National
BREAKING: Second Circuit latest to strike down DOMA
Anti-gay law ruled unconstitutional in 2-1 decision
The Second Circuit ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional against Edith Windsor‘s legal challenge against the law (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
A federal appeals court has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional in case filed by a New York widow who’s challenging the statute on the basis that it unfairly forced her to pay $363,000 in estate taxes.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Section 3 of DOMA on the basis that it violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The majority opinion came from Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, who wrote the decision, and Judge Christopher Droney. Judge Chester Straub dissented by asserting DOMA is constitutional.
“DOMA’s classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest,” the decision states. “Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.”
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, is 83-year-old lesbian Edith Windsor, who in 2009 had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer, because DOMA prohibits the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
In a statement, Windsor praised the Second Circuit for coming to the conclusion that DOMA is unconstitutional.
“This law violated the fundamental American principle of fairness that we all cherish,” Windsor said. “I know Thea would have been so proud to see how far we have come in our fight to be treated with dignity.”
The decision means seven federal courts — eight if a bankruptcy court ruling is included — have now determined DOMA is unconstitutional at a time when numerous cases challenging the anti-gay law are pending for consideration before the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court hasn’t yet determined whether it will take up the constitutionality of DOMA, but is likely to do so. The Second Circuit is also the second appeals court to strike down DOMA. The First Circuit ruled against the law in May.
The next step in the process is for House Republicans to appeal the decision either to the full Second Circuit or the Supreme Court, which has already been asked to take up the Windsor case along with several other DOMA cases. The high court will then decide the constitutionality of DOMA once and for all on a nationwide basis.
Susan Stenger, an appeals court attorney who’s handled LGBT rights cases for the Boston-based firm Burns & Levinson, said it’s unlikely DOMA proponents would pursue en banc review in the cases because so many other lawsuits against the anti-gay law are already pending before the Supreme Court.
“The fact that there’s a dissent [means] they might try en banc review, but also knowing that this will ultimately go to the Supreme Court, I would think they wouldn’t bother,” Stenger said. “Why waste time and resources when if an en banc changed anything, whomever lost would certainly appeal?”
Dennis, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, wrote the majority decision against DOMA even though he has reputation for being a conservative judge. Joining him was an Obama appointee, Droney. The dissenting judge, Straub, was appointed by former President Clinton.
In addition to ruling against DOMA, the judges determined the anti-gay law should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption that the law is unconstitutional. The Second Circuit is the first appeals court to determine that DOMA should be subject to this level of review.
Based on precedent the Supreme Court set in earlier court cases, the court offers four reasons — including the history of discrimination faced by LGBT people — as reasons why DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny.
“In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority,” the decision states.
Douglas Nejaime, who’s gay and a law professor at Loyola Law School, called the Second Circuit’s decision to apply heightened scrutiny against DOMA “very significant” because it means the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on the matter in addition to the law itself.
“As a practical matter, this makes it even more difficult for the Supreme Court to avoid the question of heightened scrutiny,” NeJaime said. “If the Gill decision from the First Circuit was the only federal appellate decision striking down DOMA, the Court could have struck down DOMA — upholding that decision — without passing on the level-of-scrutiny question. But with the Second Circuit’s decision in Windsor, the Court is more likely to address heightened scrutiny.”
NeJaime added that as a result of the Second Circuit application of heightened scrutiny, courts are now more likely to find state marriage bans unconstitutional as well as anti-gay laws related parental rights and public employment discrimination.
Notably, the decision rejects an argument proposed by private attorney Paul Clement — who’s advocating on behalf of the anti-gay law for the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — that Windsor’s case should be sent to the New York Court of Appeals for certification because Spyer died at a time before New York legalized same-sex marriage.
The appeals court says certification is unnecessary because the New York Court of Appeals has expressed a disinclination to decide the question and because New York’s intermediate appellate courts are unanimous on the issue. At that time of Spyer’s death in 2009, Windsor’s marriage was recognized in New York by an executive order issued by then-Gov. David Paterson.
“Given the consistent view of these decisions, we see no need to seek guidance here,” the decision states. “Because Windsor’s marriage would have been recognized under New York law at the time of Spyer’s death, she has standing.”
