Connect with us

National

Perry ‘would be comfortable’ reinstating ‘Don’t Ask’

GOP hopeful says Obama repealed ban to please political base

Published

on

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said Tuesday he “would be comfortable” reinstating the ban openly gay military service known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if elected president.

The three-term Texas governor and GOP presidential hopeful made the remarks during a morning interview with ABC News’ Christine Amanpour when asked if he would have been uncomfortable serving alongside openly gay troops in his capacity as an airman.

“If an individual, in their private life, makes a decision about their sexuality from the standpoint of how they’re going to practice it, that’s their business,” Perry said. “I don’t think that question needs to be asked. That’s the reason ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was, in fact, a workable policy, and that’s where I would be comfortable with our country going back to that.”

Despite Perry’s characterization of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” many gay service members were involuntarily outed by a third-party and discharged from service under the law without making any statements about their sexual orientation. For example, Maj. Mike Almy, a former Air Force communications officer, said he never made a statement that was gay while in military service, but was nonetheless expelled from the armed forces in 2006 after his superior obtained private emails revealing his sexual orientation.

Perry said he would “comfortable” reinstating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after Amanpour asked him several times whether he would put the gay ban back in place.

The first time he was asked about it, Perry suggested he would discuss the matter with military leaders, saying “you go back and sit down with your commanders in the field and have that conversation,” and maintained the gay ban “worked very well.”

The 18-year-old law prohibiting openly gay service in the military, enacted by Congress in 1993, was lifted from the books on Sept. 20 after President Obama signed repeal legislation in December.

Perry said Obama repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to “make a political statement” and chided the president for “using our men and women in the military as a tool” for that end.

“What I agree with is that the president of the United States [was] changing policy that was working well — and to do it while we were at war in two different theaters, I think, was irresponsible,” Perry said. “And I truly believe he did it to respond to his political base.”

Other Republican presidential hopefuls who’ve said they would reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and former U.S. senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Perry’s remarks in the interview mark the first time he’s weighed in on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since he’s sought election to the White House.

LGBT advocates pounced on Perry for being open to bringing back “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and said the candidate’s views represent a misunderstanding of the military and the American public.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, said Perry “sidesteps the importance of individual liberty” by backing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and for asserting it was a “workable uniform policy.”

“As a veteran of the Iraq campaign and current Army reserve officer, I can attest [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] was a hindrance to servicemember integrity, readiness, security and was a tremendous waste of tax dollars,” Cooper said.

Cooper noted a bipartisan majority in Congress legislatively ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” last year and said suggesting that law should be restored “is a no-go and demonstrates a lack of understanding key national security issues.”

“We must have a president who will lead our military in the 21st century, not cling to a failed relic of the last,” Cooper said. “Gov. Perry should remain battle focused on the economy if he wants Republicans to a win in 2012.”

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications at the Human Rights Campaign, called Perry’s remarks “nothing more than red meat for Republican primary voters.”

“Gov. Perry knows better which is what makes his statement so appalling,” Sainz said. “Over 70 percent of the American public favors open service and military brass have said the integration of gay and lesbian service members has been a non-issue. Why would he want to mess with those two facts?  The answer is simple. Because a return to discrimination appeals to a very narrow cross-section of voters that he’s going after.”

Once the GOP front-runner, Perry has fallen in the polls and remains unpopular with the Republican electorate with which he’s seeking support. A USA Today/Gallup published Tuesday found former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain tied with 21 percent of support, followed by U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich with 12 percent and Perry with 11 percent.

A transcript of the exchange between Amanpour and Perry follows:

Christine Amanpour: As president, would you reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — even if commanders, as they have done, have said that openly serving gays and lesbians have not many any difference to operational security or any kind of morale?

Rick Perry: I think you go back and sit down with your commanders in the field and have that conversation. I think “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” worked very well, and —

Amanpour: So you would reinstate it?

Perry: I think it worked very well.

Amanpour: But would you reinstate it?

Perry: I think the idea the president of the United States wanted to make a political statement using our men and women in the military as the tool for that was irresponsible.

Amanpour: Do you think it was a political statement?

Perry: Absolutely.

Amanpour: So many allied governments — whether it’s Israel, whether it’s England or France — have done that and they say they have strengthened their armed forces, and you remember, during the Iraq war, there were so many gay people who couldn’t serve in desperately needed positions and that harmed national security. You would really reinstate it?

Perry: I don’t necessarily agree with your premise. What I agree with is that the president of the United States [was] changing policy that was working well — and to do it while we were at war in two different theaters, I think, was irresponsible. And I truly believe he did it to respond to his political base.

Amanpour: You were in the Air Force. Would you have been uncomfortable serving with openly gay members of the Air Force?

Perry: I don’t ask that question. I think that’s the issue right there. If an individual, in their private life, makes a decision about their sexuality from the standpoint of how they’re going to practice it, that’s their business. I don’t think that question needs to be asked. That’s the reason “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was, in fact, a workable policy, and that’s where I would be comfortable with our country going back to that.

Watch the video here (via Think Progress)

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