Living
Service chiefs: ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal proceeding smoothly
Military leaders testify before House committee Thursday
Gen. Norton Schwartz, chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, at Thursday's hearing. (Blade photo by Joey DiGuglielmo)
The military service chiefs testified on Thursday that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal implementation was proceeding smoothly and that they don’t anticipate major problems with moving toward open service in the long term.
In a hearing before the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee, uniform leaders of the military services said “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal implementation was proceeding in a way that they felt was favorable.
The chiefs of the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force — Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz — spoke on behalf of their services while Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli represented his service.
Many of the service chiefs — especially Amos, who said he feared open service could be a distraction that could cost Marines’ lives on the battlefield — voiced opposition to legislative action to end the anti-gay before law last year before Congress took action to pass allowing for repeal.
However, following the passage of repeal legislation, each of the chiefs committed to working toward repeal and issued guidance on implementing open service to their subordinates — a sentiment they voiced in testimony before the committee.
Roughead, who was among the chiefs to favor “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal last year, said he doesn’t think repeal would have a measurable impact on the Navy.
“The United States Navy can successfully implement a repeal of the law,” Roughead said. “Combat effectiveness is what we provide the nation and repeal will not change who we are or what we do.”
Roughead said he’s established July 1 as time for when the Navy will be complete training for open service and said the service is on track to achieve that goal.
Amos noted that despite his earlier opposition to repeal, he issued guidance to the Marine Corps on the path toward open service and created a video to prepare Marines for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“I’m looking for issues that might arise specifically coming out of the … training, and to be honest with you, chairman, we’ve not seen it,” Amos said. “There’s questions about billeting for Marines — I mean, the kinds of questions you would expect — but there hasn’t been the recalcitrant pushback, there’s not been the anxiety over it from the forces in the field.”
Amos said the Marine Corps has completed 100 percent of Tier 1 and Tier 2 training — which includes training of service leadership — and said Tier 3 training, training of the total force, is 41 percent finished and would be complete June 1.
Gen. Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army. (Blade photo by Joey DiGuglielmo)
Echoing the notion that repeal implementation is proceeding smoothly, Chiarelli, who’s superior Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey opposed repeal in testimony last year, said the training to prepare soldiers for open service is effective.
Chiarelli maintaining training “is not disruptive” to the Army, but said the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal implementation process for the service “will take time.”
“The chain teaching program facilitates thoughtful, constructive dialogue between leaders and subordinates,” Chiarelli said. “This dialogue is hugely important, especially at the lowest levels, where ownership and consensus are most critical.”
Chiarelli said he participated in the first session along with Casey and other four-star generals” and “can attest the process works.”
Schwartz, who testified last year that he didn’t want “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” implementation until 2012, said the Air Force is also moving toward open service in a deliberate but expeditious manner.
“We will rely on steady leadership at all levels to implement this change in a manner that is consistent with standards of military readiness and effectiveness, with minimal adverse effect on unit cohesion, recruiting and retention in the Air Force,” Schwartz said.
Schwartz added his service has trained about 15 percent of all airmen — some 117,000 of the force — is on track “to train the remainder within the project training window.”
Despite their generally favorable view of moving toward open service, both Chiarelli and Schwartz identified “moderate risk” with implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, although they said they were mitigating the risk through educating service members.
LGBT advocates following the hearing that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal said the testimony demonstrates training is on track and further congressional hearings are unnecessary.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the testimony demonstrates the service chiefs are “comfortable with this policy change.”
“This should be the last waste of their time and taxpayers’ resources to try to undo the inevitable,” Nicholson said. “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is going away, and we will have a stronger military and a stronger nation as a result.”
No committee hearings specifically devoted to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are planned in the Senate. Tara Andringa, a spokesperson for Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said his committee has asked the chiefs to inform panel members about the progress of repeal as part of the hearing on the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Despite the confidence that chiefs expressed in moving toward open service, Republicans on the committee voiced concerns about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or griped about the process that led to passage of legislation allowing for repeal of the anti-gay law.
House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said he disapproved of the way the Democratic-controlled House last year proceeded with repeal legislation after the Pentagon published its study in November on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“As a result of the rush to judgment that bypassed this committee, Congress was denied the opportunity to ask questions and identify weaknesses in the repeal implementation plan,” McKeon said. “Now, we’re confronted by an implementation process that is moving quickly to completion of the education and training phase.”