The court also rejects an argument posed by Clement that the court should uphold DOMA because of precedent set by Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 case challenging Minnesota’s prohibition on same-sex marriage that the Supreme Court refused to hear for want of federal question.
Judges say Baker isn’t controlling because in the 40 years following the case there have been “manifold changes to the Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence” and because the lawsuits are distinct: Baker was about same-sex marriage within a state while the Windsor is about a federal law.
“After all, Windsor and Spyer were actually married in this case, at least in the eye of New York, where they lived,” the decision states. “Other courts have likewise concluded that Baker does not control equal protection review of DOMA for these reasons.”
James Esseks, director of the ACLU LGBT Project, shared in the jubilation that the court’s reasoning led the judges to rule against the anti-gay law.
“Yet again, a federal court has found that it is completely unfair to treat married same-sex couples as though they’re legal strangers,” Esseks said. “Edie and Thea were there for each other in sickness and in health like any other married couple, and it’s unfair for the government to disregard both their marriage and the life they built together and treat them like second-class citizens.”
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who was among the 144 House Democrats who signed a friend-of-the-court brief against DOMA in the Windsor case, also commended the judges for ruling in favor of a plaintiff who’s also his constituent.
“As the amicus brief I spearheaded in this case pointed out, and as the court agreed, there is no justification for denying Edie Windsor the same right as all other spouses to her full inheritance without paying a tax penalty,” Nadler said. “Edie lives in my congressional district, and was with her wife, Thea Spyer, for 44 years. The last thing she should have to worry about following the loss of her spouse is an unjust tax penalty imposed for no other reason than the fact that she and her wife were the same gender.”
In his dissenting opinion, Straub dissents in part and concurs in part, saying he disagrees with the majority opinion that DOMA is unconstitutional and the legislative approach is the appropriate course of action for those who want it lifted from the books.
“The Congress and the President formalized in DOMA, for federal purposes, the basic human condition of joining a man and a woman in a long-term relationship and the only one which is inherently capable of producing another generation of humanity,” Straub writes. “Whether that understanding is to continue is for the American people to decide via their choices in electing the Congress and the President. It is not for the Judiciary to search for new standards by which to negate a rational expression of the nation via the Congress.”
Stenger said she thinks the dissent will have value “to the people who disagree” with the majority opinion to justify their position, but otherwise have little impact.
“The Supreme Court obviously studies all the detail of a dissent in making its own decision, so it may find something in there persuasive, but technically it has no impact,” Stenger said. “It may just give food-for-thought to somebody who’s inclined to go in that direction.”
NOTE: This post has been edited and updated to include more information and reaction to the Second Circuit ruling.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Justices considered whether laws unconstitutional under Title IX.
The Supreme Court heard two cases today that could change how the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX are enforced.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., ask the court to determine whether state laws blocking transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Once decided, the rulings could reshape how laws addressing sex discrimination are interpreted nationwide.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether Bostock v. Clayton County — the landmark case holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — applies in the context of athletics. He questioned whether transgender girls should be considered girls under the law, noting that they were assigned male at birth.
“I think the basic focus of the discussion up until now, which is, as I see it anyway, whether or not we should view your position as a challenge to the distinction between boys and girls on the basis of sex or whether or not you are perfectly comfortable with the distinction between boys and girls, you just want an exception to the biological definition of girls.”
“How we approach the situation of looking at it not as boys versus girls but whether or not there should be an exception with respect to the definition of girls,” Roberts added, suggesting the implications could extend beyond athletics. “That would — if we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed Roberts’ concerns, questioning how sex-based classifications function under Title IX and what would happen if Idaho’s ban were struck down.
“Does a — the justification for a classification as you have in Title IX, male/female sports, let’s take, for example, an individual male who is not a good athlete, say, a lousy tennis player, and does not make the women’s — and wants to try out for the women’s tennis team, and he said there is no way I’m better than the women’s tennis players. How is that different from what you’re being required to do here?”
Justice Samuel Alito addressed what many in the courtroom seemed reluctant to state directly: the legal definition of sex.
“Under Title IX, what does the term ‘sex’ mean?” Alito asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who was arguing in support of Idaho’s law. Mooppan maintained that sex should be defined at birth.
