National
Another Black man found dead in Ed Buck’s WeHo apartment
Raises questions and begs for clarity
When the news first hit early Monday morning, it sounded tragically familiar and frightening: a source alerted a Los Angeles Blade freelancer that Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Homicide investigators, along with Medical Examiner personnel from the County Coroner’s office, were on the scene at 1234 N. Laurel Ave. in West Hollywood investigating the death of a young black male.
That was Ed Buck’s apartment, site of the apparent overdose death on July 27, 2017 of Gemmel Moore, a 26-year old Black male escort who had been a frequent visitor to Buck’s apartment and, through his discovered journal, posthumously claimed Buck hooked him on crystal meth as part of a sexual predilection.
“It is suspicious that this has happened twice now,” L.A. County Sheriff’s Lt. Derrick Alfred told KTLA Monday afternoon, Jan. 7. But, KTLA added, “Buck is currently not considered a suspect and not in custody, officials said.”
“Currently” perhaps being the word that might catch the eye of those who still angrily believe that Moore’s case was treated differently than if the dead person in Buck’s apartment had been white and Buck had been African American.
Moore’s mother and community activists believed Buck had injected Gemmel with the drugs that killed him, making his death a homicide. But the gruesome Coroner’s report ruled the death an accidental overdose and the case was eventually dismissed by the LA County District Attorney for lack of evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Though the initial investigators questioned Buck’s neighbors and confirmed his penchant for young Black men, the Coroner ruled Moore’s death accidental and there was nothing to directly tie Buck to Moore’s overdose. That prompted calls of racism.
“If that incident had occurred in my home, the police would have kicked down my door, guns drawn and had me in handcuffs. There’s no doubt about it. That’s how it goes,” Jeffrey King, executive director of In The Meantime Men told the Los Angeles Blade after Moore’s death.
“That’s part of the bigger issue here. That guy [Buck] was treated like a respectable citizen. But a drug-related accident occurred in a man’s house. He should have been taken down to the station and questioned, at minimum. This is a matter of race on a minimum level. The value of this kid’s life is not the same as a prominent person’s child—he would have been handled different. The police would have been relentless; the DA would have been relentless; the whole system would have been relentless,” King said.
That’s why the chaos that resulted from the second death in Ed Buck’s apartment is so shocking: from very early Monday morning to very late Monday night, despite urgent calls and pleas for accurate information, several levels of the LA Sheriff’s Department stonewalled and stymied press inquiries as well as community members—thus allowing misinformation to dominate the fevered discussions. Surely someone in the Sheriff’s Department remembered the outcry over Moore’s death. Surely someone realized the indignity silence conferred on the second Black man to die in Ed Buck’s apartment in 18 months. Surely someone would react publicly as if this was a hate crime in West Hollywood. But, no.
One easy to convey piece of information that was withheld from the public: the victim was a black man in his mid-50s. In the information vacuum, the community passed along the inaccurate news provided by that first tipster and some of Buck’s neighbors that this death was essentially another Gemmel Moore.
One unidentified neighbor interviewed by KTLA said she was out walking her dog around 12:15am when she saw a young black man go into Buck’s apartment. She then saw an older Black man, a “huge gentleman,” go into Buck’s apartment but she didn’t see either of them come out. She called the man’s death a “tragedy.”
Most reports from neighbors indicated that Sheriff’s deputies were on the scene around 3:15am. But Alfred told the Los Angeles Blade that a sheriff’s deputy and paramedics arrived at Buck’s apartment shortly before 1:00am after a 911 call of a person not breathing. The caller was the other person in the apartment—Ed Buck—who performed CPR on the man and called 911 when he was unsuccessful. The Fire Department pronounced the man dead at the scene.
Alfred said they do not yet have a positive identification from the Coroner’s office. However, the man is believed to be “a male Black adult, who is approximately 55 years old, if it’s the person we think it is, the person is definitely in his mid-50s.”
Was there any evidence to indicate this death was in any way drug-related? In the Gemmel Moore case the coroner’s report noted “24 syringes with brown residue, five glass pipes with white residue and burn marks, a plastic straw with possible white residue, clear plastic bags with white powdery residue and a clear plastic bag with a ‘piece of crystal-like substance,’” according to the LA Times.
