National
Picking up the pieces after ‘Don’t Ask’ defeat
Repeal supporters pin hopes on lame duck session after election
Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are picking up the pieces after a devastating loss in the U.S. Senate and — amid fears the opportunity for repeal has been lost — anticipating another shot at passing legislation that would end the law after Election Day.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he continues to see a path for legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this Congress as he acknowledged the need for new efforts.
“We do have a shot in the lame duck,” he said. “And, I think, frankly, it’s better than 50/50, but we’ve got to change the mix. … It’s unlikely the vote will be that different.”
Still, Sarvis said “time is the enemy” even as he maintained that sufficient time remains this year to move forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“We’re only talking about four or five days in November, and it’s unclear how many days in December,” Sarvis said. “This bill is tough to do in the best of circumstances when you aren’t up against time. I think it can be done, but time is a factor for sure.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the legislative route to repeal will be a “challenge” and “those who let this vote fail yesterday really made it difficult for us all moving forward.”
“But we have no choice but to give it our all and try our best to push it through,” Nicholson said.
Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), confirmed the majority leader’s plans to move forward with the defense authorization bill later this year.
“Sen. Reid reserved the right to reconsider the vote and that is what we intend to do at some point in the future,” Manley said.
Even before the vote, speculation and promises that Senate leaders would try again to start work on the defense authorization had emerged.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of Senate standalone repeal legislation, said Tuesday during a news conference he’s received assurances from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that the bill would come up again in the lame duck session after Election Day.
“If for some reason, we don’t get the 60 votes to proceed, this ain’t over,” Lieberman said. “We’re going to come back into session in November or December. I spoke to Sen. Reid [Tuesday]. He’s very clear and strong that he’s going to bring this bill to the floor in November or December.”
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said during a later news conference that he hopes the prospects for passing the defense authorization bill would be different after Election Day, but couldn’t offer more details.
“But as chairman of the committee, I’m going to do everything I can to get this bill before the Senate so that it’s subject to debate and amendment,” Levin said. “But I can’t discern what that path is at the moment. It’s too soon after the filibuster damage has been done.”
At least one political analyst is skeptical about the passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in Congress this year.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, expressed doubt about passage after Election Day — even as he acknowledged that “a lame duck session can be unpredictable.”
“From the perspective of September, the odds seem clearly against passage this year,” Sabato said. “Repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] would have to be fast-tracked, and that requires broad agreement in the Senate. That’s unlikely.”
On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture to bring to the floor the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill — legislation to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language is attached.
The vote in the Senate was 56-43, which was shy of the 60 votes necessary to end the filibuster from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
A unified GOP caucus — in addition to Democratic Arkansas Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln — comprised the “no” votes that defeated a cloture vote. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was the only senator who didn’t vote.
Reid changed his vote to “no” on the legislation in a procedural move that would enable him to bring the legislation to the floor again.
Sarvis said the failure of the Senate to invoke cloture on the defense authorization bill is “shameful” because it means the continued discharge of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.
“That vote means that gay and lesbian service members are going to continue to be discharged every day while Republicans and Democrats in the Senate figure out how to move forward,” Sarvis said.
Sarvis said the LGBT community needs to “express more outrage” over the vote to convince Senate leaders to schedule the vote again and for successful passage.
“If we aren’t offended, if we aren’t outraged by this vote, I’m not sure how the political dynamics change,” Sarvis said. “Yes, things will be somewhat better after the mid-term elections are behind us, but the few determined opponents are still going to be there.”
Various explanations have been offered for the loss on Tuesday, although partisan politics are widely seen as the reason for failure.
Some faulted the GOP caucus for being obstinate in its vote against cloture even though many Republican senators previously expressed support for the defense authorization bill as a whole.
In a news conference following the vote, Levin called the unified GOP obstruction of the defense authorization bill “outrageous and sad.”
Levin accused the GOP of initially opposing the move forward with the defense authorization bill because of the language that would lead to an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“For two days, we’ve heard here that they objected to our proceeding because of the language in the bill relative to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ even though that language is very moderate language,” Levin said.