“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex and think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, questioning how that definition did not amount to sex discrimination against Lindsay Hecox under Idaho law. If Hecox’s sex is legally defined as male, Sotomayor argued, the exclusion still creates discrimination.
“It’s still an exception,” Sotomayor said. “It’s a subclass of people who are covered by the law and others are not.”
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the broader implications of the cases, asking whether a ruling for the states would impose a single definition of sex on the 23 states that currently have different laws and standards. The parties acknowledged that scientific research does not yet offer a clear consensus on sex.
“I think the one thing we definitely want to have is complete findings. So that’s why we really were urging to have a full record developed before there were a final judgment of scientific uncertainty,” said Kathleen Harnett, Hecox’s legal representative. “Maybe on a later record, that would come out differently — but I don’t think that—”
“Just play it out a little bit, if there were scientific uncertainty,” Kagan responded.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the impact such policies could have on cisgender girls, arguing that allowing transgender girls to compete could undermine Title IX’s original purpose.
“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league, there’s a — there’s a harm there,” Kavanaugh said. “I think we can’t sweep that aside.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Idaho’s law discriminated based on transgender status or sex.
“Since trans boys can play on boys’ teams, how would we say this discriminates on the basis of transgender status when its effect really only runs towards trans girls and not trans boys?”
Harnett responded, “I think that might be relevant to a, for example, animus point, right, that we’re not a complete exclusion of transgender people. There was an exclusion of transgender women.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the notion that explicitly excluding transgender people was not discrimination.
“I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say that this law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of transgender status. The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams… it treats transgender women different than — than cis-women, doesn’t it?”
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst urged the court to uphold his state’s ban, arguing that allowing participation based on gender identity — regardless of medical intervention — would deny opportunities to girls protected under federal law.
Hurst emphasized that biological “sex is what matters in sports,” not gender identity, citing scientific evidence that people assigned male at birth are predisposed to athletic advantages.
Joshua Block, representing B.P.J., was asked whether a ruling in their favor would redefine sex under federal law.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block said. “I think the purpose is to make sure sex isn’t being used to deny opportunities.”
Becky Pepper-Jackson, identified as plaintiff B.P.J., the 15-year-old also spoke out.
“I play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do — to make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,” said Pepper-Jackson. “And all I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me — the only transgender student athlete in the entire state — from playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves.”
Outside the court, advocates echoed those concerns as the justices deliberated.
“Becky simply wants to be with her teammates on the track and field team, to experience the camaraderie and many documented benefits of participating in team sports,” said Sasha Buchert, counsel and Nonbinary & Transgender Rights Project director at Lambda Legal. “It has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills — in leadership, teamwork, confidence, and health. On the other hand, denying a student the ability to participate is not only discriminatory but harmful to a student’s self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. That is the argument we made today and that we hope resonated with the justices of the Supreme Court.”
“This case is about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “School athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia’s law completely excluded Becky from her school’s entire athletic program even when there is no connection to alleged concerns about fairness or safety. As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boys’ team — in contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life — is really no choice at all. We are glad to stand with her and her family to defend her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in both cases by the end of June.
U.S. Supreme Court
As Supreme Court weighs trans sports bans, advocate and former athlete speaks out
PFLAG staffer Diego Sanchez competed at University of Georgia in 1970s
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday addressing the legality of banning transgender women and girls from participating in sports under the 14th Amendment.
Though the two cases differ slightly in their fact patterns, they ultimately pose the same constitutional question: whether laws that limit participation in women’s sports to only cisgender women and girls violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In both cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — trans girls filed lawsuits against their respective states, Idaho and West Virginia, arguing that the bans violate their right to equal protection under the law by subjecting them to different standards than cisgender girls.
Lindsay Hecox, now 24, filed her lawsuit in 2020 while attending Boise State University. That same year, Idaho enacted the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which barred trans women from participating in any sport in public schools, from kindergarten through college. Although Hecox underwent hormone therapy that significantly lowered her testosterone levels, she was still excluded under the law when she attempted to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams.
