National
Chairmen sending mixed signals on ‘Don’t Ask’
President Obama is being pressured to include a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as part of his upcoming defense budget request to Congress, but the response from two key Democrats to such a proposal could hinder any change in the law.
Two lawmakers with considerable sway over defense matters — and whether a repeal will initially be part of the fiscal year 2011 defense budget — are House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.).
As leaders of the congressional committees that handle defense matters, Skelton and Levin get first crack at determining what’s included in the defense budget after the president sends his base bill to Congress in February. The lawmakers can make changes to the president’s request in their chairman’s marks to the legislation before the rest of Congress takes action.
So if Obama includes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as part of his defense budget request, it’s possible for either Skelton or Levin to strike the language from the bill if they don’t want it there.
“You could make the argument that the chairman’s mark is the most vulnerable moment for what happens with repeal legislation this year,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think-tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Some advocates, including Belkin, are questioning whether Levin and Skelton would retain Obama’s request to lift the ban on open service in the U.S. armed forces as part of their chairman’s marks for the defense budget.
Belkin was particularly skeptical about Levin’s willingness to let repeal go forward because of the senator’s history on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“Levin has been a huge problem on this issue,” Belkin said. “Who the hell knows where Levin is personally, but I would say that very few people in the United States have done more to obstruct the service of openly gay troops than Carl Levin.”
Belkin took issue with Levin’s abandoned plan to hold hearings last year on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Those hearings never took place.
“I think it’s been now three times that he’s announced that the Senate would hold hearings on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ Belkin said. “He just made the announcement again that they’re going to have hearings. But why were there no hearings last year despite the repeated announcements?”
A Senate Armed Services Committee spokesperson didn’t respond to the DC Agenda’s request for comment on whether Levin would allow repeal language to remain in his chairman’s mark for the defense budget.
Last week, Levin announced the Senate Armed Services Committee would hold hearings on gays in the military by the end of this month and that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates would testify.
Matt Canter, spokesperson for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), said the hearing is scheduled for next week. Although not a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gillibrand has been a strong advocate for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since she took office last year.
Belkin also criticized Levin for not finding a Republican co-sponsor for a Senate repeal bill, which some say has prevented the introduction of the legislation in that chamber.
C. Dixon Osburn, former head of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Levin has gone on record several times as noting that he supports repeal of the ban, but acknowledged Levin is “somebody who’s very much a consensus builder within the Senate Armed Services Committee.”
“So if it’s not percolating up in the Senate Armed Services Committee, he’s going to be more reluctant even as he believes that the law should repealed, and right now you don’t have the bubbling up within the Senate Armed Services Committee,” Osburn said.
Although there’s concern among “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” opponents about Levin, Skelton has been the more vocal of the two lawmakers in supporting the existing ban on open service in the military. According to The Hill newspaper, Skelton said last week during an interview on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” that he is “personally not for changing the law.”
Still, both Belkin and Osburn said they aren’t as concerned about Skelton’s position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as they are with Levin.
“It’s not helpful to have the chairman of House Armed Services oppose you, but I don’t think he’s the center of gravity in the House any more,” Belkin said. “All that said, it is sad … Chairman Skelton stands for firing gay Arabic linguists during a national security emergency. I’m not quite sure why that makes him feel safer.”
Osburn said the only moderation that he’s seen from Skelton on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is his willingness in the past couple years to have House hearings on the issue.
“And I think that the hope is if there’s a strong majority in the House supporting repeal, that he will accede,” Osburn said. “I’m less sanguine since he’s announced that he supports delay, but I think that Congressman [Patrick] Murphy is such a strong leader on this, and he’s developed such support around this in the House, that it is still a good possibility that this can move forward in the House.”
Lara Battles, spokesperson for the House Armed Services Committee, said she couldn’t say whether Skelton would include repeal language in his chairman’s mark for the defense budget, which she said would be public in May.
In 2008, the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee held the first hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 15 years. Aaron Hunter, spokesperson for Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), chair of the subcommittee, said the panel intends to hold another hearing, although a date hasn’t been set.
If either Levin or Skelton removes repeal language from the defense legislation, lawmakers could reinsert the provision through an amendment.
The Advocate reported last week that gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said it doesn’t matter whether the Pentagon includes repeal in the budget request because lawmakers have the votes in the House to put the language in the legislation.
“I do not think it matters what the Pentagon says,” Frank was quoted as saying. “We will get the votes without it, I think.”
Some activists also were confident the House could muster enough support to pass an amendment that would lead to overturning the law. Still, whether there are 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster was in question.
Osburn said the Senate is a “much more difficult prospect” than the House because there isn’t a strong leader advocating for repeal in that chamber.
“Now that said, there’s a still a possibility,” he said. “There are still enough senators who support repeal that if the House moves on this, one or more senators could get together and ensure the amendment is attached to DOD authorization bill as well.”
If the House version of the bill has repeal language and the Senate version doesn’t, lawmakers would have to hash out whether repeal would be included in the final bill during conference committee — another potential point where the repeal strategy could fail.
Osburn said “it’s a possibility” that repeal language could survive conference, but that would depend on who congressional leaders appoint as conferees.
“The effort that the LGBT community would need to push for is to ensure that the conference committee includes people who are going to be supportive of this and will leave it in,” he said.
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
Senegalese NGO claims new president discussed LGBTQ rights with top EU official
What Anne Arundel County school board candidates think about book bans
It’s game, set, and mismatch in unfulfilling ‘Challengers’
D.C. Council member proposes change for Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
New World Bank US executive director: LGBTQ rights are human rights
