National
HISTORIC: Senate approves ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
Congress wraps up legislative action on ending gay ban
Sen. Harry Reid, along with other Democrats, voted for cloture on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation (Blade photo by Michael Key).
In a historic action, the U.S. Senate on Saturday passed legislation that would end the 17-year-old law prohibiting open gays from serving in the U.S. military.
Early in the day, the Senate voted 63-33 to invoke cloture on the legislation that would end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to move it to the floor. Later in the afternoon, the chamer approved the legislation by a vote of 65-31, effectively sending the measure to President Obama’s desk.
Clearing the 60-vote threshold needed to invoke cloture was the last significant hurdle for the bill on its path to passage and enactment into law.
For the cloture vote, six Republicans voted in the affirmative. They include Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), an original co-sponsor of the bill, as well as Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Scott Brown (R-Mass) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Each had indicated prior to the vote that they support the bill when it came to the floor.
Additional GOP support for the legislation came from Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Three Republicans didn’t vote: Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
Following the cloture vote, Voinovich told reporters he voted in the affirmative because he believes the U.S. military should accept Americans who are qualified to serve.
“If people are not qualified to be in service because of their sexual orientation, then we ought to say, ‘You can’t get in,'” he said. “But if we know that they are qualified, then we ought not to have them lying [about] who they are [under] ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ It just is inconsistent with common sense.”
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of the repeal legislation, told the Washington Blade following the vote that he wasn’t suprised by Kirk or Voinovich’s votes because they privately assured him they would vote in the affirmative earlier in the week.
“For their own reasons, they didn’t want to announce it, but they were true to their word — God bless them,” Lieberman said. “So, six Republicans was great.”
Lieberman praised the bipartisan nature with which the Senate passed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in a conversation with reporters following the vote.
“There’s been a lot of difficult times in the last couple years because it’s so partisan to get anything done.,” Lieberman said. “Here we are coming together — and it was bipartisan. We wouldn’t have done it without the Republicans and we got something really good passed, so I feel good about it.”
For the vote for final passage, two Republicans switched their “no” votes on cloture to “yes”: Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.).
On the Democratic side, all members who were present voted in favor of cloture and final passage, but Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) didn’t vote at either time.
Earlier this month, Manchin voted against the motion to proceed on major defense legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language. His office didn’t immediately respond to Blade’s request to comment on why he was absent.
Gay rights supporters were concerned that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) would vote “no,” but he voted in the affirmative both for cloture and final passage along with nearly all of his Democratic colleagues.
The Senate invoked cloture to proceed with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation after a vote failed on moving forward with the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill, 55-41.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the cloture vote shows that Congress has “recognized that all men and women have the right to openly serve their country.”
Solmonese also noted that the Senate was able to move “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation past its most significant hurdle after many observers believed efforts to pass repeal this year were dead.
“Plenty of people had already planned the funeral for this legislation,” Solmonese said. “Today, we pulled out a victory from what was almost certain defeat just a few days ago.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, called the vote a “historic step forward for this country” and said it “will very likely be a life-changing moment for gay and lesbian troops.”
“While we still have a long road ahead, including a final passage vote, the certification process, and a yet-to-be-determined implementation period, those who defend our freedom while living in fear for their careers will finally breathe a sigh of relief tonight, and those who have fallen victim to this policy in years past will finally begin to see true closure and redemption on the horizon,” Nicholson said.
The U.S. House earlier this week approved identical legislation, so when the Senate votes to approve final passage of the bill, the bill will head to President Obama’s desk.
Following the cloture vote, Lt. Col Victor Fehrenbach, an Air Force pilot who’s facing discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” told the Washington Blade he was “overwhelmed” that the Senate finally took action to end the military’s gay ban.
“I didn’t think it was going to happen to be honest with you — at least not for a few years,” Fehrenbach said. “As soon as I heard my senator vote — Sen. Voinovich — I knew that we were over the 61 mark and I was pretty emotional over a while there.”
Fehrenbach said he felt “overwhelming happiness” not just for himself but for the estimated 66,000 other gay people serving in the armed forces.