The senator noted that the provision provides that repeal would only take effect after the Pentagon working group completes its study on the issue and the president, defense secretary and chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for repeal.
Levin added he couldn’t recall a previous time in which the U.S. Senate couldn’t proceed to debate on defense authorization legislation.
“It’s important to know that we were just simply trying to get to the point where we could debate a bill,” he said. “I don’t think a filibuster has ever before prevented the Senate from getting to a defense authorization bill.”
GOP senators — including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who supported the repeal amendment to the defense authorization bill in committee — accused Democratic leadership on the Senate floor Tuesday of being intransigent by limiting the number of amendments that could come to the floor.
“That is why I am so disappointed that rather than allowing full and open debate and the opportunity for amendments from both sides of the aisle, the majority leader apparently intends to shut down the debate and exclude Republicans from offering a number of amendments,” Collins said.
Sarvis said a number of factors played into the unsuccessful cloture vote on Tuesday, including the pressure that repeal advocates placed on Reid to schedule the vote regardless of whether 60 votes were present to move forward.
“Those who were advocating a vote this Congress always understood that we would need 60 votes to succeed,” Sarvis said. “So the reality is, the majority leader scheduled the vote, but we came up short. We lost Democrats that we thought would be with us up until a few days ago and we lost some Republicans until late last week that we thought would be with us.”
Sarvis said Levin and McCain may have to reach some agreement on the number of amendments that can be offered to move forward.
“It doesn’t look good for Democrats or for Republicans — and especially this Congress — to be the first Congress in almost 50 years not to approve an authorization for the funding of our troops, especially when we are in war,” Sarvis said.
Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal have also cited insufficient support from the White House as a reason why the cloture vote was defeated.
Sarvis said President Obama didn’t make an effort to encourage senators to vote for cloture in the days prior to Tuesday.
“I did not see the White House whipping the vote for 72 hours before,” Sarvis said.
Nicholson ascribed blame to Obama as well as Reid and other LGBT organizations.
“The White House didn’t lift a finger to help and certain gay rights organizations refused to criticize Senator Reid while he derailed the vote in advance,” he said. “It’s just not a good position to be in with all of the hurdles and challenges of a highly polarized lame duck session ahead.”
During a Tuesday news conference, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied Lady Gaga had done more to advance the bill than President Obama. The pop singer appeared at a rally in Maine to promote passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation and tweeted with senators to encourage them to move forward.
“We wouldn’t be taking on these issues if it weren’t for the president,” Gibbs said. “This is an issue that passed the House because of the president and this administration’s work and the work of many members in Congress.”
Gibbs also ascribed blame to the 60-vote threshold needed to move forward with legislation in the Senate — even for a bill to authorize funds for the Pentagon — and said “it’s certainly not healthy for the way our government works and it sets an awful precedent for getting things done in the future.”
Sarvis said support from the White House during the lame duck session would be crucial to advancing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“We need the president speaking on this issue in the lame duck asking senators to be with him,” Sarvis said. “We know he favors repeal, but now we need him engaged more than ever.”
In the wake of Senate defeat, repeal advocates are seeking other options to move forward on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Litigation seeking to overturn the law has received renewed attention. Both Log Cabin v. United States and Witt v. Air Force are moving through the courts and could lead to an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” although legal experts expect those cases won’t be resolved for years.
In a statement following the Senate vote, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, urged the Obama administration not to appeal a recent California federal court’s decision against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the case of Log Cabin v. United States.
“We expect the Justice Department to recognize the overwhelming evidence that proves [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is unconstitutional,” Solmonese said.
Even with litigation proceeding, Sarvis maintained that the legislative route is the best path for moving forward with repeal.
“The ball game is still in the Senate,” he said. “Yes, there’s some good things going on in the courts with Maj. Witt and the Log Cabin Republican case, but in all likelihood, those are going to be tied up for years.”
One question about a possible future vote on the defense authorization bill is what impact the Pentagon working group’s study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” due Dec. 1 would have on the legislation.
Sarvis dismissed the notion that the report represents a complication because he said he thinks the report would favor “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“They were asked to provide the [defense] secretary with a set of recommendations on how to implement open service,” Sarvis said. “Well, that is not going to be hurtful. Indeed, I’m not that concerned about the results of the survey.”