The second case centers on B.P.J., a 15-year-old trans girl who has identified as female since third grade and has been on puberty blockers since the onset of puberty. In 2021, West Virginia enacted the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires sports teams to be designated by “biological sex” rather than gender identity. B.P.J.’s mother filed suit on her behalf after her daughter was barred from participating on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams.
A key distinction between the two cases is that attorneys for B.P.J. have argued that because puberty blockers were part of her development, her body is more aligned with that of a cisgender girl than a cisgender boy. Despite these differences, both cases raise the same constitutional issue: whether it is lawful to bar someone from participation in sports based on sex assigned at birth.
The Washington Blade spoke with PFLAG Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez.
Sanchez is a trans elder with firsthand experience as a college athlete at the University of Georgia and later became the first openly trans legislative staff member on Capitol Hill.
His dual experience — as a former athlete and a longtime policy expert deeply familiar with constitutional law — gives him a unique perspective on the questions now before the Supreme Court. Sanchez will also be one of the featured speakers at a rally on the steps of the court as the justices hear arguments.
When asked how attitudes toward trans athletes differ from when he competed at the University of Georgia from 1976-1980 to today — when 27 states have passed laws restricting trans participation in sports — Sanchez said the contrast is stark.
“I had the good experience of being supported by my teammates and my coach,” Sanchez said. “The thing that’s so different today is that these [trans] kids are able to go home and get kisses and hugs from their parents, being lauded in the stands by their families, and then being told that who they are doesn’t necessarily fit with who they’re allowed to be in their expression at the moment, and that to me, seems a terrible injustice.”
Sanchez emphasized that sports offer lessons that extend far beyond competition.
“When you’re an athlete, you learn an awful lot of things about life,” he said. “You learn about leadership, but you also learn that your best effort becomes part of a team effort … how you feel as an individual contributor is affected by what ends up being part of how you live your life as an adult.”
After his time as an athlete, Sanchez began working in government, eventually serving as senior policy advisor to then-U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) until Frank’s retirement in 2013. Sanchez said that one of the most important aspects of his role was simply being visible as a trans person in spaces where many lawmakers had never knowingly met one before.
“My job was to make sure that no one, no legislator, could say that they had never met a trans person,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez also addressed the broader implications the Supreme Court’s decision could have on how gender is treated within institutional systems.
“I don’t think it affects how people perceive their own gender or express their own gender, but I do think that it could create barriers if it doesn’t welcome the way that community and society actually are,” he said. “The most important thing for people to know … is to remember that every person is an individual, and that the right to contribute to society should be something that is supported by the government, not hindered.”
He added that the court’s role must be understood within the framework of checks and balances established by the Constitution.
“The risk, of course, here is always remembering that we have three branches of government, so that this action by the judiciary branch may or may not have implications on whether or how things can be perceived or executed at other branches,” Sanchez said. “I would hope that our government is interested in letting the future generations and current generations be the best that they can be as well.”
“Do people get to live their lives as they are, or is the government an obstruction or a support?”
When asked what message he would share with young trans athletes watching the Supreme Court take up these cases, Sanchez said community support remains critical, regardless of how the justices rule.
“Make sure that the environment that you put yourself in is something that honors who you know you are and supports you becoming the best person you can be, and that anything that takes away from that is purely dissonance,” he said.
“What we do with dissonance is what distinguishes us as whether we excel or doubt.”
That same sense of community, Sanchez said, is what rallies — like the one planned outside the Supreme Court — are meant to reinforce, even as decisions are made inside the building.
“Rallies, including tomorrow’s, are about people knowing they’re not alone, and hearing from other people who support who they are,” he said. “There is support across the country … I wish that I had had someone my age now that I could have looked to, but I am the role model, but I didn’t have any.”
Looking ahead to the possibility that the court could uphold bans on trans athletes, Sanchez said the immediate challenge will be ensuring that families and communities continue to affirm trans youth amid legal uncertainty.
“Having the endorsement of being supported who you are, it helps you so much,” he said. “You cannot put the issue of rights back into the genie’s bottle once people experience what freedom and welcoming is.”
For Sanchez, whose life has spanned decades of change in both sports and government, the cases before the Supreme Court represent a pivotal moment — not just legally, but culturally.