“We’re not going to comment on the conditions we found at the time until it’s fully investigated,” Alfred said. However, “there were no obvious indicators of what may have caused the death. So at this time we don’t know. We won’t know until we hear from the Coroner’s office after they conduct a post-mortem exam, which would include any toxicology testing that would give us an indication of whether it was drug-related.”
So what happened in the roughly hour and a half between the first and second responses? What happened to the third person in the room, the young Black man the neighbor saw enter Buck’s apartment?
“I personally have no knowledge of that,” Alfred said. “I know the investigators canvassed the apartment complex—they’ll probably go back to try to talk to the neighbors to try to get those statements. We’ll review the information and probably reach out to that person who provided that but to our knowledge there was only the two people in the apartment at the time.”
Alfred said he would not comment on any statements that were made by Buck to investigators.
Buck’s attorney, Seymour Amster, showed up outside Buck’s apartment to talk to reporters. He told KTLA that the man at Buck’s home “had already been partying … and already taken some substances” when he arrived. Amster asserted that Buck had been in the shower for some of the time between the man’s arrival and death and that Buck had not taken any substances with him.
“The individual was exhibiting bizarre behavior,” Amster said of the dead man.
“From what I know, it was an old friend who died of an accidental overdose, and unfortunately, we believe that the substance was ingested at some place other than the apartment,” Amster told the Los Angeles Times. “The person came over intoxicated.”
When Alfred returned the Los Angeles Blade’s calls in the late afternoon, he said he was not aware that the community was responding with anger and heartbreak throughout the day, thinking a second young man had died like Gemmel Moore.
But it was a day gripped by anger, stirred by silence, disrespect and lack of or misinformation.
After the Los Angeles Blade’s freelancer reached out to Det. Rodriguez in the morning, the Blade’s news editor drove to Buck’s apartment, left a message, then drove to the West Hollywood Sheriff’s station seeking answers. The Blade asked West Hollywood Watch Commander Sgt. S. Hewitt to please confirm or clarify the timeline since that station no doubt responded to the 911 call. Though explicitly informed that West Hollywood residents were concerned about two similar deaths at this apartment, Hewitt would only say that Homicide was handling the incident, catching herself mid-eye roll when the Blade persisted with questions and the answer was always the same.
In The Meantime Men’s Jeffrey King was among those angered by being stonewalled and disrespect at several levels of the Sheriff’s Department.
“I got several calls, text messages, and messages through Facebook asking what does “In the Meantime intend to do?” King told the Los Angeles Blade late Monday. “ I thought it was important to first find out the facts before I do something. I wanted to know what I was talking about.”
King says he was met with “disrespect, impatience, and lack of willingness to address the concerns I addressed that were community concerns.” When he finally spoke with two people at Homicide, he and the lead detective had a “fairly decent conversation going,” but he still couldn’t confirm or give out information.
“One more time here is a black person—forget his age—being found dead in this man’s apartment. And his death is not being addressed properly. Our community is not being respected. No one is saying anything to the family. There is no dignity to the lives of these individuals and it’s because they’re Black.”
The Homicide official who first responded to several calls from the Los Angeles Blade said there was no homicide investigation and that Homicide detectives routinely roll out for death investigations. He said LASD press relations would issue a statement and forwarded several Blade calls to Alfred, which went to voicemail. The Sheriff’s press person, while trying to be nice and polite, at first had no knowledge of the incident. She finally said a press release was being cleared by “the administration” and would be sent out when completed. But the Sheriff’s News Room site was impossible to search for press releases.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Blade contacted the City and members of the West Hollywood City Council for comment—hoping the Sheriff’s Department was at least telling them the facts of what happened.
The City of West Hollywood has requested “a full investigation” by the Sheriff’s Department, a press release stated.
WeHo Mayor John Duran said he would not comment and is leaving the matter in the hands of the sheriffs and District Attorney
Councilmember Lauren Meister’s response illustrates the misinformation that was circulating throughout the day. “This is tragic,” Meister told Los Angeles Blade. “My heartfelt sympathies go out to the family and friends of this young man.” However, she says she has “discussed with our City Manager and Public Safety Director this morning — the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney must provide a thorough investigation into the circumstances of this incident and any similarities to prior incidents at the same location.”
