National
‘Don’t Ask’ repeal is priority No. 1 as Congress returns
Advocacy groups plan aggressive lobbying effort next week
A gay veterans group is planning a series of events next week to highlight the need to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as the Senate could take action on the issue this month.
Servicemembers United is organizing a lobby day on Sept. 16 for gay veterans and other supporters of repeal to ask members of Congress to support passage of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill and pending language that would lead to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Additionally, the organization is planning on the same day an event for the same-sex partners of U.S. service members. Servicemembers United will also host a gala Sept. 17 at its office to raise money for the organization.
The events come as many repeal supporters are pushing for and expecting the Senate to take up the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this month after lawmakers return from August recess.
Michael Cole, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, said taking up repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the first priority for HRC when lawmakers return next week.
“We are communicating with our allies on the Hill to let them know that we’re looking for them to finish the job,” Cole said. “We feel confident that the votes are there and that it’s time that we rid our laws of this terrible policy.”
Cole said the Senate reportedly is looking at the week of Sept. 20 to take up the defense authorization bill and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language in the legislation.
The upcoming lobby day and other events are intended to build pressure on Congress in the remaining days before the vote to move forward with repeal.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the idea for the upcoming lobby day came after the organization and HRC jointly organized a similar lobby day on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in May.
“It’s something that has value outside of just the lobbying,” Nicholson said. “It’s an opportunity for vets from all over the country, supporters to get together and connect to socialize, to meet, to work together, collaborate.”
Nicholson said he’s expecting around between 50 and 100 people to attend the upcoming lobby day and estimated around 75 percent of attendees would be former U.S. service members.
But Nicholson said the lobby day next week would be different from the lobby day in the spring in many respects. One major difference will be that rather than simply pushing lawmakers to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” participants in the upcoming lobby day would ask members of Congress to support certain concrete actions.
“We’re focused on a different objective right now with this lobby day, which is the quality of the visits and the nuances of where the issue is right now,” Nicholson said. “We’re in a very different place right now than we were in early May and there’s some very specific procedural votes that are going to happen.”
Nicholson said the five actions that participants will ask lawmakers to take will be to:
• Oppose a motion to strike the repeal language from the defense authorization bill;
• Oppose any replacement or substitute amendment with respect to the repeal language;
• Oppose any other attempt to modify or remove the repeal language in the defense authorization bill;
• Oppose any filibuster attempt of the defense authorization bill as a whole;
• and support final passage of the defense authorization bill.
Nicholson said this approach to repeal is necessary because many members of Congress hold nuanced positions on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“People like Sen. Jim Webb can say, ‘I do support repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, just not this year,’ or ‘I do support it; I’m just going to support it within an expanded certification,'” Nicholson said. “So, we want to make sure that people who are doing our work have the detailed knowledge to be able to push back on these attempts to get around to actually voting for repeal this year.”
Additionally, the upcoming lobby day will differ from the previous lobby day because different members of the Senate are being targeted.
Previously, the repeal supporters had been working to influence the Senate Armed Services Committee to adopt repeal language as part of the defense authorization bill. Now that the committee has taken action to include the language in the legislation, the focus is on the Senate as a whole.
Nicholson said the targeted senators of the upcoming lobby day are Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).
One senator that Nicholson said will get “special attention” is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) because he’s the sole person who can ensure the defense authorization bill sees a vote this month.
Even though the Senate is the priority for repeal supporters because a vote in that chamber is imminent, Nicholson said the lobby day will also involve visits to members of the U.S. House, which has already approved the defense authorization bill with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language.
“I’m a big believer in follow up and gratitude and appreciation,” Nicholson said. “And so, we’re also doing, where possible, we’re doing some visits with House staff to follow up and thank them for their support, especially for some of the members for whom it was hard to take this vote.”
Servicemembers United is the sole organizer of the upcoming lobby day and is not working with HRC to draw citizen lobbyists from across the country.
“We’ve grown to the point now where we can do something like this by ourselves, and so we decided to convene another lobby day,” Nicholson said.
Still, Nicholson said while previously Servicemembers United was able to rely on HRC to pay to bring people into D.C. from across the country, interested participants will now have to pay their own travel expenses
“They paid for a lot of tickets for people to come into town, and we don’t have that kind of money to throw down on this, so we’re obviously relying on people who are motivated and have the capacity to bring themselves here,” Nicholson said.
As the lobby day approaches, Nicholson said he’s feeling “fairly optimistic” that the Senate will pass a defense authorization bill that includes language for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, provided Reid brings the legislation to the floor for a vote.
“I think chances are pretty good that we’ll get that through to fruition if Sen. Reid brings it to the floor for a vote before they recess for election season,” Nicholson said. “If he doesn’t, I don’t know what to think. I sort of throw my hands up in the air at that point at that and say, ‘Let’s wait and see,’ because anything could happen.”
On the same day as the lobby day on Capitol Hill, Servicemembers United is also hosting a forum for the same-sex partners of U.S. service members.
Nicholson said the forum is the first ever for the same-sex partners of U.S. service members and is intended to facilitate conversations among those who are in same-sex relationships with those serving in the military.
“Partners are coming to meet each other to talk, to connect, to share their stories and experiences with each other to talk about they challenges, offer advice and get to know one another,” Nicholson said.
Nicholson said the event will be small in scale and estimated about 10 to 15 people will attend.
One component of this forum will be a meeting with the partners and the Pentagon working group that is developing a plan to implement repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Nicholson said he thinks this meeting will be similar to the meeting that repeal supporters arranged with the Pentagon working group for gay veterans in May.
“The Pentagon working group’s style with meeting with groups of people like this has been to let it be an open dialogue with some introductions and talking a little bit about their work and what they’ve been charged with,” Nicholson said.
Nicholson said he thinks that military partners would talk about their experience being the partner of a gay, lesbian or bisexual service members serving under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and advocate on their partners’ behalf.
Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokesperson, confirmed that members of the Pentagon working group are set to meet with the same-sex partners of U.S. service members. Still, she said she couldn’t yet identify which members of the working group would meet with the partners.
“We’re just going to discuss what impact the possible repeal would have on military readiness, unit cohesion, family readiness and recruiting and retention — the same thing we’re asking the spouses of heterosexual partners,” she said. “We understand their voice is very important and we want to hear from them as well.”
But could the same-sex partners of service members inadvertently out their partners under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during the discussion with the working group?
Smith said the working group will establish guidelines prior to the meeting warning participants not to identify their partners.
“We’re going to establish ground rules that we don’t want them to out a partner,” she said. “Obviously, we’re going to establish those ground rules up front.”
Nicholson said he doesn’t think U.S. service members would be outed by same-sex partners because they “live under the cloud of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ just like their active duty partners.”
“They develop the same risk-aversion instincts as active duty gay and lesbian troops and are fully capable of avoiding the inadvertent outing of their partners,” Nicholson said. “This experience won’t be an unfamiliar one for them in that sense.”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