“Living your life, for me, does not require bravery,” he said. “It’s just taking one step and then another.”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
HRC holds retirement ceremony for ousted transgender servicemembers
White House executive order bans openly trans military personnel
When retirement celebrations are planned — especially military ones — crowded rooms are usually filled with joyous energy: smiling people celebrating over glasses of champagne and stories of “the good old days,” marking the moment when service members decide it is the right time to step back from work. This retirement event, however, felt more like a funeral than a major life milestone.
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation hosted an event on Jan. 8 in D.C. to commemorate the forced retirement of transgender servicemembers. The event was a direct result of President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which directed the Pentagon to adopt policies prohibiting trans, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.
In the heart of the nation’s capital, mere blocks from where the president signed that executive order, five military members followed the traditional pomp and circumstance that military retirement celebrations demand — the U.S. Army’s passing of the NCO sword, the U.S. Navy’s reading of “The Watch,” speeches from colleagues and bells ringing, flags folded tightly while family members, and bosses talk about the peaks of their careers and sacrifices made to protect the Constitution. But the tears that could be heard and seen were not bittersweet, as they often are for the millions of Americans who came before them. They were tears of sadness, fear, and ultimately of acceptance — not agreement — that they were removed from their posts because of their gender identity.
Thousands of trans servicemembers were forced out of all six branches of the military after Executive Order 14183, joined by a February memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stating that trans and nonbinary individuals would no longer be eligible to join the military. The memo also directed that all trans people currently serving be separated from service because their gender identity supposedly goes against the military’s accession requirements and that, as a collective group, they “lack the selflessness and humility” required for military service.
For many trans servicemembers, their careers had suddenly come to an end. Unlike the five on stage on Jan. 8, they would not have a ceremony, the ability to say goodbye to a job they didn’t want to leave, or a packed room of supporters clapping and crying alongside them.
Colonel Bree B. Fram from the U.S. Space Force, Commander Blake Dremann from the U.S. Navy, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Erin Krizek from the U.S. Air Force, Chief Petty Officer (Ret.) Jaida McGuire U.S. from the Coast Guard, and Sgt. First Class (Ret.) Catherine Schmid from the Army were granted the chance to say goodbye to more than 100 years of combined service to the country.
“This ceremony is unprecedented — not because their careers fell short in any way, but because they shined so brightly in a military that cast them aside as unworthy,” said Maj. Gen. Tammy Smith (Ret.), who was the master of ceremonies for the roughly 5-hour event. “For every one of them, there are thousands of other transgender service members who were denied the opportunity to even reach this moment of retirement, despite records that mark them as among the best of the best.”
Shawn Skelly, former assistant secretary of defense for readiness under President Joe Biden and member of HRC’s board of directors, also spoke at the event. She emphasized that this is not a result of anything a trans servicemember did — or didn’t do — but rather a country trying to villainize them.
“Trans service members … are on the front lines, canaries in the coal mine of our democracy as to who can be seen as not just American, but among the best that America has to offer,” Skelly said.
Two members of Congress who have been at the heart of the fight for ensuring LGBTQ rights for Americans also addressed the crowd and the retiring officers: the first openly gay non-white member of the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), and the first openly trans member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.).
“I want to begin by apologizing to our [trans] servicemembers and reiterating that your service and commitment to our nation does not go unnoticed,” Takano said. “I am sorry this administration has chosen to target you for no reason other than cruelty.”
“Each of you answered the call to serve. Each of you met the standards. And each of you served and led with integrity, professionalism, and courage,” said McBride. “Each of you are brave, honorable, and committed patriots who also dared to have the courage to say out loud that you’re transgender.”
Former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall also gave a speech, noting that there was no reason for thousands of trans military members to lose their jobs and for the country to lose invaluable personnel that make the Armed Forces the best in the world.
“As I read the biographies of each of our retirees today, one thing came across to me,” former Kendall said. “It was how similar these read to those of all other retirees, and to others still serving. … It is a huge injustice, and an enormous loss to our nation that [they] … are not being allowed to continue to serve their country in uniform.”
Each service member had an introducer highlight their accomplishments before they gave their own heartfelt and pointed speeches, all of which can be watched in full on HRC’s YouTube page.