Councilmember John D’Amico said he was not going to comment, but added some information. “I asked the city manager to contact Sheriff Villanueva’s office first thing this morning and I’m going to let the DA and LASD do their jobs,” he wrote. “Mr. Buck made donations in 2011 and 2014, $1,000 total, those dollars were spent on those campaigns and the campaign accounts were closed years ago. Keith and I have made donations many times that amount every year to social service agencies that help with sobriety, HIV AIDS, mental health and homelessness. I thought that a better use of the money than returning it to Mr. Buck.”
KTLA got Alfred on camera in the afternoon, by chance, it turns out. When the Blade and other news outlets were staking out the apartment to no avail, KTLA stayed on and suddenly noted activity in the afternoon. Alfred later told the Los Angeles Blade that a call had come in saying someone was throwing something out the window that could be evidence in the second death so a patrol deputy and fire fighter dashed to the scene and recovered the object. He would not say what was found.
By late afternoon, news outlets were reporting the story—presumably because they still think Buck is a “wealthy prominent Democratic donor,” though he has been political kryptonite since Gemmel Moore’s death. The LA LGBT Center issued a statement around 4:30pm calling on the Sheriff to keep the public fully informed—which had not happened by then, and presuming that like Moore, the second death was also linked to drug abuse:
“The Los Angeles LGBT Center calls upon Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva and his department to fully investigate this tragedy and aggressively seek justice wherever the investigation might lead. “Although the investigation is in its early stages, we urge Sheriff Villanueva to keep the public fully informed as LGBT people have a considerable and urgent interest in a case that is so clearly linked to the health and safety of our community. The reports we have heard provide more questions than answers. The fact is two black men have died at Mr. Buck’s home in less than two years. “While much is still to be learned, it appears this tragedy is linked to substance use. LGBT people and other marginalized groups are at elevated risk for impacts that result from the current epidemic uses of opioids, methamphetamine, and other dangerous drugs. The Center provides free or low-cost, comprehensive, and judgment-free addiction recovery services and has a service to provide free fentanyl testing strips to those who request them. For help or more information, contact the Center’s Addiction Recovery Services at [email protected] or 323-993-7448.”
At the end of the 11-minute interview, Alfred asked for the public’s help and indicated that he is willing to reopen the Gemmel Moore case and file criminal charges with the DA, if new evidence emerges.
“We always appreciate any help we can get from the community. They may have more knowledge about this or any similar instances that occurred—or any type of activity that occurs in the area or that particular apartment. We’re always interested in finding out what’s going on,” he said, asking anyone with information to come forward.
“Our first concern for the Homicide Bureau, specifically, is to be to fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of this individual. Also we’re going to look into the prior incident where Gemmel Moore had died at the scene to see if there’s any similarities,” Alfred said.
“We’re just going to look at everything we have and we’re going to see where the information and evidence takes us. And if it takes us to criminal filing or if we uncover new information—although Gemmel’s case was determined to be an accidental overdose—if we learn something new and that has to be looked at a second time, then of course, we’ll take that new information and we will investigate fully.”
From there, they’ll work with the District Attorney’s office “to determine what, if any criminal activity may have occurred and if so, present it for potential filing. But we won’t know until we’re able to do a thorough exam and all the facts come in.”
Anyone with information can call the Homicide Bureau directly at 323-890-5500 and ask for Det. Q. Rodriguez or Sgt. P. Cardella. To make an anonymous tip, go through Crime Stoppers.
Finally, if the community considers Ed Buck and the alleged use of illicit drugs in his apartment to be a public menace or nuisance, Alfred suggested that the community work with the West Hollywood Sheriff’s station to find a solution akin to the “broken windows” policy of community policing.
“As it pertains to any type of public nuisance – we’ll work with West Hollywood Sheriff’s station—who could probably get the community involved—concerning these ongoing public nuisance situations,” Alfred said. He defined public nuisance as “anything that would cause quality of life for people who live in a particular area to be lessened by these ongoing criminal acts,” major or minor. “Either way, they affect those around them. Life quality is something that can be looked at in a community policing type of thing where the station can look at the assets available and pour resources into the community to try to effect change.”
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.”
PHOTOS: Whitman-Walker Gala
Activist hosts Diwali celebration in D.C.
Harford school board appeals state’s book ban decision to circuit court
Trans Day of Resilience set for Nov. 22
Calendar: November 14-20
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
-
Politics2 days ago
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
-
Dining4 days ago
Spark Social House to start serving alcohol