McKeon maintained that the “one outcome that must be avoided” is a path for the U.S. armed forces that would “put the combat readiness of our military forces at risk.”
Following the hearing, McKeon told the Washington Blade that the chiefs’ testimony didn’t allay his concerns — but insisted they were based on the congressional repeal process as opposed to open service itself.
“My views of established from the way it was handled in the first place to get to this point,” McKeon said. “They’re just doing their job.”
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, chided for McKeon for holding the hearings and for asserting that insufficient discussion led to repeal.
“It’s particularly unfortunate that the full committee chairman, Mr. McKeon, has decided to become a party to this ugly cabal to play politics with our men and women in uniform,” Sarvis said. “This has traditionally been a bi-partisan committee, but under the current leadership of McKeon and [House Armed Services Subcommitee Chair Joe] Wilson, that sane and sensible approach is at risk.”
While Republicans voiced concern about the passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation or implementing open service in the U.S. military, Democrats on the panel indicated support for the repeal legislation Congress passed last year.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ranking Democrat on the committee, said the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been “hotly debated” since its inception in 1993 and disputed the argument that Congress didn’t undertake sufficient discussion before acting — adding lawmakers “made the only logical choice” last year by enacting repeal.
“I believe we have analyzed this at enormous length over an enormous period of time, and at some point you have to make a decision about what the best way to go forward is,” Smith said.
Smith added the longtime service of gays in the military is well known — although they’ve been serving in secret because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — and said he’s “yet to meet a service member who wasn’t abundantly aware of somebody that they were serving with [who] was gay or lesbian, and yet we have the finest military in the world.”
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) said when Congress was going through the process of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal she had no doubts the U.S. military could handle open service.
“I did not believe that our military units were so fragile that finding out having somebody next to you that was openly gay would be disruptive to the mission of our units,” she said. “I am very proud so far, as you’ve discussed today, of all men and women in uniform, who not only go out and fight for us everyday but who are also working through this new policy that you’re trying to implement.”
Sanchez asked whether service members discharged would be able to re-enter the military if there was no other reason for their separation.
Schwartz replied that discharged service members would be able to re-enlist based on the needs of the services to which they apply and there is no guarantee for returning at the same grade.
Pressed by Sanchez on what options are available to gay service members if they feel they’re harassed upon seeking re-entry, Schwartz replied an appeal process is available both through an inspector general and the Board of Corrections.
Could legislation disrupt certification?
In December, President Obama signed legislation allowing for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but the anti-gay law will only be off the books after 60 days pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary, and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Defense officials have said certification is anticipated mid-summer.
But Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) has introduced legislation in the House that could complicate or delay certification by expanding the certification requirement to include direct input from each the chiefs.
Following the hearing, Hunter told the Blade he still thinks legislation to expand the certification requirement is necessary despite the chiefs’ testimony because of “the same reason [he] put it up in the first place.”
Hunter said he’s been talking with McKeon’s staff about having a vote on his legislation in committee and is expecting a vote during the panel markup for the FY2012 budget.
McKeon seemed unaware of any plans to hold a vote on Hunter’s legislation or didn’t want to disclose his plans. Asked by the Blade whether he was expecting a vote, McKeon replied, “I don’t know. We’ll have to look at it and see.”
Nicholson said Hunter was probably referring to the FY-2012 defense authorization bill — legislation over which the House Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction.
Additionally, Nicholson said Hunter may have enough votes to attach the measure as part of the House version of the defense legislation, but won’t have a shot of passing it through the Senate or having Obama sign the legislation.
“Of course, the reason we’re not worried about it is because it’ll never pass the Senate,” Nicholson said. “So I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised and I wouldn’t necessarily be alarmed even if it passed as part of the House defense budget.”
Real Estate
Factors to consider when hiring an interior designer
It’s essential to have confidence in the professionals you engage
(StatePoint) Ready to redesign your home? Whether you have only a vague notion of how you want your spaces to look or a very specific vision, relying on the expertise of a professional can help you bring your dream home to life. Before choosing and hiring an interior designer, though, be sure to take the following factors into consideration:
Style: Identify your style. Is it boho chic? Industrial? Maximalist? Many designers have their own signature look and preferences. It’s best to understand what vibe you want first, then search for a designer who aligns with that style.
Past client projects: One of the best ways to know whether a particular designer is the right fit for you is to review their past client projects. Ask to see their portfolio or review their finished projects on their website or socials. Also, take a look at reviews and testimonials to ensure their previous customers walked away satisfied with a job well done.
