with the Blade at the time of the 5th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
“The grief and loss was the same between heterosexual and same-sex couples, and a perception of this seemed to come through to much of the public,” Pizer said.
Among the victims widely reported on by the media was Mark Bingham, a gay public relations executive and avid rugby player from San Francisco, who was one of the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into the countryside in Pennsylvania.
Bingham’s mother said she spoke to him by cell phone after his hijacked plane was believed to be heading toward Washington, D.C. for another terrorist attack. She said she believes her son was part of a small group of passengers believed to have attempted to wrestle control of the plane from the hijackers.
Authorities have speculated that passengers such as Bingham and others most likely intervened to prevent the hijackers from crashing the jetliner into a building in Washington, such as the Capitol or the White House.
Bingham was among the 9/11 victims portrayed in the Hollywood film “United 93.”
American Airlines pilot David Charlebois, who was gay, served as co-pilot onboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked it and crashed it into the Pentagon. (Blade file photo)
Another of the victims widely reported in the media was American Airlines pilot David Charlebois, who was gay and an active member of the National Gay Pilots Association. Charlebois was serving as first officer, or co-pilot, onboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the Boeing 757 jetliner and crashed it into the Pentagon.
All of its crew and passengers perished along with dozens of Pentagon employees working in the part of the building struck by the plane.
Charlebois’ surviving partner of 14 years, Tom Hay, was treated with respect and honor by American Airlines’ top brass and colleagues when more than a dozen uniformed company pilots and flight attendants attended Charlebois’ funeral mass at St. Matthews Cathedral in downtown D.C.
“It was a time when all Americans did come together with a single, united focus,” said David Smith, vice president of programs for the Human Rights Campaign and the national LGBT advocacy group’s media spokesperson at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks.
“And there were extraordinary acts of kindness and recognition that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with, i.e., our families need to be protected,” Smith said. “But it also really brought into stark reality how the lack of recognition of our families causes real pain and at times almost insurmountable challenges that families that are protected by law through marriage don’t have to experience.”
Levi said ESPA was pleased when, in response to requests by LGBT advocacy groups and media reports, then GOP Gov. George Pataki issued an executive order in October 2001 that included surviving partners of gay and lesbian victims of the World Trade Center attacks in receiving full spousal benefits from the state’s Crime Victims Board.
“The order marks the first official step taken by any level of government in the nation to address the inequities faced by gay and lesbian survivors of the terrorist attacks in obtaining benefits,” ESPA said in a statement at the time.
The New York State Legislature soon followed suit by passing three separate bills that included same-sex partner survivors in various state benefits to be allocated to 9/11 survivors and their families. One provided state worker’s compensation benefits to domestic partners of 9/11 victims.
Another bill approved by the legislature enabled same-sex partners and their children to be eligible for a newly created World Trade Center Memorial Scholarship Program. A third bill passed by the legislature called on the federal government to include same-sex partners in federal relief programs for 9/11 survivors.
A short time later, the Red Cross responded to requests by ESPA, HRC, Lambda Legal and other LGBT groups by opening up its disaster relief programs to same-sex partner survivors. Activists called the action historic and noted it resulted in badly needed relief for LGBT victims of Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans and the Gulf Coast several years later.
On the federal level, President George W. Bush and Republican members of Congress joined Democrats in approving a massive, $7 billion Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund. Officials said the program was aimed at providing a viable alternative to thousands of individual wrongful death lawsuits that likely would have emerged against airline companies and the company that operated the World Trade Center if such a fund were not created.
But LGBT advocacy groups once again discovered that the relief funds would likely be out of reach for surviving same-sex partners of 9/11 victims. Among other things, the fund’s administrator, attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who had worked for the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), said rules for who is eligible for receiving as much as $1.3 million in compensation payments would have to be linked to state probate laws and rules.
At the time, no state probate law recognized same-sex relationships, even if they were made legal on the local level by a city or county domestic partnership ordinance.
ESPA, HRC, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups said they worked hard to lobby the U.S. Justice Department, which had jurisdiction over the compensation fund program, to take administrative steps to include same-sex couples survivors in the program.
At the time, Feinberg told the Blade that while he was concerned about the plight of surviving domestic partners of the Sept. 11 victims, it was not feasible to include specific domestic partner provisions in the relief fund’s regulations.
“If I get in the middle of that fight and try and trump local probate law in a particular case, I’ll be up to my neck in lawsuits,” he said. “I’m not saying they’re not entitled,” he said. “I’m not saying they are entitled.”
Smith of HRC said at least two of about 22 known LGBT partner survivors in the Sept. 11 attacks did receive compensation from the fund. Smith said the compensation payments came about, however, when surviving blood relatives chose not to challenge the same-sex partners’ application for the compensation.
In a separate development, HRC, ESPA, Lambda Legal and other LGBT advocacy groups created the September 11 Gay & Lesbian Family Fund to provide some relief to surviving partners who were ineligible for help from the federal relief fund program.
In a May 2006 announcement, ESPA said the known surviving partners of gay or lesbian victims of 9/11 had received nearly $17,315 each from the new Gay & Lesbian Family Fund. ESPA said at the time that the groups raised a total of $378,812 for the fund, with only $11,193, or 2.9 percent, being spent on administrative costs.
“The Family Fund was established in December [2001] to help offset the discrimination gay and lesbian partners faced in obtaining benefits automatically afforded to surviving spouses, including Social Security and Workers Compensation survivor benefits, and compensation under the Federal 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund,” the ESPA statement said.
“I don’t think there is one of us who were of remembering age who lives their life the same on Sept. 11 at 8 o’clock in the morning as we did at 10 o’clock in the morning on that day,” said Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs for the Center for American Progress, and who served as HRC’s political director in 2001.
“And my hope is it’s changed us to respect our diversity, to honor our humanity,” she said. “I don’t know if we’ve embraced those lessons but in this 10th year anniversary if we don’t remember that we need to honor our diversity and our humanity we will not have learned from the tragedy of Sept. 11.”
Another of the widely reported 9/11 victims was Father Mychal Judge, a gay Catholic priest and beloved New York Fire Department chaplain. Judge was killed when struck by falling debris next to the World Trade Center while he was performing last rites for a dying firefighter. His sexual orientation, while not widely known until after his death, was confirmed by New York Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, who told New York magazine that Judge confided to him that he was both gay and celebate.
In 2002, Congress honored Judge by using his name for the landmark Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers Benefit Act. The law marked the first time the federal government had extended an equal benefit for same-sex couples, in this case allowing domestic partners of public safety officers killed in the line of duty to obtain a federal death benefit.
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.”
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
Federal government reopens
Sydney Sweeney embodies lesbian boxer in new film ‘Christy’
Democratic Socialism won’t win the whole country
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
Capital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
Spark Social House to start serving alcohol
Turks and Caicos government ordered to recognize gay couple’s marriage
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Capital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist
-
Politics1 day ago
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
-
Dining4 days ago
Spark Social House to start serving alcohol