“I joined the military to be part of the solution … I learned that living authentically proved far more truthful and beneficial to not only myself but also my units than pretending to be someone else,” McGuire told the audience of family members, friends, LGBTQ rights activists, and former military personnel. “Being transgender never kept me from deploying, and I never failed to fulfill my duties.”
Despite the circumstances, McGuire said she would use this moment as an opportunity to continue serving.
“Even when it was forced upon you with no choice or discussion, [retirement] is still a new chapter … I’ll keep advocating for the rights and freedoms we all cherish,” McGuire said.
Schmid from the Army spoke about accepting the feeling of institutional betrayal after giving so much of herself to the service.
“The Army taught me what honor and integrity meant, and that integrity cost me the only thing I’ve ever really known how to do — it cost me being a soldier,” Schmid said. “Institutions fail people, but institutions are made of people, and that’s what I keep going back to … the soldiers, the people — that’s the Army that matters.”
Presik from the Air Force went next.
“Over my career, I’ve been called a hero and thanked for my service … I did all those things for the hope that I was making this country a better place for my three children and for your children and your families and your hopes as well,” Presik said, emphasizing that this was a fundamental policy failure, not a personal failure. “Now I have been separated from the Air Force, not because my performance, commitment, or ideals were found lacking, but because the policy changed on who could serve — and that reality is difficult to say out loud.”
“You matter. Your service matters, and you are not alone … transgender airmen are surrounded daily by so many fellow Americans who serve quietly and professionally,” Presik added, acknowledging that some trans people will continue to serve their country, even if it means hiding a piece of themselves until this policy is remedied.
Draiman from the Navy was fourth, emphasizing that his work serving the American people would continue despite retirement.
“I have spent my entire career pushing back against systems that too often treated my sex, my sexuality, or my gender as a measure of my capability under the guise of readiness,” Draiman told the crowd. “The work of dismantling hate and building better systems is far from over, and I still have more to give as I step out of uniform.”
Fram from the Space Force went last.
“My service was real. My dedication was real, and the years I gave to this country were given fully, honorably, and especially at the end with great pride,” she said with tears welling in her eyes — as did most of those in the audience. “Transgender service members are persons of character, not caricatures, and a society that justifies exclusion by denying our humanity needs to learn its lesson better from the Civil Rights Movement.”
“The uniform may come off, but the values it represents never will.”
Across the five branches of the military represented, each retiree carried countless honors and awards, evidence of their strength and dedication to protecting a country that elected a president who has now attempted to strip them of their service in both of his terms in office.
After the ceremony, the Washington Blade sat down with HRC Senior Vice President of Campaigns and Communications Jonathan Lovitz, to discuss why HRC decided to honor these five servicemembers.
“Why do this? Because they deserve nothing less. These are our heroes. These are our fellow Americans who have done more to serve this country than anyone who has been attacking them for that service,” Lovitz said. “These five are stand-ins for the thousands more, many of whose stories we’re never going to know, but it’s our obligation to find and uplift every single one of them.”
Multiple times during the ceremony, it was noted that military members vow to protect the Constitution rather than any individual in the White House. For Lovitz, that is the crux of why HRC felt the need to act.
“Civil rights protect all of us — or at least they’re supposed to. That’s at the heart of the Constitution … and that includes, and especially includes, our heroes who fight, sometimes die, to protect even those who would try to erase them.”
He ended the conversation by sharing a private moment with one of the retirees.
“I just hugged one of the honorees, and she said to me, ‘We never should have had to do this, but if we had to do it, this was the way.’ So I feel great that they feel loved and honored and seen and celebrated, and that so many leaders in the community were able to be here to lift them up.”
Ruby Corado sentenced to 33 months in prison
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Honoring 50 queer, trans women with inaugural ‘Carrying Change’ awards
Visible and unapologetic: MAL brings the kink this weekend
Woman arrested for anti-gay assault at Alexandria supermarket
Time has run out for the regime in Venezuela
AHF client in Venezuela welcomes Maduro’s ouster
Support the Blade as mainstream media bend the knee for Trump
Hundreds protest ICE killing of Renee Nicole Good in D.C.
