National

U.S. House approves defense bill with anti-gay provisions

Bill reaffirms DOMA, could disrupt ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal

Published

15 years ago

May 26, 2011

The U.S. House approved on Thursday major Pentagon budget legislation that includes anti-gay language that could disrupt “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and would reaffirm the Defense of Marriage Act.

By a vote of 322-96, the Republican-controlled House approved the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill after three days of debate that discussed continued military operations in Afghanistan, funding for next-generation military programs and increased pay rates for U.S. troops.

Among the many provisions of the defense authorization bill is anti-gay language that the House Armed Services Committee inserted upon consideration of the legislation.

The most high-profile anti-gay provision — offered as an amendment by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) — is language that would expand the certification requirement needed for repeal to include the four military service chiefs. Such a provision would complicate the repeal process established by the law signed in December, which would implement open service after 60 days pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Another provision, offered as an amendment by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), reaffirms that the Defense Department and its regulations are subject to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Yet another provision — offered as an amendment by Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo) — prohibits military facilities for being used for same-sex marriage ceremonies, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, and prevents military chaplains from presiding over same-sex marriages in their official capacities. The language would expand the federal restrictions on same-sex marriage beyond what DOMA already imposes.

Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, expressed concerns over passage of the legislation — particularly for the inclusion of a provision authorizing worldwide war against terrorism suspects and nations suspected of supporting them — in addition to objecting to the provision that would complicate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“Trying to throw a roadblock up to derail ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal at this point is a desperate attempt to postpone the inevitable,” Murphy said. “For nearly 20 years, lesbian, gay and bisexual service members have been forced to hide who they are and who they love in order to serve their country. It was with the will of the president, the uniformed and civilian leadership of the military and Congress itself that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was repealed and its implementation will continue to move forward successfully despite the attempts by some House members to disrupt it.”

A number of lawmakers who supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal last year voted in favor of the defense authorization bill despite the anti-gay language. On the House floor, some pro-repeal lawmakers said they were casting affirmative votes because they said they think the bill as whole is good for the U.S. armed forces.

On Tuesday, Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services personnel committee, objected to the language in the bill related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as she expressed support for the legislation as a whole.

“While there are many good provisions in this bill, I must raise my extreme disappointment with several sections that were included by the majority that seek to delay and prevent gays and lesbians from serving in uniform,” Davis said. “One of the liberties that we as Americans hold dear is that we are all created equal. These individuals should be entitled to serve their Nation in uniform and should not be denied the opportunity.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was also among the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal supporters who voted in favor of the defense authorization bill.

Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said the Democratic leader voted for the defense authorization bill despite the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language because she believes this provision won’t ultimately make it to the president’s desk.

“Leader Pelosi strongly opposes the [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] language in the [defense] Authorization bill but believes the provisions concerning [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] repeal will be removed in conference,” Hammill said. “If these provisions remain intact and are an obstacle to [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] repeal implementation, she believes President Obama should veto the legislation.”

But each of the four openly gay members of Congress — Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) — were among the among the 96 “no” votes on the legislation.

Although the House approved the defense authorization bill with anti-gay language, passing such a measure into law would be challenging because the Democratic-controlled Senate would have to agree to the anti-gay language during conference negotiations.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization is looking to the Senate to ensure the anti-gay provisions won’t appear in the final version of the defense authorization bill.

“The opposition may well believe they won the day in the House, simply outnumbering repeal advocates,” Sarvis said. “But this fight is far from over. We must look to repeal supporters in the Senate, where the defense bill will be taken up next and where we are better positioned than in the House. We need to beat back this harmful language and make sure it does not survive in conference committee.”

Another roadblock for the anti-gay language is President Obama, who would have to sign the provisions into law as part of the larger measure for them to enacted. The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy earlier this week denouncing the provisions related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and DOMA — although stopped short of threatening to veto the bill over this language.

Moreover, the certification expansion for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal may well be a moot point even if the legislation reaches the president’s desk. Defense officials have testified that certification for repeal could happen mid-summer, and the final version of the defense bill likely will not reach the president’s desk until after that time, rendering the provision useless.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, expressed skepticism about the anti-gay measures becoming law or thwarting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“The passage of the defense authorization bill with these hostile amendments included comes as no surprise, and it should not become a cause for concern as long as our allies in the Senate and the president all stand strong and refuse to support a defense bill containing these amendments,” he said. “These amendments were nothing short of a waste of time by lawmakers who were sent to Washington to do serious business and a waste of taxpayer money. The Pentagon, the president, and the American people have made it abundantly clear — we are moving forward and building a stronger military free of unnecessary discrimination.”