Nicholson said the completion of the Pentagon report should make voting for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” easier for many senators, but said its release will be “thrown into the highly charged and high politicized environment of the lame duck session.”
“Unfortunately, the working group itself has become so politicized that its utility in this whole processed has been diminished because of that as well,” Nicholson said. “Bottom line — the administration really screwed this one up.”
Many senators, including McCain, have said they want to see the report before acting on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Sarvis predicted continued equivocation from these senators upon the completion of the report and congressional hearings may be necessary following the completion of the study to address concerns.
“Sen. McCain says, ‘Oh, I’m going to need some time to study that report and analyze how they came up with those recommendations,’” Sarvis said. “‘We may need some hearings on that.’ So that’s going to remain a moving target.”
Another possible complication in the legislative effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” later this year is state election laws.
According to Bloomberg News, state laws in Illinois, Delaware and West Virginia terminate the terms of appointed senators immediately after Election Day. Their elected successors may start in the lame duck session this year as opposed to the start of the next Congress.
These laws mean Sens. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Carte Goodwin (D-W.Va.) and Roland Burris (D-Ill.) — who voted in favor of cloture on Tuesday — may have to give up their seats to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal opponents in the lame duck session.
Sarvis acknowledged that a worst-case scenario of the loss of all three seats would complicate efforts to move forward with the defense authorization if the Senate faces another filibuster.
“If we’re facing another filibuster, I think it’s very, very challenging if we lose those three seats,” Sarvis said.
Sarvis said he’s spoken with Chris Coons, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“He looked me in the eye and told me that if he’s in the U.S. Senate, he will be voting for repeal,” Sarvis said. “So, I take heart from that commitment.”
Sarvis said he has “no idea” how Republican candidate Christine O’Donnell would vote should she win in the November election. O’Donnell is known for her opposition to gays and has spoken out against homosexuality.
Illustration courtesy of Georgia Voice
Florida
DNC slams White House for slashing Fla. AIDS funding
State will have to cut medications for more than 16,000 people
The Trump-Vance administration and congressional Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill” could strip more than 10,000 Floridians of life-saving HIV medication.
The Florida Department of Health announced there would be large cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program in the Sunshine State. The program switched from covering those making up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, which was anyone making $62,600 or less, in 2025, to only covering those making up to 130 percent of the FPL, or $20,345 a year in 2026.
Cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, which provides medication to low-income people living with HIV/AIDS, will prevent a dramatic $120 million funding shortfall as a result of the Big Beautiful Bill according to the Florida Department of Health.
The International Association of Providers of AIDS Care and Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo warned that the situation could easily become a “crisis” without changing the current funding setup.
“It is a serious issue,” Ladapo told the Tampa Bay Times. “It’s a really, really serious issue.”
The Florida Department of Health currently has a “UPDATES TO ADAP” warning on the state’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program webpage, recommending Floridians who once relied on tax credits and subsidies to pay for their costly HIV/AIDS medication to find other avenues to get the crucial medications — including through linking addresses of Florida Association of Community Health Centers and listing Florida Non-Profit HIV/AIDS Organizations rather than have the government pay for it.
HIV disproportionately impacts low income people, people of color, and LGBTQ people
The Tampa Bay Times first published this story on Thursday, which began gaining attention in the Sunshine State, eventually leading the Democratic Party to, once again, condemn the Big Beautiful Bill pushed by congressional republicans.
“Cruelty is a feature and not a bug of the Trump administration. In the latest attack on the LGBTQ+ community, Donald Trump and Florida Republicans are ripping away life-saving HIV medication from over 10,000 Floridians because they refuse to extend enhanced ACA tax credits,” Democratic National Committee spokesperson Albert Fujii told the Washington Blade. “While Donald Trump and his allies continue to make clear that they don’t give a damn about millions of Americans and our community, Democrats will keep fighting to protect health care for LGBTQ+ Americans across the country.”
More than 4.7 million people in Florida receive health insurance through the federal marketplace, according to KKF, an independent source for health policy research and polling. That is the largest amount of people in any state to be receiving federal health care — despite it only being the third most populous state.