“I’ll still be in limbo, but I know now that I’ll be able to retire in October, so it’s a great feeling to know that this is coming to end — that there is a light at the end of the tunnel,” he said.
In a statement White House Press Secretary Robert Gates confirmed Obama intends to sign the legislation passed by the Senate into law.
“As the president has long said, ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military, will strengthen our national security while upholding the basic equality on which this nation was founded,” Gibbs said. “The president looks forward to signing the bill into law.”
Gates called on to stop discharges
Now that legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is complete, increased attention is being placed on the Obama administration to issue an executive order barring further discharges until repeal is implemented.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, renewed his call for such an order during a news conference after the Senate invoked cloture on the legislation.
“During this limbo interim period, I respectfully call upon the secretary of defense — Secretary Gates — to use his existing authority to suspend all investigations and all discharges until the law is finally repealed,” Sarvis said.
The SLDN head said such a move is necessary from the Obama administration because the legislation still has to make its way to the Obama desk, the president and Pentagon leaders have to certify that repeal can happen and a 60-day waiting process has to take place.
Gay advocates — including Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese — have been calling on President Obama to issue an order stopping discharges since the start of his administration.
At the news conference, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he supports the idea of Gates issues an order to suspend discharges as the repeal legislation heads to the president’s desk.
Senate Armed Services Committtee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) also told reporters following the conference he favors such a move from Gates.
In a statement, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he wouldn’t issue such an order until he can certify that the U.S. military is ready for repeal.
“It is therefore important that our men and women in uniform understand that while today’s historic vote means that this policy will change, the implementation and certification process will take an additional period of time,” Gates said. “In the meantime, the current law and policy will remain in effect.”
A White House spokesperson didn’t respond on short notice to comment on the matter.
In October, Gates issued new guidance limiting the discharge authority for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the militaries service secretaries in cooperation with the Pentagon’s general counsel and the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness. According to the Associated Press, since that time, no discharges have taken place under the law.
Senators debate gay ban
Prior to the votes, senators on the floor spoke out passionately both in favor and against repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Opponents of repeal said the timing wasn’t right for Congress to act on ending the law as the U.S. military engaged in operations overseas, while those advocating for an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” said all able bodies — including gay service members — were needed to confront these threats.
Levin disputed the assertions of those who would call supporting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal a partisan vote and noted polls showing an “overwhelming majority” supports ending the law.
“I’m not here for partisan reasons,” Levin said. “I’m here because men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are gay and lesbian have died for this country, because gay and lesbian men and women wearing the uniform of this country have their lives on the line right now in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places for this country.”
Levin also noted that a provision in the legislation mandates that repeal won’t take effect until the president, defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for repeal.
“Secretary Gates has assured everybody that he is not going to certify that the military is ready for repeal until he is satisfied with the advice of the service chiefs that we had, in fact, mitigated, if not eliminated to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness to unit cohesion and effectiveness,” Levin said.
But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said while repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” may lead to “high-fives all over the liberal bastions of America,” an end of the statute would threaten military recruitment and battle effectiveness.
“We are doing great damage, and could possibly, and probably — as the commandant of the Marine Corps said, and I’ve been told literally thousands of members of the military — harm the battle effectiveness, which is so vital to the support, to the survival of our young men and women in the military,” McCain said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an opponent of repeal, invoked Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos suggestion earlier this week that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal could be a “distraction” that would lead to the loss of Marines’ lives on the battlefield.
“Some will say this is a civil rights issue of time,” Graham said. “The day has come. We need to move forward as a nation. The Marine Corps does not have that view.”
Graham railed against the decision of Senate leadership to prohibit senators from offering any amendments to the legislation.
“To those senators who will take the floor today and announce this as a major advancement of civil rights in America, please let it be said that you’re doing it in a fashion that those who have a different view cannot offer one amendment,” Graham said. “Does that matter? Apparently not.”
Reid had “filled the tree” prior to the vote to prohibit any senators from offering amendments to the legislation. Amending the bill would have sent the bill back to the House and could have killed the measure.
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