Budget: Communicate your budget in advance of work to confirm that you and your designer are on the same page financially. Your decorator will need this ballpark figure to get a handle on the scope of the project and to make design decisions accordingly. You should also use this conversation to understand their rates so you can decide whether you want to move forward.
Preferred vendors: It’s important that the interior designer you choose has preferred vendors that they work with. These are partners they’ve built strong relationships with that provide the same first-rate experience they do, and have streamlined processes in place. “A home renovation has so many moving parts. That’s why we try to take the hassle out of the process for designers and homeowners alike,” says Katie Zess, senior marketing manager and director of Renewal by Andersen’s Interior Designer Loyalty Program.
Through the loyalty program, the full-service window and door replacement division of Andersen Corporation offers their program members exclusive access and rewards, including a “designer discount” they can share with their clients. Renewal by Andersen also offers designers a dedicated point of contact to ensure a smooth process that’s customized for your project from start to finish. To learn more, visit renewalbyandersen.com.
Before you begin your home renovation, it’s essential to have confidence in the professionals you hire. Be sure your interior designer has fostered partnerships that will streamline your redesign, and that their goals and budget aligns with yours.
Real Estate
The LGBTQ real estate map is being redrawn
Affordability, higher mortgage rates reshaping where we choose to call home
For decades, the map of LGBTQ+ America was relatively easy to recognize.
New York. San Francisco. Los Angeles. Palm Springs. Provincetown. Fort Lauderdale and Wilton Manors.
These communities became LGBTQ+ destinations because they offered something that wasn’t always easy to find elsewhere: visibility, acceptance, community and the freedom to live openly.
But that map is changing.
Today’s LGBTQ+ homebuyers are navigating a housing market defined by high prices, elevated mortgage rates and affordability challenges. At the same time, remote and hybrid work, retirement and the growth of LGBTQ+ communities beyond traditional destinations are giving buyers more choices about where to live.
Increasingly, the question isn’t simply, “Where are the most LGBTQ-friendly places to live?”
It’s also: “Where can I find community and afford the life I want?”
That shift may become one of the defining LGBTQ+ real estate trends of the coming decade.
Affordability Is Changing the Conversation
For many buyers, the biggest issue in today’s housing market is simple: the monthly payment.
The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 6.95% in mid-September, compared with 6.26% a year earlier, according to Freddie Mac.
Meanwhile, the median price of an existing U.S. home reached $429,100 in August, according to the National Association of Realtors.
The combination of elevated home prices and higher borrowing costs has changed what many Americans can afford—and where they can afford it.
Some buyers are purchasing smaller homes or condominiums. Others are moving farther from major urban centers. Still others are reconsidering expensive markets entirely.
For LGBTQ+ buyers, this is helping broaden the definition of an LGBTQ+-friendly place to call home.
LGBTQ+ Buyers Have More Choices
A generation ago, relocating away from a major city or established gay neighborhood could sometimes mean sacrificing access to a visible LGBTQ+ community.
That’s increasingly less true.
Traditional LGBTQ+ destinations such as Palm Springs, Fort Lauderdale and Wilton Manors, San Francisco, New York and Provincetown remain important centers of LGBTQ+ life. But today, LGBTQ+ buyers can also find established or growing communities in cities across the country.
Places such as Minneapolis, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Atlanta and the Tampa Bay area are among the markets attracting buyers who may be looking for a different balance of housing costs, lifestyle and community.
The goal isn’t necessarily to find the cheapest house.
It’s to find the right combination of affordability, LGBTQ+ community, lifestyle, employment opportunities, healthcare, culture and quality of life.
Remote and hybrid work have expanded those possibilities for some buyers. If a job no longer requires being in an expensive employment center five days a week, the geographic search for a home can become considerably larger.
That can make communities that once seemed impractical suddenly worth considering.
Retirement Is Redrawing the Map, Too
Retirement is another important part of the changing LGBTQ+ real estate landscape.
As more Americans reach retirement age, LGBTQ+ retirees are considering where they want to spend the next chapter of their lives. Housing costs, taxes, healthcare, climate and proximity to airports, restaurants and cultural activities all play a role.
But LGBTQ+ retirees may have additional questions.
Will I feel comfortable living openly?
Is there an LGBTQ+ community nearby?
Can I find LGBTQ+-affirming healthcare?
Will I have opportunities to build a social network as I get older?
Those considerations can make choosing a retirement destination particularly personal.