No attempt was made on the House floor to strip the defense authorization bill of its anti-gay language. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) had intended to offer an amendment to remove the language related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” according to the Rules Committee website, but never offered the measure. Kezmiche Atterbury, a Norton spokesperson, said her boss “withdrew her amendment for tactical reasons.”

Informed sources said House Democratic leaders offered those who worked last year to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal the opportunity for an amendment on the floor to eliminate the language in the defense authorization bill related to certification expansion.

However, the five major repeal organizations — the Human Rights Campaign, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Third Way, Servicemembers United and the Center for American Progress — agreed to decline the opportunity for the amendment.

According to sources, repeal advocates believed such a amendment would likely fail and could pick up support from moderate House Democrats. A defeat on the House floor, advocates believed, would increase the chances of the Senate adopting the certification expansion language.

Up Next

HRC endorses Obama for Election 2012

Don't Miss

NYC Mayor Bloomberg: ‘The time has come’ for marriage equality

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

National

DOJ seeks to dismiss some claims in gay FBI employee’s bias lawsuit

David Maltinsky was fired after displaying Pride flag at desk

Published

2 hours ago

July 20, 2026

Lou Chibbaro Jr.

A gay FBI trainee was fired after displaying a Pride flag at his desk. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Attorneys for gay former FBI employee David Maltinsky, who was fired from his job as a non-agent employee at the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office in October 2025 after more than 16 years of service for displaying an LGBTQ Pride flag at his workstation, filed court papers on July 15 opposing a motion by government attorneys to dismiss some but not all of the provisions in his unlawful discrimination lawsuit seeking to overturn the firing.

Maltinsky’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in D.C. on Nov. 19, 2025, states that FBI Director Kash Patel acted illegally by violating Maltinsky’s First Amendment constitutional rights and the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ordering his firing on grounds that he “exercised poor judgement with an inappropriate display of political signage” by displaying the Pride flag.

The firing came at a time when Maltinsky successfully completed 16 weeks of the FBI’s 19-week training program at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Va. to become an FBI Special Agent, according to the lawsuit.

In addition to Patel, who took office as FBI director in February 2025 under the Trump administration, the lawsuit names as defendants the FBI itself, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI.

“Defendants discriminated against Maltinsky for engaging in protected speech, for his sexual orientation, and for opposing discrimination – a clear and brazen violation of federal law and the Constitution,” the lawsuit states in an amended complaint filed May 5, 2026.

The Department of Justice, which is representing the FBI in its response to the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request from the Washington Blade for comment on the lawsuit and why it is seeking dismissal of some but not all of the lawsuit’s multiple allegations, including its claim that the firing violated Maltinsky’s First Amendment rights.

In its “Partial” motion filed on June 15, 2026, to dismiss some provisions in the lawsuit, the Justice Department through Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate and Associate Branch Director Christopher Hall, stated that the lawsuit fails to provide sufficient evidence that Maltinsky was fired because he is gay.

“The Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations that Director Patel or any other decisionmaker expressed hostility toward gay employees, relied on Plaintiff’s sexual orientation in making employment decisions, even knew Plaintiff’s sexual orientation or otherwise indicated that Plaintiff’s status as a gay man played any role in the challenged actions,” the motion states.

Based on that, among other things, the motion says the lawsuit’s claim that the firing violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be dismissed. A 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that the 1964 law bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity along with its other categories including race, religion, and gender.

In its arguments that the decision to fire Maltinsky was illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, the lawsuit’s amended complaint points out that FBI officials at the Los Angeles Field Office where Maltinsky worked presented the Pride flag to him and gave him full permission to display it at his workstation.

“The FBI encouraged and honored Maltinsky’s work by awarding him the 2020 Director’s Award For Excellence-Outstanding Service in Diversity and Inclusion,” the lawsuit says. “In 2022, the Attorney General for the Department of Justice awarded Maltinsky the Attorney General’s Award for Equal Employment Opportunity, DOJ’s highest award for performance in support of the Equal Employment Program,” it says.

“In special recognition of Maltinsky’s efforts to improve the FBI, in June 2021 LAFO [Los Angeles Field Office] leadership entrusted to Maltinsky two Pride flags that had been flown from the flagpole located in front of the LAFO,” the lawsuit complaint continues. “Maltinsky displayed one of those flags at his workstation.”