Florida also has one of the largest shares of people who use the AIDS Drug Assistance Program who are on the federal marketplace: about 31 percent as of 2023, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
“I can’t understand why there’s been no transparency,” David Poole also told the Times, who oversaw Florida’s AIDS program from 1993 to 2005. “There is something seriously wrong.”
The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors estimates that more than 16,000 people will lose coverage
U.S. Supreme Court
Competing rallies draw hundreds to Supreme Court
Activists, politicians gather during oral arguments over trans youth participation in sports
Hundreds of supporters and opponents of trans rights gathered outside of the United States Supreme Court during oral arguments for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. on Tuesday. Two competing rallies were held next to each other, with politicians and opposing movement leaders at each.
“Trans rights are human rights!” proclaimed U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to the crowd of LGBTQ rights supporters. “I am here today because trans kids deserve more than to be debated on cable news. They deserve joy. They deserve support. They deserve to grow up knowing that their country has their back.”
“And I am here today because we have been down this hateful road before,” Markey continued. “We have seen time and time again what happens when the courts are asked to uphold discrimination. History eventually corrects those mistakes, but only after the real harm is done to human beings.”
View on Threads
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke at the other podium set up a few feet away surrounded by signs, “Two Sexes. One Truth.” and “Reality Matters. Biology Matters.”
“In just four years, the Biden administration reversed decades of progress,” said McMahon. “twisting the law to urge that sex is not defined by objective biological reality, but by subjective notion of gender identity. We’ve seen the consequences of the Biden administration’s advocacy of transgender agendas.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, was introduced on the opposing podium during McMahon’s remarks.
“This court, whose building that we stand before this morning, did something quite remarkable six years ago.” Takano said. “It did the humanely decent thing, and legally correct thing. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court said that trans employees exist. It said that trans employees matter. It said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sex, and that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It recognizes that trans people have workplace rights and that their livelihoods cannot be denied to them, because of who they are as trans people.”
“Today, we ask this court to be consistent,” Takano continued. “If trans employees exist, surely trans teenagers exist. If trans teenagers exist, surely trans children exist. If trans employees have a right not to be discriminated against in the workplace, trans kids have a right to a free and equal education in school.”
Takano then turned and pointed his finger toward McMahon.
“Did you hear that, Secretary McMahon?” Takano addressed McMahon. “Trans kids have a right to a free and equal education! Restore the Office of Civil Rights! Did you hear me Secretary McMahon? You will not speak louder or speak over me or over these people.”
Both politicians continued their remarks from opposing podiums.
“I end with a message to trans youth who need to know that there are adults who reject the political weaponization of hate and bigotry,” Takano said. “To you, I say: you matter. You are not alone. Discrimination has no place in our schools. It has no place in our laws, and it has no place in America.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Justices considered whether laws unconstitutional under Title IX.
The Supreme Court heard two cases today that could change how the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX are enforced.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., ask the court to determine whether state laws blocking transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Once decided, the rulings could reshape how laws addressing sex discrimination are interpreted nationwide.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether Bostock v. Clayton County — the landmark case holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — applies in the context of athletics. He questioned whether transgender girls should be considered girls under the law, noting that they were assigned male at birth.
“I think the basic focus of the discussion up until now, which is, as I see it anyway, whether or not we should view your position as a challenge to the distinction between boys and girls on the basis of sex or whether or not you are perfectly comfortable with the distinction between boys and girls, you just want an exception to the biological definition of girls.”
“How we approach the situation of looking at it not as boys versus girls but whether or not there should be an exception with respect to the definition of girls,” Roberts added, suggesting the implications could extend beyond athletics. “That would — if we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed Roberts’ concerns, questioning how sex-based classifications function under Title IX and what would happen if Idaho’s ban were struck down.
“Does a — the justification for a classification as you have in Title IX, male/female sports, let’s take, for example, an individual male who is not a good athlete, say, a lousy tennis player, and does not make the women’s — and wants to try out for the women’s tennis team, and he said there is no way I’m better than the women’s tennis players. How is that different from what you’re being required to do here?”