Palm Springs and Fort Lauderdale/Wilton Manors remain well-known LGBTQ+ retirement destinations. But retirees are also exploring smaller cities and communities across the Southeast, Midwest and other regions where housing costs and lifestyles can look very different.
For many, the search is becoming less about moving to a famous gay destination and more about finding a place where community, lifestyle and affordability intersect.
Buyers Finally Have More Leverage
There is another significant change in today’s housing market: buyers have regained some negotiating power.
The National Association of Realtors reported 1.62 million existing homes for sale in August, up 5.9% from a year earlier. That represents approximately 4.9 months of housing supply, the highest level in more than a decade.
Realtor.com also reported that 20.4% of active listings had experienced a price reduction in August.
That’s a very different environment from the pandemic-era housing market, when buyers in many communities faced bidding wars, waived inspections and offers well above asking price.
Depending on the market, today’s buyer may have more time to evaluate a property and greater opportunity to negotiate price, repairs, closing costs or other concessions.
But there is an important caveat: there is no single national housing market.
Conditions can vary dramatically from one city—or even one neighborhood—to another. Some markets remain competitive, while others have considerably more inventory and negotiating room.
That’s one reason local expertise matters.
Sellers Need a Different Strategy
The changing market also has implications for LGBTQ+ homeowners considering selling.
Strategies that worked several years ago may not work today.
Buyers are highly sensitive to monthly payments, and an overpriced home can quickly be passed over when competing properties are available.
Sellers should pay close attention not only to recent comparable sales but also to homes currently competing for the same buyer.
Condition matters, too.
Repairs, landscaping, staging and professional photography can make a meaningful difference when buyers have more choices. Pricing correctly from the beginning has also become increasingly important.
More Than 30 Years Serving the LGBTQ+ Community
One part of buying or selling a home hasn’t changed: the importance of working with a real estate professional who understands your priorities.
For more than 30 years, GayRealEstate.com has served the LGBTQ+ community, connecting buyers and sellers with LGBTQ+ and allied real estate professionals throughout the United States.
Over that time, the GayRealEstate.com network has supported more than $2 billion in real estate sales and more than 55,000 transactions.
Behind those numbers are thousands of people making one of life’s most personal decisions: where to call home.
For LGBTQ+ buyers, that conversation can involve much more than bedrooms, bathrooms and price per square foot. It can include community, acceptance, healthcare, family, retirement, lifestyle and the ability to live openly.
An experienced LGBTQ+ or allied real estate professional can understand why those considerations belong in the real estate conversation.
Finding Home in a Changing America
The 2026 housing market presents real challenges.
Mortgage rates remain elevated. Home prices are high. Affordability continues to strain buyers across much of the country.
But there are also signs of a more balanced market. Inventory has increased. Price reductions have become more common. Buyers in many markets have regained negotiating power.
And for LGBTQ+ Americans, something else has changed: there are more places to consider calling home.
The next great LGBTQ+ destination doesn’t necessarily need the country’s largest Pride celebration or its most famous gay neighborhood.
It could be a smaller city with a growing LGBTQ+ community, attainable housing, good healthcare, strong cultural amenities and a quality of life that leaves room for travel, retirement or simply enjoying the home you’ve worked hard to own.
Ultimately, today’s LGBTQ+ real estate search increasingly comes down to three questions:
Where can I afford the life I want?
Where will I find my community?
And where will I feel at home?
The answers are becoming more varied—and that’s helping redraw the map of LGBTQ+ America.
Scott Helms is with GayRealEstate.com.
GayRealEstate.com has served the LGBTQ+ community for more than 30 years, connecting LGBTQ+ homebuyers and sellers with LGBTQ+ and allied real estate professionals across the United States. Its network has supported more than $2 billion in real estate sales and more than 55,000 transactions.
Advice
I’m 66, he’s 27. Is it love or am I being played?
What to do when your friends don’t trust your boyfriend
Dear Michael,
I’m 66, Peter is 27. I’m retired, financially comfortable. He’s a grad student.
We met last summer at the beach and started dating. Now we’re living together. I want this to be forever, and Peter says he does too.
The problem: Some of my friends are telling me that Peter is taking me for a ride.
I know all the cliches about older gay men thinking they’re in a loving relationship when the truth is they’re just some young guy’s sugar daddy. But I don’t feel old. And I think I have a grip on reality.
