National
GOP in last ditch effort to block ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal?
McCain denies dropping START support over gay ban
Gay rights supporters continue to express optimism that the Senate is on its way to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as Republican senators have reportedly threatened to withdraw support from a nuclear arms reduction treaty if a vote on the miltary’s gay ban proceeds as planned.
According to Congressional Quarterly, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have said they would no longer support the START Treaty if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) proceeds with a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill.
Reid on Thursday night filed cloture on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation as well as the DREAM Act. The vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” could come as soon as Saturday if the Senate fails to invoke cloture first on the DREAM Act.
On the Senate floor, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) predicted the treaty’s failure if the chamber moves onto what he called “partisan, political, issues, brought forth to basically accommodate activist groups around this country,” presumably referring to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and immigration.
“I’m hoping that those will be taken down or else I don’t think the future of the START treaty over the next several days is going to be successful, based on what I’m watching,” Corker said.
On the Senate floor, McCain seemed to distance himself from Corker and dispute the reporting that he and Graham were basing their support for the START Treaty on other measures that were coming to the floor.
“There continues to swirl allegations that there is going to be a vote for it or against it because of another piece of legislation or for other reasons — for other political reasons,” McCain said. “I reject that allegation.”
Brooke Buchanan, a McCain spokesperson, said via e-mail to the Washington Blade, that the assertions that McCain is threatening to withdraw support from the START Treaty over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are “not true.”
“McCain will base his support on START on the merits of the Treaty and if his concerns regarding Missile Defense have been addressed,” Buchanan said.
Graham’s office didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request for comment on the issue.
An informed source said Congressional Quarterly is standing by its reporting in the article.
The START Treaty has been a priority for the White House in the lame duck session of Congress and support from McCain and Graham is seen as essential to reaching the 67-vote threshold necessary to ratify the treaty.
The reported ultimatum offered by Republicans senator could put the White House and Democratic leadership in the difficult position of having to choose between the two agenda items.
Still, the plan seems to be to continue with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as planned. Regan Lachapelle, a Reid spokesperson, said Senate leadership intends to hold a vote Saturday as announced Thursday.
A White House spokesperson didn’t respond on short notice to a request for comment on whether the reported threats from Republicans would disrupt plans for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Optimism over ‘Don’t Ask’ vote
Amid these reported threats, supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal said prospects look good for the Senate vote and pledged to keep up the pressure until Congress finishes the job.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of the stand-alone bill, said he’s “very optimistic” the legislation will pass the Senate and noted the bill currently has more than 50 co-sponsors.
“But we know it ain’t over till it’s over and until all the votes are counted,” Lieberman said.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, also predicted the Senate will vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Saturday.
“I believe senators will do that,” Sarvis said. “I think we’re going to have a good weekend, and I just want to say we are delighted to be here after 17 years having this historic opporunity. I believe we’re on the brink of victory in the next day or two.”
To increase pressure on the Senate, gay troops who were discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and who are affiliated with SLDN are pledging to sit in the Senate gallery until the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal vote is taken.
Sarvis said these service members have come to the Senate to say they’re going to stay here until the Senate repeals “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“So between now and adjournment, these service members and others like them — somewhere between two and 10 each hour — will be in the Senate galleries until the Senate acts,” Sarvis said.
Anthony Woods, an Army Iraq war veteran who was discharged in 2008, said during the news conference that implementation of open service in the U.S. military would have no impact on battle effectiveness.
“My soldiers didn’t care about anyone’s sexual orientation,” Woods said. “I was an armor officer, so we were on tanks in some of the toughest of parts of Iraq and it didn’t matter one bit what someone’s sexual orientation was.”
During the news conference, other lawmakers who have worked to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” railed against the gay ban as they called for an end to the law.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said she thinks “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is “unconstiutional” as she commended gay service members for serving under “difficult circumstances.”
“I want to thank you for your dedication and commitment despite such difficulties and despite such requirements that, I think, fundamentally, are not only unfair and unconstitutional, but in violation of who we are as Americans,” Gillibrand said.
Many gay rights advocates have been calling on President Obama to declare “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unconstitutional so he could discontinue enforcement of the law.
A vote for final passage normally takes place 30 hours after the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, but Lieberman said a final vote could take place on the same day if cloture is invoked and the Senate has unanimous consent to move forward ahead of time.
“I hope that we may reason together and decide to yield back some time and perhaps get to final passage tomorrow before the end of the day.”
If all 57 senators who voted in favor of the motion to proceed last week on the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill vote to invoke cloture on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation, only three more votes would be needed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to move forward with the bill.
Lieberman has said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who didn’t vote this month on the defense authorization bill, would vote in favor of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” stand-alone bill. Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have also indicated they would support the stand-alone bill, which should bring the vote tally up to 61.
Still, SLDN has included Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on its list of senators whom repeal supporters need to pressure before the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” vote. If Conrad votes “no” or takes a walk, his action could put the repeal bill right at the 60-vote threshold neeeded to go forward — or even below that threshold if there are any surprises.
During the news conference, Lieberman declined to elaborate on what he believed Conrad’s position was on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and said he’d let the North Dakota senator speak for himself.
“I think you’ll have to talk to him,” Lieberman said. “Let’s say for now, I’m confident that got more than 60 votes.”
Conrad’s office didn’t respond on short notice to a request to comment on how the senator would vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Amendments not an issue for ‘Don’t Ask’ bill
Debate over amendments had previously been an issue with the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was attached, which failed to pass in the Senate earlier this month, but that doesn’t seem to be a factor in the vote on the standalone repeal legislation.
Many Republican senators said they voted “no” on the defense authorization bill because they didn’t feel the amendment process for the legislation was fair to the minority party.
For the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation, Reid has “filled the tree” and is not permitting amendments on the bill to ensure that the legislation the Senate approves will be identical to the measure passed earlier this week by the House.
Lachapelle said the cloture vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is “an opportunity for senators to show where they stand on the issue.”
“Amendments at this point would only serve to kill the bill,” she said.
Even though senators who expressed support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have previously voted “no” on the defense authorization bill based on concerns on the amendment process, Lieberman said no senators who have been supportive said they would vote “no” based on amendment on the standalone bill.
In fact, Lieberman said two senators — Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowksi (R-Alaska) — confirmed they would vote in favor of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” bill even with no amendments.”
“Although both of them wanted their to be a number of amendments allowed on the defense authorization bill, they said that was very different because it was a big bill, 900 pages — there ought to be a free and reasonable debate,” Lieberman said. “The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I think, at this point is four or five pages.”
Lieberman said both Collins and Murkowski indicated that opponents of repeal “will have full opportunity to speak against it, but we ought not to give people the opportunity to delay it further or try to pass an amemdment that effectively kill the bill.”
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.”
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
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