Justice Samuel Alito addressed what many in the courtroom seemed reluctant to state directly: the legal definition of sex.
“Under Title IX, what does the term ‘sex’ mean?” Alito asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who was arguing in support of Idaho’s law. Mooppan maintained that sex should be defined at birth.
“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex and think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, questioning how that definition did not amount to sex discrimination against Lindsay Hecox under Idaho law. If Hecox’s sex is legally defined as male, Sotomayor argued, the exclusion still creates discrimination.
“It’s still an exception,” Sotomayor said. “It’s a subclass of people who are covered by the law and others are not.”
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the broader implications of the cases, asking whether a ruling for the states would impose a single definition of sex on the 23 states that currently have different laws and standards. The parties acknowledged that scientific research does not yet offer a clear consensus on sex.
“I think the one thing we definitely want to have is complete findings. So that’s why we really were urging to have a full record developed before there were a final judgment of scientific uncertainty,” said Kathleen Harnett, Hecox’s legal representative. “Maybe on a later record, that would come out differently — but I don’t think that—”
“Just play it out a little bit, if there were scientific uncertainty,” Kagan responded.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the impact such policies could have on cisgender girls, arguing that allowing transgender girls to compete could undermine Title IX’s original purpose.
“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league, there’s a — there’s a harm there,” Kavanaugh said. “I think we can’t sweep that aside.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Idaho’s law discriminated based on transgender status or sex.
“Since trans boys can play on boys’ teams, how would we say this discriminates on the basis of transgender status when its effect really only runs towards trans girls and not trans boys?”
Harnett responded, “I think that might be relevant to a, for example, animus point, right, that we’re not a complete exclusion of transgender people. There was an exclusion of transgender women.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the notion that explicitly excluding transgender people was not discrimination.
“I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say that this law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of transgender status. The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams… it treats transgender women different than — than cis-women, doesn’t it?”
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst urged the court to uphold his state’s ban, arguing that allowing participation based on gender identity — regardless of medical intervention — would deny opportunities to girls protected under federal law.
Hurst emphasized that biological “sex is what matters in sports,” not gender identity, citing scientific evidence that people assigned male at birth are predisposed to athletic advantages.
Joshua Block, representing B.P.J., was asked whether a ruling in their favor would redefine sex under federal law.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block said. “I think the purpose is to make sure sex isn’t being used to deny opportunities.”
Becky Pepper-Jackson, identified as plaintiff B.P.J., the 15-year-old also spoke out.
“I play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do — to make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,” said Pepper-Jackson. “And all I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me — the only transgender student athlete in the entire state — from playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves.”
Outside the court, advocates echoed those concerns as the justices deliberated.
“Becky simply wants to be with her teammates on the track and field team, to experience the camaraderie and many documented benefits of participating in team sports,” said Sasha Buchert, counsel and Nonbinary & Transgender Rights Project director at Lambda Legal. “It has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills — in leadership, teamwork, confidence, and health. On the other hand, denying a student the ability to participate is not only discriminatory but harmful to a student’s self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. That is the argument we made today and that we hope resonated with the justices of the Supreme Court.”
“This case is about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “School athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia’s law completely excluded Becky from her school’s entire athletic program even when there is no connection to alleged concerns about fairness or safety. As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boys’ team — in contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life — is really no choice at all. We are glad to stand with her and her family to defend her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in both cases by the end of June.
Voiceless ‘Antony & Cleopatra’ a spectacle of operatic proportions
VIDEO: LGBTQ groups march in Va. inaugural parade
Va. Senate approves referendum to repeal marriage amendment
DNC slams White House for slashing Fla. AIDS funding
Do not forget that Renee Good was queer
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Woman arrested for anti-gay assault at Alexandria supermarket
Honoring 50 queer, trans women with inaugural ‘Carrying Change’ awards
Ruby Corado sentenced to 33 months in prison
Visible and unapologetic: MAL brings the kink this weekend
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
-
Virginia5 days ago
Woman arrested for anti-gay assault at Alexandria supermarket
-
Commentary5 days ago
Honoring 50 queer, trans women with inaugural ‘Carrying Change’ awards
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Ruby Corado sentenced to 33 months in prison
