Connect with us

News

House votes to defund trans military ban in rebuke to Trump

Published

on

Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.), on left, and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), second from right, join transgender service members in the Capitol Rotunda before the State of the Union Address on Feb. 5, 2019. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. House delivered on Tuesday evening a stinging rebuke to President Trump’s transgender military ban, adopting an amendment that would bar the use of U.S. funds to pay for the policy.

The vote on the amendment, introduced by Reps. Anthony Brown (D-Md.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), was 243-183 and largely along party lines. The measure was adopted as part of $983 billion minibus legislation for fiscal year 2020 seeking to fund the Defense Department, as well as labor, health and human services, education, state-foreign operations and energy and water development.

The amendment passed with bipartisan support. Nine Republicans — Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Tom Emmer (Minn.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), Trey Hollingsworth (Ind.), Will Hurd (Texas), John Katko (N.Y.) and Tom Reed (N.Y.) — voted “yes” on the measure.

However, one Democrat voted against it: Rep. Colin Peterson (Minn).

Before April, transgender people could enlist and serve openly in the military thanks to a policy change during the Obama administration. But under the new Trump administration policy, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria disqualifies potential enlistees, and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria — with the exception of transgender people already serving in the armed forces — is cause for discharge.

It’s not the first time the House has voted to rebuked the transgender military ban. In March, the chamber approved a non-binding resolution introduced by Kennedy against the Trump administration policy.

After the House approves the underlying minibus legislation, it will head to the Senate, which has yet to take up any appropriations bills for fiscal year 2020.

Any version of the spending bill with a provision against the transgender military ban would likely not fare well in the Republican-controlled chamber. (But passage isn’t impossible. Ending a filibuster on budgetary legislation requires a majority vote in the Senate, unlike the 60 votes needed to proceed with policy legislation.)

The White House has already issued a veto threat over the minibus legislation, but for reasons wholly unrelated to the transgender military ban. In a White House Office of Management & Budget Statement of Administration Policy opposes the legislation, citing concerns about raising discretionary spending caps by more than $350 billion in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 and putting the U.S. government on track to add nearly $2 trillion in deficits over 10 years.

The vote on the Brown-Speier amendment will likely not be the last word from the House on the transgender military ban. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said he expects a floor vote against the policy as the part of the fiscal year 2020 defense authorization bill, which is legislation separate from the appropriations bill.

Jennifer Levi, director of the transgender rights project at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, commanded the House in a statement for approving the amendment against the transgender ban.

“A policy that turns away qualified, dedicated Americans who want to serve their country is baseless, discriminatory, and ultimately weakens our military,” Levi said.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, referenced in a statement on the amendment polls showing a supermajority of the American public are against the policy.

“Military leaders don’t want this ban and the American people don’t want this ban — including a growing percentage of the president’s own party,” Minter said. “We won’t stop fighting in the courts to end the ban for good and we applaud members of Congress for continuing to fight for our transgender service members as well.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Padilla forcibly removed from federal building for questioning DHS secretary

Prominent Democrats rushed to defend senator

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed from a federal building in Los Angeles after attempting to ask questions of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference on immigration Thursday

The city has been rattled in recent days as protestors objecting to the Trump-Vance administration’s immigration crackdowns clashed with law enforcement and then the president deployed National Guard troops and U.S. Marines, which was seen as a dramatic escalation.

According to a video shared by his office, the senator, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, introduced himself and said, I have questions for the secretary.” After he was pushed out of the room, officers with FBI-identifying vests told Padilla to put his hands behind his back and handcuffed him.

“Senator Padilla is currently in Los Angeles exercising his duty to perform Congressional oversight of the federal government’s operations in Los Angeles and across California,” reads a statement from his office.

“He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem’s press conference,” the statement continued. “He tried to ask the secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information.”

Democrats were furious, with many releasing strong statements online condemning the actions of law enforcement officers, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D), and the state’s other U.S. senator, Adam Schiff (D).

Human Rights Campaign Chief of Staff Jay Brown also issued a statement: “A sitting U.S. senator should be allowed to ask a Cabinet secretary a question at a press conference — in his own state, on an issue affecting his constituents — without being violently thrown to the floor and handcuffed. Everyone who cares about our country must condemn this undemocratic act. Full stop.”



Continue Reading

Local

Comings & Goings

Kefalas, Czapary to open Yala Greek Ice Cream Shop in Georgetown

Published

on

Chrys Kefalas and Salah Czapary

The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected]

Congratulations to Chrys Kefalas and Salah Czapary on their new venture, the Yala Greek Ice Cream Shop, which will open in Georgetown, at 3143 N St. N.W., around July 4.

