News
Texas Nat’l Guard agrees to process same-sex partner benefits
State initially refused to provide military ID cards to gay spouses

Alicia Butler (left) and Judith Cedville with daugher, Jordan, were denied benefits from Texas Military Forces (Photo courtesy of Alicia Butler).
After initially resisting a Pentagon directive to enroll the same-sex spouses of troops into benefit programs, the Texas National Guard announced on Tuesday that it has come to an agreement that will allow its facilities to process these applications for gay service members.
In a statement on Tuesday, Texas Military Forces said the Defense Department has approved a new procedure in which the Pentagon will provide federal personnel, funding and the use of federal personnel systems to enroll the spouses of all troops — gay and straight — into the benefit system.
According to Texas Military Forces, which comprises the state’s national guard, this agreement resolves the conflict of the edict from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel saying spousal benefits should be available to gay troops everywhere and Texas’ state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
“We look forward to having the ability to process the benefits our service members and their families are entitled to,” said Lt. Col. Joanne MacGregor, the state public affairs officer.
Although Hagel said spousal benefits for gay troops, including health, pension and housing benefits, should be available nationwide in August following the Supreme Court decision against Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Texas initially refused to process applications to grant the same-sex spouses of troops a military ID card, citing state law barring same-sex marriage.
After other states, including Oklahoma, Louisiana and Mississippi, made similar announcements, Hagel issued a second edict saying he’s directed the National Guard Bureau to ensure states comply, threatening unspecified consequences if they continued to refuse.
Jennifer Atkinson, a Texas National Guard spokesperson, confirmed that same-sex couples are now able to apply for spousal benefits at installations within the state.
“Couples can now apply at Texas bases — including Camp Mabry,” Atkinson said. “Since the Department of Defense (DoD) directed the enrollment of same-sex spouses effective Sept. 3, 2013, we have worked diligently with the Pentagon and the National Guard Bureau to find a solution that would allow us to follow Texas state law while adhering to DoD policy.”
Atkinson later clarified that same-sex couples can apply for benefits at all installations with Real-Time Automated Personnel Identification Systems.
A defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the agreement only applies to Texas and not other states that are still holding out. Still, the official said the Pentagon views the decision as welcome news.
According to the National Guard Bureau, the decision from Texas to acquiesce means Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana are the only states that have yet to comply.
On Nov. 7, Oklahoma announced that its state-run national guard facilities are getting out of the business of processing benefits altogether and are directing everyone — gay and straight — to federally-run installations within the state. However, Oklahoma isn’t considered a non-compliant state.
Following the announcement, Alicia Butler, a lesbian who was earlier blocked from enrolling into the benefits system with her spouse, First Lt. Judith Chedville, re-applied for those benefits at Camp Mabry later on Wednesday and received her military ID.
“I am so pleased to have this spousal ID card and begin to access a range of benefits,” Butler said in a statement. “My wife served our country and our family needs support like all military families.”
Lambda Legal, which had represented Butler and wrote a letter calling on Texas Military Forces to reverse its earlier decision to block enrollment, praised the change.
“We are thrilled for Alicia and Judith who just wanted to take steps, like all military families, to access critical support networks and benefits provided to families of service members,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Paul Castillo. “Texas Military Forces implements a host of federal benefits programs for all National Guard units in the state and it should be no different for married same-sex couples.”
An LGBT advocate, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the purported change announced by the Texas Military Forces is a “crock” because federal funds and systems were already being used to enroll spouses in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System. The announced change, the advocate said, is a way for Texas Military Forces to save face as it acquiesced to the Pentagon’s demands.
After issuing a statement Tuesday evening criticizing the Texas National Guard for adopting a system similar to Oklahoma’s, the American Military Partners Association issued a second statement Wednesday praising the move, saying they since received clarification on the decision.
“We applaud the Texas Military Forces for changing course and the Department of Defense for making sure this issue is resolved in Texas,” said AMPA President Stephen Peters. “All military spouses, regardless of orientation or gender, deserve to treated with the same dignity, respect, and support for their sacrifices in support of our nation, no matter what state they serve in. We urge the remaining states who have not yet complied with Department of Defense policy to do so quickly and affirm their commitment to all military families.”
Virginia
Woman arrested for anti-gay assault at Alexandria supermarket
Victim recorded video of Christmas Day attack
Alexandria police announced on Jan. 12 that a Maryland woman has been arrested for allegedly assaulting a man while shouting anti-gay slurs at him at a Giant supermarket in Alexandria on Christmas Day.
The arrest came after a video of the assault that the victim captured with his phone and on which the woman can be heard shouting anti-gay slurs went viral on social media.
Police identified the woman as Shibritney Colbert, 34, of Landover, Md. Alexandria Police Chief Tarrick McGuire stated at a news conference that police responded to a 911 call placed by the victim and attempted to apprehend the woman, but she drove off in her car before police could apprehend her.
He said following an investigation, Colbert was apprehended and arrested in Prince Goerge’s County, Md., on Jan. 8. He said arrangements were being made for her to be brought to Alexandria where she was expected to face charges of assault and battery, destruction of property, felony eluding, and driving an unregistered vehicle.
The video of the incident shows Colbert pushing a shopping cart she was using in an aisle at the Giant store, located at 3131 Duke St., into the victim and another woman who was trying to help the victim. She can be seen throwing groceries at the victim while shouting anti-gay names. “Boy, get out of here with your gay ass,” was among the words she yelled at him that could be heard on the video.
The victim, who police identified only as a 24-year-old man, could be heard on the video saying he does not know the woman and urging her to “please back up.”
“Based on the victim’s statement, comments exchanged prior to the assault, and the totality of the circumstances, investigators believe the victim was targeted because of his sexual orientation,” police said in a statement.
Tarrick said Colbert’s arrest came at a time when Alexandria police were completing a strengthened hate crime policy calling for detectives to investigate crimes based on hate and for the department to prepare reports on hate crimes twice a year.
“Hate crimes are not just crimes against individuals, they are offenses that threaten the entire community and undermine the fundamental principles of dignity, equality, and safety,” Tarrick said.
Alexandria police didn’t immediately respond to a request from the Washington Blade for a copy of the official police report on the incident.
A link to the video posted on the social media site Reddit in which an unidentified man provides some details of the attack, can be accessed here:
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 29 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.”
-
Minnesota5 days agoReports say woman killed by ICE was part of LGBTQ community
-
National5 days agoU.S. in midst of ‘genocidal process against trans people’: study
-
Virginia5 days agoGay Va. State Sen. Ebbin resigns for role in Spanberger administration
-
Venezuela4 days agoAHF client in Venezuela welcomes Maduro’s ouster