I do support Peter financially now, but he is eventually going to have a job. And if I didn’t pay for things, there’s no way he could share my life in terms of travel, dining out, etc. I want to have fun with him and am happy to foot the bill.
My friends say there’s no way he could be attracted to anything but my money. But I take great care of myself and look good. We don’t have the greatest sex life but I think it’s pretty hot. Peter says he is attracted to older guys.
And there’s much more to our relationship than sex. Despite the age difference, I think we are kindred spirits, and Peter says he feels the same. We both like travel, talking about politics, have similar taste in books and movies and TV shows. Lots of common interests.
I can deal with the age/money criticisms, but there’s some other stuff I’m more worried about.
One of my friends says he saw Peter making out with someone much younger over the summer. That worries me. I asked Peter about it and he said it wasn’t true.
Peter does go out, solo, because he can stay up a lot later than I want to. My party-till-dawn days are over. He says he’s just dancing and hanging out with friends. I want to believe him.
One night he didn’t come home and it unsettled me. He told me it just got too late so he crashed at a friend’s place. I thought of asking the friend about it but I didn’t want to seem like I was spying on Peter, and I also was afraid that the friend would say this didn’t happen. If it didn’t, then what? Do I break up with him for lying and cheating? I really don’t want to be old and alone. I can’t tell if my friends are making me paranoid or if I am being played.
Michael replies:
Obviously, I can’t know if Peter is telling you the truth or not. But I can give you some pointers on dealing with trust in a relationship. The main person to focus on trusting is yourself.
Do you trust your own sense of whether or not Peter is being honest with you? If not: What would it take for you to do so? Could you let yourself see things that you are currently not wanting to let yourself see? What is now stopping you from seeing him accurately?
You describe many ways in which you think the two of you are compatible. How about in terms of values? Do you respect Peter’s character? Can you get a good read on whether he is just telling you what you want to hear in order to stay in the relationship, or giving you an honest representation of where he really stands?
I understand that you’re afraid of finding out that Peter is lying to you, and that you don’t want to have to deal with ending the relationship. Given the possible ramifications, that makes sense. But do you want to let your fear stop you from keeping your eyes open?
When we decide to see things not as they are, but as we wish they were, or tell ourselves that what we see isn’t what we’re seeing, we end up getting hurt. And we do a great disservice to ourselves by discrediting our own internal witness, making it difficult to trust both ourselves and other people.
Only you can decide which would be preferable: Living with someone whom you don’t trust to be honest with you, or being alone.
In considering this possibility, keep in mind that none of us have a guarantee that we won’t be hurt in our relationships. In fact, it’s pretty much certain that at times we will be. Partners do break each other’s hearts, sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. That in itself is no reason to end a relationship.
But being with someone who is purposely deceiving you doesn’t sound that appealing.
Our relationship difficulties often give us possibilities to grow. Your fears about Peter’s infidelity are an opportunity for you two to have some conversations about how important you each think honesty is in a relationship; and what risks you are willing to take in order to have an honest relationship.
People are often afraid to speak the truth because of the possible consequences. But if you don’t speak up, you can easily wind up in a hollowed-out relationship where neither of you is willing to address what is really going on with each of you. That is the opposite of intimacy.
And, having a standard where each of you is forthcoming would avoid the minefield of a distrustful relationship where one of you is the detective and one of you is the suspect. That dynamic creates an imbalanced relationship and often leads to the watched partner wanting to get away with things.
Bottom line: Are each of you interested enough in an intimate relationship to be consistently honest with each other, even if your partner may not like what you say? And to do your best to respond thoughtfully to your partner’s honesty, even when he tells you something that you do not want to hear?
Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, New York, and all PSYPACT states. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons
Education Department rolls back protections for LGBTQ students under Title IX
Debbie Allen shares on loss, love, and the power of speaking out
Baltimore’s oldest gay bar to reopen this week
Dr. Fauci ‘honored to be part of’ LGBTQ history
Colombia withdraws from Equal Rights Coalition
Trump-appointed judge restores White House TV pool access
Writing a play about Lincoln leads down a rabbit hole to a closet
Philadelphia event to launch 2026 LGBT History Month
Being a female firefighter comes with unique risks, and rewards
-
Colombia5 days agoColombia withdraws from Equal Rights Coalition
-
White House5 days ago
Trump-appointed judge restores White House TV pool access
-
a&e features5 days ago
Writing a play about Lincoln leads down a rabbit hole to a closet
-
National5 days ago
Philadelphia event to launch 2026 LGBT History Month