Although the lawsuit doesn’t say so directly, all of that happened during the administration of President Joe Biden and previous FBI Director Christopher Wray, who held the director’s position from August 2017 to January 2025, when Donald Trump took office as president.

Nathaniel Zelinsky, one of the attorneys representing Maltinsky regarding the lawsuit, told the Blade that because the Justice Department did not contest the lawsuit’s First Amendment provisions, the case will move forward to the discovery stage, in which he and fellow attorneys can seek and obtain government documents, and most likely go to trial. He said that regardless of whether the judge approves the dismissal of the lawsuit provisions the government has asked for, the other provisions and the case as a whole will continue.

“And those First Amendment claims are extremely serious,” he said. “The government, by its admission, fired David Maltinsky because they did not like the speech he displayed when he put up the Pride flag that was gifted to him by the FBI,” Zelinsky said. “The federal government cannot discriminate against its workers based on their speech.”

North Carolina

Authorities investigate officer-involved shooting outside Asheville gay bar

Incident took place near Shakey’s on Wednesday

Published

3 days ago

July 17, 2026

Emma LaPointe

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

An officer-involved shooting outside of a gay dive bar, Shakey’s, in downtown Asheville, N.C., left one man dead Wednesday.

The bar released a statement the following morning regarding the incident, stating that bar staff had asked a patron to leave earlier in the night citing concerning behavior. The bar said that later the man was spotted with a gun in the parking lot.

The bar proceeded to call 911, locked the doors to the establishment, and followed dispatcher instructions on how to keep patrons of the bar safe while officers arrived. These protocols included getting patrons away from the windows and staying low to the ground.

According to Shakey’s, shots were fired outside of the business. When the Asheville Police Department officers arrived, they fired back. The individual died from their injuries, according to the police.

“Because of everyone’s quick actions, cooperation, and concern for one another, every customer and every employee inside Shakey’s made it home safely. We are incredibly thankful,” Shakey’s said on their Instagram page. They thanked Asheville police, emergency dispatchers, EMS, and all first responders who were on scene.

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Chad Flowers, stated that the suspect involved in the shooting was Arturo Castillo Palomar.

The Washington Blade reached out to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation for a comment regarding the possibility of the event being considered a hate crime. They said the issue is currently under investigation and that the findings would be turned over to the district attorney for review.

Pentagon

Hegseth announces testosterone initiative as trans troop ban continues

SPARTA Pride criticized Pentagon policy

Published

4 days ago

July 16, 2026

Joe Reberkenny

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. military will begin testing and treating service members with hormone therapy despite banning similar medical care for transgender service members.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that troops ages 30 and older will be subject to annual testosterone screenings, while younger service members will have the option to voluntarily opt in. Some troops may then be recommended for hormone therapy, he explained in a video posted to social media.

“Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters age 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment,” Hegseth said in a video posted to X, captioned “The High-T Department of War.”

This push to test testosterone levels, as the hormone is commonly referred to as “T,” runs counter to current medical guidelines. Physicians are generally advised to discuss testosterone therapy only with men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.

Testosterone is a vital sex hormone that all humans naturally produce. It helps regulate muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. In men, it is primarily produced in the testicles, while in women it is produced in the ovaries and adrenal glands.

Natural testosterone levels in men decline with age and have long been associated with issues such as erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes, and weight gain. However, experts continue to debate whether these conditions should routinely be treated with testosterone therapy.

Hegseth’s announcement aligns with other actions taken by the Trump-Vance administration — including efforts by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — to make testosterone therapy more accessible for men, particularly those assigned male at birth.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration proposed easing prescribing restrictions on testosterone gels, pills, patches, and injections following a December advisory panel that recommended reducing regulatory hurdles to expand access to testosterone therapy.

Currently, FDA labeling specifies that these medications are approved only for men with hypogonadism, a medical condition that causes abnormally low testosterone levels.

The announcement came as a shock to many LGBTQ advocates because Hegseth and the Defense Department have cited the use of hormone therapy by trans service members as justification for their dismissal under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.“

The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation proceeds. As a result, many trans service members have had their gender-affirming medical care halted, even as similar hormone therapy is now being expanded for cisgender service members. Under the executive order, the military currently disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings for trans personnel.

SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans, and their allies, issued a statement to the Washington Blade following Hegseth’s announcement.

“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”

The legal fight over trans military service remains ongoing.

On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so, while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.

The Blade reached out to the Pentagon to ask why cisgender service members could receive hormone therapy while trans service members could not, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.