National
Obama to end ‘Don’t Ask’ this year
Pledges to implement repeal in State of the Union address
President Obama (Blade photo by Michael Key).
President Obama earned praise from many LGBT advocates on Tuesday for pledging during his State of the Union address to implement an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the year is out.
In his speech, Obama observed that members of the U.S. military come from “every corner of this country” and are black, white, Christian, Jewish and Muslim.
“And, yes, we know that some of them are gay,” Obama said. “Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.”
In the House chamber, where Obama delivered the speech before a joint session of Congress, lawmakers reacted to the remarks largely along party lines — with Democrats applauding the comments and Republicans taking no action.
Among those who stood as they applauded were House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who were both seen as key in pushing forward legislation allowing for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” last year.
Notably, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the leading opponent in the U.S. Senate last year of repealing the military’s gay ban, also applauded following Obama’s remarks on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The president’s remarks suggested that he will issue certification for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the end of the year. Under the law Obama signed on Dec. 22, repeal won’t take effect until he, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for repeal.
Asked via e-mail to clarify whether the remarks indeed mean Obama is committed to issuing certification before the year is out, Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, confirmed that indeed is the president’s plan.
In a statement, Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization is “pleased” the president expects that gays will be able to serve openly in the U.S. military by the end of the year.
“In fact, we think there should be certification from the president, Secretary Robert Gates and JCS Chairman Michael Mullen in this quarter,” Sarvis said. “We need to make ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal a reality sooner rather than later.”
Obama immediately followed his remarks on allowing gays to serve in the military by stating that the time has come for colleges to allow military recruiters and ROTC programs back on campus. Some schools had prohibited the military from recruiting on campus because “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” conflicts with their non-discrimination policies.
“And with that change, I call on all our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and ROTC,” Obama said. “It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.”
But Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said schools with non-discrimination policies protecting LGBT people should continue prohibiting the military from coming to campus — even after repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — because openly transgender people still aren’t allowed in the armed forces.
“Students on campuses like Stanford and Harvard have already pointed out that the repeal of this policy, while an improvement, still does not allow transgender people to serve openly or to join the military,” she said. “We support the organizing efforts of students on those campuses and others in continuing to advocate for the exclusion of the military from their campuses as long as the military continues to discriminate.”
Obama mentioned other initiatives during his speech that were welcome news for LGBT advocates — even though they weren’t specifically LGBT-related — because they represented opportunities to pass pro-gay legislation.
During his address, the president said he “strongly believe[s]” Congress should “take on” the issue of illegal immigration and renewed his call for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.
“I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows,” he said. “And let’s stop expelling talented, responsible young people who could be staffing our research labs or starting a new business, who could be further enriching this nation.”
Passage of immigration reform could present an opportunity to include the Uniting American Families Act — legislation that would end restrictions prohibiting bi-national same-sex couples from staying together in the United States.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said “it’s good to hear” that immigration remains a priority for the administration.
“It is an issue where there is room for bi-partisan agreement,” Ralls said. “I think on both sides of the political aisle, there’s recognition that comprehensive immigration reform needs to be tackled.”
Ralls said a UAFA-inclusive comprehensive immigration reform bill “does provide the best opportunity to move UAFA forward” in Congress.
Also during his speech, Obama expressed his desire to renew education laws that are currently on the books, which could present Congress the opportunity to pass the Student Non-Discrimination Act or the Safe Schools Improvement Act.
Obama said the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law should be replaced “with a law that’s more flexible and focused on what’s best for our kids.”
“You see, we know what’s possible from our children when reform isn’t just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals, school boards and communities,” he said.
Passage of federal anti-bullying legislation received renewed attention late last year in the wake of a rash of suicides of gay teens who reportedly took their own lives after they had been bullied.
Despite Obama’s call to update federal education laws, Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said she’s disappointed the president didn’t explicitly address bullying in his speech.
“It was disappointing to hear nothing about the need for schools to foster a culture of respect amid all the talk of high standards and in the wake of seismic waves of tragedy for our community last fall,” Byard said. “Students can’t achieve, innovate and graduate if they’re scared to go to school, and we all lose if they grow up in a culture where difference is despised.”
Other LGBT rights supporters also expressed disappointment that Obama didn’t go further in his speech to address other issues, such as employment non-discrimination and marriage rights.
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said Obama shouldn’t settle on repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as the final accomplishment for the LGBT community.
“If the president is truly serious about job creation and boosting America’s economic well-being, he must provide leadership and action in helping to pass employment protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and ending the costly and unjust federal marriage ban,” Carey said.
But the president’s State of the Union address predominantly focused on spurring job growth through education and infrastructure improvements as well as deficit reduction by cutting federal government programs.
“Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation,” Obama said. “But because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That’s what planted the seeds for the Internet. That’s what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.”
Obama called this time for the country a “Sputnik moment,” recalling how even though the Soviet Union launched the first person into space in the 1950s, the United States was able to beat Russia in the space race by landing the first person on the moon.
In an online video response to the State of the Union address, lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said the president “put out a challenge not just to compete to the global marketplace, but to win.”
“We know that in order to do that, we need to have the best educated workforce, the most innovative scientists and the most creative entrepreneurs,” Baldwin said. “I’m excited about this challenge because I know we can do it — and I plan on bringing some great Wisconsin ideas to the table as we respond to this challenge.”
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.
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
Gay Venezuelan opposition leader: Country’s future uncertain after Maduro ouster
Layoffs and confusion at Pride Center of Maryland after federal grants cut, reinstated
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Team Rayceen’s hiatus is officially over
HRC holds retirement ceremony for ousted transgender servicemembers
As Supreme Court weighs trans sports bans, advocate and former athlete speaks out
Woman arrested for anti-gay assault at Alexandria supermarket
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
-
Opinions5 days ago
Team Rayceen’s hiatus is officially over
-
U.S. Military/Pentagon5 days ago
HRC holds retirement ceremony for ousted transgender servicemembers
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days ago
As Supreme Court weighs trans sports bans, advocate and former athlete speaks out