Kefalas is the CEO and founder, Czapary is the co-founder/director of experience and operations. The third co-founder is Steve Shyn, COO. From what I hear Chrys and Salah will at times both be doing the scooping to the lucky people who stop by their shop. The word “Yala” is a play on the Greek word for “milk,” and fittingly, Yala Greek Ice Cream is made using hand-crafted techniques passed down through three generations of Greek ice cream makers. 

Kefalas told the Blade, “This is not frozen yogurt, just inspired by Greek flavors or a trendy twist on gelato. This is true Greek ice cream, finally making its American debut. It is crafted with farm-fresh milk from Maryland, Greek yogurt and honey, fruit preserves from the Mediterranean, and ingredients sourced directly from Greece, Italy, and the Middle East, including premium pistachios and sustainably harvested vanilla.” 

The two come from different backgrounds. Kefalas has a family in the restaurant business but is currently the head of the brand division at the National Association of Manufacturers. He is a former Justice Department attorney; worked as Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech writer; Gov. Bob Erlich’s counsel in Maryland; and ran for U.S. Senate in Maryland (endorsed by the Baltimore Sun). Born and raised in Baltimore, he’s a Washingtonian of nine years. He told the Blade, “Yala Ice Cream is a tribute, a legacy, and a love letter across generations.” He spent his early years working in his grandfather’s restaurant in Baltimore, Illona’s. Kefalas hopes, “Just like Greek yogurt changed everything, Greek ice cream is going to set the new standard for ice cream. But, for us, it isn’t just about ice cream; it’s about making my Papou, my grandfather, proud.” 

Many people in D.C. know Czapary. He is the son of a Palestinian refugee, and Hungarian immigrant, and a longtime Washington, D.C. resident. Czapary served as a police officer and community engagement leader with the MPD. He then ran for D.C. Council, and although didn’t win, was endorsed by the Washington Post. After that race, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser realized how accomplished he is and asked him to join her administration, where he served as director of the Mayor’s Office of Nightlife and Culture. 

Czapary told the Blade, “We’re bringing the first authentic Greek ice cream shop to the U.S., and we’re doing it with heart. We’re building a space where kindness, community, and a scoop of something extraordinary come together. Our Georgetown scoop shop is designed to be a welcoming haven where every guest feels a sense of belonging.”

Continue Reading

Delaware

Delaware Senate passes bill to codify same-sex marriage

Measure assigned to House Administration Committee

Published

on

Delaware state Sen. Russ Huxtable introduced the original bill in April. (Blade photo by Daniel Truitt)

The bill that would enshrine same-sex marriage into Delaware’s Constitution passed the State Senate Tuesday afternoon. 

Senate Substitute Two for Senate Bill 100 passed with a 16 to 5 vote, garnering the two-thirds majority necessary to pass. The bill has been assigned to the House Administration Committee.

SB 100 was introduced in April by Democratic Sen. Russ Huxtable of the sixth district of Delaware. It is the first leg of an amendment to the Delaware Constitution. The act would “establish the right to marry as a fundamental right and that Delaware and its political subdivisions shall recognize marriages and issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender.”

Senate Substitute One was adopted in lieu of the original bill on May 16. SB 100 originally focused exclusively on marriage equality relating to gender and the bill was tweaked to include protection for all classes that fall under Delaware’s Equal Rights Amendment, including race, color, national origin, and sex. Senate Substitute Two was then adopted in lieu of SB 100 on June 5 after being heard by the Senate Executive Committee on May 21. 

SS 2 differs from SB 100 by clarifying that the right to marry applies to marriages that are legally valid under the laws of Delaware and that all state laws that are applicable to marriage, married spouses, or the children of married spouses apply equally to marriages that are legally valid. It also removed the need for gender-specific provisions by including gender in the first sentence and revised the language clarifying that the right to marry does not infringe on the right to freedom of religion under Article One of the Delaware Constitution.

“We’re not here to re-litigate the morality of same-sex marriage. That debate has been settled in the hearts and minds of most Americans, and certainly here in Delaware,” Sen. Huxtable said at Tuesday’s hearing. “We are here because the fundamental rights should never be left vulnerable to political whims or the ideological makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Other states such as California, Colorado, and Hawaii have introduced and passed similar bills to protect the right of all people of all genders to marry under state law. 

“This bill sends a strong message that Delaware protects its people, that we will not wait for rights to be taken away before we act,” Sen. Huxtable said at the hearing. “Voting in favor of this amendment is not just the legal mechanism of marriage, it’s about affirming the equal humanity of every Delawarean.”

Continue Reading

Popular